[Closed] Everest Bodies

Everest can't be that sacred to the Nepalese if they're willing to let it be littered with the detritus of such egocentric human endeavours. Their gods must be livid.

I agree Everest has become a sad place.

I think that hopefully we would all choose to help our fellow dying man or woman in the circumstance. However the size and scale of Everest is hard to comprehend when looking at it in the flesh so to speak. If ascending then yes I'd like to think we would all stop and help. If descending and having run low or out of oxygen and suffering from the onset of HACE or PACE and barely managing to keep yourself alive the answer may be very different. Such judgement calls I believe cannot be made whilst sitting at home. Presumably we all like to think we would do the right thing but the answer could only be found out if you were in the hot seat on the mountain.

Truly shocking. Had never realised so many souls had perished up there or that their bodies had never made it home or been buried properly.

Marin - I don't think you can criticise anybody for not attempting a rescue on their own descent. However I do have an issue with those passing by on the way up.

It was a reality in our family my dad has been out many times over the last 25 years when we were young it was our main concern...the last time he was out there was 7 years ago and that was to base camp...he was 73 years old at the time...hes now 80 and wants to go again...its his passion can we stop him no...he has lost many friends mountaineering/climbing it goes with the territory...whenever he speaks about past friends they are always so highly thought of its like they were hero's...which I suppose they were...

I'm not criticising anyone for actions taken just pointing out that its hard to realistically say what you, I, or anyone would do if in the hot seat on the mountainside. Having met a few organised commercial climbing groups in the Himalayas I would rate the chances of them attempting to rescue you or me as very low indeed.

aracer - Member
would you happily pay tens of thousands in order to make an attempt on the summit but abandon it in order to try and save somebody's life? Because for me that would be the reality - I don't think reaching the summit could be so important. Clearly for most people who go up the summit is more important than it would be for me...

Same for me. Despite the fact I am not in least brave - I couldn't leave someone there. Probably because the thought I could have done something would haunt me it I did nothing.

Here's the thing: very normal & decent people attempt Everest, some very normal & decent people become so disorientated that they make terrible decisions. I wouldn't want to be in that environment where such a thing is possible - it disgusts me. So, I wouldn't go. Everest is a sad place for me, a place where good people can & do do terrible things/are forced to have to make awful choices. Choices in any normal environment would never be considered.

No thanks. I'd rather not be faced with such grimness. The price is too high.

My thoughts exactly.

"There is no amount of money which would stop me helping someone live, no matter how slim their chances. I don't know how anyone can live with themselves doing anything else."

And you have been at 8000 metres+ on Everest I assume.
Nope?
Then how about qualifying things a touch.
The reason why I suggested that this thread avoid the moral side is that the world is filled with those who have brilliant things to say (they think) without first hand experience of the situation.
Of course I do apologise if I am posting to a experienced 8000 metre climber who has had things go terribly wrong.

Seems most people would step over some one in the street. Let alone up Everest...

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/epileptic-teenagers-ordeal-after-being-2103420 ]example 1[/url]

[url= http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36788569/#.UojZcX3TXMI ]example 2[/url]

[url= http://www.prisonplanet.com/passers-by-ignored-for-five-hours-pensioner-77-who-had-collapsed-on-city-pavement.html ]example 3[/url]

Could go on. How many thousands of examples do you want of humans in everyday situations ignoring another human in need? It's not nothing to do with mountains.

Is this only a problem on Everest? Will there be as trickle down of this practice to lower altitudes where people end up stepping over bodies on Mt Blanc?

Interesting article on the wider issue of people climbing Everest.

[url= http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/125-everest-maxed-out/jenkins-text ]Here[/url]

"There is no amount of money which would stop me helping someone live, no matter how slim their chances. I don't know how anyone can live with themselves doing anything else."
And you have been at 8000 metres+ on Everest I assume.
Nope?
Then how about qualifying things a touch.
The reason why I suggested that this thread avoid the moral side is that the world is filled with those who have brilliant things to say (they think) without first hand experience of the situation.
Of course I do apologise if I am posting to a experienced 8000 metre climber who has had things go terribly wrong.

