Thing is, Camp Three is an eagles nest clinging to the Lohtse Face at 23,600ft. It is hard to get to and hard to leave in any direction. Bringing a body down may be impossible.
Were they experienced climbers?
People who do this kind of thing require a huge amount of calories and fluids too, which is difficult because in many cases, the appetite disappears as does the sensation of thirst.
Aspidistra, keep us posted on how he’s doing.
30,000+ die annually on American roads. Many driving for no practical purpose. Since we are all still mortal why not live life as you desire?
What’s the denominator?
Always useful to know the relative size of the denominators when trying to compare and assess risk.
What fraction of drivers die on the roads? What fraction of Everest summit-attempters die on Everest?
Look, climbing Everest obviously appeals to some folks. And if this is something that somebody desperately wants to do, and they’re willing to accept the risks, more power to them.
But I don’t get it. The sense I have from reading about Everest is that it really is no longer the experience it once was–that the mountain is dirty, and crowded, and “tamed” with clearly delineated paths and fixed ropes set by underpaid, overworked Sherpas, to say nothing of the experienced “tour guides” who are hired by most climbers these days. When I was a boy, “climbing Mount Everest” seemed to signify one of the most remarkable things anyone could do. Now–not so much. I’m not going to say it’s “easy,” clearly it isn’t that, but I’ve read a lot of descriptions of people who were essentially steered up the mountain and brought back down again, the beneficiaries of good fortune and other people’s expertise more than their own skill. It sounds like both the climbers who died were more experienced than that, but… From where I sit, learning that someone climbed Everest elicits much more of a yawn than it did back then. It’s lost much of its luster, and I’m not sure what it’s supposed to demonstrate these days. It makes me think, “Wow, you sure had a lot of money and a lot of help,” not, “Wow, you sure are a brave adventurer.”
Maybe that’s not fair and maybe that’s not reasonable. But I doubt I’m the only person who has that reaction. Judging from some of the comments above, I’m pretty sure I’m not.
I agree that not everyone sees the value. I ski and there is some risks to that but I’m not going to let the risk stop me. I personally don’t see the appeal to mountain climbing. It’s not for me.
But I don’t think something like Mt. Everest is foolish and perhaps I’m wrong. I tend to think that “extreme” sports participants are foolish. That to me is too much risk for too little reward. But I’m just not comfortable drawing that line for others.
Of the fourteen 8000m peaks, Everest is actually one of the safest on a fatality rate basis. About 4% of climbers die in the attempt. Contrast that to K2, on which it’s 27%, or Annapurna, where it’s 33%. And over 5500 people have successfully climbed Everest, whereas K2 is just around 300 and Annapurna is under 200. I suspect the rate on Everest would be even lower if it weren’t for underqualified people with misguided ambitions up there for a thrill–those same folks wouldn’t dare try K2 or Annapurna.
That article says Dr. Strydom was trying to climb the Seven Summits, which is nice, but the Himalayas are a very different animal. She had done Aconcagua but that’s a full 6000m shorter than Everest. I’m not sure she really knew what she was getting into. When I think of impressive, highly qualified climbers, I think of someone like Ed Viesturs, who has done all 8000m peaks (some multiple times) without oxygen. Not someone who has done a chunk of the Seven Summits.
From what I’ve read, Everest is very tall but is not such a technically challenging climb. I think this probably compounds the problem of overcrowding and underqualification because people can get higher on the mountain than they can safely deal with–then they go right past their limits without realizing they’ve done so and can’t get back down, whereas if they were on K2 or Nanga Parbat they would have been unable to get so high in the first place due to lack of skill and technique and would have stopped earlier.
I’m not going to go for it, and I just convinced my wife to give it up as well.
I have to admit I’m curious about what role, if any, a vegan diet played in her collapse. I’m not vegan myself (hell, I’m not even vegetarian, though I try to minimize our meat consumption and I do make vegan meals sometimes), but I do have some respect for people who make that choice, as long as they aren’t PETA lunatics and as long as they are ensuring that they’re getting all the nutrients that the rest of us get from animal products.
Still, I gotta wonder - good vegan food seems fairly preparation-intensive, hard-to-eat (as in, you need to chow down on a lot of fiber-packed vegetables and grains) and not especially nutrient-dense compared to, say, a pre-packaged beef stew that you can force yourself to swallow a few mouthfuls of while you are at altitude.
It’s not so much that they wouldn’t dare as that those folks do not even think of trying other mountains. My cousin (himself an Annapurna fatality) stopped taking guide jobs on Everest after one too many instances of “oh, I am in perfect shape, I don’t need any kind of adaptation! I play squash every week!”
That cousin was vegan if possible, vegetarian if available, but when on the job he didn’t even try. The ability to pack as many nutrients and calories in as little a volume and weight as possible was more important.
There are nutrient-dense vegan options, but it is more hassle and prep to get them. You could, for example, use a broth heavy on vegan plant oils for calories. However, most vegan foods are bulky. Nutrient-dense vegan foods like avocados don’t grow in the Himalayas. There’s a reason Nepalese put yak butter in their tea rather than olive oil and it has nothing to do with vegan vs. non-vegan.
Seems to me, given the extreme environment on Everest, limiting your nutritional options is not a good idea.
You put olive oil in your tea? 
I’m not sure it’s worth the risk level, though, and Norbu Tenzing says that things have to change - not that no one should climb, but there are too many people attempting it who don’t understand the risks and are endangering themselves and the Sherpas as a result.
I agree consenting adults can do what they want. But surely you can see how the huge cluster of people in that very dangerous situation using locals whose economic situation makes them vulnerable to exploitation might need some sort of oversight. 400 people on the summit this month? Wow. I am sure all those competing trekking outfits from different nationalities can all work it out peacefully when the time comes to see who goes up next.
Oh, and another confirmed death this morning. And still two missing in an area where… well, where “missing” is often a permanent condition.
My brother in law is a marathon runner and running coach. One of his most challenging coach-ees was a vegan, because she had no fat reserves and it was hard for her to physically eat enough to store up enough energy, just because of the bulk-to-calorie ratio of vegetable foods.
That doesn’t even include the amount of energy your body has to burn just to keep warm in a cold climate and the fact that at high altitude just moving and breathing takes way more effort.
I think she’s saying that since olives don’t grow in Nepal, if you need an energy boost from fat you’re stuck with yak butter.
Perhaps this is a silly question, but don’t climbers use oxygen in the ascent? Is the altitude sickness from only using it periodically? With the consequences being what they are you’d think that’d be a priority.