Why Climbers Die On Mount Everest 417
Science Daily reports that researchers have conducted the first detailed analysis of deaths during expeditions to the summit of Mt. Everest. They found that
most deaths occur during descents from the summit in the so-called "death zone" above 8,000 meters, and also identified factors that appear to be associated with a greater risk of death, particularly symptoms of high-altitude cerebral edema. The big surprise that the data indicate those deaths aren't primarily from avalanches or falling ice, as had long been believed.
surprise? (Score:2, Informative)
Not for anyone who watched "Into thin air".
Re:Diving? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Diving? (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly. The bends come from fast decompression leading to gas bubbles within the body while the cerebral edema is an excess accumulation of water in the brain which comes from a leakage of fluid from capillaries (among other causes).
Hypoxia (Score:5, Informative)
The higher you climb, the harder your lungs have to work to extract enough oxygen from the air in order to keep you alive. If you don't get enough oxygen, you don't die immediately. Your brain starts becoming less and less efficient, since it cannot produce energy anaerobically, like the rest of your body can.
Of course, this process is invisible to most people. Its comparable to how your brain isn't fully awake if you get woken up suddenly and feeling confused at the simplest tasks. Hypoxia also affects divers.
The leakage of fluid from the vessels in the brain is caused by the same hypoxia, since the blood vessels need energy as well.
The only solution is for climbers to take their own oxygen, or for someone to invent a mobile and low powered oxygen concentrator.
You get bends going UP (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, you can only get the bends going up.
Avalanche? Ice? First I've heard of that... (Score:5, Informative)
I have never seen anyone claim that the primary cause of death on Everest is avalanche or falling ice - I'm not sure where that fiction came from. It is common knowledge that the primary cause of death up there is directly related with complications from being in the dead zone, combined with the complications of frequent blizzards that hamper the attempts to get out of the dead zone. Climbers run out of oxygen and also get lost. Some have to be left behind by others because all are under distress and unable to help the straggler. It's a very deadly place to go and is foolish in that one in ten end up dying up there.
Re:Hypoxia (Score:2, Informative)
The leakage of fluid from the vessels in the brain is caused by the same hypoxia, since the blood vessels need energy as well.
I was about to post a sarcastic [citation needed] comment up in response to this, but checked what you said first and was pleasantly surprised to find myself entirely wrong. For anyone interested here's a link to info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HACE
Re:News flash... (Score:3, Informative)
Yours sounds much more delicious though.
Re:You get bends going UP (Score:5, Informative)
it's the "opposite" effect going on. At high pressures extra gas adds to your fluids, just like bubbles added to really cold pop under pressure. Warm it up and take off the pressure and you get fizz... only inside your brain which is generally not good.
In this case, the air pressure is so low the membranes that hold liquid don't work properly to hold it in... It's probably like a mild version of vacuum degassing used in manufacturing... in addition to the lack of oxygen.
Re:You get bends going UP (Score:1, Informative)
You get the bends when reducing pressure causes bubbling due to your tissue having more disolved gases than it can hold. Just like a soft drink fizzes when you reduce pressure, the dissolved gases come out of the liquid.
Thus, you can only get the bends going up.
Hence, the treatment, once you're out of the water (where it might be possible to return to depth, given a sufficient supply of air), is to hustle you into a decompression chamber where you can be subject to great enough pressure to stop the bubbles, followed by decompression at a safe rate.
Re:Damn (Score:4, Informative)
The difficulty is that the air is very thin and the wind speeds can be quite high, with both updrafts and downdrafts, making the aircraft difficult to stabilize. The conditions may make it almost impossible to avoid touching the mountain.
Good book on the problem (Score:3, Informative)
He also wrote "Alive in the death zone" after his 2006 expedition when he was thought dead and left overnight by his fellow climbers after suffering a cerebral edema on the way down. I haven't read that one yet.
