He was climbing Mount Everest. I know some people used or at least looked at the sight.
http://www.businessinsider.com/intrade-founder-john-delaney-dies-on-mt-everest-2011-5
QuoteIntrade Founder John Delaney Dies On Mt. Everest
Delaney, founder and CEO of Intrade, the prediction market, has died while trying to climb Mt. Everest.
He was less than 50 meters from the top, according to the Daily Mail.
Even sadder: Delaney never got to hear the news that his wife had just given birth to a baby daughter, Hope.
It was Delaney's second attempt to climb Everest, according to the Daily Mail. He was 42.
Intrade has posted the following note on its homepage:
"We are sad to announce the death of our founder and CEO, John Delaney, who tragically passed away while attempting his lifelong ambition of climbing Mt. Everest. His wife and children, plus all of the Intrade family, mourn his passing but know also that John always strove for the summit - be it on Everest or with Intrade. It is our goal to to give his memory one of those wishes and will do all we can to ensure Intrade's continued success."
While it sucks he had a baby daughter, that's a cooler way to go than most.
Did he die 50 m from the top or did he die further down later? Did they get him off the mountain?
I don't understand the urge to do things like climb Mt. Everest. Ok, we get it, you're a fucking badass... stop trying to prove it over and over. :mellow:
Quote from: The Brain on May 25, 2011, 06:32:57 AM
Did they get him off the mountain?
It depends on weather conditions and state of exhaustion of the other climbers and nepali guides. Several people who died on the Everest are left there, because getting a 70kg corpse and all the equipment down from the summit simply by human strength is extremely difficult, due to low oxigen and physical exertion.
@ Cal: I don't think it's a way to demonstrate to the others you're a badass, more of an inner need of proving something to oneself. I'm no climber, and by no means an adventurous/reckless person, but reaching the Everest summit is something I'd really love to do once in my life.
L.
I should qualify my post by stating that I have no problem with a professional climber attempting it, but it seems too dangerous for an amateur. I mean, the summit is so high up you literally can't survive in the atmosphere up there without supplemental oxygen. This guy (obviously) had a lot to live for including a newborn daughter, so I find his behavior to be totally reckless.
Even professional climbers are far from safe above 6000 meters ASL, the risk of mountain sickness (pulmonary edema) is way too big for even the most trained and skillful professionals, and supplemental oxygen is mandatory for everyone (except, it seems, for Reinhold Messner and a small number of highly trained climbers).
Fact is, Mt. Everest is relatively easy to climb, by far the easiest of the mountains peaking above 8000 (K2, for instance is way, way more difficult to climb, i.e. one really has to have exceptional mountaineer abilities, while on the Everest the area where one really needs to be an accomplished climber is for a bit less than 50 meters of rock just down the summit).
A lot of people try their hand at it, even when not properly trained; they make the big mistake of considering ease of climbing more important than altitude exhaustion.
L.
Quote from: Caliga on May 25, 2011, 07:20:23 AM
I should qualify my post by stating that I have no problem with a professional climber attempting it, but it seems too dangerous for an amateur. I mean, the summit is so high up you literally can't survive in the atmosphere up there without supplemental oxygen. This guy (obviously) had a lot to live for including a newborn daughter, so I find his behavior to be totally reckless.
You can survive without oxygen, literally, but it is difficult to do much without oxygen assist unless you are used to it like some of the Sherpas. After all, no-oxygen ascents are considered "the way" to do it by purists.
Agree that this was reckless. The fatality rate is something like 8% of climbers (not guides), and that is way too high for a family man to risk.
Quote from: Caliga on May 25, 2011, 07:20:23 AM
I should qualify my post by stating that I have no problem with a professional climber attempting it, but it seems too dangerous for an amateur. I mean, the summit is so high up you literally can't survive in the atmosphere up there without supplemental oxygen. This guy (obviously) had a lot to live for including a newborn daughter, so I find his behavior to be totally reckless.
:yes:
I know Everest isn't the most dangerous mountain, but even so iirc the mortality rate for climbers is something like 5%; given his family responsibilities that seems too high a risk.
The fatality risk is between 5 and 8% depending on the poster. So too high a risk for someone with a family.
