Climbing Mt Everest is for idiots!

smash

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Why climb it if it already has been clomb.

Personal achievement. Come on, it's not rocket science. If we all decided to stop doing things just because other had done it previously then the world would basically stop working.

SomeFool

Lando Griffin wrote: »

If its the scenery that your after then why not fly up it on a helicoptor.
If I want to go to Dublin Zoo, I dont walk there, I take the car.

Helicopters can't fly that high for one thing....
If they did we wouldn't need this thread!

Lando Griffin

SomeFool wrote: »

Helicopters can't fly that high for one thing....
If they did we wouldn't need this thread!

That would be an achievement if someone could make one that did.

The Radiator

Ah shur, it's a bitta craic like

Statistician

Lando Griffin wrote: »

That would be an achievement if someone could make one that did.

Like this one?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html

Lando Griffin

Statistician wrote: »

Like this one?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html[/QUOTE]

Throws first drawing of my planed helicopter out the window.:mad:

ejmaztec

If someone climbed it backwards, butt-naked and blindfolded, I'd applaud them if they managed it, otherwise they'd be forgotten.

SomeFool

Statistician wrote: »

Like this one?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html

HelicopterPilot wrote:

The thought of rescuing climbers was one of the things that motivated me to do this project. But the forces I encountered were so powerful that to guarantee a safe flight you'd have to design a more powerful copter.

Still work to be done, I'd say the cost of it ever happening would be too much for the Nepalese to cover anyway.

Irish Guitarist

I never do anything dangerous. I'm really generous in that way.

Elmer Blooker

It's the world's highest rubbish dump apparently.(probably mentioned already?)
The Nepalese couldn't care less as long as it's a nice earner.

http://blog.ekimondo.com/?p=85

JohnMarston

Exactly what part of climbing Everest is selfless and non-egomaniacal?

youcancallmeal

I think anyone who tries to climb it and also has any kind of serious responsibilities is selfish. No kid should have to grow up without a parent just because that parent wanted to climb a mountain!

Kid1: 'Wheres your Dad?'
Kid2: 'Oh he's climbing Everest'
kid1: 'Cool, how is he getting on?'
Kid2: 'Oh he's been at it about 10 years now, should be back anytime soon I reckon?'
Kid1: 'I see....'

For anyone interested in the madness of Everest I would highly recommend Jon Krakauer's book about the 1996 disaster Into Thin Air

blackwhite

karma_ wrote: »

Dying.
....... when a group walks past and leaves a still breathing climber without offering assistance then there is something seriously wrong. There have now been some high profile cases where this has happened.

Red-top BS being bought hook, line and sinker here.

The British tabloids took uip this baton after David Sharpe died in 2006, and the blurring of facts, and blatant lies that they have peddled (and have been mostly believed by the general public) are astounding.

David Sharp collapsed and was unable to communicate with the many climbers who stopped to help. The estimate of 40 people walking past was people who assumed he was dead. He was lying under a rock which is known for having the body of an Indian climber from the 1990s under it, so most people just assumed it was another corpse and kept going. Those that did stop all did their best to try to revive him, but when he was unable to even move out of his huddled position there wasn't much they could do. Once he was above any of the technical sections in the death zone, it would have been practically impossible to carry him down. 40 people trying to help would have been of no use trying to get him through the exit cracks if he wasn't able to move by his own power.

If a person needs to be carried down from the death zone, then the most likely event is that anyone trying to carry them down will die as well. It's extremely rare of for a successful rescue to be made from above 8,000m where the victim isn't able to move under their own power. Successful rescues have only really happen where the victim was able to stand up and put one foot in front of the other. The most common result of rescue attempts above 8,000m are additional deaths.

SomeFool

Sharpe was also climbing solo iirc and had nobody looking out for him on the peak.

conorhal

chin_grin wrote: »

So the best you (and the writer of that article) can get out of life is to sit at a computer and whine about it?

People do things to achieve something and feel proud of living, just let them at it and if you don't like it what business is it of yours?

Pride would, in my book, include carrying your own damn luggage up the mountain! For every mountaineer fist pumping at the summit I can picture half a dozen Sherpa's doing the rolleyes and digging a stupid flag out of a souvenir pack that he's thanklessly dragged up the mountain for some eejit to wave and have his picture taken.

Everest has become the mountaineering equivalent of sponsored walkers doing the Dublin City Marathon, and I for one hate their sponsorshop form waving guts.

