
Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies - ck2
http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on-everest.html
======
rdl
Deep wreck and cave diving is similarly dangerous (and was much more so before
the adoption of Trimix by the technical diving community). There have been
numerous fatalities among rescuers trying to recover corpses of other dead
divers, too.

I decided after reading a fair bit about this that even if I can afford to
dive like this ($20k+ for equipment, $10-20k+ for training, and $500+ per dive
for helium-based gas fills), it's just not worth the risk. I'm going to build
a ROV or AUV to do all my deep/wreck diving for me, and stick to much safer
diving profiles.

The other problem with deep SCUBA is that it's all been done, and better, by
commercial divers using surface supplied or saturation diving techniques. It's
like cryptanalysis in the open world; the NSA clearly has vastly better
capabilities, so at best you're discovering things they already know. Except
with surface supplied/saturation, you can see exactly how they did it, and if
you had the money, could just do it that way yourself. (I'd be really
interested in semi-professional surface supplied or saturation diving as a new
super-technical hobby diver thing)

~~~
wooster
Have you read Blind Descent? One of the things that most struck me was that
cave diving is more dangerous, fatality-rate-wise, than space exploration.

~~~
rdl
Space is inherently dangerous, but since it's so high visibility (and funded
by deep pockets), they can use technology to reduce the risk below most
activities. I think they go too far in reducing the risk -- I'd accept a 10%
fatality rate for important space missions if everyone was a volunteer, if it
improved the rate of progress.

We know how to do diving in worse environments than caves relatively safely --
commercial and naval (Naval diving is working on docks and repairs for the
Navy in peacetime vs. military diving, which is the kind of dangerous
combat/commando/infiltration/specops missions done by SEALs and UDTs, etc.)
diving to 500m is actually relatively safe as a career. This often takes place
in HAZMAT environments, zero visibility, etc.

The issue is that recreational/"technical" divers are doing it with much less
equipment, and vastly less support staff. A commercial diver has a $3-5mm
recompression chamber waiting above, a safety diver ready to splash in, dive
medics or medical officers, a dedicated support ship, unlimited surface-
supplied gas, heated water in the cold, wired communications, etc.
Recreational divers have what they can carry and personally afford to buy.

~~~
wooster
Oof, I don't think the fatality rate on SEALs is public, but trust me, it's
not good.

~~~
rdl
Naval diving is Navy or Coast Guard (or Army underwater construction) diving
done by hard hat divers to repair ships, salvage, do dock maintenance, etc. It
is not "all diving done by Navy personnel". They're ND ratings, and while
technically part of Naval Special operations, not SEALs. There are probably
some special missions where Naval divers have done something special opsy
(tapping undersea cables, or salvaging a foreign nation's warship without
their knowledge or consent), but it's not routine. Naval diving techniques are
basically adapted commercial techniques, and in a lot of cases are more
conservative and safer than what cheap commercial contractors use.

SEALs are probably never qualified Naval divers, unless they start out as
Naval divers and then switch to SEALs.

What SEALS do -- Combat diving, combat swimming, etc. is called "military
diving". That tends to be dangerous, although not as much due to the diving
aspects (it's a lot of oxygen or other rebreather use at shallow depths,
undersea scooters for long transits, etc.), as due to the other people trying
to kill you. Also, at least recently, SEALs mainly engage in combat on land in
countries with no contiguous oceans :)

~~~
wooster
Let's just say night insertions are stupid and be done with it.

~~~
rdl
s/night insertions/wars/

------
makeramen
I'm not the only one noticing the connection to startups right?

Though not as morbid, I would imagine "stepping over dead bodies" and "leaving
teammates behind" is a rather common experience in startups as well, though
potentially frowned upon (but even then, it would depend on the situation).

EDIT: I think I need to clarify, I'm thinking more that startup COMPANIES are
like everest climbers, trying to reach profitability/success. And then we can
similarly say "[The internet] is littered with dead, exposed bodies [of
startups]"

~~~
swombat
There's a difference between even screwing over your best friend ("The Social
Network"-style) and leaving them to die alone in a frozen desert of hell,
where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder
that someone left them behind.

Sure, there's some very distant analogy, but it's really a different kettle of
fish.

~~~
makeramen
I feel like there's a sort of mutual understanding of the risk among all
parties going into these situations. Yes one is much more grim than others,
but in concept at least.

