On Apr 16, 7:24 pm, N2EY wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:21 am, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote:



While Washington DC is a district, for all intents and
purposes, it is a city, just like Philadelphia or New York.

It's even more urbanized than Philadelphia, IMHO. (I've spend
considerable time in both cities).

My point is not a matter of degree, but that urban areas often have
less Hams than we might think. In the PAQSO party, Philadelphia is a
rare county. When you get to the more suburban areas around it, there
are a lot more hams. It's a rough estimate due to being a specific
activity.

And in line with what Jim had said, I'm actually surprised that there
are some many hams per non-hams.

I think you meant "so many hams...". I suspect that many of them are
temporary transplants (students, for example).

Ratio, like 300 non hams for each 1 ham.

I can under stand that there are relatively many hams in places like
Alaska. They live a lot closer to the edge of disaster than most of
us, and there's only so much infrastructure you can put in in some of
the more remote areas.

I don't think Alaskans are "much closer" to the edge of disaster than
most of us. However, I bet they do have fewer restrictions on
antennas.

That I'd have to disagree with. Many Alaskans are pretty close to the
edge. We don't have to get food and supplies brought in by snowmobile
or bush pilot. There was a case I read about where a snowmobile
brigade was formed to ferry fuel oil to a remote village so that the
inhabitants could survive through the winter. The coastal areas are
not too bad, but you get inland and it can be pretty scary. When I was
in Juneau, I hiked on some trails that went by tunnels that were sent
through the mountains for the miners to get to their work in the
winter. They weren't mining in the tunnel, it was drilled to protect
the miners. A mining company wouldn't spend money on a luxury like
that unless it had to.

That Ham radio license can be a real lifesaver up there.