[Closed] Corpses on Everest

[i]lol thats nuts[/i]

The place sickens me. Brings out the worst in people.

The body building forum? Yeah, I know what you mean.
I like this on the first page of a body building forum thread...

[i]What is the point of climbing a mountain? [/i]

Apart from the fact that it's someones loved one paraded on an internet froum for cheap titilation why would you post that? Everest is strange. It's a place where it's suddenly acceptable to step over a dying man to carry on as you were and leave them to die on their own with no human comfort. Just because you are at high altitudes doesn't mean you forget your humanity. Ronald naar was a partciclarly good example being filmed in a tent on everst listening to a dying man pleading for help whilst saying to the camera " there's no point he's already going to die"

It's grim alright - the place is becoming a tomb. Not sure I could tolerate passing all those corpses on the way to my personal conquest.

cheap titilation

I don't think that was the OP's intent; more reflection on the horror of it.

Speechless. RIP

I don't think its [i]acceptable[/i] tazzy, just nothing they can do about it.

Summit fever. A very strange terminal disease that attacks normally sane healthy people. A bit like what happens to middle-aged born-again motorcyclists on summer weekends.

Just because you are at high altitudes doesn't mean you forget your humanity. Ronald naar was a partciclarly good example being filmed in a tent on everst listening to a dying man pleading for help whilst saying to the camera " there's no point he's already going to die"

Kind of depends on whether in helping someone you are placing yourself at risk or not. First rule of rescue, don't become a casualty.

I'm sure there are plenty of situations even in this country when people say that there's no point in helping people as they are sure to die. It's not a pleasant thought but it is reality in some situations.

I don't think its acceptable tazzy, just nothing they can do about it.

They could give him some bloody comfort.

I did my ML with a guy who had summited,Phil Sanderson. He was telling us that there are companies who will take ANYONE up. They have a loss rate of 50% 😯

I think people who climb Everest know the rules of the game, and would not expect someone else to jeopardise their life or give up their own climb just to say some nice words before they die.

Once you've made the decision to leave the last camp all the rules change, nobody can afford to operate on 'normal' standards, if you did the result will be two bodies instead of just one.

No climber goes up there without knowing the facts of the full risks ....... whether they all really, really grasp the full reality and finality of the consequences of the smallest error ........ not until it happens perhaps?

They could give him some bloody comfort.

You would die on Everest.

If it wouldnt be so detrimental to the nepalese economy and people I'd hope that they'd close everest to climbers.

take the risk, suffer the consequences.

alpine mountaineering is a very selfish sport, ask mr bonnington, he will agree.

If it wouldnt be so detrimental to the nepalese economy and people I'd hope that they'd close everest to climbers.

This

There was a cleanup last year.

They should tax the climbers more, enough to send a few parties up a year sto clean their mess up. It's not just the bodies the whole place is a mess.

Whoops

" there's no point he's already going to die"

It's probably true that Naar could not help him medically, or even move him to a safer location (the storm made it extremely dangerous to move).

The point is that Naar offered no succor, which some consider inhumane. Joe Simpson makes a point that it was the lonelyness of his impending death that was most horrible.

I suspect it's not cut-and-dried, it was a dire situation for everyone and Naar probably felt a keen responsibility to his team, to survive and possible still climb, but not anyone else. An also perhaps, that he was just too terrified of confronting the horror. This is not an excuse BTW.

I take the point that extreme/near-death situations can bring out the worst. But they can also show the best: Boukreev's efforts, for example. Regardless of whether you liked Anatoli's style, he did a lot to help people, up to the limit of is considerable power.

The idea that someones summit bid comes before even attempting to save someones life sickens me to the core.

Sooner they whack a train up it and pop a cafe on top the better!!

You would die on Everest

No, I wouldn't. I would probably take many attempts to reach the summit tho.

[i]You would die on Everest[/i]

He means if you tried to confort someone instead of concentrating on your own survival.

That rather depends on the situation.

Exactly SbZ.
The excuse of well if I helped it would endanger my life doesn't wash. Knowing that information beforehand means that if you choose to climb you choose to give up your humanity. And to gain what? A tick that is so devalued these days as to be not much more noteworthy than running the London Marathon,

He means if you tried to confort someone instead of concentrating on your own survival.

This.^

I was not commenting on your climbing abilities Molgrips. You might be the human embodiment of a mountain goat for all I know.