The writer may sound a bit accident prone but consider the time between those two dates :)
Re:Because people are assholes (Score:5, Informative)
Climbers die while descending Mount Everest because even though hundreds of people capable of rescuing them pass, all of those people have paid upwards of $25,000 to have a chance to summit the peak, and none of those assholes are willing to risk their precious experience to save someone's life.
Well, Anonymous Coward, that's not entirely true. While I'm not a climber, I've read numerous books on climbing Everest, as well as watched several documentaries and talked to some climbers about it. As I understand it, once you're in the death zone, *every step* is an ordeal. You literally think about it, lift your foot, move it, and put it down, then think about the next one. Apparently it's like trying to walk with a 200 pound backpack on. In many cases, if you're climbing Everest and you come upon someone in need of assistance, even if you want to, there's nothing you can do. You can't carry someone in the death zone, there's no sled to put them on, no ski patrol with a helicopter. Basically, all you can do is give them your oxygen bottle, make them comfortable, and then get back to trudging. Tragic, but true.
Re:Damn (Score:2, Informative)
Just send a helicopter.
IIRC, the upper reaches of Everest are well above the normal operating range for helicopters. Not to mention the weather doesn't lend itself to careful rescue operations. And mountain flying is dangerous enough for fixed-wing aircraft, much less for helicopters.
Old joke among the pilots:
Helicopters can't really fly -- they're so ugly the earth repels them.
The actual research report in BMJ (Score:4, Informative)
You can read the actual research for yourself in British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec11_1/a2654 [bmj.com]
Re:Avalanche? Ice? First I've heard of that... (Score:3, Informative)
Per the actual research, the primary cause of death (above basecamp) is indeed physical trauma. The table is here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content-nw/full/337/dec11_1/a2654/TBL2 [bmj.com]
The actual article is here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec11_1/a2654 [bmj.com]
Re:Good book on the problem (Score:3, Informative)
Writing a book without fingers and toes however does sound pretty difficult to me, and that's what Lincoln Hall did for the book about the 2006 expedition.
Anyway, I recommend "White Limbo" and reviewers liked the other book.
Re:Damn (Score:3, Informative)
A few years ago there was a Korean expedition to specifically remove the body of another Korean climber who died. These 6 climbers moved the body 100 yards in 5 hours then gave up.
Moving a body is too hard.
Re:Unsurprising it occurs during descent (Score:3, Informative)
More than anything else, I think that this is the key. I've climbed a couple of 14,000 foot peaks and a number of 13,000 foot peaks. On the way up, if you know something is wrong, you can turn back. Some people get "summit fever" and ignore the impending problems. I've been guilty of this myself once or twice, and have gotten lucky. Others just don't recognize them because they don't have enough experience. However, intelligent and experienced climbers can often recognize many problems before they become critical, and take the appropriate action.
However, once you've reached the top, there is no "go back". If something goes wrong your only option is to continue on your course until you get back to shelter. And of course, as somebody said earlier, it's also partly simple statistics- The longer you have been up there, the more time there is for something to go wrong. It's bad enough when you are dealing with 14,000 foot peaks, but the starting point of an Everest ascent, if I remember correctly, is around 16,000 feet. And, generally speaking, the number one rule in First Aid when you are above 16,000 feet is "Get below 16,000 feet." That's a lot of time for something to go wrong, and not a whole lot you can do about it if it does.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I'm not an aviator, nor did I stay in a hotel last night, but the 'ceiling' you're quoting looks to be for the as350-b3 loaded with over 900lb on top of the standard 'empty weight', and the youtube video (that shows it sitting on the summit) shows only one person in it. The flight to return back down was very short, so they probably didn't have much fuel sitting in it at the moment that it was at the top either...
