Mt. Everest....
 

Just read on MSN site about the Everest climbers and my condolences go out to those who lost their lives on it and any relatives and friends of the deceased.
Possibly there are mountain climbers on this forum that can explain to me if this is considered a "tourist mountain", namely a mountain that many climbers that lack the necessary skills attempt anyway. There are so many pitfalls like hi altitude sickness, icefalls, frostbite that make this a high risk venture. Also apparently there is so much focus apparently on reaching the top that descending becomes less of a concern. Mountain climbers out there please enlighten me to help me understand Everest when there are lesser mountains out there to successfully climb and return safely?

Because it's there..

I don't think Everest could ever be called a tourist mtn., a lot of experienced climbers have died there.
Finn

There was a reality tv show about Everest a few years ago, I watched it on Netflix. Some that go are experienced and prepared. Some aren't. Some guides are responsible and take care of their climbers. Some don't. One guide company was there with a team of climbers and didn't even have a first aid kit.

And experienced guides have died at the cost of other climbers ego's. Intrigued to watch but no thanks. Also, check out the cost associated to make the trip and climb.... humor me.

I think this article explains it pretty well.
Four Confirmed Dead in Two Days on Everest and Lhotse | Mount Everest | OutsideOnline.com

Cheaper than I thought... $55,668.40 (if I got the conversion right)
Mount Everest South Side Expedition 8,848m | Himalayan Experience
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1337787679.jpg

I saw this guy speak and he had the crowd of 5,000 in tears.....
Beck Weathers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Described his passion and drive for conquering mountains, searching for meaning and adventure in his life.

As he lay at home recuperating from his injuries, listening to his children play in the backyard, he found what he was searching for. It had been waiting at home for him all along.

I'm not a mountain climber, but from the books I've read, the area near the summit is called the "death zone" for a reason. If you go up where you are beyond the livable atmosphere and where the temperature is enough to kill you, then you are gambling with your life.

This may be cruel, but when I read the death of these climbers as a tragedy, I ask myself...look at the odds and the risk. We should be saying that the death of these folks was unfortunate but normal course given the risks.

What probably needs more focus is the companies that guide them and the level of disclaimer. I.e....if you sign up, there is a very real risk that you will die on that mountain. They should have that discussion and probably get the acknowledgement from any spouse so that the family understands the risks being taken.

Of course Nepal is not going to cut back on the number of permits. What do they care if stupid Westerners die up on the mountain.

While the climbers are in the Death Zone, they are dying. Slowly dying. And climbing.

I saw one documentary where a healthy, athletic, fairly young man was CRAWLING toward the summit because he could no longer stand. The summit was RIGHT THERE. No more than a hundred feet away. Clear blue sky, perfect weather. The sherpa who was assigned to that guy was being ordered down the mountain immediately. The guide service boss guy was telling the athlete/customer that he was directing the Sherpa down the mountain, to protect his life. The guide boss guy was telling the athlete, point blank, that if he does not descend with the Sherpa, he will DIE on Everest.

The route to the top of Everest takes you past frozen bodies. While you, the climber, are also dying, exhausted.

My wife was in Nepal at base camp 20+ years ago. While it was a beautiful place, it was littered with oxygen bottles, gear, toilet paper, etc.

I guess pack it, pack it out doesn't apply there.

From the website I linked above:
Granted, I prefer of survivability rate higher than 98.5% for most of my recreation activities.

i've read that everest in general is a very littered place.

i would love to see base camp. i dont have the urge to go any higher. my home is at 67 foot elevation..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1337793364.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1337793509.jpg

I'll pass.

x2.

that looks like a landfill!

Everest base camp altitude is greater than 17,000 feet.

not sure I understand your question, but a lot depends on how you define "lesser mountain"

AFAIK, Everest is not considered a technically difficult climb (K2 is) but obviously it is the highest (for a terrestrial mtn. and few climbs start from the sea floor) and that creates some serious physiological and climate/storm issues

Messner and Habler climbed it by "fair means" - much like most of us would do a day hike...

before them, it was widely believed that the low partial pressure of O2 made it simply beyond human ability - and , for most, it still is w/o supplemental O2

birds, with their superior lung design, can easily fly over the top of it.

another thing about low O2 (and cold) -- they make you stupid - a sub-lethal effect that can have lethal consequences b/c there is little room for error on mtns., esp. on big mtns.

BTW - a favorite question of mine when I hear somebody yakking about climbing is to ask them how many fingers and toes they have; if the answer adds up to 20 (or more!) then they are not a serious climber. I certainly am not.

It is a tourist mountain, if you have enough money you can summit. Simple as that. Doesn't mean to live to tell the tale.

Yep, the term I've always heard the "professional" climbers use for the inexperienced pay-to-be-guided-up types is "country club climbers." There is a certain level of distain for this class of climber, but they're also a necessity to pay the expedition bills....