Bob,
And who exactly determines what will cause harm to other people and
what statistical probability will they define which constitutes
"unacceptable risk"?
The first atomic pile was constructed and went critical under the
bleachers of a football field. It was safe because the people doing
it had the smarts to do it in a safe way. The physics hasn't changed.
The problem is society has changed. People without
engineering/scientific background are want to live in a world of zero
risk. They simply don't understand that such a thing is impossible.
Those passing the laws and regulations for the most part are not
setting levels based upon statistical risk but rather based upon
politics. Whatever makes the masses FEEL good is the determining
factor.
Perhaps a "mandatory psychiatric treatment law for chicken littles"
would have a more positive effect on society than more restriction of
others personal freedoms.
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. If I were concerned, I'd just
make sure that my kids and property were out of the fall radius. I'd
be willing to bet the probability of some of the 100' pine trees
falling on my roof would be higher. I'm not worried about that
either.
73 de Brian/K3KO
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??
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|