Maybe that's where we differ then. I'd rather die trying than not bother to help.

interesting thread, a young lad a few doors down in training for a Everest attempt, young as in would be the youngest from the UK if he did it, his mum is a taxi driver and she was telling me all about him being sponsored by cammel laird and others, I was considering sponsoring him myself but now am not so sure. to be honest I've not met him so don't know what he is like but I really do hope he gets back safe regardless of what happens.

Climbers tend to be a different breed, capable of stepping over their own dying mothers just to summit the stairs

Really, no. But Everest aspirants do seem a bit special. There are cocks in all walks of life, even cycling.

"I'd rather die trying than not bother to help".Thats a bold statement rob, and one I find hard to believe.
Bear in mind that the human body is not developed to survive above 8,000m. Your body begins to shut down. Never been higher than 6,000m but even that is exhausting. Your mental faculties can also start packing in.
I would like to think that if I saw someone dying but could not help, I may spend time with them then turn back, but would not like to face the moral dilema in that situation so I would never go.

Many Everest aspirants will not be particularly capable climbers and will almost certainly not know each other
prior to the expedition. Would you be prepared to die for a complete stranger. I would not. Much rather climb with friends.

Anyone can climb Everest.

Doesn't the photos prove otherwise?

In my experience, (2 Himalayan expeditions in the 90's, one of which was to Everest) your sense of acceptable risk changes as soon as you get off the plane in Kathmandu, and then significantly changes again as you climb above base camp.

A friend, Mike Rheinberger, died on an Everest. An experienced mountaineer, he'd been on Everest many times, but failed to summit. The last time, he took until dusk to reach the top. He would have known that this far too late to descend safely and had to bivi about 30M below the Summit. He died sometime during the following day, having not been able to descend much further.

He would have known the risks involved, and probably realised during the afternoon on the way to the summit that he was unlikely to return safely. I'm sure he knew that rescue was unlikely, and that he would not want anyone to risk their own safety to remove his body.

Removing the bodies from most of the mountain is virtually impossible, and, in my view, not worth the huge risk in trying to do so.

Walking past another climber who is clearly struggling is unforgivable, but I can see how a combination of someone who is focused on the climb, lack of oxygen and severe tiredness can lead them to make the bizarre decisions of not helping another human being in need.

To be certain of rescue you need to be on the hill with a Royal Marines team.

There again, they might just shoot you (and video it as well).........

we're all just in armchairs speculating, we say what we think we'd do in that situation, but none of us know for sure. If you think you do, then youre kidding yourself.

/end thread

I couldn't walk past someone in big trouble on the way up on summit day.

But I can see how you make the decision not to stop and try to help someone in big trouble when you are on the way down, and yourself on the ragged edge of your endurance, with no spare oxygen, clothing or energy.

I couldn't walk past someone in big trouble on the way up on summit day.

But you can happily spend enough money to save any number of lives on a toy to play in the woods?

That's not a personal criticism - we all do it every day, people are dying for a lack of clean water which we could pretty easily fix given the will and the money.
When you climb Everest you do it in the full knowledge that the death rate is around 10% and that the chances of being helped if you get in trouble are pretty low. The reality is that if people did try to help the death rate might well increase.

ti_pin_man - Member
So much armchair speculation as always...

...we're all just in armchairs speculating, we say what we think we'd do in that situation, but none of us know for sure. If you think you do, then youre kidding yourself.

/end thread

Two pretty categorical posts that seem to be saying, STFU because you haven't been there and you don't know. An interesting logic. Does that mean that as a climber who has not gone beyond 15,000ft I cannot comment on mountaineering ethics beyond 20,000ft or perhaps a judge/lawmaker should not pass judgment or make rules regarding murder unless they have experience of murder (murederer or victim) themselves.

We would have v few laws and a very limited body of philosophy and ethics is we all followed your reasoning. Thank goodness that we dont!

Or is "/end thread" the polite way of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, STFU the lot of you."?

