Slashdot Mirror
Why Climbers Die On Mount Everest
Science Daily reports that researchers have conducted the first detailed analysis of deaths during expeditions to the summit of Mt. Everest. They found that
most deaths occur during descents from the summit in the so-called "death zone" above 8,000 meters, and also identified factors that appear to be associated with a greater risk of death, particularly symptoms of high-altitude cerebral edema. The big surprise that the data indicate those deaths aren't primarily from avalanches or falling ice, as had long been believed.
Is this related to the same health problems associated with diving (I.E The bends?)
Not for anyone who watched "Into thin air".
Still, on the list of ways to kick the bucket, beats slipping in the shower any day.
Um. If the chance of dying increases with time in the "death zone", and descents happen toward the end of your time in said zone, then duh. News flash: Chance of death increases proportional to time without adequate O2.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There seem to be a lot of people who really shouldn't climb it because they aren't nearly as well trained as they think they are, and yet climb it anway..... Thats gotta rank up there for reasons why people die up there.
Monstar L
Climbers die on the way down. It's more dangerous, you're more fatigued and your guard is down. You also tend to ignore clear signs of physical harm.
The higher you climb, the harder your lungs have to work to extract enough oxygen from the air in order to keep you alive. If you don't get enough oxygen, you don't die immediately. Your brain starts becoming less and less efficient, since it cannot produce energy anaerobically, like the rest of your body can.
Of course, this process is invisible to most people. Its comparable to how your brain isn't fully awake if you get woken up suddenly and feeling confused at the simplest tasks. Hypoxia also affects divers.
The leakage of fluid from the vessels in the brain is caused by the same hypoxia, since the blood vessels need energy as well.
The only solution is for climbers to take their own oxygen, or for someone to invent a mobile and low powered oxygen concentrator.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
People exhaust themselves climbing up, but most when they do realize they are in trouble will turn back...or perhaps they realize they have enough and push on to get up there, but don't leave enough in reserve to come back down. Also there's a false sense of achievement - "I made it to the summit!" - but while making it back down alive is actually more improtant it may be anticlimactic and not as big a motivator when you're spent after the effort of reaching the top.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
That's why!
The reason that nobody Rs TFA is because the answers are so bleeding obvious.
It has nothing to do with O2 - the deaths are caused by Yetis.
Like many guard dogs, they will happily let you onto the property. They just don't let you back out again.
Thus, you can only get the bends going up.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
It's just a name, like the Forbidden Zone or the Zone of no Return. All the zones have names like that on the Mountain of Terror
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Now what serious climber really believed those were the primary causes?
I have never seen anyone claim that the primary cause of death on Everest is avalanche or falling ice - I'm not sure where that fiction came from. It is common knowledge that the primary cause of death up there is directly related with complications from being in the dead zone, combined with the complications of frequent blizzards that hamper the attempts to get out of the dead zone. Climbers run out of oxygen and also get lost. Some have to be left behind by others because all are under distress and unable to help the straggler. It's a very deadly place to go and is foolish in that one in ten end up dying up there.
most deaths occur during descents from the summit in the so-called "death zone"
Well, there's your problem! Just name that part of the mountain something else!
when it came to cheaters in sports, they'll do things like dope with epo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin
and blood bank: inject their own previously extracted, concentrated red blood cells back into themselves before the run/ bike (with the subsequent increase in clot risk, of course)
of course, why can't climbers do this as well? take all of the illegal things they do in sports and apply it legally. of course, they are raising their risk of death with some of these body modifications, but at a lower, controlled risk than that from climbing a mountain without any body preparation at all
regardless, any climber should spend time running marathons in the high alps or the high sierra to increase red blood cell production naturally, if you are not genetically a sherpa
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hmm why do climbers die on everest? wweellll jeeez, its a giant mound of rock and ice that humans are not designed to be climbing on naturally. Thanks for the clarification science!
Just in case
One of my friends went to hike Everest... he didn't make it very far up. Eating food from some of the natives made him very sick (projectiles from both ends), and he was drug off to a hospital. He didn't die, but it was a possibility in his condition.
THAT would suck... travel half-way around the world, to be taken down by tourist food.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Gun violence and cancer are the 2 killers on Everest. How could they miss this?
He also wrote "Alive in the death zone" after his 2006 expedition when he was thought dead and left overnight by his fellow climbers after suffering a cerebral edema on the way down. I haven't read that one yet.
The writer may sound a bit accident prone but consider the time between those two dates :)
Climbers die while descending Mount Everest because even though hundreds of people capable of rescuing them pass, all of those people have paid upwards of $25,000 to have a chance to summit the peak, and none of those assholes are willing to risk their precious experience to save someone's life.
Well, Anonymous Coward, that's not entirely true. While I'm not a climber, I've read numerous books on climbing Everest, as well as watched several documentaries and talked to some climbers about it. As I understand it, once you're in the death zone, *every step* is an ordeal. You literally think about it, lift your foot, move it, and put it down, then think about the next one. Apparently it's like trying to walk with a 200 pound backpack on. In many cases, if you're climbing Everest and you come upon someone in need of assistance, even if you want to, there's nothing you can do. You can't carry someone in the death zone, there's no sled to put them on, no ski patrol with a helicopter. Basically, all you can do is give them your oxygen bottle, make them comfortable, and then get back to trudging. Tragic, but true.
You can read the actual research for yourself in British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec11_1/a2654
Comment removed based on user account deletion
because it's there!
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
I have mixed feelings on the Everest thing. I guess I can understand people wanting to test their limits, and push themselves. And the isolation and harsh environment can be intruiging.
