New Age Record:

EManBevHills · Post by **EManBevHills** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:01 am

http://news.discovery.com/adventure/tee ... 11227.html

Post by **Taco** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:54 pm

Wait until a pregnant woman does all 7.

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:34 pm

COOL! its great to see that not every kids parents let them sit on there ass everyday playing video games and weighing 200lbs befor theyre 12 years old.
Super awesome that hes into the outdoors and gets joy from challenging himself, and even better that his parents support his goals. Very refreshing to see!

VermillionPearlGirl · Post by **VermillionPearlGirl** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:33 pm

I'm all for kids getting out there and trying things that are challenging but I was always against Jordan Romero's Everest climb at age 13. I think it borders on child endangerment. Aside from the obvious dangers -- like all the people who die on Everest every year (and the Romeros were not even part of a guided expedition because no one would take a 13 year old) -- there's growing evidence about the dangers of high altitude on an adult brain, who knows what it does to a growing brain?

Letting that kid climb Everest is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard in my life. I mean it's great he wants to do it (although if you read any interviews with the father, it makes you wonder who really wanted him to do it), and he can do it -- one day, when he's an appropriate age. Lots of 13 year olds want to be soldiers, that doesn't mean you let them join the military at that age. Because it's completely irresponsible to do so. Teach them how to shoot and exercise and train so one day when they're old enough they can do it. But don't needlessly put their life in danger when they're still young. Everest will still be there when he's 17 or 18.

Btw, I believe after he climbed Everest, they made it illegal for anyone that young to do it.

Sorry, I have really strong feelings about this

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:01 pm

-He shouldn't do it .."because of all the people who die on Everest every year" as you put it??? By that logic he shouldn't be allowed in a car either, car accidents kill 5 thousand teenagers a year, and 35 thousand adults. So saying someone shouldn't do something because its dangerous is silly, because just living itself is dangerous unless you plan to live in a bubble or something.
Mountains havent even come close to killing that many people per year, so I wouldnt really worry much about it. ide be way more worried bout him being killed by a distracted soccer-mom on her cell phone crashing her minivan into him on his way to school.

Post by **Taco** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:24 pm

There are a million arguments about him and his stuff all over the web on every climbing site. If I must throw in my two pesos, it's that I don't think he shouldn't be stopped from doing it. I don't think his parents FORCED him to do it. If he wanted to do it, then he should be allowed to, legally and otherwise (as in I don't think people should get in the way).

That said, Vermillion, I agree with you on your analogy regarding a child who wants to be a Soldier. I think that's a good analogy and I agree with it.

Now my arrogant opinion is that it's the 7 summits and that it's incredibly goobery in the first place. Everest is a friggin' circus. If someone wants to do it, go for it. I'm not here to stop you. Do what you wanna do, cause you only have one life as far as I know.

As for me... I'd think for myself and choose different objectives, like the most challenging peak on each continent... or just forget this number counting nonsense that has no real honest value to it other than that which others apply to it, and just got ENJOY life.

Now that I've taken us 5 miles off topic, let's get back to the topic. Or something.

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:06 pm

everyday wrote: ↑-He shouldn't do it .."because of all the people who die on Everest every year" as you put it??? By that logic he shouldn't be allowed in a car either, car accidents kill 5 thousand teenagers a year, and 35 thousand adults. So saying someone shouldn't do something because its dangerous is silly, because just living itself is dangerous unless you plan to live in a bubble or something.
Mountains havent even come close to killing that many people per year, so I wouldnt really worry much about it. ide be way more worried bout him being killed by a distracted soccer-mom on her cell phone crashing her minivan into him on his way to school.

Everyday, you're looking at the numbers incorrectly. I hope someone with more statistical skills or evidence-based means can chime in. I *believe* you need to look at the numbers from a per capita point-of-view or something along those lines. One may find that Everest is more dangerous than driving a car. There has to be someone on this board that can give us some true numbers. Alan K maybe?
Interesting discussion...