------
mks
Articles like this are very suggestive - of course while in the warm, in front
of the computer everyone would try to rescue the poor climbers. However add
difficult terrain, height, snow, fatigue and race with the clock and you have
wholly different story. Consider how much effort is needed to transport
someone by Mountain Rescue teams in lower mountains (<4000m) - teams of 2-5,
lot of ropes, pullies and special transport stretchers.

Even seasoned climbers admit that you are pretty much solo on the high
mountain. The strongest ones with highest morals have even tried helping some
other party at these altitude but with very little effect. The moral choice is
hard - would you put your life at very high risk just to attempt rescue with
very little probability?

~~~
dkarl
I'm pretty sure the moral choice was easy at first -- of course you help! --
and then got harder as there were more and more tragic outcomes, until it
swung all the way to becoming an easy "no." It is morally correct, perhaps
mandatory depending on your beliefs, to value your own life as much as another
person's, especially one climber valuing his own life as much as another's.
You have to balance the odds of dying yourself against the odds of saving
another person. Plus, under those conditions you would be risking several
lives -- an entire team -- on helping a single person who has a slim chance of
survival, in a situation where the rescuers have little more strength than
what is required to sustain and control their own bodies. This assessment
might be considered unduly pessimistic if there were not plenty of deadly
history supporting it, but there is. Therefore, it seems like an easy decision
to me. Not that it matters what I think, since I'll never be there to make it!

~~~
mfukar
The moral dilemma quickly becomes a question against your own survival
instinct, in places like the Everest.

------
jasonkester
My relatives sometimes ask whether I'm 'still doing that mountain climbing
thing?'. I'm pretty sure they think that this is what I'm up to.

I'm sure I'd fall in love with high altitude mountaineering (all other aspects
of climbing are so addictive that it follows) but I've always made a point of
staying away. The statistics are all there to see. I'll stick with the rocks,
thank you.

My personal rule is that if it's cold enough that I'm tempted to put a shirt
on, it's too close to mountaineering and it's time to move south.

~~~
matwood
_My personal rule is that if it's cold enough that I'm tempted to put a shirt
on, it's too close to mountaineering and it's time to move south._

That's funny. My friends and family think I'm crazy as I research all the
things required to do a winter time 14er summit attempt. I'll probably spend
this winter practicing my back country skills in general and then next winter
plan the hike.

------
joe_the_user
I had a friend describe his experience when climbing one of the highest peaks
in South America.

He said it was the most specular view he had seen in his life - he could
literally see both the Atlantic and the Pacific simultaneously. But despite
this, he was so physically miserable that he derived no joy from the
experience at the time.

Of course, that's still much lower the Everest.

~~~
dkarl
I don't do anything spectacular, but I've learned not to expect much of my
pictures when I do strenuous (for me) backpacking. Show people pictures of the
view, wildlife, etc., and they say, "Wow!" "Beautiful!" "Oooh, I'm so
jealous!" Show them pictures of me posing proudly on a peak with a beautiful
view behind me, and they say, "Gosh, you look so tired!" "You look miserable!
Was it worth it?" "Why do you do that? I'd rather go to the beach."

So I stopped showing people those pictures :-/

------
araneae
The article quotes a 1/50 chance of dying.

For perspective, only 1/20 suicide attempts are successful. That means that
climbing Mt. Everest is only half as deadly as trying to actively kill
yourself.

~~~
jedbrown
This is a silly mis-application of statistics. Risk in both scenarios is
highly dependent on preparation and decision making.

~~~
mfukar
Only when it comes to suicide, better preparation means a higher chance of
dying.

~~~
jedbrown
Yes, that was intentional.

~~~
mfukar
+1 for you then. :-)

------
varjag
Media 2.0 at its best: a bunch of photos lifted without attribution. I
recognize at least one to be from a Nat. Geo. story.

~~~
dchest
I'm pretty sure Media 1.0 also did and does this.

~~~
varjag
Mainstream printed media is much better with attribution in general.

~~~
dchest
Mainstream blogs too, what's the point of this debate?

~~~
varjag
By "mainstream" I mean normal, non-crackpot outlets who are/were main
distribution channels for information to people. In old business, major
national newspapers, weeklies, monthly magazines, regional/city papers were
fairly good at attribution. Of course plagiarism, stealing and other forms of
non-ethical behavior were not unheard of, but not anywhere on par with new
media.

Nowadays mainstream sources of information are supposedly replaced by swarms
of bloggers and citizen journalists. This one is perfect example. Such a thing
as non-attribution is now par for the course. You don't notice how common is
it because you are not paying attention.

------
wooster
I recently got back (almost exactly a month ago) from a month long climbing
trip in Nepal with some friends.