Of course I could be wrong, but I'm convinced that they did it, with the machine they said they used...
links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Ecureuil [wikipedia.org]
http://www.robertsaircraft.com/as350b3.htm [robertsaircraft.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhYG-IgsRJ0&feature=related [youtube.com]
Re:What about death from dumbassery (Score:4, Informative)
Guides take on people who may have done some training, but are not really experienced mountaineers. These guys become "drag-ups" to get to the summit. Their main qualification for the climb is some $30K or so to blow on the trip.
Talking about "Into Thin Air":
Remember how the socialite piggybacked on a Sherpa, slowing them both down, therefore the whole group? Not to single her out here, but that is a perfect example of unacceptable behavior in the "death zone", unseen when only true experts climbed the peaks.
The book clearly describes the dilemma for expert climbers who become guns for hire, pressured by his tourists who do not fully grasp the lethality of the place - "I paid you $30K (I think it's more than that) to get me to the summit, and you'd better deliver, buster, or you'll never work in this mountain again".
In a rarefied environment that weakens judgment, the impatient and headstrong, used to getting their way, just might apply enough pressure for the guide to cave in, plenty of involuntary foolishness to go around. Imagine a tourist's temper tantrum after weeks above 18,000 feet, and a few days inside the "death zone", being told their attempt has been foiled only a few hours from triumph. I shudder at the thought.
Whereas if the guide was only with fellow experts, I imagine his word is final and no questions asked, maybe next year in Annapurna, you know? Not unlike the lieutenant in a combat unit.
Re:i was thinking about this recently (Score:3, Informative)
You still spend serious money climbing everest, add to that the gear so dropping an extra $10K-$20K on high-altitude adaptive treatments wouldn't be a problem..
Re:Damn (Score:3, Informative)
I think that was the parent's point - they can fly like an airplane at those altitudes, but they can't hover.
When a VTOL craft flies like an airplane it relies on its full wing surface - at a considerable forward airspeed - probably at least 200mph relative to the ground. The faster you move forward, the faster a wing works.
When it converts to hover mode, a rotary wing craft like the Osprey is just a big ugly helicopter (and less than a great one at that - it is a design compromise). Those blades have a lot less surface area than the wing, and they can only rotate so fast.
A thrust-direction system like the F35 can only hover when its maximum engine power is greater than the weight of the aircraft. The problem is that the power output of a jet decreases with altitude. Normally this is more than compensated by the lower atmosphere density which reduces drag, but that only helps if you're trying to move the airframe through the air.
The VTOL aircraft would be aided slightly by the fact that they do have fixed wings that could be pointed into the relatively high winds up there - that would give them extra lift. However, I doubt these winds are uniform near the mountain so now you add all kinds of crazy stalls as your orientation changes.
I'm not aware of any non-rocket engine technology that can reliably handle hovering at 29k feet. Rockets would certainly work - you'd still need to deal with eratic winds but the rocket engine does not vary much in power as a function of external atmospheric conditions (in fact, it might perform better the closer you get to vacuum - not sure how significant an effect the air around the rocket has). Of course, a rocket-powered aircraft is going to have to carry a lot of oxidizer - I guess a really clever design could utilize atmospheric air to reduce oxidizer requirements (kind of like an O2-injected turbojet).
Re:surprise? (Score:3, Informative)
Aconcagua (Argentina) is higher, and so are quite a lot of other Andes peaks.
Re:surprise? (Score:3, Informative)
Every year the American Alpine Club publishes "accidents in mounteering" and the figures show that both total numbers and per capita deaths are higher for football - from children all the way up to adult football players.
Indeed, climbing doesn't make it into the top 15 - see, http://www.livescience.com/health/060614_sport_injuries.html [livescience.com]
Never Thought You'd Ask. (Score:2, Informative)
1. "Downhill" is not like skiing or rapelling downhill. 80% down and 20% up makes that 20% downhill *days* worth of extremely hard effort.
2. Physical issues. Having camped above 10,000 feet, I can tell you the amount of water required for drinking so you don't get dehydrated is crazy. Medium physical efforts at that altitude leave you breathless. Imagine trying to move ~200 lbs dead weight around clothed like the Michelin Man.