Post by **HikeUp** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:16 pm

I don't think v.girl and e.day's ideas are contradictory. Don't be sedentary, sit in front of a TV and get fat as a kid - exercise, get outdoors enjoy the mountains and the surf, but don't do stuff that really should be left to people with the experience, maturity, physical development, etc. and not just a proud parent with money living vicariously through a naturally talented kid. Seems like complimentary ideas to me.

I think it's similar to something like not letting your kid run a marathon until he's a certain age for such and such a reason. Be happy the kid runs! I'm not familiar with the particulars of that concept but I've heard it before - just can't remember them

Mr. P I think is correct regarding the statistical issue - data needs to be normalized before it can be compared on a meaningful basis. Like comparing driving deaths to hiking deaths (from all causes) - you must normalize the number of deaths by the number of man miles driven and hiked or some such common variable. Also you must consider the payoff in the risk equation - driving get's you to work which earns you money and food and REI gear. Hiking get's you nothing except peace of mind and the sanity to go back to work on Monday.

What were we talking about?

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:12 am

I was simply using the car crash thing to make a point, the fact that EVERYTHING can be dangerous. You can slip on a bar of soap in the shower n hit your head n die in your own home. Regardless of numbers, my point was that just living has risks, anything can happen to kill you. So its my opinion that RISK potential is no reason to not do something. Its just how I personally feel and try to live, I always have people telling me that I shouldnt be doin what I do because its not safe.... - thats there opinion, not mine, and im not saying its the way others should live or believe, Its just what works for me. ..I simply feel theres no point in worrying bout " Ohhh geez, sumpthin bad might happen if we do this or that..."
However, that said, Im not a parent, and never want to be, so my view may be vastly different than that of someone who has children. ..In fact, my view is often vastly different than the Majority, but I dont care Its how i feel and thats all I have ta say bout that.
ima go out n do something most other people think is dangerous now, later.,

Ze Hiker · Post by **Ze Hiker** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:36 am

the likelyhood of severe injury on a trip up Everest is higher than the likelyhood of severe injury on a trip in your car. vs lifetime of driving? good question.

I'd say if the kid has not been informed of the inherent risks, then it's irresponsible. And at that age, can he fully understand the risks? Hell, the parent probably doesn't know what the risks are.

Ze Hiker · Post by **Ze Hiker** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:48 am

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

It seems the rate is about 1.14 deaths per 100 million miles driven. So if you drive 1 million miles over your lifetime, you have about a 1 % chance of a fatal accident.

The stats for Everest fatalities seem to vary, from 2 - 10%. Of course, that doesn't consider the potential non-fatal brain damage than can occur.

atomicoyote · Post by **atomicoyote** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:55 pm

Nothing more than putting a new spin on the same old thing. Everest and the Seven Summits have been done by 20-30-40-50-60 year olds, males, females, disabled persons, different nationalities . . . just about any special interest group you could imagine; everyone tries to spin it for their 15 minutes of fame (or should that be 15 nanoseconds?). I'd be more impressed if he (and his parents) had just done it without the marketing machine behind them. What makes this different is the media and marketing has been successful. If you think its altruistic, you haven't seen his website and all the corporate sponsors:

http://www.jordanromero.com/sponsors/

Sponors, special 'summit sponsors', and a 'media corner', other links. And you can also schedule an 'inspirational speaking presentation (for a fee, of course!). Please, I've been to enough 'inspirational speeches' in my lifetime. Also remember his parents are adventure race participants, where sponorship money is the real 'key' to success, so its pretty easy to see where all the planning and marketing is coming from.

Nope, nothing really unique here, just another person putting their own spin on the same old song, and (luckly) getting it played in the media.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:59 pm

Mike P wrote: ↑ Everyday, you're looking at the numbers incorrectly. I hope someone with more statistical skills or evidence-based means can chime in. I *believe* you need to look at the numbers from a per capita point-of-view or something along those lines.

The metric I've personally found most insightful when comparing relative risk across widely varied activities is "DALY per man hour of participation". Unfortunately, it's hard to find data reported in this manner. If I remember correctly, the last time I searched, the numbers I turned up indicated that even the safer forms of climbing (i.e not high altitude mountaineering) were roughly an order of magnitude worse than freeway driving.