True - and if I'm setting out on summit day on Everest, you can assume I've already spunked many thousands getting there and getting kitted up. Obviously the whole exercise, like buying a bling bike, can't be justified at all in those terms. Very little leisure activity can be.

However, people buy cars, bikes, wine, beer, go on foreign holidays, install Sky TV, while people die nasty, preventable deaths all over the world.

So, once we're reconciled that pretty much all people in developed countries are inherently selfish with money, you then deal with the immediacy of seeing someone dying in front of you while you're out adventuring, and how you respond.

I understand that stepping over a dying climber so I can realise my hypothetical dream of climbing Everest is on a fundamental level no worse than any number of deaths I could have already prevented during my comfortable lifetime, but it still requires a response there and then.

So I'd stop on the way up, on the grounds that a life could be saved without necessarily imperilling mine, and possibly not on the way down, on the grounds that an attempt to save a striken climber would most likely end up with two deaths, not one.

Irrational creatures, aren't we?

For most (or even 'all') people wanting to summit Everest it's about bragging rights - and in that sense it's a no-brainer. Tell your sherpa you want to follow a big party full of tourists, wait for one to get in trouble, then bind them in ropes and roll them to the bottom.

Bragging rights in a bar, rescuing someone off Everest puts you in a far more exclusive group than being towed to the top like Homer up the Murderhorn.

And when I'm 99, rich, and weeks from death I'm gonna pay to go up, climb til I can't climb any more, strip down, stand up, face the path, and freeze in place waving my tackle and 'flipping the bird'.

(And I think that that bloke who left a 4x4 on Snowdon should sneak one up Everest and park it on the summit so no-one else can get there without the keys.)

So I'd stop on the way up, on the grounds that a life could be saved without necessarily imperilling mine, and possibly not on the way down, on the grounds that an attempt to save a striken climber would most likely end up with two deaths, not one.

Irrational creatures, aren't we?

Maybe not that irrational at all - having saved a life might well be a much more rewarding experience than having got to the top of a mountain. If you said to me what would I rather achieve then it's a no brainer but Everest is a different environment and everyone goes into it knowing that. Your attitude would probably mean never actually getting to the top as you'd almost always encounter someone who at least appeared to be facing death if you didn't help. And based on that you are never likely to try and climb it. So the end result is that it doesn't attract people who can't pass someone needing help without helping them.

We dont 'get it' as we arent the sort to even attempt such a harsh and very dangerous trip.

Therefore we cant cast judgement. Sorry.

Interesting discussion.

Is there anything published about likely success of rescue from death zone, resources needed, state of person being rescued etc? Is there any empirical basis for either viewpoint? I'm guessing, perhaps not given the extreme nature of the circumstances.

Your attitude would probably mean never actually getting to the top as you'd almost always encounter someone who at least appeared to be facing death if you didn't help. And based on that you are never likely to try and climb it. So the end result is that it doesn't attract people who can't pass someone needing help without helping them.

Kind of the point I was making up there regarding spending 10s of thousands to go and rescue somebody.

Maybe not that irrational at all - having saved a life might well be a much more rewarding experience than having got to the top of a mountain. If you said to me what would I rather achieve then it's a no brainer but Everest is a different environment and everyone goes into it knowing that. Your attitude would probably mean never actually getting to the top as you'd almost always encounter someone who at least appeared to be facing death if you didn't help. And based on that you are never likely to try and climb it. So the end result is that it doesn't attract people who can't pass someone needing help without helping them.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Mountaineering means something completely different to me. TBH as I've got older, most stuff with significant objective dangers is out anyhow. Everest-attempters are a self-selecting group as you say.

Everest-attempters are a self-selecting group as you say.

"People who know the price of everything and the value of nothing" to borrow the words of Oscar Wilde.

I guess it's just an example of how we're supposed to get along as a society. Get to the top/get rich, look after you and yours, and f*ck the rest. The guy freezing to death on the mountain/in the underpass has simply failed at life and should've concentrated harder at school/bought better gear.

I am very interested in this, two excellent reads: Annapurna South Face by Chris Bonnington gives a real insight into just how bloody hard it is to operate at altitude and made me think there is no way I would ever want to try.

