[Bell Historians] EIG
alan_ellis at SRmMsHgzoMgs2i4JB-Xln_owgBi_S-L9YCtogomrrw_BuA_vG_nWWBrUXze6eW1tJ8xU1nZ5hIQMLKk.yahoo.invalid
Mon Jan 21 17:25:49 GMT 2008
Typical underwriter. They perceive something which is totally false.
As I write Loss Prevention Reports for Underwriters, there are the
usual questions based upon their perception rather than what I saw and
Andrew Aspland wrote:
> Not history but would the learned list care to comment on this quote
> from an Ecclesiaistical Insurance Senior Underwriter:
> "The reasons that we prefer that the bells are left in the 'down'
> position are as follows:
> "1. From the material damage point of view, if the bells are left in
> the 'up' position and a fire actually gets up into the tower above the
> bells, then debris will fall down into the bells themselves, rather
> than just bounce off them and fall to the ground.
> "Then, the weight of the debris and the bells combined could cause
> serious damage not only to the bells but also potentially damage the
> bell frame, if not to the structure of the tower itself, and bearing
> in mind that you have quite a lot of bells then it could prove a real
> danger to the structure of your church."
> This sounds like the idea of someone who has no idea of what it is
> like in a bell tower - and the last paragraph describes such a
> disasterous scenario that the bells being up or down would have little
> bearing on the matter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bell-historians