[GroundUrMast]

I suppose I've repeated myself several times in this thread...

After scanning through the comments you linked to, I came away with the impression that many people have the misconception that grounding without bonding is sufficient. It makes me recall a news item from a few years ago which reported the case of a dog being electrocuted when it touched a metal street light pole (sad situation but I'm glad that no person was injured or killed). In an effort to eliminate this hazard, the city tried installing ground rods at each of the poles in the area. However, they did not bond the metal light poles to the grounding system of the service supplying the lights. Therefor, the fault remained due to the high resistance of the new ground rods and no fuse or breaker would open due to the current to ground being lower than the fuse or breaker rating.

My take away from such examples is that any added ground rod that is not properly bonded to the rest of the system will leave people with a false sense of security. Assuming that the electrical service is already grounded correctly, additional ground rods do far less than one might expect. Bonding to the existing service ground will in almost all cases be far more effective protection from static buildup and faults to a source of power. The bottom line is, an isolated ground rod can never be depended on to do the job of of a properly sized bonding conductor... The resistance of a lone ground rod is nearly always too high for it to serve as an effective part of a bonding connection.

In the end, I'm not on a crusade to check everyone's antenna ground/bonding. I make references to the code because I believe it's based on sound reasoning and many real world case studies. My conscience wont alloy me to recommend grounding/bonding methods that don't meet the minimum standards specified in the code in your area.