However, the stories of loved ones, wifes and children, left behind when someone screws up and dies, really make these acts seem selfish at times. (Stories such as the adventurer calling the loved ones on the satellite phone before their inevitable deaths make for good drama, but don't change the fact that it's horribly unnecessary risk for someone with a family...)
If I'm were well enough off to have $65,000 to plunk into a hobby, I think one of my main goals in life would be to stay *alive* and enjoy it :) ("Okay, I made it, I'm succesful; now let's not screw it up and die!")
I have somewhat more sympathy for folks like Steve Fosset who took fairly calculated risks with a lot of safety measures included (and ironically didn't die doing anything particularly dangerous), and potentially pushed some technological research in his quests.
To wax philisophical for a moment, perhaps it's because there aren't a lot of life-risking activities that can greatly advanced mankind these days, as in the days of the explorers. Maybe the same mentality of Columbus (or insert-your-favorite-explorer-here), just doesn't have a satisfying role in today's society, where all the exploring is pretty much done, so these people find these substitue quests to pacify them. ("Deep space astronaut" might be a good calling for these folks, but there's not exactly a lot of openings.)
Or perhaps I just personally don't see the lure of mountain climbing; it's likely other folks I admire, such as more modern transatlantic sailing adventurers (e.g. Joshua Solcum) could be considered to be in the same class, achieving things that tested their limits, but in the end didn't really advance mankind, other than providng some great tales. (See "Sailing around the world alone.")
(Even more off-topic, for a bizarre story about business/financial/PR pressures for a sailing circumnavigation, and the ensuing cheating and resulting insanity, check out Deep Water. A fascinating story, and good documentary on it.)
To each his own, I guess. Intentionally risking hypoxia doesn't sound like that much of a kick to me (although I hear hypoxia is fun, for the few minutes before you die).
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Did you manage to get your share of the class action refund?
Thanks for bringing yet another episode of Sony sliminess to my attention.
I was surprised at the basic ineptitude of most of the climbers. There were logjams at ladders because people didn't know how to negotiate them and other climbers are literally yelling at others "you incompetent fuck!" etc. etc...
This isn't news at all. Mount Everrest actually is a mountain for sissies, technically speaking. The standard route to the summit is more of an extended hike than an actual climb compared to 'real' mountains such as the Cerro Torre. At sea level it would be a more like a walk in the park, literaly.
The difficult part with Everest is taking your time to aclimatise - which can take up to half a year. Which most people don't do. Others take O2 with them. Yet O2 only means you won't die inmediately in the death zone if your gear doesn't fail, it doesn't mean making the summit is a sure bet. Most people die on Everest because the lack of O2 gets to their brain and they start doing stupid things. Meaning more stupid things than going up there unprepared in the first place. That's why the standard route is littred with corpses.
If it were a real mountain that required actual high-profile tech-climbing skills, we'd have much less idiots dying up there, simply because they couldn't reach the death-zone.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It just occurred to me that air pressure depends on two things, altitude AND weather :). Usually during storms the air pressure would drop significantly even on the sea level, and similar could be expected on the mountain. Maybe that time altitude + storm meant lower air pressure than her previous higher altitudes in good weather?
I climb and study meteorology. You've given me a very nice question to think about :). What you say about edemas is probably very true, but maybe this is an additional reason to take storms extremely seriously?
I think there should be a cable carriage or a vertical tunnel with elevator inside that takes to the top of Mt. Everest.
Currently there is a discrimination against the ill, disabled or elderly persons, who are not able to visit the summit, because they are unable to climb up there.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights codifies people have to right to travel where-ever they want. Technology does allow for mechanized transport service for the Mt. Everest, therefore it should be provided, just as wheelchair ramps are prescibed by law for public institutions and shopping malls.
A climber intentionally risks many other things, like falling into a crevasse on a glacier, getting caught in a storm on a mountain, etc. I climb, and for me it's very satisfying to manage these risks by making good decisions and surviving in good health from something that is serious business. It's an adventure, and even when it's not a large step for the mankind, it's a kind of personal exploration. Doesn't matter so much if other people charted the glaciers and summits before me, I'm still learning very much about the planet we live on.
The risk management is not unlike driving a car. While driving fast there's a significant risk of death which we manage. People drive cars even when many die while doing just that. Of course it's much more satisfying to do something a bit less mundane in tremendous surroundings. I don't know why, but after my first trip to Himalayas I've had this calling.. It's not something that existed before that, though.
You probably shouldn't equate climbing with the Everest so much. People who go to Everest are the types who want to climb the highest mountains - as if that was the superior achievement. And Everest is relatively easy too, it's only challenging because of the height. Most climbers are happier on lower hills. Most climbers never risk hypoxia. And some climbers still climb mountains that have never been climbed by anyone.
Climbing today might not advance the humanity as a whole very much, but advances still happen. At least the equipment used in climbing and professions who use ropes has developed a great deal during the last decades. It's actually so fast that during my three years of climbing, I'm already seeing technological advances. Also, thanks to the climbers, there's a lot of science done on which knots are the best in saving lives, and which others occasionally fail. This might not get you excited, but it does that to me ;).
1. "Downhill" is not like skiing or rapelling downhill. 80% down and 20% up makes that 20% downhill *days* worth of extremely hard effort.
2. Physical issues. Having camped above 10,000 feet, I can tell you the amount of water required for drinking so you don't get dehydrated is crazy. Medium physical efforts at that altitude leave you breathless. Imagine trying to move ~200 lbs dead weight around clothed like the Michelin Man.
3. Hostile environment. Lack of oxygen, extreme and unpredictable weather, and water and food delivery requirements all add up to a l-o-n-g time up and down the mountain.
It all adds up quickly to a months-long effort to retrieve a body.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html