Quote from: Pedrito on May 25, 2011, 07:40:56 AM
Even professional climbers are far from safe above 6000 meters ASL, the risk of mountain sickness (pulmonary edema) is way too big for even the most trained and skillful professionals, and supplemental oxygen is mandatory for everyone (except, it seems, for Reinhold Messner and a small number of highly trained climbers).
Fact is, Mt. Everest is relatively easy to climb, by far the easiest of the mountains peaking above 8000 (K2, for instance is way, way more difficult to climb, i.e. one really has to have exceptional mountaineer abilities, while on the Everest the area where one really needs to be an accomplished climber is for a bit less than 50 meters of rock just down the summit).
A lot of people try their hand at it, even when not properly trained; they make the big mistake of considering ease of climbing more important than altitude exhaustion.
L.
So, basically anyone with basic mountaineering skills can climb everest, it is just about whether you are in the 5-8% that will die due to altitude exhaustion?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2011, 09:43:54 AM
The fatality risk is between 5 and 8% depending on the poster. So too high a risk for someone with a family.
Some might say he took the easy way out. :ph34r:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2011, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Pedrito on May 25, 2011, 07:40:56 AM
Even professional climbers are far from safe above 6000 meters ASL, the risk of mountain sickness (pulmonary edema) is way too big for even the most trained and skillful professionals, and supplemental oxygen is mandatory for everyone (except, it seems, for Reinhold Messner and a small number of highly trained climbers).
Fact is, Mt. Everest is relatively easy to climb, by far the easiest of the mountains peaking above 8000 (K2, for instance is way, way more difficult to climb, i.e. one really has to have exceptional mountaineer abilities, while on the Everest the area where one really needs to be an accomplished climber is for a bit less than 50 meters of rock just down the summit).
A lot of people try their hand at it, even when not properly trained; they make the big mistake of considering ease of climbing more important than altitude exhaustion.
L.
So, basically anyone with basic mountaineering skills can climb everest, it is just about whether you are in the 5-8% that will die due to altitude exhaustion?
I think that 5-8 death rate includes people killed when one of the unpredictable storms come in and wipes out a bunch of people stuck up there.
QuoteOur 8000ers, from most dangerous to least dangerous, summits vs. deaths:
Annapurna (8,091 m)
In total, only 130 climbers have summited Annapurna, while 53 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 41%.
Nanga Parbat (8,125m)
216 climbers have summited Nanga Parbat and 61 have died. The overall fatality rate thus 28.24%.
K2 (8,611 m)
Fewer than 200 climbers have summited the world's second highest peak – 198 total. 53 have died. K2's overall fatality rate is 26.77%.
Kangchenjunga (8,586 m)
To date, only 185 climbers have summited Kangchenjunga and 40 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 22%.
Manaslu (8,163 m)
To date, 240 climbers have summited Manaslu and 52 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 21.67%.
Dhaulagiri (8,167 m)
To date, 313 climbers have summited Dhaulagiri and 56 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 18%.
Makalu (8,485 m)
To date, 206 climbers have summited Makalu and 22 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 11%.
Gasherbrum I (8,080m)
Since 1958, only 195 climbers have summited Gasherbrum I and 21 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 10.77%.
Shisha Pangma (8,027m)
To date, 201 climbers have summited Shisha Pangma and 19 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 9.5%.
Everest (8,848m)
Today, Everest has hosted close to 2,000 successful summits. 179 people have perished giving a fatality rate of 9.3%.
Broad Peak (8,051 m)
A mere 255 climbers have summited Broad Peak and 18 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 7%.
Lhotse (8,516 m)
To date, 243 climbers have summited Lhotse and 11 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 4%.
Gasherbrum II (8,034 m)
As for GII, a total of 650 climbers have summited the peak and 17 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 2.62%.
Cho Oyu (8,188 m)
To date, about 1,400 climbers have summited Cho Oyu and 35 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 2.5%,
Damn, compared to a lot of these, Everest is downright safe. 40% fatality rate for Annapurna???
I climbed both peaks of Kilimanjaro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46btEgKmCTo.
