I follow high altitude mountaineering to some degree, having once
attempted Aconcagua in Argentina (6962 m). There are standardized
references in the US and elsewhere to "8000 m peaks", of which there are
fourteen. 8000 m is considered something of a truly high-altitude
threshold, since physical performance declines to a great degree above
this level. Sometimes we read about the "26000 foot level", but 8000 m
is more frequently mentioned. Everest is 8850 m, but in the US we often
hear of the 29000-whatever it is figure. My personal experience from
Argentina and trekking in Nepal is that over 5000 m things get really
different.
I thought everyone had heard about Krakauer's book. It was a really bad
year on Everest.
See re 8000 m peaks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander
On a local level, here in California, a local PBS TV station aired a
travel feature on a place in our state called the Carrizo Plain. It is
a beautiful, unpopulated valley filled in the spring with wildflowers.
The narrator was interviewing a young female state park ranger about
wildlife. He asked her how far below the surface kangeroo rats
burrowed, and without hesitation she said "up to one meter". Nice to
hear. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrizo_Plain
HARRY WYETH
Remek Kocz wrote:
I look at a copy of Krakauer's book, "Into Thin Air" recently. I'm
not familiar with the story, but it seems it told of a difficult
descent from the summit of Mt. Everest by an international team. All
altitudes, at a glance, were in feet. Question is, are feet used as a
standard for such undertakings, even when the teams consist of people
from the "rest of the world?"
Remek