Into Thin Air gives a great insight into why things go wrong on Everest and makes the point about high acheiver type people who are used to calling the shots and getting their own way and have a sense of entitlement because they have paid lots of money, and the clash with the more timid Sherpa's who may say "you are going too slow you should turn around" but get ignored or don't feel able to be more assertive. Also the numbing effect of altitude and exhaustion upon the mind and ability to make rational decisions.

Either way - you wouldn't catch me going up Everest.

Just out of interest, is there an aircraft out there that's capable of reliably landing on the summit of Everest?

Just out of interest, is there an aircraft out there that's capable of reliably landing on the summit of Everest?

Not reliably.

http://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html

Is there anything published about likely success of rescue from death zone, resources needed, state of person being rescued etc? Is there any empirical basis for either viewpoint? I'm guessing, perhaps not given the extreme nature of the circumstances.

Anatoli Boukreev's book The Climb (probably best read after Into Thin Air) at least shows that it can be done, from which you might say 'It's at least worth a try'. I appreciate that can be done and worth a try are not generally considered as statistically accurate! In fact I don't think this really helps, but it's a good read nonetheless.

I guess it's just an example of how we're supposed to get along as a society. Get to the top/get rich, look after you and yours, and f*ck the rest. The guy freezing to death on the mountain/in the underpass has simply failed at life and should've concentrated harder at school/bought better gear.

I don't think its like that really.

But opinions differ.

In terms of rescues - Touching the Void shows how it can and can't be done all at the same time I think.

And one guy who was left for dead for hours and hours was then rescued in Into Thin Air.

That's interesting... So you can fly helicopters, presumably given the conditions that's impractical in bad conditions which will rule out a lot of rescues but surely it opens up recoveries, cleanups etc? You don't need to carry everyone or everything out, and you don't need to land the chopper.

Course, that's a slippery slope, if you can lift stuff out then how long before people start wanting supply caches dropped in? All in the name of safety of course.

Is it still an achievement to "climb" Everest? Genuine interest. I always imagine Sherpa's pushing fat, rich westerners up in wheelchairs or up ladders. Are there any shops at the top?

hora - Member
We dont 'get it' as we arent the sort to even attempt such a harsh and very dangerous trip.
Therefore we cant cast judgement. Sorry.

I think that's a cop out.

That link was truly grim, and I regret clicking on it. I've seen some online carnage in my time, but it's the abandonment that's disturbing. I realise removing or burying them isn't an option, but what a hellish place it must be.
Though it has stimulated some interesting discussion. Seems to boil down to the fact that none of us (I hope) would want to ignore a dying person - but Everest's such an extreme environment it wouldn't be practical to try and help them.
And for those reasons, you can keep it.

jambourgie - Member
Is it still an achievement to "climb" Everest? Genuine interest. I always imagine Sherpa's pushing fat, rich westerners up in wheelchairs or up ladders. Are there any shops at the top?

For those that don't think it is or state it's 'easy', give it a go and see. I predict a rapid change of opinion... Even the wealthy socialites are putting it all on the line to get up it and tho this may not be a purist mountaineers cup tea, they demand some recognition for this. Remember, even Bonners took several attempts and needed supplementary oxygen to get up it (albeit at 60).

FTR, I haven't done it but I have done a couple of smaller Himalayan bumps.

I don't get it, to ignore a person dying so you can get a sense of achievement doing something that's already been done thousands of times is completely beyond me..
It strikes me as a selfish fools folly..

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Silence-Mallory-Conquest-Everest/dp/0375708154

Best everest book ive read.. into thin air, touching the void, no way down (k2) etc are all good too but nowt on this one.

It is a fascinating mountain. Is there anything else like it in terms of "adventure tourism" where people pay tens of thousands for the experience yet 1 in 10 don't make it home? I suspect the grim realities of the mountain is a big part of the draw for some of the fee paying clients and that seeing dying/dead tourists just adds to the experience and makes for a better story when/if you get home 😕

khani - Member

I don't get it, to ignore a person dying so you can get a sense of achievement doing something that's already been done thousands of times is completely beyond me..
It strikes me as a selfish fools folly..

