The tallest “mountain” in New England is 1400 feet lower than the Denver airport. Hiding in a tent waiting for a storm to blow over at 4000 feet is a far cry from conditions at 29,000 feet. You can’t run out of oxygen at 4000 feet.
I can’t imagine a judge looking at a 1 in 20 chance of dying as anything other than reckless endangerment.
Thanks for SOMEONE putting a line down in the sand (or snow in this case). At least now we have something concrete to debate!
I expose my kids to a fair amount of risk, but 1 in 100 chance of death is too high for me. I would have to run some other numbers to see how I feel about other stuff.
A better number might be total attempts against total deaths. That gets us closer to 10,000 attempts for 200 deaths, or a 2% death rate vs. the 5% death rate when we used 4,000 summits against 200 deaths.
All rough numbers - random data in the first few Google results.
I wonder what some comparable numbers would be for other activities?
It’s only 1 in 50 who die, not 1 in 20? Oh well then, I withdraw my objection!
Not really, because what’s an attempt? Getting to base camp, shitting your pants at the sight of it all, and turning around? Hardly death-defying.
Wikipedia lists a 4.4% death rate after 1990, and a THIRTY SEVEN PERCENT death rate before 1990.
What changed? Equipment and technologies have certainly gotten better, but there’ve also been a few ultra-experienced guides who have skewed the statistics by discovering “golden ticket” strategies to the top. This kid and his parents aren’t using a guide.
You also have to consider that the effects of the death zone on younger people are largely unknown, but we know they aren’t good.
I give this kid downright abysmal odds if he, by some kind of miracle, makes it above camp 4.
A 1 in 50 chance of death is still a tremendously high mortality rate.
If that fucker is texting/twittering I say let him die 
Not to mention he lost his right hand and all the fingers on his left hand. But woohaa he almost made it to the top of Everest. Yep, definitely worth it for kids of all ages.
I think what bothers me is that, from my understanding, being at that high of an altitude messes up the way you think.
I remember there was a case a few years back where some climbers were laying dying on the side of the trail, in a place where they could be rescued, and some huge number of climbers just passed them by. Many mountain climbers justified that by saying that at those altitudes you basically lose the ability to make rational or compassionate decisions. You just have to get an idea in your head and stick with it, because you are going to be working through a huge brain fog.
I don’t think this is a situation someone so young should be in, especially when it is entirely possible that he will be making life-or-death decisions. What’s he going to do if his dad is injured en route?
My problem with this whole kid Everest thing is that the parental units are only seeing the “W00t, my kid did this amazing thing” ending to the story. They seem totally clueless to the possibility that the whole thing can end with many, many, nasty outcomes:
WTF. Why? Who gains what by doing this stunt? Statistically the child has way more to lose in this game. He’s only 13 for Og’s sake.
While that is possible, the situation you describe above is inaccurate. Most climbers never saw the injured climber, or thought he was already dead. He was essentially lying on top of another known dead body and it was dark out. When they finally figured out that he was still alive, some climbers attempted to assist him but by then there was very little they could do. Most of the climbers wouldn’t have been able to assist in any meaningful manner.
Altitude does affect how people think, and it’s tough to entertain new and different thoughts, but the situation in question isn’t a great example of that.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to but you can read about David Sharp and Lincoln Hall Here. Look under 2006.
Aren’t there parts of the climb where you’re ascending/descending what amounts to a sheer wall? I can’t see someone carrying a body and doing that at the same time. I’ve heard about that story, too, and once you get beyond the “OMG THEY LEFT HIM TO DIE” emotions, it’s pretty obvious that there wasn’t really any wrongdoing.
I’m not sure where I stand on this issue with the 13 year old, though.
Lying under a dead body? That’s still not a ringing endorsement for a situation a thirteen year old should be in.
OMG. Once again blowing things out of proportion.
He was lying ON a dead body. 
BS…
Maybe the ones already headed back DOWN couldnt help anymore. But, by definition, the ones HEADED UP certainly had enough energy to try to rescue the guy by heading back down with him rather than continuing towards the top.
Hillary himself has had some nasty things to say about this “get to the top at any cost” mentallity…
Interesting you bring up David Sharp, whose situation was exacerbated by the fact that he was climbing solo.
The reason for the drastic drop in death rates (as Cisco pointed out) is in part due to technology and better knowledge, but it’s also due to people being guided up by experienced individuals. While an Everest summit bid is very difficult by any standard, there’s a huge difference between being guided every step of the way by a Sherpa assigned only to you and in a team of 3 with a Western guide to help as well, and with all of the decisions made for you regarding when to leave, where to camp, what equipment to use, etc. etc., and climbing on your own. That’s without even considering the age of the person involved.
Whatever happened in the Sharp case, it’s one of the specific examples I was thinking of when I said that climbing Everest is ugly. I find the culture of climbers is very callous, probably due to the vast sums of money being spent on so many of these summit expeditions. Corpses have become landmarks along the path. It’s no place for a kid. I’m sure poor judgement due to altitude played a part, but it’s naive to think that everyone who’s died on Everest was unrescuable.
No it’s not obvious. Read the cite I posted.
OK, will do. I was only basing my statement on my own information.
According to this they are taking sherpas. I still think it’s an incredibly stupid idea. I’m also worried about the competitive aspect. By trying to become the youngest person to summit, he not only encourages even younger kids to try to break the record but also adds another factor that might motivate the family to try to summit at all costs.