Like these fellas:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Molgrips - I'm guessing that, from your comments, you'll never be in that situation and will never understand the mentality of those who go there.

I'm not saying that I do but I don't think it's fair to judge people in such extreme circumstances from the comfort of your desktop. As said above, no one climbs Everest without an understanding of the associated risks. I don't think "comfort" is a word used much there.

IanMunro I think that devalues the achievement of climbing Everest somewhat. How many people have died trying to run the London marathon?
I have huge respect for anyone that has tried to climb Everest, mainly because 1 simple mistake / error / bad decision could cause failure or death. Marathon running whilst hard going is unlikely to bring the normal participant to the edge of the abyss.
Im not trying to justify the callousness of it, but I can at least understand it.

I would probably take many attempts to reach the summit tho.

Thing is, you don't GET many attempts - you don't have the strength (mental or physical) and you don't have the time and you don't have the money.

A tick that is so devalued these days as to be not much more noteworthy than running the London Marathon,

I think perhaps that's the crux of the problem. Some people [i]don't[/i] see it as a difficult challenge any more, and go into it thinking "loads of people have done this."

Well that's a fair point.

What I was trying to say though was that whilst obviously not putting myself in enormous jeopardy I would consider it very important to comfort a dying man. The point about making many attempts is that whilst I would like to climb a high mountain such as this I would not risk too much to do it like some people do.

Of course one cannot judge based on a few small bits of information.

It's probably true that Naar could not help him medically, or even move him to a safer location (the storm made it extremely dangerous to move).

The point is that Naar offered no succor, which some consider inhumane. Joe Simpson makes a point that it was the lonelyness of his impending death that was most horrible

Ironically, Naar died on a mountain last month. Would be interesting to know if anyone ignored his plight.

and will never understand the mentality of those who go there.

TBH, I don't want to. I've met some people who went on one of those overpriced "trips" - selfish bastards the lot of 'em.

I have huge respect for anyone that has tried to climb Everest

I have more respect for a nurse.

The idea that someones summit bid comes before even attempting to save someones life sickens me to the core.

What would you realistically expect to achieve high up on Everest? It is likely that the only thing you would end up doing is to put yourself at risk.

As for banning an activity that you consider to be dangerous, well I certainly don't agree with that. Provided everyone is made fully aware of the risks and consequnces, I see no reason to ban it.

I have respect for people that climb a new route up everest, or climb it in winter, but none for those people that get dragged up the tourist route.

deadlydarcy - Member

I have more respect for a nurse.

8)

[edit] did you have a particular nurse in mind? TJ is one too y'know... 😆

I have more respect for a nurse.

So if a nurse climbed Everest, you would just feel ambivalent?

What is it with human nature that so many people feel the need to save others from themselves?

If you start going beyond dealing with the normal risk reduction (even at this high level*) where do you stop? and where will you end up with a basic human need totally smothered and sanitised?

*excuse pun.

did you have a particular nurse in mind? TJ is one too y'know...

YGM... 😉

You will wear that outfit again won't you? x

[i]I have huge respect for anyone that has tried to climb Everest, mainly because 1 simple mistake / error / bad decision could cause failure or death.[/i]

Ah well I have pretty much no respect for anyone who's climbs Everest. It's neither an indication of extreme technical merit, of physical endurance, or pushing the boundaries of human achievement. It does however often appear to be an example of someone placing their own personal desires above consideration of anything else.

Out of interest, have you read "Dark shadows falling", and what was your take on it? If you haven't it's well worth reading.

There's plenty of stories of climbers giving up summit bids to rescue fellow climbers.
[url= http://www.everestspeakersbureau.com/danmazur.htm ]Clicky[/url]

*excuse pun.

Never.

You could have also gone for mounting risk.

There's plenty of stories of climbers giving up summit bids to rescue fellow climbers

...... but in the death zone of Everest?

or give up their own climb

you don't have the time and you don't have the money

I think this sums it up perfectly. You have only a limited time and money and this the notion that you must use this one opportunity takes over.
Money rules over life or at least compassion.

Like a bike racer who ploughs over a fallen rider because his one chance of 'glory' cannot be missed.

Thread divert -

I do not have more respect for a nurse.

I don't think many choose that job out of altruism - it's just like any other job, and most are $hits.