Let's change the scenario.

You've trained for a year to run the Safaricom* Marathon with a respectable personal best of, let's say 3 and a half hours. You've invested hours, days of your time in training, and incurred plenty of cost both in terms of personal life and financial.

You are just a mile from the end and well within your target time and the bloke in front of you collapses. He's having a heart attack.

Based on a some of the above you'd be within your rights, morally, to just run past and let him die and achieve your target. You don't know him. He's not part of your team. He's just a stranger.

Of course, if you could blame your lack of help on the altitude.....

*I picked the Safaricom as there won't be any spectators a mile from the finish.

Nope, I still don't get it..
Though I'd trample your granny to make the bar for last orders...

If there was a strong chance of you dying rather than just failing to complete a race in a set time if you stopped and helped, it would be a fair comparison.

I don't think there is any moral justification for not helping in your scenario, but that doesn't necessarily apply to some circumstances in which you come across someone in trouble at high altitude, and while
I'm sure some people have ignored people struggling when they could have helped in order to get to the top, others have done so because they are already in extremis, and barely able to get themselves down, let alone someone else who cannot stand up or walk, cannot tie in, is snowblind etc.

Sorry khani - I was vaguely agreeing with you! 😀

"adventure tourism" where people pay tens of thousands for the experience yet 1 in 10 don't make it home?

That's not really an accurate figure.

Since 2000 there have been 69 deaths and 5048 successful summits

So more like 1.4 in 100 rather than 1 in 10

And that's not counting all the many many unsuccessful summit attempts that aren't included in the above numbers.

It's still pretty harsh, but 1 in 10 is a bit off.

Oh.. 😳 it's hard to tell on here sometimes..

mrblobby - Member

Is there anything else like it in terms of "adventure tourism" where people pay tens of thousands for the experience yet 1 in 10 don't make it home?

Glentress black. You buy your Orange Five and your Audi but nothing prepares you for the redemption climb. Place is littered with corpses. I had to kick an accountant in the face to complete my lap the other day- I'm sure he'd understand.

Glentress black.

The similarities are surprising. Middle aged men sat by the side of the trail desperately removing layers and looking bewildered.

And queuing to enter the more technical sections.

I think that's a cop out.

No its not. You are in a very savage and cruel part of nature. Everyone who goes up there KNOWS its very dangerous.

Just as when a ready supply of food runs out in a natural disaster, people suddenly become more primitive. You have to.

We can sit in our warm offices though, throwing scorn by the shedload at those who don't fit our idea of chivalry and justice.

Glentress black. You buy your Orange Five and your Audi but nothing prepares you for the redemption climb. Place is littered with corpses. I had to kick an accountant in the face to complete my lap the other day- I'm sure he'd understand.

😆

reminds me of that change a movie title by one letter [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/think-of-a-film-remove-one-letter-from-the-title-describe-the-film/page/6#post-3760413 ]thread[/url]:

Rusty Spanner:
Ride & Prejudice - The tragic tale of a man who turns up at Llandegla in a Lada with an Apollo on the roof.
He is shunned.

I still giggle over that one, best STW post ever.

If 1 in 10 die just trying to get themselves on/off the top that tells you it's beyond anything normal. How many would die trying to carry someone with them? 9 in 10?

It's not like having a bit of a walk in the snow.

If 1 in 10 die just trying to get themselves on/off the top

Don't repeat the false information.

It makes it sound true.

I'm not saying it's not harsh, but 1 in 10 isn't true.

5thElefant - Member

If 1 in 10 die just trying to get themselves on/off the top that tells you it's beyond anything normal. How many would die trying to carry someone with them? 9 in 10?

It's not like having a bit of a walk in the snow.

Couldn't you be bothered reading any of the thread?

This is 7 posts above you:

That's not really an accurate figure.

Since 2000 there have been 69 deaths and 5048 successful summits

So more like 1.4 in 100 rather than 1 in 10

And that's not counting all the many many unsuccessful summit attempts that aren't included in the above numbers.

