Grim photos of the dead on Mt. Everest

[B the Hiker]

The accompanying link has an interesting array of photos of those who have perished on Mt. Everest. I have been struggling on whether to pass the link on or not, since there is a fine line between viewing to know and understand and viewing for some ghoulish sense of voyeurism.

That being said, whatever my own motivations for going to the site, I felt the more aware for doing so, and the site did its best to be tasteful, although that, again, is in the eye of the beholder.

Be advised, some of the photos of the dead are grim!

http://imgur.com/gallery/rkRAk


All the best,



Brian

 

[TJsName]

I can't imagine using a dead body as a waypoint - that's a bit morbid, even for me.

 

[dug]

I suppose it is morbid. But, if you are up there, what feature stands out more? "Green boots" or a "snow-covered rock".

Pretty eery pictures, though.

 

[DougPaul]

I can't imagine using a dead body as a waypoint - that's a bit morbid, even for me.

The dead can still help the living...

Anything that is unique can serve as a waypoint.

Doug

 

[Peakbagr]

At lower elevations, not only would rescue be easier, but birds and animals would get at the bodies while they decompose.
What I find eerier are some of the stories of I've read about climbers walking by people in dire need.

At very high elevations on Mt Everest, climbers have paid a LOT of money to be on the mountain (guided or otherwise), spent time getting in condition, and weeks of hard effort to get up to the 'dead zone'.
Unlike mountain areas elsewhere, it seems that there is more of an 'every person for themselves' attitude on Everest. Most climbers are at the edge of what they can do. Maybe that accounts for some of the stories of climbers passing by a climber in great need, believing that they don't have the effort or wherewithal to help and maybe save a life? Or does the drive and desire to summit influence those kinds of decisions?

 

[Tom_Murphy]

Maybe that accounts for some of the stories of climbers passing by a climber in great need, believing that they don't have the effort or wherewithal to help and maybe save a life? Or does the drive and desire to summit influence those kinds of decisions?

I have always assumed that only possible assistance that high up is giving up your oxygen, verbal encouragement, and maybe acting as a sort of "seeing-eye" dog.

At what elevation / location on the route is a carry out even practical? Camp IV on the south col?

 

[DougPaul]

At lower elevations, not only would rescue be easier, but birds and animals would get at the bodies while they decompose.

Bodies freeze and mummify (ie freeze-dry) at those altitudes. Blowing snow and ice can erode them away.

What I find eerier are some of the stories of I've read about climbers walking by people in dire need.

I have always assumed that only possible assistance that high up is giving up your oxygen, verbal encouragement, and maybe acting as a sort of "seeing-eye" dog.

At those altitudes one is so close to the edge of death that you are likely to die if you try to rescue someone. (A number of people tried to help David Sharp (Green Boots) but he was never able to stand up to be able to be helped out.)

At what elevation / location on the route is a carry out even practical? Camp IV on the south col?

Don't know offhand. It isn't just the altitude--terrain is also a factor--for instance the upper part of the South Col route is a knife edge and there are technical spots high on the North Ridge. People have been helped down from high on the mountain but that tends to be help in walking or dragging the victim. Helicopters have evacuated victims from the lower end of the Western Cwm (~22K ft).

Interested people might find "Dead Lucky: Life After Death on Mount Everest" by Lincoln Hall (a book!) worth reading.

Doug

 

[Becca M]

Thanks for posting that link - it is a sobering reminder for me that risk is a real and it is possible to take too much on.

 

[Papa Bear]

I was surprised to see Mallory's body. I though his resting place was "secret" and away from the busier route. Has his body now become a tourist attraction?

Anyone know if they ever got any information from Mallory's camera? Some folks thought there might be a summit picture there.

 

[TCD]

As I understand it, Irvine had the camera (isn't that always the way?). Tony Egger had the camera also on Cerro Torre, according to Maestri. We have found Egger's boot, tibia and fibula (and I would guess a bunch of foot bones), but that's it so far...

 

[DougPaul]

I was surprised to see Mallory's body. I though his resting place was "secret" and away from the busier route. Has his body now become a tourist attraction?

IIRC, that picture was taken by the party that discovered his body. It was originally found by a Chinese climber who told a Japanese climber about it. The Chinese climber died before he could show anyone the exact location. In 1999, Conrad Anker (on an expedition to search for Mallory's body) found the body a short distance off the main climbing route. (Irvine's ice axe had been found higher up in 1933.) (Mallory and Irvine disappeared in 1924.)

IIRC, they covered the body up before leaving.

Anyone know if they ever got any information from Mallory's camera? Some folks thought there might be a summit picture there.

I believe that the camera was never found. Whether Mallory and Irvine reached the summit has been the subject of much speculation...

There is some info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mallory and more in the book "The Lost Explorer: Finding Mallory on Mt. Everest" by Conrad Anker and David Roberts.

Doug

 

[TJsName]

I was surprised to see Mallory's body. I though his resting place was "secret" and away from the busier route. Has his body now become a tourist attraction?

Anyone know if they ever got any information from Mallory's camera? Some folks thought there might be a summit picture there.

I watched a special about Conrad Anker's attempt to climb the the 'Second step' without ladders and using gear similar to Mallory's to see if they could do it (they were able to do it, so they presumed Mallory and Irvine could have too). They also speculated on weather or not they made it to the summit based on the absence of the photo of his wife, which he was supposed to leave on the summit. It's a fun debate if he made it to the top. Not much of a debate that he didn't make it back down.

 

[erugs]

I would wonder whether people on expeditions where death is not a realistic possibility, that they must talk about what might happen. Kind of like, sitting in one of the camps and saying, "I understand that you may not be able to help me because I may not be able to help you." One must know that at a point people will have to pass by someone struggling, and there is that point of no return.