I do have more respect for a nurse who does it for free, or a nurse who is a nurse even though she's qualified enough to be doing something more highly paid. But most don't/aren't. Teachers, too. Always the first to be complaining about City types without acknowledging that City types study and train for far more years. People who work in manufacturing/engineering objecting to the financial sector - that's different, and fairer.

/Rant.

Most teachers IME do it because they love teaching kids. I suspect altruism plays a big part in why they love teaching kids.

Money, compassion, desire. None have anything to do with it once you are that far there is no choice, other than - survival or death.

jhw - how many years does a "city" type train for?

Apart from the fact that it's someones loved one paraded on an internet froum for cheap titilation why would you post that? Everest is strange. It's a place where it's suddenly acceptable to step over a dying man to carry on as you were and leave them to die on their own with no human comfort. Just because you are at high altitudes doesn't mean you forget your humanity. Ronald naar was a partciclarly good example being filmed in a tent on everst listening to a dying man pleading for help whilst saying to the camera " there's no point he's already going to die"

It's an interesting ethical problem I guess, but they put themselves in that situation knowing the risks, you'd risk [fairly significantly I believe, I don't know for sure] yourself to do anything about it, so it's tough. I suspect it's more difficult to accept in yourself than you make out, I doubt they just look across, smile and keep going, but you have to deal with unpleasant things in life - so deal with it, or don't go.

[i]Money, compassion, desire. None have anything to do with it once you are that far there is no choice, other than - survival or death.[/i]

But the choice was made by an individual beforehand. You can't just absolve yourself and say I had no choice at the time. Well I guess some do to ease there sleep.

I have respect for people that climb a new route up everest, or climb it in winter, but none for those people that get dragged up the tourist route.

I suggest you try climbing at that altitude before you make blanket statements like this.

Varies but all the bankers I know did degrees in economics/finance and then spent a couple of years training, lawyers take 6 years, accountants about 2-3 depending. For traders it may be different. On top of that, to pass interviews for a top investment bank or law firm (one of the ones paying telephone number salaries) you generally have to have been at a top (as in top three) university, generally with a First, straight As at A-level, and extracurriculars - basically busted your ass the whole way through. Not necessarily so with teaching, definitely not so with nurses. I'm not saying they're not great things to do. I am saying the sanctimonious words I often hear them saying about the City grates. It's easy to take a moral stance against bankers if you know you haven't got a chance of being one yourself.

DrJ - 6495m is high enough for me thanks.

JHW - So how long do you think it takes a nurse, teacher or whatever to qualify?

All the City workers I know were the hardest working people at my school, sustained for years

Most (not all) of the teachers/nurses (mainly teachers I admit) (I would stress not all) I know were the ones smoking weed out the back of a skoda outside the school gates at 2pm listening to drum n bass maaan

But the choice was made by an individual beforehand. You can't just absolve yourself and say I had no choice at the time. Well I guess some do to ease there sleep.

That's exactly it! Everone goes up knowing what might happen and what they might have to face! absolve is not an option, they have to face it and deal with it.

So how long does it take a teacher or a nurse to qualify?

Incidently how long do you think it takes a physio to get to specialist level or senior level in old money?

2 years for a PGCE no?; nurses longer; I take your point...but what grades do you actually have to get into the postgrad course in the first place/then the job? 2 Cs a D a GNVQ in tourism and 2:2 from TVU...

*today's provocative Friday...*

But the choice was made by an individual beforehand. You can't just absolve yourself and say I had no choice at the time. Well I guess some do to ease there sleep.

Thing is, the choice was made beforehand by the person who's dead/dying too, they knew the risks. They all know the risks. You're responsible for yourself, not others (unless they're kids/unable to make that choice themselves). I do wish society would stop trying to force reponsibility onto other people for individuals actions.

To go up the lump, find yourself in trouble and then expect others to help (be it personally or for other people to expect others to help) is totally unfair. Much akin to expecting people to walk into a minefield to save you when you decided to go playing football in it. If you expect any other response than "sod off" you're a fool, if someone chooses to help you'd better realise they're risking everything for your stupidity.

The point about "they're certain to die anyway" doesn't stack up, though. What about Lincoln Hall? He was left for dead, and survived to tell the tale.

jhw - PGCE takes 2 years including the probationer year, but what do you need to have before you can start a POSTGRADUATE certificate of education? Yip that's it - a degree. You need a 2:1 minimum and a shed load of voluntary work to even get an interview for teaching.