It's still pretty harsh, but 1 in 10 is a bit off.

Of course, 1 in 10 makes it sound so much more romantic, doesn't it? (And maybe also gives more justification to those who walk past people who they may be to help..)

I've been in a blizzard at 5,500 metres. I was exhausted, confused and disorientated due to the lack of oxygen and visibility. I can't imagine how difficult it would be at 8,000 metres+.

hora - Member

Just as when a ready supply of food runs out in a natural disaster, people suddenly become more primitive. You have to.

We can sit in our warm offices though, throwing scorn by the shedload at those who don't fit our idea of chivalry and justice.

My office is currently freezing, so can I get a scorn-throwing pass?

Couldn't you be bothered reading any of the thread?

Couldn't you be bothered reading any of the thread?

Not really, no.

At least you are honest about it I suppose 😐

It does make your contribution a bit pointless though.

So more like 1.4 in 100 rather than 1 in 10

Apologies, my mistake. Sure i read 1 in 10 over the entire history of the mountain somewhere in one of the earlier links. Either way it's probably more relevant to consider a recent timeframe.

Just for reference Wikipedia says...

There have been 219 fatalities recorded on Mount Everest from the 1922 British Mount Everest Expedition through the end of 2010, a rate of 4.3 fatalities for every 100 summits (this is a general rate, and includes fatalities amongst support climbers, those who turned back before the peak, those who died en route to the peak and those who died while descending from the peak). Of the 219 fatalities, 58 (26.5%) were climbers who had summited but did not complete their descent.[78] Though the rate of fatalities has decreased since the year 2000 (1.4 fatalities for every 100 summits, with 3938 summits since 2000), the significant increase in the total number of climbers still means 54 fatalities since 2000: 33 on the northeast ridge, 17 on the southeast ridge, 2 on southwest face, and 2 on north face.[78]

Apologies, my mistake. Sure i read 1 in 10 over the entire history of the mountain somewhere in one of the earlier links.

The figure over the entire history up to last season would be something like 3.8 deaths per 100 successful summits.

I wonder what the figure is for non-Sherpa climbers? Obviously I know that Sherpas do die on Everest, but less frequently above 8000m - and most guided expeditions would include quite a few sherpas summiting as part of the team. I think there was one sherpa recently reported has having more than 20 visits to the top.

Would skew the figures about death rate above 8000m a bit, I suppose, although perhaps not back up to the 1 in 10 figure so often quoted.

Three numbers relate to the period 1921 - 2006 so not totally up to date :

The overall mortality rate was 1.3 percent, the rate for climbers (mostly non-natives) at 1.6 percent and the rate for Sherpas, natives of the region and usually acclimatized to high elevations, at 1.1 percent.

So no, still nowhere near 1 in 10.

I wonder what the figure is for non-Sherpa climbers?

All the stats:

http://www.adventurestats.com/tables/EverestAgeFat.shtml

Wow those stats are interesting:

Everest up to 2007 - 3000 summits and approx 200 deaths
K2 up to 2008 - 300 summits and 77 deaths!

I knew K2 was harder and more dangerous than Everest but I didn't realise how much more dangerous.

There have been a couple of bad years on Everest since those stats finish so the numbers will have risen a fair bit since then.

Not as bad as Annapurna... from Wikipedia...

Annapurna I has the greatest fatality rate of all the 14 eight-thousanders: as of March 2012, there have been 52 deaths during ascents, 191 successful ascents, and nine deaths upon descent, which means that "for every three thrill-seekers that make it safely up and down Annapurna I, one dies trying."[7] That same ratio is at or above six-to-one for all of the other eight-thousanders, except for K2 and Nanga Parbat.[7] Climbers killed on the peak include Russian Anatoli Boukreev in 1997, Spaniard Iñaki Ochoa in 2008,[19] and Korean Park Young-seok, lost in 2011.[20]

throwing scorn by the shedload at those who don't fit our idea of chivalry and justice.

This sentence needs a rewrite.

Cheers Mr Blobby - I need to re-read that Chris Bonnigton book on his Annapurna ascent, it was gripping.