Apparently some 52 people died on Everest from 2001-2010, while there were 3790 successful attempts to reach the summit (and probably quite a few where people went back before reaching the summit), so the risk in the last ten years is closer to 1.4%. Still too high for my taste. In 2010, there were 3 fatalities with 533 people reaching the summit, i.e. 0,5% fatality risk. That might just be worth it...
Source: http://www.8000ers.com/cms/en/everest-general-info-185.html
Well, he DID become the first Irishman to die in the Everest...
Though for some reason this story only makes me think of graphs showing sharp fluctuations in stock prices... :wacko:
Everyone even marginally interested in the argument should have as mandatory read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer. He's an accomplished climber who was commissioned by a climbing magazine to reach the summit and write about it, and got stuck in a snowstorm. Of his 1996 expedition, even if led by an expert guide, eight people lost their lives, guide included :(
L.
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
QuoteOur 8000ers, from most dangerous to least dangerous, summits vs. deaths:
Annapurna (8,091 m)
In total, only 130 climbers have summited Annapurna, while 53 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 41%.
Nanga Parbat (8,125m)
216 climbers have summited Nanga Parbat and 61 have died. The overall fatality rate thus 28.24%.
K2 (8,611 m)
Fewer than 200 climbers have summited the world's second highest peak – 198 total. 53 have died. K2's overall fatality rate is 26.77%.
Kangchenjunga (8,586 m)
To date, only 185 climbers have summited Kangchenjunga and 40 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 22%.
Manaslu (8,163 m)
To date, 240 climbers have summited Manaslu and 52 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 21.67%.
Dhaulagiri (8,167 m)
To date, 313 climbers have summited Dhaulagiri and 56 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 18%.
Makalu (8,485 m)
To date, 206 climbers have summited Makalu and 22 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 11%.
Gasherbrum I (8,080m)
Since 1958, only 195 climbers have summited Gasherbrum I and 21 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 10.77%.
Shisha Pangma (8,027m)
To date, 201 climbers have summited Shisha Pangma and 19 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 9.5%.
Everest (8,848m)
Today, Everest has hosted close to 2,000 successful summits. 179 people have perished giving a fatality rate of 9.3%.
Broad Peak (8,051 m)
A mere 255 climbers have summited Broad Peak and 18 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 7%.
Lhotse (8,516 m)
To date, 243 climbers have summited Lhotse and 11 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 4%.
Gasherbrum II (8,034 m)
As for GII, a total of 650 climbers have summited the peak and 17 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 2.62%.
Cho Oyu (8,188 m)
To date, about 1,400 climbers have summited Cho Oyu and 35 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 2.5%,
Damn, compared to a lot of these, Everest is downright safe. 40% fatality rate for Annapurna???
Some bad stats there. Annapurna has had 53 deaths out of 183 climbers who have either summited or died. That's not a 41% death rate unless all of the deaths occurred on the way down, and so the 132 number includes all summiters
and all deaths.
Plus, for our purposes, summits by guides don't count. That's probably half the Everest summits (maybe more: in 2010, 315 of 513 summits were by guides). The safest year for Everest, last year, would then be less than 3% climber fatalities if all four fatalities that year were climbers.
Still too much for Zanza2 is correct to note that we should look at more recent data to evaluate this guy's risk, but even the 4% average over the last ten years is too high for a family man.
Quote from: Pedrito on May 25, 2011, 11:48:16 AM
Everyone even marginally interested in the argument should have as mandatory read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer. He's an accomplished climber who was commissioned by a climbing magazine to reach the summit and write about it, and got stuck in a snowstorm. Of his 1996 expedition, even if led by an expert guide, eight people lost their lives, guide included :(
L.
Agree that it is a great read, but should be read with a grain of salt. There is controversy over what exactly happened that day.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2011, 11:58:17 AM
Quote from: Pedrito on May 25, 2011, 11:48:16 AM
Everyone even marginally interested in the argument should have as mandatory read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer. He's an accomplished climber who was commissioned by a climbing magazine to reach the summit and write about it, and got stuck in a snowstorm. Of his 1996 expedition, even if led by an expert guide, eight people lost their lives, guide included :(
L.
