mrchad9 wrote:Why do folks criticize typos and spelling? This isn't a major news publication.

OK, having now recovered from the shock of your insightful revelation that this is not a major news publication, I will offer this.

Poor grammar and spelling are jarring on the eye, they hinder reading to those that recognize them and thus degrade efficient communication. Why would anyone want to do that?

In some cases, poor spelling, grammar and vocabulary can even alter the meaning of a sentence from that which was intended, or at least allow ambiguity, further hindering efficient communication.

The assumption is that if you couldn't master the basics of spelling and grammar so as to communicate effectively with most mature adults, then there's probably various other things you weren't up to understanding either. Thus poor writing carries less authority, and degrades whatever real value, knowledge or meaning the author may possess, which is a shame, and usually unnecessary.

If you can spell correctly, and choose not to, or choose to ignore your grammatical errors, it shows that you do not care, that you do not put much value on what you write here and thus conversely on what others write here. Thankfully most of us don't feel that way.

If you can't use correct spelling and grammar, or don't care enough to do so, that's your problem, not ours.

Bob Sihler wrote:So what do y'all think about global warming, Muslims, gun control, gay marriage, and illegal immigration?

Nuclear power would solve all these problems. That and magic beans.

Damien Gildea wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Why do folks criticize typos and spelling? This isn't a major news publication.

OK, having now recovered from the shock of your insightful revelation that this is not a major news publication, I will offer this.

Poor grammar and spelling are jarring on the eye, they hinder reading to those that recognize them and thus degrade efficient communication. Why would anyone want to do that?

In some cases, poor spelling, grammar and vocabulary can even alter the meaning of a sentence from that which was intended, or at least allow ambiguity, further hindering efficient communication.

The assumption is that if you couldn't master the basics of spelling and grammar so as to communicate effectively with most mature adults, then there's probably various other things you weren't up to understanding either. Thus poor writing carries less authority, and degrades whatever real value, knowledge or meaning the author may possess, which is a shame, and usually unnecessary.

If you can spell correctly, and choose not to, or choose to ignore your grammatical errors, it shows that you do not care, that you do not put much value on what you write here and thus conversely on what others write here. Thankfully most of us don't feel that way.

If you can't use correct spelling and grammar, or don't care enough to do so, that's your problem, not ours.

Wow! I'm glad you reserve your passions for something so important. BTW- no one criticized my spelling, so not my problem, not that I'd care about the thoughts of anyone who couldn't get past that anyway.

The Chief wrote:

Scott wrote:Acclimatization always helps and is recommended, but going sea level to 10K isn't unusual and problems are pretty rare.

Wanna bet?

78 recorded AMS related helo evacs last season alone from the Whitney Region.

My Client died at 10.2K from the most rapid onset of HAPE on record, 3.7 hours from T/H to being pronounced after I gave him CPR for 1.2 hours on our way to descending back to the P/L.

My point, people these days are not taking the acclimatization protocol serious these days. There are many recorded AMS related SAR evolutions here alone in the Eastern Sierra that are never in the media.

Sea Level to 14+K in less than 24 hours.... c'mon!

This has been my standard schedule for climbing Sierra peaks for the past six years when I was working. Friday night I'd start driving, get to TH around midnight and get an early start Sat to about 10k', Sun summit and drive home.

Using the Whitney area for altitude related cases as sampling for all of the Sierra is flawed. You know that the Whitney area attracts majority of people that doesn't have too much experience in the mountains and altitude.

kevin trieu wrote:Using the Whitney area for altitude related cases as sampling for all of the Sierra is flawed. You know that the Whitney area attracts majority of people that doesn't have too much experience in the mountains and altitude.

That was my point exactly and thanks for reiterating it.

And, where in any of my posts did I state this as a sampling for anything other than the Whitney Zone?

Here is the post:

The Chief wrote:78 recorded AMS related helo evacs last season alone from the Whitney Region.

My point, people these days are not taking the acclimatization protocol serious these days. There are many recorded AMS related SAR evolutions here alone in the Eastern Sierra that are never in the media.

Sea Level to 14+K in less than 24 hours.... c'mon!

As Damien posted, just cuz you and many others do it, doesn't make it proper nor safe protocol. Nor should it be condoned as such, IMO.

edit: Fking additions to this post.... is that ok with ya'll? If not, go fk yurselves. End of story.

Damien...

You dude need to get on some A5 sphincter pucker power checking shet ASAP in order to blow that 14K Golden Ice Axe outta yur pathetically stuck up ass.

Raving Rick Poedtke.... GTFOH!

You haven't a clue dude.







PS: It's about fking time you see things my way.

And TWOSHUZZ, the fking thing is 14,4K+, OK? Bottom line, too many out there think it's a walk in the park and requires no physical nor physiological preparations. That they can drive up to the WP T/H at 8,200 and then walk right up to the summit in a day.

