Looks to me like it comes down to this: if lightning strikes in the area, assume it WILL hit the hut. Its the best grounded point around, by far. Its DESIGNED to be hit. If you are in the imperfect Faraday cage, you have some chance -- maybe 7 percent -- of trouble.
If you are anywhere away from the hut, and observing best practices you SHOULD look to lightning potential like any other rock on the trail, and nowhere as near as attractive as the hut.
Ergo, therefor, hence and consequently, are the odds of getting hit on the trail with probably fatal results, greater or less than the certainty of the hut taking a hit and a 7% or so chance of possibly fatal results?
I also think its safe to assume that the NPS lawyers were advised of all the risks in putting up the sign, advised by the same information in AlanK's post ( and I have reason the believe they did) and that the technical experts, not the lawyers, decided that the safest course was to warn people away from the hut. the lawyers may have pounded on their client to make the most conservative choice, but only the science can determine what that choice is.
And I, too know what mine would be.
Last edited by saltydog; 05/21/11 05:38 AM.
