Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

godheadv.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 266 posts

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#41

Post by rdl »

wooster wrote: post #28
rdl wrote: post #9

Deep wreck and cave diving is similarly dangerous (and was much more so before the adoption of Trimix by the technical diving community). There have been numerous fatalities among rescuers trying to recover corpses of other dead divers, too. I decided after reading a fair bit about this that even if I can afford to dive like this ($20k+ for equipment, $10-20k+ for training, and $500+ per dive for helium-based gas fil…

Have you read Blind Descent? One of the things that most struck me was that cave diving is more dangerous, fatality-rate-wise, than space exploration.

Space is inherently dangerous, but since it's so high visibility (and funded by deep pockets), they can use technology to reduce the risk below most activities. I think they go too far in reducing the risk -- I'd accept a 10% fatality rate for important space missions if everyone was a volunteer, if it improved the rate of progress.

We know how to do diving in worse environments than caves relatively safely -- commercial and naval (Naval diving is working on docks and repairs for the Navy in peacetime vs. military diving, which is the kind of dangerous combat/commando/infiltration/specops missions done by SEALs and UDTs, etc.) diving to 500m is actually relatively safe as a career. This often takes place in HAZMAT environments, zero visibility, etc.

The issue is that recreational/"technical" divers are doing it with much less equipment, and vastly less support staff. A commercial diver has a $3-5mm recompression chamber waiting above, a safety diver ready to splash in, dive medics or medical officers, a dedicated support ship, unlimited surface-supplied gas, heated water in the cold, wired communications, etc. Recreational divers have what they can carry and personally afford to buy.

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#42

Post by zaidf »

wooster wrote: post #28
rdl wrote: post #9

Deep wreck and cave diving is similarly dangerous (and was much more so before the adoption of Trimix by the technical diving community). There have been numerous fatalities among rescuers trying to recover corpses of other dead divers, too. I decided after reading a fair bit about this that even if I can afford to dive like this ($20k+ for equipment, $10-20k+ for training, and $500+ per dive for helium-based gas fil…

Have you read Blind Descent? One of the things that most struck me was that cave diving is more dangerous, fatality-rate-wise, than space exploration.

With the amount of precaution they take for space exploration, I'd think a lot of things are more dangerous, fatality-wise, than space exploration.

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#43

Post by wooster »

antidaily wrote: post #34
wooster wrote: post #27

I recently got back (almost exactly a month ago) from a month long climbing trip in Nepal with some friends. We had three guides, all three of whom have climbed Everest multiple times. One of our guides, who has summited 5 times, described Everest as his "bad habit". As a relative newbie to high altitude mountaineering (the highest I got was ~19,850 feet), climbing in Nepal was really, really hard. You are never warm…

tl;dr This guy pooped in a 8" hole.

I'm not sure why everyone is down-modding you. Pooping in an 8" hole and climbing to 19,850 feet seems like a pretty good summary of the experience.

Edit: I might actually use that as my short summary of the trip.

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#44

Post by mks »

ck2 wrote: post #2

Is it ego or the "human spirit" that makes people try the summit anyway? Some things I'll never understand in this world. How about just running a marathon instead?

I am just a recreational climber but my motivation is a mix of overcoming myself and enjoying beauty of nature.

The challenge in climbing is very real (not that dissimilar to startup) - you have to plan ahead, check conditions, execute well and know when to bail out. Sometimes I say that climbing is the real thing and business is just for fun - when you screw in business you probably won't die. But noone wants to die in the mountains either.

The beautiful thing about mountains is that it does not matter who you are back in civil life. There is no difference if you have fame or money back home. It is up to your skill, training and determination.

And of course when getting to mountain by yourself the connection and enjoyment is much better than by cable car.

Great article on types of experiences by climbers: http://kellycordes.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#45

Post by CamperBob »

ck2 wrote: post #2

Is it ego or the "human spirit" that makes people try the summit anyway? Some things I'll never understand in this world. How about just running a marathon instead?

How about just running a marathon instead?

How about just taking whatever drugs are necessary to stimulate the same neurotransmitter production?

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#46

Post by JoachimSchipper »

wooster wrote: post #27

I recently got back (almost exactly a month ago) from a month long climbing trip in Nepal with some friends. We had three guides, all three of whom have climbed Everest multiple times. One of our guides, who has summited 5 times, described Everest as his "bad habit". As a relative newbie to high altitude mountaineering (the highest I got was ~19,850 feet), climbing in Nepal was really, really hard. You are never warm…

Can you elaborate a bit on why you'd see people wanting to do this? I mean, I understand that mountain climbing affords a nice view, and I understand that it's a feat that you can tell people about, but I can't imagine being willing to take a risk as large as Mt. Everest for those reasons.

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#48

Post by wooster »

rdl wrote: post #41
wooster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read Blind Descent? One of the things that most struck me was that cave diving is more dangerous, fatality-rate-wise, than space exploration.

Space is inherently dangerous, but since it's so high visibility (and funded by deep pockets), they can use technology to reduce the risk below most activities. I think they go too far in reducing the risk -- I'd accept a 10% fatality rate for important space missions if everyone was a volunteer, if it improved the rate of progress. We know how to do diving in worse environments than caves relatively safely -- commer…

Oof, I don't think the fatality rate on SEALs is public, but trust me, it's not good.

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#49

Post by paulgerhardt »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #46
wooster wrote: post #27

I recently got back (almost exactly a month ago) from a month long climbing trip in Nepal with some friends. We had three guides, all three of whom have climbed Everest multiple times. One of our guides, who has summited 5 times, described Everest as his "bad habit". As a relative newbie to high altitude mountaineering (the highest I got was ~19,850 feet), climbing in Nepal was really, really hard. You are never warm…

Can you elaborate a bit on why you'd see people wanting to do this? I mean, I understand that mountain climbing affords a nice view, and I understand that it's a feat that you can tell people about, but I can't imagine being willing to take a risk as large as Mt. Everest for those reasons.

http://www.amazon.com/Eiger-Dreams-Ventures-Among-Mountains/...

Re: Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

#50

Post by wikyd »

makeramen wrote: post #26
wikyd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been my experience that the community is exactly the opposite. Founders and early employees are generally eager to help others, even when they probably don't have the time to spare. I've always tried to do the same and it has paid off easily 10x in terms of the amount of advice and help my startup has received.

I agree wholeheartedly. All the startup founders I've met have all been more than willing to help others out. But at the same time, when it comes to business decisions, personal relationships often take a back seat (i.e. Zuckerberg), and sometimes it's simply good business (i.e. Eric Schmidt leaving Apple board probably due to Android vs. iPhone, WePay icing Paypal, companies suing each other over IP/copyright... etc…

Your clarification helped me to understand your comment. However, I don't think what you describe is unique to startups in any way. Any industry or business can be described with those terms. In fact, it's probably more apt of a description of public companies, which frequently state their purpose it to maximize shareholder value.

With startups, in fact, failure or "leaving someone behind" is probably less traumatic, because failure is accepted and often valued as part of improving. While the company may be left on the wayside, the people will most likely be back again with a new company soon after.

Traumatic isn't really the right word, but you get what I mean.

Post reply on HN