It likely is bad, but maybe not as bad as it sounds. When I was preparing to improve my low band antennas I ran across this chart from 
http://radio-timetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/06/field-strength-calculations-ground.html

image.png

Included it in a presentation on verticals. When I gave it to the Dutch Fork ARC here in SC heard another story about how things vary. A ham said he put up a vertical and had great results. A friend living just a few miles away copied the same installation and didn't do nearly as well. The first guy did some digging. He discovered that despite his living in a "2" region like you, he happened to be in a sweet spot and conductivity much higher. Maybe you'll get lucky too. 

By the way, the gist of my presentation is try it. Despite people telling me verticals don't work well, I'm doing reasonably well now. To paraphrase K9YC: Don’t let your inability to make a perfect antenna prevent you from making an effective one. I decided to view things this way... If you eliminate as much loss as you can in the near field you will have more RF energy going into the far field and a much stronger signal coming out after those losses.

Kevan N4XL

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 9:02 AM Randy Farmer W8FN <w8fn@windstream.net> wrote:
For those planning vertical installations, I found a nice full-color version of the FCC Soil Conductivity map online. It's in html format, but most browsers should be able to print individual pages for your own area:

https://worldradiohistory.com/FCC_Ground_Conductivity_Maps.htm

(Finding out my area is 2mS/m wasn't good news)

73...
Randy, W8FN
_._,_._,_

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3153) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [knason00@gmail.com]

_._,_._,_