I find the critique blown way out of proportion as seems to be a common
occurrence with many threads on this reflector. But some people just
have more time on their hands and don't mind spending lots of time and
bandwidth to beat a topic to death, even if it may not seem warranted to
others. But that's the nature of these email reflectors and so that?s
OK. What's very important to one person may not be to others. I just use
my subject line filter and delete key when the topic gets old or too
Does the author of the original critique, and others have a point? Sure.
But, a look at the picture tells me there's not enough there to deserve
the severity of condemnation. Still, being one who has done a lot of
tower work in the past and familiar with many types and makes of safety
harnesses. My guess is they were probably NOT wearing safety belts. It
would be much easier to see if they were. And my guess is they're only a
few feet off the ground. Certainly their apparel leads me to think they
didn't come prepared to do tower work. And certainly if they're going to
be submitting the picture to the ARRL for publication in a national
magazine, they should have made safety considerations more obvious.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Taylor
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:25 AM
To: Jim Lux; Markhasin, Vitaly; 'Bill Coleman';
firstname.lastname@example.org; Lee Wical
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Disturbing tower picture in QST
I wonder how many critics of this picture have actually seen the picture
and how much of this thread has been fuelled by nothing more than
hearsay or hatred of the ARRL.
It's a tiny little thing, 1 column wide by perhaps 2.5 inches. My
eyesight resolves to 20/20 with corrective lenses, and I can't see
enough detail to determine whether they are wearing harnesses.
I do see what looks like a red nylon strap around the middle climber,
but anything else he might be wearing is obscured by his jacket and
right arm. I can't make out if that's a harness or not.
I see hints of red up the back, over the shoulder and down the front of
the top climber and between him and the tower, but again, cannot make
out in sufficient detail to determine definitively he's not wearing a
And we cannot see below the bottom person's feet, so to conclude he's
acting unsafely is a guess at best. He certainly appears to be standing
on the tower, but how many rungs up from the roof? The only persons who
can say for certain are himself, his towermates and the photographer.
Because the picture is so small, I can't say one way or the other what
safety gear is employed. Certainly the hard-hat criticism is valid.
As photographic evidence of any dishonesty on Steve Ford's part, this
just doesn't hold up.
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list