
Why Climbers Die On Mount Everest - soundsop
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081209221709.htm
======
sutro
If you are interested in why climbers die on Mount Everest, read Jon
Krakauer's amazing first-hand account of Everest's worst disaster:

[http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_i...](http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_into_thin_air_1.html)

~~~
jumper
Looks like an interesting article, but 11 tiny pages and no print link that I
can find? As much as I hate to be the guy saying it... FAIL.

~~~
brandnewlow
Heh. You picked the exact wrong author to dismiss summarily.

~~~
jumper
Apparently. I stand by my decision though. Time\effort is worthy of defending.

Edit: It occurs to me now that I don't think I even dismissed the author
summarily, just that website... I think I will be borrowing a copy of the book
from a friend.

------
blogimus
The article states that most deaths seem to happen in the decent, rather than
the ascent. This shows that the risk is climbers pushing themselves too hard.
This just, well, seems obvious. There is ego on the line, if not other
factors. The problem of pushing past your limit, such as mountain climbing,
past your reserve capability and capacity doesn't clearly manifest itself at
the point you've exceeded your capability, it is when you are trying to move
back from the edge to a safe point that this becomes clear. The climbers are
so focused on reaching the goal it is easy to forget about measuring the
capability to get back down.

I've heard that rescue aircraft keep a reserve of fuel on board and once the
craft reach this point, they turn back. It seems that at least some of the
climbers don't gauge this properly. Some are lucky. They survive. Others are
not as lucky, they are the 1-2 percent statistic of dying on the way down,
having pushed too hard.

~~~
uuilly
Down climbing is inherently more difficult than climbing. When you're
"up"-climbing you can see your next steps more easily b/c they are closer to
your eyes and the slope is at a better angle for watching your steps. You also
have your ice axe held like a cane in front of you to arrest any fall, and the
distance of the fall from feet to hands is shorter than on the way down.

On the way down, your eyes are much further away from your steps and the slope
is angled away from you. Each step is longer, more dynamic and more likely to
dislodge some rock / ice / snow. You are also putting a lot more force on each
step so your legs can actually get more tired on the way down. When you fall
you mostly go to your butt, slide and you need to roll over on your belly to
self arrest. By that time you have often picked up so much speed that it's too
late.

All these physical factors plus many well documented "horse to barn"
psychological factors make down climbing the most dangerous part of the day.

~~~
Goladus
While that all makes sense, it also seems possible that deaths happen on the
descent simply because it takes that long above 8,000 feet for cerebral edema
to kill you. It seems like, if those were the main issues, the descent below
8,000 feet would not have shown significantly fewer deaths than above.

~~~
uuilly
Your point about the time it takes for HAPE to set in is valid. But I'm pretty
sure that times in the death zone vary greatly. Most parties camp at least one
night above 8000m and weather / SNAFU's often hold them there for multiple
days So the total time above 8000 varies by much more than the half day it
takes to walk down.

No doubt though, the death zone could kill people playing ping pong. Yet the
down-climbing problem is global to mountains of any size. The extreme altitude
on Everest amplifies it. More accidents occur on the way down on mountains
less than half the size of Everest. The mountaineering bible, "Freedom of the
Hills" discusses the phenomenon extensively:

[http://www.amazon.com/Mountaineering-Freedom-Hills-
Mountaine...](http://www.amazon.com/Mountaineering-Freedom-Hills-
Mountaineers/dp/0898868289/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229370716&sr=1-1)

------
brandonkm
After reading this article I would like to know what kind of training climbers
engage in before climbing Mount Everest. It seems to me that at the types of
elevations Mount Everest is working with, the preparation you would need
beforehand would be quite intense. Not only that, but the technology you would
need to offset whats happening to your body at those heights would be
interesting to investigate as well.

~~~
brandnewlow
I'd always understood that a lot of the deaths on Everest were the result of
wealthy people not preparing properly for the climb. If you've seen the IMAX
Everest movie, you see the incredible shape that team was in...and they still
had a hard go of it. I imagine attempting in anything less than exquisite
physical condition is asking for trouble.

------
aflag
"Mountaineering is for fun; it's not worth dying or leaving others there to
die. Appropriate caution is the hallmark of the elite mountaineer – the
mountain will always be there next year."

I don't like those sort of comments. I think one of the reasons people go
mountain climbing is because they want to take the risk. The fear of maybe not
coming back alive is part of the fun. But people say stuff like that, like
every single thing should be safe. I might say that people are getting
paranoid over safety.

For me the bottom line is: I surely don't want to get killed doing some boring
job, but I hope to die doing something awesome and exciting.

~~~
Tichy
I don't think it is paranoid to worry if the probability for death is 3%.

~~~
aflag
But if you're looking to do something dangerous, wouldn't you expect the
probability of death to be above 0? And if you aren't looking for danger, why
are you climbing everest?

~~~
Tichy
I am not climbing Mount Everest. Honestly, I was hoping the article would
provide insights on why people try to do it. Death wish? I suspect people just
don't believe the 3% number, they probably think their own number is much
lower. Maybe they think the number only applies to other climbers who are not
as fit and well prepared.

Sure there are some risky activities that would interest me, but at the end of
the day, there are more than enough interesting alternatives that are a lot
less risky.

~~~
aflag
Not a death wish, but a survival wish. There are people who do stuff far more
dangerous, like the first people to climb the everest and there are other even
more dangerous mountains out there.

People who take those sort of risks don't think they will be in the n% of
people that die doing it, but that they'll be able to survive despite it being
hard and dangerous. Some don't survive, but those who do get their kicks for
beating the odds, that sort of stuff. Of course, that's not for everyone. Most
people want the most safety possible, that's why we live in cities and try to
make the environment the most controlled possible.

~~~
Retric
If you are 36, and have a reasonable chance of living till 70+, a 3% chance of
death is basically the same as dieing one year sooner. Is climbing mount
Everest worth a year of your life? And I am not talking about extreme old age
but reasonably healthy middle years?

Now it might not seem like much, but as I get older I am more willing to take
risks because of this stuff. My risk threshold is basically one in 50,000. If
it's more risky than that it's just not worth it IMO. At 70 I will probably
have a lower threshold but for now I am happy, healthy, and hopefully have
many more years ahead so taking 1% death risk seems stupid.

------
tyohn
As a avid trekker and climber (I've trekked to Everest base camp - fun stuff)
~ if you're wondering why people climb Everest it can really be summed up best
by George Leigh Mallory - "because its there".