We had three guides, all three of whom have climbed Everest multiple times.
One of our guides, who has summited 5 times, described Everest as his "bad
habit".

As a relative newbie to high altitude mountaineering (the highest I got was
~19,850 feet), climbing in Nepal was really, really hard. You are never warm,
the food sucks, camping for long periods at high altitude sucks rather a lot,
you are never clean, altitude sickness sucks, pooping in an 8" hole in the
ground sucks, not eating much protein sucks, but… the views are spectacular,
the people you meet are amazing, the place itself is awe-inspiring, the
wildlife is interesting and diverse, the peace of the place is fantastic, and
the mountains… well, the mountains are something special.

I can see why some people spend their lives chasing summits, and I can also
see why some people, having seen their first summit, turn away from the
mountains forever and never come back. While we were in Nepal, within two days
of our summit push, our head guide had two friends die. One died on Cho Oyu in
an avalanche while traversing a glacier. The other died on a relatively
unknown mountain in Tibet. Both were world-class mountaineers. These were
people who no mountaineer in the world would accuse of being irresponsible,
inexperienced, unprofessional, or, even, unsafe. They were serious
mountaineers with long resumes and respected records.

That said, exploration is always a serious business, and when you're out at
the sharp end, sometimes you get cut. Without these people, however, and the
part of humanity which they represent, we would never expand our experience of
what it is to be human and our knowledge of the space around us.

Even with Mount Everest, where the experience has been honed to the point
where there are professionals whose entire job it is to make sure clients make
it to the top… it's friggin' hard. Having been to nearly 20k feet, I have
nothing but respect for people who can make it to 29,029 feet. Climbing that
far is hard, no matter how you do it. I can only imagine the feeling of being
on top of the world, and quite frankly I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge,
personally, of tackling Mt. Everest. I will certainly never make fun of anyone
who has climbed that mountain.

Given the difference in oxygen between where I got to and the top of Everest,
I don't think I can comment on the impairment of cognitive facilities climbing
Mount Everest imparts. However: there's a good reason most responsible climbs
leave a controller in radio contact from base camp or Camp 1 in charge of
final decisions. Oxygen deprivation is a serious impediment to rational
decision making.

So, yeah, go ahead and don't climb where you don't feel comfortable. Just
don't go judging those who do without having done a high climb yourself.

~~~
webwright
I'm going to go ahead and judge. 1 in 10. Your have a 10% chance of dying if
you attempt a summit, right? How much pain is your untimely death going to
cause if it happens? How many everest orphans and widows are there? Include in
that the considerable cost and time investment to do this when you could be
creating something, exploring something that has a conceivable chance of
helping humanity, or just plain investing in helping others.

No, this is a hugely selfish act. Other folks are right that people are indeed
wired to get addicted to these types of feelings, but every day people choose
NOT to give into their wiring. I respect THAT a lot more than climbing
Everest.

Anticipating a straw man: No, we don't have a duty to eliminate all
unnecessary risk from our lives. But a single act with a 10% mortality rate
seems reckless.

~~~
dasil003
It takes all kinds. People with the balls to summit Everest are rare, and they
provide great stories to humanity, just the same as astronauts, deep sea
divers or spelunkers. I can admire that because it's unusual and inspiring,
something that can not be said for people playing it safe.

I won't judge you for your judgement, and I might even share it for people
mountaineers who have kids, etc, but I can not agree with your premise that
risking death is automatically bad because of how others might feel about it.
There's more to life than staying alive.

~~~
jhchen
I don't think the point is risking life is bad in all cases. It depends on the
possible gain. A simple example is a lot of people consider freedom something
worth dying for.

But what is the gain here of climbing Everest after it has been climbed
hundreds of times? Astronauts clearly benefit humanity with more than just
great stories. I can't see much marginal benefit for society for each
additional Everest climber.

I'm not saying it's wrong or selfish to continue to climb Everest. For the
climber him/herself I imagine the benefits are enormous and perhaps worth the
risk of life. But I just can't see much benefit for anyone else.

~~~
Mz
_But I just can't see much benefit for anyone else._

I and my oldest son both have a form of cystic fibrosis. I have figured out
how to get us well (we actually work together on it but I do most of the
research). Reading up on altitude sickness was an Aha! moment for me. In some
ways, medical science doesn't have much of value to offer me in terms of
thinking through the problem and coming up with new solutions. Medical science
is mostly about finding better drugs rather than a better understanding of the
process involved in what is typically a slow torturous death where your lungs
deteriorate until you qualify for a lung transplant (assuming you don't have
bad habits that disqualify you).