3. Hostile environment. Lack of oxygen, extreme and unpredictable weather, and water and food delivery requirements all add up to a l-o-n-g time up and down the mountain.
It all adds up quickly to a months-long effort to retrieve a body.
Re:surprise? (Score:3, Informative)
Elmes M, Barry D. Deliverance, Denial and the death zone: a study of narcissism and regression in the May 1996 Everest climbing disaster. J of Applied Behavioural Science. 1999;35:163â"87.
Mountain survivor was first to fall. The Press (newspaper), Christchurch, New Zealand. April 15, 2004.
The Climber. Saxon Print, Christchurch, New Zealand. Issue 47/Autumn; 2002: p13.
Malcolm M. Mountaineering fatalities in Mt Cook National Park. N Z Med J. 2001;114:78â"80.
Pollard A, Clarke C. Deaths during mountaineering at extreme altitude. Lancet. 1988;1:1277.
Monasterio E. The Climber. Christchurch: Saxon Print; 2003:Issue 43/Autumn:p31â"2.
Cloninger C, Przybeck T, Svrakic D, Wetzel R. The Temperament and Character Inventory: a guide to its development and use. Center for Psychobiology of Personality. St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University; 1994.
http://alpineclub-edm.org/accidents/causes.asp [alpineclub-edm.org]
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/americanalpineclublibrary [americanalpineclub.org]
http://www.penmachine.com/2003/02/damn-lies-statistics-and-fatality.html [penmachine.com]
"The Everest numbers he mentioned (5%) roughly match the 4.3% high-mountain stats I quoted,"
I am a member of the AAC and have been since the 1960's - and every year they publish their report on accidents in mountaineering. I don't have time to pull my copies and, in fact - I really have work to do. I have given you the best quick info I can find - but the AAC library is the best source.
Re:surprise? (Score:3, Informative)
It is a, as I said, a "per capita" or per participant ratio. It doesn't matter that 10,000 climbers are dwarfed by 25,000,000 football players if, taken as a whole, the gross injury rates for football are well above climbing.
It also takes a different kind of person to climb - one who enjoys the personal challenge and can quit if the route becomes too dangerous. The object of climbing is to climb - and mountaineering is to make the summit and return.
Football is a contact sport where equipment is used to limit or protect against injuries in the ordinary course and scope of play. Climbers usually have a helmet as the sole "protective" gear aside from ropes, harnesses and appropriate clothing for the conditions.
There is a theory - if you didn't fall - you didn't need the rope.
And, indeed, people have "free climbed" (no direct aid, but roped) the nose route and the Salanthe Wall of El Capitan with an 80% success rate, See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Capitan [wikipedia.org]
Re:i was thinking about this recently (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with the so-called dead zone is that there isn't enough air pressure to force oxygen into your blood, across the lung cells. You can have all the red blood cells you want, but if they can't get oxygen in, you have a problem.
The ValSalva Maneuver is a way of coping with this, to some extent: you suck in air and then compress your lungs like you're a kid trying to make your face red. That increases the air pressure.
There are different kinds of hypoxia. One is not having enough red blood cells (or poisoned red blood cells, as seen in smokers or cyanide victims.) Another is not having enough oxygen pressure to get air into those cells. Epo treats the wrong problem here. Bicyclists are running into limits getting oxygen from the air jammed through their blood and into their muscles, and epo helps with that. (However a little bit of dehydration and your blood turns to jello -- something like half the Dutch national cycling team died in two consecutive years back in the early '90's because they were overdosing on epo and having heart attacks from blood cells jamming up their capillaries.)
Re:surprise? (Score:3, Informative)
AAC=American Alpine Club.
Your Wikipedia link refers to professional football.
See, http://www.livescience.com/health/060614_sport_injuries.html [livescience.com]
for injury stats.