ScumLord

SomeFool wrote: »

Sharpe was also climbing solo iirc and had nobody looking out for him on the peak.

That's as dangerous as setting off for the centre of the Atlantic ocean in a row boat.

haminka

Climbing the Everest stopped being an achievement and became a rather touristy thing to do, so the people believe that if they paid loads of money for tickets and sherpas and the climb itself, they are fully entitled to walk over dead or dying.
There were cases though, when professional climbers had to leave their friends dead or dying, when there was no hope to save them without endangering their own lives but that's another story. I think their perspective is much different up there, when they are on their own, without any chance for fast assistance and suffering from altitude sickness.

al28283

Yea, that guy who died at the top the day his kid was being born was a dick. How was that not selfish? And now his wife and kid son't even have a place to grieve cos his body is stuck up there forever.

ScumLord

haminka wrote: »

Climbing the Everest stopped being an achievement and became a rather touristy thing to do, so the people believe that if they paid loads of money for tickets and sherpas and the climb itself, they are fully entitled to walk over dead or dying.
There were cases though, when professional climbers had to leave their friends dead or dying, when there was no hope to save them without endangering their own lives but that's another story. I think their perspective is much different up there, when they are on their own, without any chance for fast assistance and suffering from altitude sickness.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there. Professional climbers can't rescue their friends but you expect inexperienced tourists to mount rescues? There is no rescue for anyone once they're above a certain height, rescue is impossible.

Dangerous Man

youcancallmeal wrote: »

I think anyone who tries to climb it and also has any kind of serious responsibilities is selfish. No kid should have to grow up without a parent just because that parent wanted to climb a mountain!

Kid1: 'Wheres your Dad?'
Kid2: 'Oh he's climbing Everest'
kid1: 'Cool, how is he getting on?'
Kid2: 'Oh he's been at it about 10 years now, should be back anytime soon I reckon?'
Kid1: 'I see....'

For anyone interested in the madness of Everest I would highly recommend Jon Krakauer's book about the 1996 disaster Into Thin Air

I'm actually reading it right now - a friend reccommended it to me a while back. It's a good read so far; Krakauer is an excellent writer - there's a hint of the gonzo about him which I like but he's also quite intelligent and very, very aware of the moral / ethical implications of mountaineering.

Sugar Free

blackwhite wrote: »

Red-top BS being bought hook, line and sinker here.

The British tabloids took uip this baton after David Sharpe died in 2006, and the blurring of facts, and blatant lies that they have peddled (and have been mostly believed by the general public) are astounding.

David Sharp collapsed and was unable to communicate with the many climbers who stopped to help. The estimate of 40 people walking past was people who assumed he was dead. He was lying under a rock which is known for having the body of an Indian climber from the 1990s under it, so most people just assumed it was another corpse and kept going. Those that did stop all did their best to try to revive him, but when he was unable to even move out of his huddled position there wasn't much they could do. Once he was above any of the technical sections in the death zone, it would have been practically impossible to carry him down. 40 people trying to help would have been of no use trying to get him through the exit cracks if he wasn't able to move by his own power.

If a person needs to be carried down from the death zone, then the most likely event is that anyone trying to carry them down will die as well. It's extremely rare of for a successful rescue to be made from above 8,000m where the victim isn't able to move under their own power. Successful rescues have only really happen where the victim was able to stand up and put one foot in front of the other. The most common result of rescue attempts above 8,000m are additional deaths.

I was going to post something similiar but you beat me to it.

I think people are taking a very black and white view of things and are comparing coming across an injured person on a regular hill rather than at extreme altitude.

Most of these climbers who come into difficulty are rarely suffering from a sprained ankle or something minor. They're more often than not suffering from pulmonary/cerebral oedema, refusing any help due to the inability to even stand up, hallucinations or any other of the effects of these conditions.

Depending on which route they climb the mountain and where they are on it they could have to do a lot of rappelling, ice axe work or other actions that require a degree of technical ability. All while exhausted, deprived of oxygen and probably suffering from a form of altitude sickness as well.

There may of course be situations where the climbers are in a position to be helped but standing still, trying to help someone that high up can only be maintained for a very limited amount of time, before the rescuers themselves become susceptible.

Another matter is that a lot of these climbers will be using supplemental oxygen. This is certainly a good thing in terms of keeping away frostbite and providing fuel for the body but there is generally only a limited amount of oxygen per bottle and limited bottles per climber.