Reading this piece was personally meaningful to me in surprising ways that I
probably can't adequately express. I belong to entire communities operating in
their own medical equivalent of "The Dead Zone", where lack of oxygen, high
doses of medication and so on create very emotional, inflammatory discussions
and many people seem incapable of thinking logically. I wrestle continuously
with both how and whether to offer assistance in the face of enormous
hostility and long odds that it will really do any good. Even people who are
interested in what I am doing sometimes write me and bluntly state up front "I
will _never_ make the extreme lifestyle changes you have made. But can you
tell me more about ... (some food or supplement)?"

Stories about mountain climbing, altitude sickness et al are the absolute best
analogies I have tripped across for what I am dealing with. I don't care if
mountain climbers are crazy or selfish or whatever. I am grateful for the
information they provide. I have a medical condition that forces most people
with it to basically gradually suffocate. So I find value in the stories and
experiences of mountain climbers. Also, living at 3000 feet above sea level
for about 2.5 years, thereby forcibly expanding my lung capacity, probably
helped save my life when I spent a year at death's door and was bedridden for
3.5 months and finally got a diagnosis after a lifetime of being treated like
a hypochondriac.

Some people are facing things like this totally involuntarily and their
situations are difficult to talk about in normal company because it is viewed
pathetically rather than like a heroic struggle. I don't need any pity-
parties. I am perfectly capable of wallowing in self-pity without any
assistance. I need some kind of healthier, more useful feedback. Pieces like
this one may be the best I can get given the kind of social responses my story
tends to inspire.

~~~
rdtsc
> Also, living at 3000 feet above sea level for about 2.5 years, thereby
> forcibly expanding my lung capacity.

Fascinating. It is certainly no regular doctor would prescribe to anyone. But
it makes sense.

My grandfather was wounded during the war and as a result was left with a
severely reduced lung capacity. When he came back, everyone was surprised when
he started singing in a local church choir. Here is a man that can barely
breathe and now he wants to sing. Everyone in the village thought he was
crazy. But I think the singing was helping him breathe a great deal. He lived
50 more years.

So sometimes the counter-intuitive thing makes sense.

I am often frustrated when I talk to doctors because I want to know in more
details what is going on, I want the results of tests explained and so on,
Then I am not sure if they are just busy and think I am an asshole for asking
annoying questions, or what I am more scared of, they don't actually know or
care to know these things and just prescribe pills according to a textbook
checklist of symptoms.

~~~
Mz
_I am often frustrated when I talk to doctors because I want to know in more
details what is going on, I want the results of tests explained and so on,
Then I am not sure if they are just busy and think I am an asshole for asking
annoying questions, or what I am more scared of, they don't actually know or
care to know these things and just prescribe pills according to a textbook
checklist of symptoms._

Someone who helped me enormously for a time was a former RN who later studied
a lot of alternative medicine approaches. I took guaifenisen (sp?) for a time
and was trying to figure out what it was doing that it helped. After an
internet search failed to answer my questions, I asked her what it did in the
body or if she could come up with some information online that might help me
understand (she had a track record of coming up with stuff like that). She
basically told me "I don't think anyone really knows that. That isn't how drug
studies work. You are asking questions that the medical establishment cannot
answer." So I suspect that in many cases your bigger fear is exactly what is
going on.

I still don't know what gauifenisen really does to the body. It ended up being
the last remaining drug I took for a time. I got off it some time in the
summer of 2009 and have been drug free ever since.

------
physcab
I was fortunate to hear Peter Hillary speak last week while I was home on
Thanksgiving break. His stories were amazing. I was absolutely floored the
entire two hours. A couple quotes I remember (and damn I wish I brought a pen
and paper)...some of these may be paraphrases:

"On the top of Everest, your perception of reality is distorted. I remember
thinking, 'wow, its really cloudy down there' while looking down the mountain.
When I got back to base camp, I looked at the pictures we had taken. There
were no clouds. It was clear as day"

"People often ask me what I'm most afraid of. Sure the elements are
tough...but what gets me is more mental. Often when you hike you are alone in
your thoughts for days,weeks, even months at a time. You have nothing to do
but think, and if you don't have the mental discipline, you can deteriorate
quickly. Its important to have good relationships with your family, your
friends, and especially your climbing mate"

"I once went on a trip to the North Pole with some friends and my dad Edmund.
You may know them. They were Buzz Aldrin and Steve Fosset"

"The last time I went to Everest, National Geographic sponsored the hike and
the plan was to have a 3-way phone conversation with my dad and the
[CBS/NBC/ABC] affiliate in New York because it was the 50th anniversary of my
dad's first climb. When we got to the summit, I phoned in despite my hands
rapidly becoming frostbitten and the affiliate said, 'Gosh, we're really busy
here. Can you hold on a minute. Theres a conflict going on in Afghanistan
right now'...'What? I can see Afghanistan!'"