I will be traveling this fall with a small group and we have already talked over some of the What Ifs. If I die while there, don't bring me home. Do what is the local custom. I'm good with that.

 

[DougPaul]

I will be traveling this fall with a small group and we have already talked over some of the What Ifs. If I die while there, don't bring me home. Do what is the local custom. I'm good with that.

Sky burial is a custom in the Everest region...

(sky burial=Cut up the body and place the pieces up on a platform for the vultures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial )

Doug

 

[iagreewithjamie]

Interesting discussion. A few days ago, I was reading the debate between Mark Inglis and Edmund Hillary. If you don't recall, Mark Inglis was the double-amputee who was leading a team of folks to the summit. They passed by David Sharp on the way up; David had become exhausted, was sitting by Green Boots, and was near hypothermic. They pressed on to the summit, and when they returned hours later, they found David Sharp still alive (barely) but completely helpless. There was much debate after as to whether or not Inglis' team should have suspended their summit attempt to help David Sharp. Edmund Hillary remarked (when asked after the fact) that this present era has ushered in a wave of summit fever, where climbers are so focused on hitting the summit that they no longer care about the safety of others.

So its a really interesting discussion: i'm going to go climb Everest, doing so with the idea that I might die, with the expectation that nobody will help me should help be required, and I'm going to spend $80,000 to do it. When you encounter someone in distress (someone who is hiking with the same understanding as you), do you suspend your one-time-shot that cost you 80k to help someone who perhaps wasn't as prepared as you? It's one thing to stop a winter hike on Mt Pierce to help someone with hypothermia... but to vacate a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help? Is it callous of me to think that it would be a really difficult decision?

 

[erugs]

So its a really interesting discussion: i'm going to go climb Everest, doing so with the idea that I might die, with the expectation that nobody will help me should help be required, and I'm going to spend $80,000 to do it. When you encounter someone in distress (someone who is hiking with the same understanding as you), do you suspend your one-time-shot that cost you 80k to help someone who perhaps wasn't as prepared as you? It's one thing to stop a winter hike on Mt Pierce to help someone with hypothermia... but to vacate a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help? Is it callous of me to think that it would be a really difficult decision?

On the airlines, they say take care of yourself first, and then help others around you. If you are unable to make a difference and you are struggling for life yourself, that's all you can do. I think if you are looking at mostly the money factor, then you might be callous. Who is to know, really, each experience is different.

Another question is, if you were the one who will certainly die, at what point would you expect some sort of help? Sometimes when people are calling out they don't have full faculties to understand their predicament.

 

[B the Hiker]

I'm going to spend $80,000 to do it. When you encounter someone in distress (someone who is hiking with the same understanding as you), do you suspend your one-time-shot that cost you 80k to help someone who perhaps wasn't as prepared as you? It's one thing to stop a winter hike on Mt Pierce to help someone with hypothermia... but to vacate a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help? Is it callous of me to think that it would be a really difficult decision?

There's a famous article, "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk" by Kanneman & Tversky, in which they present evidence that people experience loss far more than they experience gain. If I said to you, you can climb a mountain, and if you summit, I will pay you $80,000, but someone will die, there is absolutely no way you would agree to it. But paying $80,000 somehow justifies walking past a person in need.

It's worth reflecting on that!


Brian

 

[Maddy]

On the airlines, they say take care of yourself first, and then help others around you. If you are unable to make a difference and you are struggling for life yourself, that's all you can do. I think if you are looking at mostly the money factor, then you might be callous. Who is to know, really, each experience is different.

Another question is, if you were the one who will certainly die, at what point would you expect some sort of help? Sometimes when people are calling out they don't have full faculties to understand their predicament.

Well said, E Rugs!

 

[Tom_Murphy]

i'm going to go climb Everest, doing so with the idea that I might die, with the expectation that nobody will help me should help be required, and I'm going to spend $80,000 to do it. When you encounter someone in distress (someone who is hiking with the same understanding as you), do you suspend your one-time-shot that cost you 80k to help someone who perhaps wasn't as prepared as you? It's one thing to stop a winter hike on Mt Pierce to help someone with hypothermia... but to vacate a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help? Is it callous of me to think that it would be a really difficult decision?

I think that is a key part of trying to rationalize not helping someone is to believe that the person in need made a number of selfish decisions in order to end up in trouble high on Everest.

Why weren't they better conditioned? Why did they try to go with the "cheap guide service"? Why didn't they turn back eariler? Why should I have to lose my once in a lifetime opportunity due to their selfishness?

You are going with "with the expectation that nobody will help me should help be required" and you are assuming that "someone who is hiking with the same understanding as you". That isn't necessarily true but I imagine it would help rationalize not helping someone as well.

An awful situation to be placed in & I do not know how I would respond. I hope I would respond with compassion & empathy and offer all the assistance I could even if it meant losing the summit.

 

[TCD]

There is another consideration here. We are playing this here as only "helping the person" vs. "protecting the once in a lifetime opportunity." The reality is that at that altitude, most climbers are simply unable to help another person, even if they want to. You can't carry them (unless you're Anatoli Boukreev); realistically you can't even support them and help them walk. If you give them any of your supplies (food, water, O2), or even any of your time, you GREATLY increase your own risk of ending up just like them. So we shouldn't be visualizing this like it was some trail in the northeast, where energetic hikers with tons of extra time and supplies are just selfishly strolling by a person that needs help. With a few rare exceptions (like very strong guides and sherpas), almost everyone up there has JUST BARELY ENOUGH time, energy and supplies to survive their own journey.