If they get stuck up there longer than planned and their oxygen runs out, the effects can be worse at that altitude than someone who decided to summit without supplemental oxygen.

I just don't think (coming from someone who would probably keel over even getting to basecamp, let alone the summit) that it's simply morally lacking, extremely single-minded people ignoring those in need. It depends greatly on the context.

I'd recommend 'Dead Lucky' by Lincoln Hall or 'K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain' by Ed Viesturs to get a better insight into things.

opinion guy

flutterflye wrote: »

Don't get you.
I climbed Mt. Vesuvius - much easier than Everest of course, but that was cool - to have done it like.
Why not do it?
How is it selfish?
Really don't understand.
I mean - why does anyone go for a nice walk, or climb any mountain?
It's something nice to do.

Spartacus is that you ???

blackwhite

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I'm actually reading it right now - a friend reccommended it to me a while back. It's a good read so far; Krakauer is an excellent writer - there's a hint of the gonzo about him which I like but he's also quite intelligent and very, very aware of the moral / ethical implications of mountaineering.

When you're finished with it, I'd recommend this also http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Climb-Tragic-Ambitions-Everest/dp/0330488961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338473225&sr=8-1

Gives an alternative view to Krakauer's account. Prefer JK's book personally, but always good to get the two sides to a story

SomeFool

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I'm actually reading it right now - a friend reccommended it to me a while back. It's a good read so far; Krakauer is an excellent writer - there's a hint of the gonzo about him which I like but he's also quite intelligent and very, very aware of the moral / ethical implications of mountaineering.

Follow it with this.

Dangerous Man

I knew I should never have borrowed that book... it was a ploy to help me prop up the mountaineering publishing trade.

Ellis Dee

If nothing else, Westerners climbing Sagarmatha* bring a lot of precious income into the communities around the mountain in Nepal, one of the world's poorest countries and inhabited by hard-working and mostly very nice people. The government in Kathmandu charges fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to climb, and then hundreds of bearers have to be employed. In addition, Sir Edmund Hillary started and ran a foundation that has spent millions on development projects in Nepal. I have seen the peak the easy way, paying about €90 for an early morning call, a taxi to Tribhuvan Airport in Karthmandu and a 70-minute flight to Sagarmatha and back along the main Himalayan chain. :):)

* I always insist on calling the world's highest mountain by its correct name Sagarmatha, the one the Nepalese gave it centuries before an imperialist English git, Andrew Waugh, who was then the British Surveyor General of India, named it after his predecessor in the post, Sir George Everest. The latter had never even seen the mountain nor been aware of its existence.

Surely when a person decides to climb mount everest they are aware of the risk to their lives and accept that if they get into trouble no one is going to help them. You will be left to die.
If you are afraid to die then don't climb!
If I was climbing (not that i ever would) mount everest and passed a person in difficulty then I would might stop to see if there was anything i could do there and then but as far as i am concerned that person took a risk and have to live or die with that risk. If I got into trouble I would accept my fate and not expect others to risk their lives for me. I would be eternally grateful to anyone who did.

bigyawn

joseph brand wrote: »

What's the bloody point? I've rambled on at length to anyone who would listen to me, that I just see these climbers as selfish gits, hell-bent on climbing the already-climbed.

So, today I discovered an article reflecting my views. Yippee.

http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/05/everest-the-high-altitude-lunatic-asylum.html

Having the same views as the Daily Mail on anything is not a good.

blackwhite

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If nothing else, Westerners climbing Sagarmatha* bring a lot of precious income into the communities around the mountain in Nepal, one of the world's poorest countries and inhabited by hard-working and mostly very nice people. The government in Kathmandu charges fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to climb, and then hundreds of bearers have to be employed. In addition, Sir Edmund Hillary started and ran a foundation that has spent millions on development projects in Nepal. I have seen the peak the easy way, paying about €90 for an early morning call, a taxi to Tribhuvan Airport in Karthmandu and a 70-minute flight to Sagarmatha and back along the main Himalayan chain. :):)

* I always insist on calling the world's highest mountain by its correct name Sagarmatha, the one the Nepalese gave it centuries before an imperialist English git, Andrew Waugh, who was then the British Surveyor General of India, named it after his predecessor in the post, Sir George Everest. The latter had never even seen the mountain nor been aware of its existence.