As for nursing - again it's a degree course, but it's a degree course where you get no summer break. So the equivalent of doing a 5 year degree if you count up all the hours and even with that you start at the very bottom of the pile.

The answer to my physio question is that it takes a minimum of 8 years to get to specialist or senior physio.

The point about "they're certain to die anyway" doesn't stack up, though. What about Lincoln Hall? He was left for dead, and survived to tell the tale.

There will always be the one that beats the odds but how high odds would you (if you were in the situation) be prepared to risk to help?

Noted - I humbly dismount my hobby horse. And it's true that it's very easy to get into City law if you have some money. I still dunno about the tendency for people to beautify teachers and nurses and shame City workers...sort of an inverse of calling all soldiers "heroes"...but I digress.

Jesus, anyway, what a story:

"Lincoln Hall was left for dead while descending from the summit of Mount Everest May 25, 2006, after suffering from a form of altitude sickness that caused him to hallucinate and become confused. According to reports, Sherpas attempted a rescue for hours, but as night began to fall, their oxygen supplies diminished and snow blindness set in, they were ordered by their expedition leader Alexander Abramov to leave an apparently dead Hall on the mountain and return to camp. A statement was later released announcing his death to his friends and family.[2]

However, the next morning at 7am (12 hours later) Hall was found still alive at 8:53 a.m. by a team making a summit attempt. The team consisted of Daniel Mazur Team Leader (US), Andrew Brash (Canada), Myles Osborne (UK) and Jangbu Sherpa (Nepal). Myles Osborne described the scene just below the Second Step:

"Sitting to our left, about two feet from a 10,000 foot drop, was a man. Not dead, not sleeping, but sitting cross legged, in the process of changing his shirt. He had his down suit unzipped to the waist, his arms out of the sleeves, was wearing no hat, no gloves, no sunglasses, had no oxygen mask, regulator, ice axe, oxygen, no sleeping bag, no mattress, no food nor water bottle. 'I imagine you're surprised to see me here', he said. Now, this was a moment of total disbelief to us all. Here was a gentleman, apparently lucid, who had spent the night without oxygen at 8600m, without proper equipment and barely clothed. And ALIVE."

A rescue effort that mountain observers described as "unprecedented in scale" then swung into action. Dan Mazur and his team abandoned their summit attempt to stay with Hall who was badly frostbitten and delusional from the effects of severe cerebral edema, while a rescue team of 12 Sherpas, dispatched by Abramov, climbed up from below. The rescue team comprised Nima Wangde Sherpa, Passang Sherpa, Furba Rushakj Sherpa, Dawa Tenzing Sherpa, Dorjee Sherpa, Mingma Sherpa, Mingma Dorjee Sherpa, Pemba Sherpa, Pemba Nuru Sherpa, Passang Gaylgen Sherpa, and Lakcha Sherpa.

Hall was brought down the mountain, walking the last part of the way to Everest's North Col where he was treated by a Russian doctor. Hall arrived at Advanced Base Camp the next day in reasonably good health although suffering frostbite and recovering from the effects of cerebral edema. He lost the tips of his fingers and a toe due to frostbite.[3]

Hall's survival and rescue on the mountain, while extraordinary, is not unprecedented. It was, however, especially poignant due to the death days earlier of UK climber David Sharp who had died nearby. It was observed that no attempt was made to rescue David Sharp, although it was apparent that, while unconscious, he was still alive while other climbers passed him and continued on their own ascents. However, it must be noted that unlike David Sharp, Hall was conscious and able to walk, two factors that allowed for his rescue. The case had raised concerns, including comments from Sir Edmund Hillary. Dan Mazur perhaps summed things up best when he said, reflecting on his team abandoning their summit attempt, "The summit is still there and we can go back. Lincoln only has one life.""

DrJ - 6495m is high enough for me thanks.

Well, that's an achievement deserving of respect, in my eyes.But apparently not in your own ... I wonder why you bothered?

All I know is, it's very easy to be morally 'correct' / superior about it from the comfort of the interwebs.

I'd like to think that if I found myself on Everest with the chance to help or comfort a dying climber, that we'd do as much as we could.

But if it ever came to the crunch ... ?

Ultimately, you could be sacrificing your own life.

One thing I do believe is that in today's world human life has been severely cheapened in so many ways.

For all those that are that concerned about it, get hold of the facts about the environment at the summit, get hold of the stats and any other evidence you can gather.........