"When I went to the South Pole I had to train in a rather unusual manner. On
that trip we had to pull a [x100lb] sack of supplies behind us for a month
straight while cross-country skiing. To train, I tied a bunch of tires around
my waist and went jogging with my son in a stroller. You can imagine the weird
looks I got"

------
mark_h
There's a few videos I've seen recently -- I've also just been trekking in the
Everest region and watched and read a lot before going -- that do an amazing
job of conveying that summit-fever attitude.

The one that most sticks in my mind is this talk on K2:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkC9IMQmYA> It's an hour long, but I highly
recommend it.

There was an incredible documentary, which you can probably find online,
called "Doctors in the Death Zone" which followed a team of doctors studying
the effects of altitude on themselves as they attempted Everest. There's some
pretty horrific footage of a team they encounter along the way watching their
companion, in obvious distress, drunkenly attempt to reach their position,
while they just wait.

Lastly, this talk from TEDMed is by the only doctor on Everest during the 1996
disaster, and it's both a great depiction of the main route, and a frightening
reminder of just how dangerous it still is up there despite the number of
summits and knowledge of the route these days:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSidnKdH5_4>

------
kmfrk
There is a great mountain-climbing article here that I recommend reading:
[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/prep-
scho...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/prep-school-
climbers-201011?currentPage=all).

------
BRadmin
The mini-documentary season Everest: Beyond the Limit (streaming on Netflix)
is a pretty interesting watch, and chronicles an expedition to the top -
including a climber who actually encountered David Sharp on the mountain,
while he was still alive, and the thought-process / decision of having to
leave him behind.

Also, even though Everest is the highest mountain the world...

Annapurna has the highest fatality to summit ratio of all mountains @ ~40%.

And K2, with the second highest fatality rate (and 2nd highest elevation), is
generally regarded as the most physically difficult and technically
challenging.

------
morbidkk
If you liked the article you must also read
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Thin_Air> by Jon Krakauer

------
yan
For those interested in mountaineering, I highly, highly recommend listening
to Chris Warner's talk on summitting K2:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkC9IMQmYA>

A very very gripping talk by someone who's climbed Everest (and K2, a more
dangerous ascent) multiple times. I saw this in person (Chris is the founder
of the chain of climbing gyms I used to frequent) and it's even more gripping
in person.

------
CWuestefeld
According to wikipedia, Everest is no where near the most dangerous.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander>

Of 14 8km+ summits, it appears that Everest's death rate is only 5.7%, while
Annapurna leads at 42.85% (!)

This weighs against the commercialization of Everest trend theory, I think.

------
ra
For a gripping first hand account of the danger and sheer lunacy of today's
Mount Everest, I highly recommend "Into Thin Air", by Jon Krakauer

<http://books.google.com.au/books?id=upIXVwLhGj0C>

~~~
wyclif
I second the recommendation, I read that a few years ago and it is an
incredible story. Krakauer tells it as one who was gripped by Everest fever,
fascinated by the mountain itself but also the colourful personalities drawn
to the most serious level of high altitude mountaineering-- but also a man who
has seen his friends succumb to the madness of obsession, and ultimately
death. It was hard for me to put down; a compelling read for anyone interested
in travel or the outdoors.

~~~
ra
If you enjoyed that you've probably also read "Touching The Void".

IMHO the ultimate tale of high mountain survival:
<http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KnRdFe5TXVkC>

------
ck2
Is it ego or the "human spirit" that makes people try the summit anyway?

Some things I'll never understand in this world.

How about just running a marathon instead?

~~~
burgerbrain
I'm going to go with mental illness.

These people arn't proving themselves, they're abandoning their humanity. It's
not something to be celebrated.