I prefer Chomolungma if it's all the same to you!

FYI - the name Sagarmātha was devised by the Nepali government in the 1950s to try and stop the locals from using the Tibetan names.

wendell borton

Eiger Nordwand the "mordwand" murder wall is were its at, seriously scary mountain:eek:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger

oranbhoy67

I watched a video the other week of a climbing party just walking by a fellow mountaineer who was sitting huddled up dying in a cave on the "death zone" part of everest. (i dont know if its the guy who is mentioned in this article) its on youtube. What kind of people can do this ??

mess_it

I think climbing over the dead to reach the summit says more about the person than the nature of mountain climbing as a sport!

I remember reading about that whole 'Into Thin Air' incident in the '90s and the Japanese climbing team was roundly condemned by the mountaineering community across the world for not stopping to help some of the victims. One person or teams actions don't account for all climbers' attitudes. TBH that lady should never have been allowed on a team if she had no conscience to help out during an emergency!

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I watched a video the other week of a climbing party just walking by a fellow mountaineer who was sitting huddled up dying in a cave on the "death zone" part of everest. (i dont know if its the guy who is mentioned in this article) its on youtube. What kind of people can do this ??

found it again

Caliden

As long as people do it for themselves and not for some sort of approval from their peers.

homeOwner

These days people who climb everest are piggy backing on the hard work of sherpas who haul the tents, food and equipment up the mountain and set up the multiple camps at stages up the mountain. They go on ahead and lay the ropes and ladders up to the summit and carry oxygen in case someone needs to it.

So its not really an extra ordinary achievement to have a successful climb. Its more likely a genetic ability to survive at those extremes which swings the outcome and probably luck with the weather on the summit day, which the expedition leader decides for you.

So really what is the achievement? I don’t get it.

haminka

ScumLord wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself there. Professional climbers can't rescue their friends but you expect inexperienced tourists to mount rescues? There is no rescue for anyone once they're above a certain height, rescue is impossible.

Inexperienced tourists shouldn't be allowed to climb Mount Everest. That's why the mountain is littered with dead or dying people - because they are allowed to do it for a fat fee. Mount Everest stopped being a real challenge for experienced mountaineers years ago unless they take the Southwest Face route which is technically very difficult.

ScumLord

haminka wrote: »

Inexperienced tourists shouldn't be allowed to climb Mount Everest. That's why the mountain is littered with dead or dying people - because they are allowed to do it for a fat fee.

Totally agree but given the mountains location in a developing country, safety just isn't an issue. People would have to boycott the climb to force the locals to enforce some kind of safety measures.

haminka

ScumLord wrote: »

Totally agree but given the mountains location in a developing country, safety just isn't an issue. People would have to boycott the climb to force the locals to enforce some kind of safety measures.

That's right and sadly, they won't do it. Climbing the Everest has become a new lifestyle challenge after marathon running or sky-diving simply isn't cool enough anymore.

homeOwner

ScumLord wrote: »

Totally agree but given the mountains location in a developing country, safety just isn't an issue. People would have to boycott the climb to force the locals to enforce some kind of safety measures.

What safety measures are you talking about? The sherpas lay ropes and ladders for the climbers above 8000ft to the summit, they escort the climbers up and down and expedition leaders plan the summit climb down to the hour.

The vast majority of deaths on Everest are due to people succumbing to altitude sickness/odema and the weather conditions. A country cant regulate for either of those.

At most you could enforce some sort of control on the numbers summiting on a given day to prevent queues at the upper part of the climb contributing to the time people spend in the death zone, but that's about it.

ScumLord

homeOwner wrote: »

At most you could enforce some sort of control on the numbers summiting on a given day to prevent queues at the upper part of the climb contributing to the time people spend in the death zone, but that's about it.

You shouldn't be allowed to climb it unless you can prove your an expert climber. I don't know how you'd regulate that though.

DEFTLEFTHAND

ScumLord wrote: »

Totally agree but given the mountains location in a developing country, safety just isn't an issue. People would have to boycott the climb to force the locals to enforce some kind of safety measures.

Come on its Everest how safe do you think they can realistically make it. Its all about who you choose to climb with. Companies run by experienced mountaineers offer expeditions to people provided that they are of a certain standard. If you fail to adapt to the conditions or standard expected at any point in your climb you'll made turn back, you won't be allowed jeopardize anyone else's life.

