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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
This is very true. To see this firsthand, try hiking a steep trail of any significant distance (a few miles). Going up isn't so bad. Its like climbing stairs. Coming down is terrible, though. It is very taxing on the joints and much easier to slip over loose gravel.
Supposedly if you're out riding a horse for a long time and you point him toward his barn, he'll rush home and not listen to you b/c he wants to rest.
It's a common problem among mountaineers that once the "goal" has been reached they rush home and make careless mistakes. They rush down "like a horse to a barn"
I've seen this problems in many different expedition sports. Once the perceived danger is past, people let their guard down and get hurt. More often than not people train for the hardest part of an expedition. They put so much effort into getting through that part, that when it's over their brain says, "I've done the hard part, the rest is a foregone conclusion." They forget that the uncertainty of their goal made them fearful which in turn made them concentrate. Once people feel more certain, the fear subsides and takes their concentration with it.
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.
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.
I attended a lecture several years ago by a photographer who has climbed Mt. Everest several times. He said his usual workout was a long session on a stair climber machine, set to maximum difficulty.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_i...