Too many BSer's out there, on the internet or what have you, telling these poor bastards that it's a piece of cake and that anyone can do it...Summer, Fall, Winter or Spring.

This is the sort of impertinence up with which I will not put.
(Misattributed to Churchill-- a comment on rules of grammar.)

I count myself lucky to be in the "no bad altitude effects" camp -- so far. I routinely get exercise by driving for 45 minutes from my house at 3000', to a trailhead at 7700', then go to an 11540' summit in about 2 hours.

So far so good... but I get the impression that this might change in a flash. I had one unexpected flash moment in 2002, and that moment changed my life forever. The warranty runs out when we are 40.

twoshuzz wrote:We have a smaller hill around these parts that suffers the same problems... as you are well aware.

No, you have SEVERAL hills that suffer the same problems which end in more dreadful consequences.


There have been far too many unacceptable climbing related fatalities in the U.S. thus far this year. Most, if not all, were due to some very bad choices on the part of the players involved.

The latest one in YNP totally boggles my mind. The Rescuers can't complete the body recovery op due to fear of continued ice fall from the collapsing/melting formation.

"Nash said the elevation of the canyon rims is about 7,800 feet, and though it is still quite cold there, the ice on Silver Cord Cascade was getting “rotten” in the afternoon, which was one reason recovery efforts were suspended Tuesday."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... 03286.html

edit: Additions.

twoshuzz wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

twoshuzz wrote:Also, though I've never climbied Whitney, it is my understanding it stands at 14,505 ft ASL, not 14,946.

Why do folks criticize typos and spelling? This isn't a major news publication.
BTW- I've never seen a tread with so many edited posts, seems like every other one.

Not quite sure what you're driving at. Soooooooooo... just to clear up any misunderstanding :
I was not being critical of Chief or attempting to point out some gross error. It was an honest question. Perhaps my own previous typos cornfused yoooooooh ?

Yes I quoted you, but I was more reacting to the previous posts focusing on grammar. I focused on yours because it was the latest, but I wasn't confused. Chief simply mistyped the elevation. Many places, including the summit marker, list it as 14,496, though I understand the 14,505 is more accurate. That is all.

Nice one BIADH. Those who criticize grammar would do well to keep it concise, otherwise they expose themselves.

butitsadryheat wrote: ... in academic writing.]

Academic writing? Now why the hell would I want to do that? Quite a leap you made there. Given most books, magazines, newspapers and manuals are written in neither 'academic' writing nor are full of typos and grammatical errors, there would seem to be an enormous middle ground of clear, but not overly stuffy, writing for which your cute blue suggestions are irrelevant.

I thought we could all lighten up a bit

Oh, no. This is very important and all that I care about in the world.

You didn't think I'd write all that and not expect someone to make fun of me, surely?

Anyway, I'm too busy to care, I'm searching everywhere on the net for some of that golden powder The Chief wants to blow up my ass. Dude.

The Chief wrote:

PellucidWombat wrote: This is also why I will be posting a trip report.

But sadly, you forgot the most important component that so many out there these days neglect to consider and practice to the tee...

Proper Acclimatization Practices & Protocols.

I see this as the most neglected and ill practiced protocol throughout the mountains these days. Far too many think that they can drive up to 8k from Sea-Level in fours hours, get out of their vehicles and then begin climbing to altitudes of up 14k without even knowing or following the proper Acclimatization Protocol.

Many very quickly fall prey to the grips of AMS and continue thinking that they can "mind over matter" their way through this potentially physiological fatal situ. Many times giving way to death via HACE and as in my recent sad experience, HAPE, both very quickly.

As will be told in the report, Tom and I had both been ascending to 10-12,000 ft every weekend for the past 3 months. On the weekend of Shasta, we slept at 5,000 ft, climbed to just under 14,000 ft, slept again at 9,800 ft, and then bivvied at 14,000 ft. My understanding, confirmed by other sources, says that neither of us should have been at risk for any serious altitude sickness by this exposure, especially since both of us responded strongly to the altitude throughout.

Also, applying any gross criteria for acclimatization is completely wrong-headed. It is specific to each person. Not only were both of us strong at altitude, but after having had an extremely LONG day on our approach/first climb, we actually felt stronger the second day, and Tom showed signs of acclimatizing.

Just as a request, please hold back your speculations until I release the report, lest I waste time repeating myself on something that will be clarified soon. Once everything is out, then you can speculate if you wish, but after a lot of soul-searching and inquiry into our actions, I've reached my conclusion and I'm done speculating.