Anyone looking for such data via Google would probably want to also include the closely-related QALY in the search.

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:41 pm

Zé wrote: ↑http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

It seems the rate is about 1.14 deaths per 100 million miles driven. So if you drive 1 million miles over your lifetime, you have about a 1 % chance of a fatal accident.

The stats for Everest fatalities seem to vary, from 2 - 10%. Of course, that doesn't consider the potential non-fatal brain damage than can occur.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Zé, wouldn't the chance of a fatal accident driving more than 1 million miles be significantly less than 1%?

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:22 am

ROFL!! I love how you guys just rolled on with stat's and numbers, and just completely ignored the point i was making about how EVERYthing is a risk, its just a part of life. Jeez you guys, I just pulled the car thing outa the air, my point was that you cant live in fear of risk....watevs. have fun with yer number crunching (Did any of you even bother to read the post I made AFTER the car statement??????? lol

and to Mike P--i did not look at the "numbers Incorrectly" because I was NEVER eveen LOOKIN at the numbers dood! I'm sorry that you guys thought I was trying to say statistically driving was more risky, I NEVER thought that thats how youde interpret what I was trying to say, I mean , i could of easily picked random postal shootings for my example . All i was TRYing to say is that you could be killed any day, at any time, by any stupid crap or person, so why not at least be able to CHOOSE your risks, Like climbin a big mtn, and then if you die, youve at least died doin something fun, does that make sense? ALL I was trying to say is lots of things are risky! YOU Cant NOT do something just because some random bad thing MAY happen. I never had a clue that you guys would go all Math-Rambo about it all

"what we have here is a failure to communicate lolol

Post by **HikeUp** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:58 am

I think we can scratch risk management off your resume.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:03 am

HikeUp wrote: ↑I think we can scratch risk management off your resume.

Oh, well. As long as anger management is still in there...

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:54 pm

AlanK wrote: ↑
HikeUp wrote: ↑I think we can scratch risk management off your resume.
Oh, well. As long as anger management is still in there...

Ive been trying to be nicer! but sometimes I forget, im workin on it!

cougarmagic · Post by **cougarmagic** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:59 pm

everyday wrote: ↑go all Math-Rambo

A+++

Ahhh...but you see...numbers do matter immensely to you, Miss "How far did you hike and how fast did you get there?"

Post by **Taco** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:03 pm

OK, MIKE. YOUR NEW CUSTOM USER TITLE IS MATH RAMBO. 8)

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:32 pm

everyday wrote: ↑
and to Mike P--i did not look at the "numbers Incorrectly" because I was NEVER eveen LOOKIN at the numbers dood! I'm sorry that you guys thought I was trying to say statistically driving was more risky, I NEVER thought that thats how youde interpret what I was trying to say, I mean , i could of easily picked random postal shootings for my example . All i was TRYing to say is that you could be killed any day, at any time, by any stupid crap or person, so why not at least be able to CHOOSE your risks, Like climbin a big mtn, and then if you die, youve at least died doin something fun, does that make sense? ALL I was trying to say is lots of things are risky! YOU Cant NOT do something just because some random bad thing MAY happen. I never had a clue that you guys would go all Math-Rambo about it all

"what we have here is a failure to communicate lolol

LOL! everyday, I only brought up the numbers thing because you made an absurdly fallacious argument. (Yes, you did base a position on misinterpreted numbers) I read your next post and you just made an excuse. But your overall point is well taken. I agree with you.

Nothing wrong with a little math Rambo, either. It's fun.

If one makes assertions, as you did, based on unsound argument or pure emotion... well, someone may call you on it. Believe me, my intention was not to insult you but to take what you stated and ask others if we actually could quantitate the risks. (There are several very qualified folks on this board who can tackle this.) No big deal! I can't recall how long you have been on this board but we have in the past gotten into some pretty technical stuff (such as GPS) and had very, let's say, healthy debate.

Keep up the good posts!

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:35 pm

OMG, Taco, I just saw the Math Rambo under my name! I love it!!!

moppychris · Post by **moppychris** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:11 am

If you gots the money, you could climb Everest.