~~~
d2viant
That's a pretty harsh characterization of their motivation. I'm guessing when
you're standing on the top of that summit you establish a connection with
nature that you can't get from simply running a marathon. I'd absolutely
celebrate anybody who achieves that. The world needs more people who are
willing to step so far out of their comfort zone to achieve seemingly
impossible things.

~~~
araneae
_establish a connection with nature that you can't get from simply running a
marathon_

That's bullshit talk. What does that even _mean_?

I think mental illness is much more appropriate, because you can "connect
with" nature just as well by climbing smaller mountains. No, these people are
attracted to Everest specifically because it's so extraordinarily difficult
there's a 2% chance they won't come off it alive, or possibly lose body parts.

There's something wrong with you if you're willing to risk your life _that_
easily.

~~~
rickr
Are your numbers correct? If so that's a 98% chance you come out fine.

Do astronauts have a mental illness?

~~~
araneae
More evidence that we have trouble thinking about probability as applied to
our daily lives.

That's a 2% chance over _a four day period._ I don't know if that number is
accurate- it's from the article, if you've read it- but even though it looks
small, it's actually _huge._

For comparison, in the US 6860 people die per day, and we have a population of
312 million. That means over a 4 day period, you have about a .009% chance of
dying; that's a _200,000% increase_. And keep in mind that's the death rate
for EVERYONE in the U.S., including 90 year-olds riddled with cancer. I don't
even want to think about the percentage difference in death rate using the Mt.
Everest cohort, which tend to be younger, healthy males.

I can't think of a single activity that's riskier, except for actively trying
to kill yourself, which by the way, only has a 5% probability of death.

------
rfreytag
I keep hearing how startup founders are often "scratching an itch." I think
the climber's itch is different in primarily beginning and ending in personal
gratification.

If you are looking for a challenge climbing Everest might be only a little
cheaper that doing a startup (about $65K it appears: [http://outside-
blog.away.com/blog/2009/12/how-much-does-it-c...](http://outside-
blog.away.com/blog/2009/12/how-much-does-it-cost-to-climb-everest.html)).

------
jodrellblank
"A National Geographic climber originally on Everest to document Brian
Blessed's (ultimately botched) attempt at summiting"

On QI recently, they said on Brian Blessed's closest approach, he abandoned
his climb and turned back to help an injured climber. In the context of this
essay about bodies it's not on to call that a "botched" attempt.

------
wazoox
Read this absolutely fantastic article: Into thin air by John Krakauer.
[http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_...](http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_into_thin_air_1.html)

------
jodrellblank
How far is materials technology from being able to keep people warm there?

~~~
TheCondor
Materials isn't the problem. No amount of warm clothes make you feel warm when
your body is losing oxygen.

~~~
jodrellblank
The losing more oxygen than you can breathe part is only in the death zone,
the last <3,000 feet, from what I can tell.

Apart from that, I'm less wondering about feeling warm and more wondering
about avoiding severe frostbite (or is that already mostly a thing of the
past?)

------
BeachVentures
Some friends and I are climbing some of the tallest mountains in the world
(including Everest) to raise money for cancer research. I must say that these
pictures certainly scare me a bit, but I really believe in our cause. We are
starting our quest this January, in south America where we will climb
Aconcagua, the tallest mountain in the western and southern hemisphere, and
the tallest outside Asia.

We would love some donations from HN community www.climb4coloncancer.org

We are also looking for cancer survivors interested in joining and sponsors.
Email us if interested!

Ivan

~~~
killedbydeath
Is it possible to donate you so that you don't climb?

~~~
BeachVentures
My friend's dad and also one of the original members of our organization died
of cancer. They both asked to have their ashes brought to Everest and I think
this is a worthy pursuit. We are tryingto raise 100k by climbing 100k feet, so
we will go through a lot of hard work. We would love your support.

~~~
killedbydeath
I did not mean to be mean. I was trying to say I would feel uneasy donating to
a cause which may put other people in danger.

------
T_S_
I think the risk involved is crazy, stupid and selfish. I judge therefore I am
;-).

However, at least these mountaineers effectively experiment with their lives
in a relatively open manner. It's too bad the drug cheats in athletics aren't
able to be as open. Then we might learn something useful from _their_ crazy,
stupid and selfish behavior.

------
gsivil
[http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/travel-...](http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/travel-
pf-199609_into_thin_air_1-sidWCMDEV_049618.html)

True Everest Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer

Everest deals with trespassers harshly: the dead vanish beneath the snows.
While the living struggle to explain what happened. And why. A survivor of the
mountain's worst disaster examines the business of Mount Everest and the steep
price of ambition.

By Jon Krakauer

------
aleem
"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves" - Sir Edmund Hilary, first
man to conquer everest

------
klbarry
Jesus - Annapurna is absolutely brutal, almost a 50% death rate:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander>

