In a message dated 97-04-03 13:27:54 EST, jefray@si-net.com (Jerry Fray)
writes:
> Yep, I had a hunch too after a couple of hot replies on the subject
> that a simple typo was made and a zero dropped off making the 700'
> radius into a 70' radius. But I am not (nor claim to be) an expert in
> this field. Just posted what I felt would be an interesting article. But
> as can be expected some folks just are not happy unless they can find a
> negative issue in EVERYTHING! After all this did seem like an
> appropriate news story for this reflector. Maybe someone in the local
> area it happend in could provide us with more accurate details?????
Hi, Jerry --
Yes, it was of interest and thanks for posting it. It's these kinds of
sobering real stories that will encourage ALL tower owners and builders to do
the best job they can.
Didn't mean to pick nits about the figure but wanted to point out a
possible inaccuracy to TowerTalk subscribers; there's enough folklore and bad
information out there that we don't need more. With many city building codes
concerned with potential hazards and liabilities due to falling towers,
accurate information is the only thing that matters to station owners and
city fathers.
As a professional tower guy, I would be interested in more details about
what the workers were doing and what actually happened. What I could glean
out of the story was that they were replacing some braces (?). What are the
details and excentuating circumstances? Inquiring minds want to know.
73 and tnx again, Steve K7LXC
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|