I guess it depends upon the level of risk you are willing to accept.
A quick calc yields a probability of 2 in 100 million. I'm willing to
accept that risk. It is much lower than taking the kid to school by
car and far below getting cancer by smoking one cigarette.
Pr =(prob of it falling) * (probability of kid standing on neighbors
property when I told them not to) * (probability of a piece of
hardware hitting while standing there) * (probability of being
killed).
I assumed:
prob of failure after an engineered split repair = 1 in 50
prob of kid standing there = 2 min/week =.0002
prob of getting hit by hardware while standing there = 1:50 =.02
probability of getting killed from hit = .2
total probability of getting killed = 1.6E-8
Obviously, it isn't zero. Therefore one should prohibit the tower
from being erected in the first place. Right?
Note: There is another way of assuring the kid doesn't get killed.
If the kid is well trained and he doesn't go where you tell him not to
the probability is also zero. I much prefer that approach to
legislating away all towers.
73 de Brian/K3KO
Bob Otto wrote:
>
> Hello alsopb,
>
> At the risk of over discussing this topic, I'd ask you to think about
> the answer to just two questions........
>
> You said:
>
> "Personally, I'd have no problem living next to a guy with a tower
> having a splint on its leg--especially if there were some engineering
> used to determine what's adequate."
>
> Do you think asking the members of TT what they think is an
> appropriate method of splinting constitutes "some engineering"?? If
> the tower fell on your child, would you think that "engineering"
> was enough?
>
> The point that I think several have tried to make is "don't experiment
> and improvise -- get serious engineering help or better yet, replace
> the tower section". This is one case that isn't about experimenting,
> it's about doing the right thing.
>
> 73 from.......
>
> Bob Otto
> N8NGA@one.net
> Cincinnati, Ohio
>
> Time Written:
> 9:42:02 PM
> Attachments:
> <none>
>
> **********************************************
> DXCC 10M ** DX is !! ** WAS 10M
> There is a very fine line between
> "HOBBY" and "MENTAL ILLNESS"
> **********************************************
> When trouble arises and things look really bad,
> there is always one individual who perceives a
> solution and is willing to take command.
> VERY OFTEN THAT PERSON IS CRAZY!
> **********************************************
> Friday, March 09, 2001, 4:58:55 PM, you wrote:
>
> a> Bob,
>
> a> And who exactly determines what will cause harm to other people and
> a> what statistical probability will they define which constitutes
> a> "unacceptable risk"?
>
> a> The first atomic pile was constructed and went critical under the
> a> bleachers of a football field. It was safe because the people doing
> a> it had the smarts to do it in a safe way. The physics hasn't changed.
>
> a> The problem is society has changed. People without
> a> engineering/scientific background are want to live in a world of zero
> a> risk. They simply don't understand that such a thing is impossible.
> a> Those passing the laws and regulations for the most part are not
> a> setting levels based upon statistical risk but rather based upon
> a> politics. Whatever makes the masses FEEL good is the determining
> a> factor.
>
> a> Perhaps a "mandatory psychiatric treatment law for chicken littles"
> a> would have a more positive effect on society than more restriction of
> a> others personal freedoms.
>
> a> Personally, I'd have no problem living next to a guy with a tower
> a> having a splint on its leg--especially if there were some engineering
> a> used to determine what's adequate. If I were concerned, I'd just
> a> make sure that my kids and property were out of the fall radius. I'd
> a> be willing to bet the probability of some of the 100' pine trees
> a> falling on my roof would be higher. I'm not worried about that
> a> either.
>
> a> 73 de Brian/K3KO
>
> a> Bob Otto wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello alsopb,
> >>
> >> Interesting point, but not entirely fair. While it is acceptable, and
> >> encouraged, for HAMs to experiment, it is NOT acceptable to experiment
> >> in a way that could cause harm to other people. Would you have wanted
> >> that first steam engine to be tested/experimented with right next to
> >> your children's bedroom??
>
> a> --
> a> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> a> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> a> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> a> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|