I guess I really look at these three poor guys as victims more than anything else. Victims of the government not passing laws enforcing stricter guidelines due to past lessons that cannot seem to be learned. Regardless of the rescuers knowing the risks they take they should not have to volunteer to be put in harm's way. The risk should not have existed in the first place for them, period.
Hmmm. Well, poor diet kills more people each year than blizzards. Let's outlaw all fatty food.
My point is just that everything carries risks. When I drive to work in the morning I could get in a car accident and die. That is a risk, but I judge the risk to be acceptable. When I go hiking, I could run into a bear, mountain lion, or rattlesnake and die. But I judge the risk to be low, and the rewards of hiking to be worth it. That is my right.
Those guys are experienced, and know the risks. Yet they judge it to still be worth it. I do fault them for not checking on the weather properly before they left (does anybody know if this bad weather was predicted and a simple $20 weather radio could have warned them?).
In some extreme examples, perhaps the government should step in and close certain things if the risk is too great. But apparently a lot of people do successfully climb this mountain even in December.
BTW: Does anybody know if PLB and sat-phone signals can penetrate bad weather? Water has a tendancy to absorb radio, especially at high frequencies.
Previous Topic
Index