........ and do a risk assessment!!

Then leave the adventurers to get on with it and you carry on your lives within your own boundaries.

My big problem with climbers on everest is that they feel its OK to just dump their rubbish. Theres no need for that, if you can carry it uphill then you can carry it down. And if you cant be bothered then you shouldnt do it at all.

There will always be the one that beats the odds but how high odds would you (if you were in the situation) be prepared to risk to help?

I'd be prepared to abandon my own summit attempt if I found him alive. Luckily, that's exactly what happened - jhw has posted the details above. Hall's book is an interesting read, btw.

One thing I do believe is that in today's world human life has been severely cheapened in so many ways.

To be honest, I think the opposite is true.

DrJ - why would climbing to 6495m deserve respect? It was a holiday. We climbed it because the opportunity presented itself. We most certainly wouldnt have risked anyones life to get to the top.

Another perspective from a friend's blog a few years ago. (he's a climber/mountaineer too)

Thursday, July 20, 2006
Judge rules that climbing Everest is dangerous

Without wishing to speak ill of the dead, Micheal Matthews is just the latest in a string of unfortunates with more money than sense who thought that $40,000 was an adequate substitute for skill, experience and judgement. There's nothing new about it, over-wealthy FHM readers have been carking-it on Everest for years, but because these people don't bother to find out what they're getting into there's always plenty of fresh avalanche fodder. There's probably a few out at base camp now, having the 'ultimate adventure' supplied (for a small recompense, of course) by X-Treme Fanny-Magnet Adventures, Ltd. I have very little sympathy for them. I do however note that nobody throws their hands in the air in horror and starts threatening court action every time a Sherpa with a wife and five kids to feed gets killed by his client's ambition and incompetence. The whole farce hearkens back to the Victorian era of mountaineering, when first ascents were always accredited to 'gentlemen' (i.e. rich British toff being dragged up on a rope) as opposed to 'professionals' (i.e. competent local doing the dragging).

Some will accuse me of insensitivity - but hey, that's mountaineering for you. If you choose to stick your dick in a bee's nest that's your prerogative, but don't sue the beekeeper when you get stung.

I don't know why these people bother to climb Everest anyway, it's not as if there's much actual 'climbing' on the South Col route. You could get the same experience at a fraction of the cost by going into an airtight, refrigerated meat-locker and spending thirty six hours on a stairmaster.

One thing I do believe is that in today's world human life has been severely cheapened in so many ways.

Children with knives spring to mind, there are so many more important issues to deal with before worrying about egos up mountains!

Nedrapier that has got to be post of the day

"What is it with human nature that so many people feel the need to save others from themselves?"

Compassion is as powerful an instinct as self-interest, for normally-wired people, possibly more powerful in the right circumstances.

Although both situations troubled the authorities and invited climbing bans, the situation on Everest/K2 is not the same as for the Eiger Nordwand in the early 20th century.

* The Nordwand was unexplored and young, ambitious climbers were testing the new limits in mountaineering. This mountaineering spirit continues today and finds respect.

* But Everest/K2 seems to be a toxic cocktail of money and personal obsession which is what makes it somewhat uglier.

Those NHS nurses I have met recently are very clearly compassionate toward the patients they administer - some more some less. The idea that they are just in it for the money? No, I don't think so.

Moe - Member
For all those that are that concerned about it, get hold of the facts about the environment at the summit, get hold of the stats and any other evidence you can gather.........

........ and do a risk assessment!!

Then leave the adventurers to get on with it and you carry on your lives within your own boundaries.

This is opening up a good point. Most of the "adventurers" are on expensive expeditions and being guided up. The experts are the guides, the guides say what goes. the punters aren't going to go off doing things the guides don't sanction, because that's how you get get killed.

The guides themselves have absolute responsibility for the people they're being paid to guide. Making decisions that increase the risks to the group that's relying on you for their lives is a little different to making decisions that only affect you. Just another factor in the decision making that might not be obvious.

j_me - They should tax the climbers more, enough to send a few parties up a year sto clean their mess up. It's not just the bodies the whole place is a mess.

And risk more lives? It's no cakewalk, even for those who have done it multiple times.. plenty of sherpas have also died over the years (and from general altitude sickness too, not just because of accidents and helping out tourists), they just don't get the headlines.

Yes. Are you suggesting it's acceptable to leave the South Col in such a mess?

j_me. don't think he is. read it again.