Now if you decide to do it the cheap way with some cowboy outfit then it is very possible that you'll experience major problems.

SomeFool

ScumLord wrote: »

Totally agree but given the mountains location in a developing country, safety just isn't an issue. People would have to boycott the climb to force the locals to enforce some kind of safety measures.

I think most people go into this eyes open though, the biggest dangers on Everest are the altitude and the weather, technically it's not that hard. Beyond restrictions on the numbers allowed to climb I don't see how it can be made safer. No mountain is 'safe' , even our own Carrauntoohil.

Mt Blanc is closer to home and claims more lives every year, it definately sees more chancers trying out mountaineering. You can also see the selfishness in action but not to as extreme a level.

homeOwner

ScumLord wrote: »

You shouldn't be allowed to climb it unless you can prove your an expert climber. I don't know how you'd regulate that though.

Its not a technically difficult mountain. Skill is not the main factor in making it back alive as the work the sherpas do more than compensate for lack of experience. The challenge is the conditions and your ability to think clearly and survive at that altitude. Luck with the weather seems to also play a big part.

Expert climbers die on everest all the time.

haminka

If you watch documentaries on climbing the K2 or Kanchenjunga or any other really difficult mountain or talk to people who climbed them (I had the opportunity to talk to a guy who climbed Nanga Parbat years ago), you see the difference between them and the touristy Everest expeditions. There is a huge difference in their readiness and attitude.

SomeFool

haminka wrote: »

If you watch documentaries on climbing the K2 or Kanchenjunga or any other really difficult mountain or talk to people who climbed them (I had the opportunity to talk to a guy who climbed Nanga Parbat years ago), you see the difference between them and the touristy Everest expeditions. There is a huge difference in their readiness and attitude.

AndyKirkpatrick wrote:

My stock answer is to point out that I’m a climber, and that Everest isn’t a climb, but a walk. This usually gets the person at the other end a bit confused and flustered as they check their notes. “Yes” I usually continue “If you have to step over a dead body half way up then it’s classed as walk. On real climbs the bodies fall to the bottom”.

Linky

joseph brand

kfallon wrote: »

I think it is a bit selfish when this sort of tragedy could occur

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0524/delaneyj.html

Exactly. Didn't think I would have to spell it out but there are families left behind, for what? He's not the first parent of young children to die on the mountain, nor will he be the last.

It's become a sort of deadly pilgrimage.

SomeFool

joseph brand wrote: »

Exactly. Didn't think I would have to spell it out but there are families left behind, for what? He's not the first parent of young children to die on the mountain, nor will he be the last.

I think the fella in question had already invested considerable time and money before his wife became pregnant so decided to continue.

joseph brand wrote: »

It's become a sort of deadly pilgrimage.

Slight exaggeration there. You'd swear there were hundreds of orphans running around Ireland because of this.

joseph brand

SomeFool wrote: »

I think the fella in question had already invested considerable time and money before his wife became pregnant so decided to continue.



Slight exaggeration there. You'd swear there were hundreds of orphans running around Ireland because of this.

He already had 2 young sons. But you're right, he paid his money. :rolleyes:

Also, I never mentioned Ireland.

Maybe it's just me, but, I would much prefer to try to save a life, and head back down the mountain, than continue on and have to live with the 'what ifs'.

Anyway, there'd be no need to save lives on the mountain if narcissistic individuals didn't go putting their lives at risk for their ego. Leaving young children without one of their parents.

SomeFool

joseph brand wrote: »

Anyway, there'd be no need to save lives on the mountain if narcissistic individuals didn't go putting their lives at risk for their ego. Leaving young children without one of their parents.

Shur nobody should ever go anywhere or do anything so. I don't see why someone should drop their dreams and ambitions beacuse they have a family.

I do agree it was poorly thought out and poorly timed though but then not knowing the person or their situation maybe they would heve never had another chance to do it.

Sea Filly

I don't exactly agree with the OP but I did read an interesting article a while back about the commercialisation of Everest and how it is putting more and more inexperienced climbers on the mountain who go with a company and lean on the guides from the company for help with all the tricky parts. The problem is here is that not only can they often get into difficulties themselves, but they would be ill-trained to help others in need also.

karma_ wrote: »

My father is a climber, and he feels extremely strongly on that point also, I believe in the climbing community it's looked very much down upon.

This. An experienced climber wouldn't pass someone by to summit, as they know it's not the done thing, but an Everest tourist might well do.