Damien Gildea wrote:I've stayed out of this shitfight because I greatly admire PellucidWombat's restrained reaction and articulation noted above, and I respect the terrible situation he is in of losing a friend. However I'm with Raving Rick Poedtke on this one, re: alti gain. Just because a lot of people do something and don't die like flies does not make it OK, or right. People get away with stupid shit all the time, which is what makes it so dangerous. Too many people 'just make it', or wonder why they are so slow, or get sick, or get into trouble, or are too weak to help others, or whatever. You see it time and time again on Aconcagua, Vinson, Denali, Rainier etc etc. People trying to make medicine and mountains conform to their holiday schedule - be it a weekend in CA or Gasherbrum II.

Scott wrote:

... but going sea level to 10K isn't unusual and problems are pretty rare.

Not unusual in the US, but stupid nonetheless. Going that quickly to 3300m is pretty much against convention in most mountain areas of the world. When you fly into LaPaz at c.3500m people are usually advised to spend a couple of days resting before climbing anything. When you trek to Everest BC you take a couple of days to walk to Namche at this height, then most take a rest day to acclimatise before going higher. The only thing that saves more people from not dying in the western USA is that they can quickly drive down again. Most of the "I went straight to 10K and felt fine" examples on here are not proof of you being OK. They are proof you got down before your body took the full hit.

Apparently, about 1% of people ascending quickly to 10K are susceptible to HAPE:

http://www.altitude.org/altitude_sickness.php#HACE

Actually that link mentions HACE, not HAPE, but it is particularly badly worded - dangerously so. What does 'apparently' mean? How fast is 'quickly'? How do they define HACE? They note it is a 'severe' form of AMS. But AMS can impede you severely - dangerously - before it gets to full-blown cerebral edema. What are their figures based on? Medically diagnosed cases of HACE? How did they do that? The truth is that ALL people (except maybe Sherpas etc) are "susceptible" to HACE if they ascend to 10K quickly. Whether they get it or not depends on various other things. Whether it kills them or not depends on even more things - all unsaid in this article. The loose and unscientific wording of that site, on a serious medical subject, leads me to not trust a word it says - whomever is behind it.

My bad on the typo. I'll look at that, but the basic idea is the same. I used the link not as an academic source, but a quick reference for those who may be unfamiliar with the basics.

I've consulted original sources on this, and the research community is just as shocked as I was at Tom's rapid decline, especially given our history at altitude, performance at altitude, and lack of warning signs.

*Edit - actually, NOT my bad. I was consistent in stating HACE, the site gives the figure for HACE. Wikipedia, though not an academic source, gives a rate of 2% development of HAPE for those adjusting above 10,000 ft, and a rate of 1% for HACE above 9,000 ft. Obsess over the fine statistical numbers all that you want, but my point is still the same that we did not do anything out of the ordinary or obviously dangerous, and such a severe onset with no warning was still extremely rare.

The Chief wrote:

twoshuzz wrote:

He and I were both stronger and felt better ascending the Whitney Glacier Saturday than we had Friday when we climbed the Bolam Galcier to ca 14,000 ft.

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52497&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=195

My bad.. they drove up on Thursday eve? Started climbing on Friday to 10K?

Still appears to be within 24-30 hours from leaving Sea Level to 10K which is my point...proper safe acclimatization protocols not being adhered to by many in this day of getting summits done in a weekend.

And if we got AMS, then yes, we had it coming, but sudden onset of HACE with death within 7 hours? Come on and get real here.

A very valid point that was brought up by ericwillhite in his reply...

"3) You chose to camp near the summit above 14,000 feet without proper acclimatization."


Mark...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there is a clear difference between ascent altitude and sleeping altitude. You can run up to 14,000 ft just fine, with most people suffering some form of AMS. Sleeping altitude should be no higher than 10-11,000 ft your first night, and then the sleeping altitude should ideally be moved up at an average rate of at most 1,000 ft per day, while you should be venturing to higher altitudes for acclimatizing 'rest' days.

If I don't go straight up from sea level, I almost always start my climbs by sleeping at ca. 10,000 ft, and found 12,000 ft to be my limit for a good night sleep for my first night up at altitude.

And I think I have this said in the upcoming report, but Tom was being whisked to over 10,000 ft in the S. American Andes for site visits related to his work, and he reported feeling fine. One of my conclusions from the tragedy is that either Tom was EXTREMELY unlikely in this instance, or that he had an underlying condition to HACE that made this sort of outcome to be only a matter of time away, whether it was a work trip or climbing. At least one comfort to his family was that his last day was a great one spent climbing, and that he was not alone when he died.

And our decision to camp up high was based on pros and cons of descending various backup routes, each with their own risks. We decided the safest option under the unforseen and unpredictable circumstances was to wait until daylight to attempt to descend the other routes, or see if the winds had change direction or died down. We had a safe way down as a backup that we were prepared to take at the first sign of bad weather or other unsafe factors in staying on the summit. as will be said in the report. Why we didn't go down that way? It is stated in the report.