Agree that it is a great read, but should be read with a grain of salt. There is controversy over what exactly happened that day.
[Languish]Yes, because no one except him survived to witness what really happened! [/Languish] Okay, it was a cold one. :blush:
Krakauer does a good job by making readers understand what are the physical and mental strains someone up there is experimenting.
L.
Quote from: Pedrito on May 25, 2011, 02:23:28 PM
[Languish]Yes, because no one except him survived to witness what really happened! [/Languish] Okay, it was a cold one. :blush:
No, of course not. There were plenty of survivors. In fact, other survivors have written books about this.
QuoteKrakauer does a good job by making readers understand what are the physical and mental strains someone up there is experimenting.
Agreed - and he also makes us understand why people want to climb, and why Everest has become so commercial.
I watched the Discovery episodes about Everest, it was very, very interesting (I thought).
It also struck me as very...mechanical. Like so many people have done it, and do it, that it feels kind of, I don't know...controlled?
Which maybe makes it more dangerous, to some degree - it seems so routine, that people don't give it the respect it deserves. Sure, there are guides, and ropes, and all that...but it will still kill you dead if something goes wrong.
Anyway, the entire thing seemed kind of fake somehow, like it didn't really seem like what I imagined extreme mountain climbing to be - way to "supported" or something.
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2011, 02:35:47 PM
I watched the Discovery episodes about Everest, it was very, very interesting (I thought).
It also struck me as very...mechanical. Like so many people have done it, and do it, that it feels kind of, I don't know...controlled?
Which maybe makes it more dangerous, to some degree - it seems so routine, that people don't give it the respect it deserves. Sure, there are guides, and ropes, and all that...but it will still kill you dead if something goes wrong.
Anyway, the entire thing seemed kind of fake somehow, like it didn't really seem like what I imagined extreme mountain climbing to be - way to "supported" or something.
You mean Beyond the Limit? That's definitely an interesting show, but the goddamn reality TV-like voice over really gets on my nerves sometimes.
Anyway, yeah, I've seen posts and heard people say that Everest is now more of a super difficult "hike," much of it due to the conditions (low oxygen, weather, etc), instead of a very technically difficult high altitude climb like K2 and probably Annapurna. I think they may have actually mentioned something like that in the show at one point too.
Everest is just an unusually tall pile.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 25, 2011, 03:02:17 PM
Anyway, yeah, I've seen posts and heard people say that Everest is more of a super difficult "hike," much of it due to the conditions (low oxygen, weather, etc), instead of a very technically difficult high altitude climb like K2 and probably Annapurna. I think they may have actually mentioned something like that in the show at one point too.
Exactly. Like if you could be certain to have good weather, and not too many people trying to summit with you, a relatively inexperienced climber who was in decent physical condition could manage it on oxygen.
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2011, 02:35:47 PM
I watched the Discovery episodes about Everest, it was very, very interesting (I thought).
It also struck me as very...mechanical. Like so many people have done it, and do it, that it feels kind of, I don't know...controlled?
Which maybe makes it more dangerous, to some degree - it seems so routine, that people don't give it the respect it deserves. Sure, there are guides, and ropes, and all that...but it will still kill you dead if something goes wrong.
Anyway, the entire thing seemed kind of fake somehow, like it didn't really seem like what I imagined extreme mountain climbing to be - way to "supported" or something.
That's exaxctly why, although nto being a terribly difficult climb, the death toll is still high. Several people trying to the summit, not all of them in the best conditions to try, plusscarce respect for the mountain --> recipe for disaster.
Oh, and the Annapurna is so deadly mainly because of avalanches falling from it more often than from other 8000s.
On the Annapurna died Anatoly Boukreev (sp?) who was one of those that reached into safety in the 1996 Everest expedition that Krakauer told in his book, and the main opposer of Krakauer's version of the events that led to the disaster.
L.
Quote from: Caliga on May 25, 2011, 07:03:36 AM
I don't understand the urge to do things like climb Mt. Everest. Ok, we get it, you're a fucking badass... stop trying to prove it over and over. :mellow:
No kidding. I can almost understand doing it once, but why in the world would you want to do it a second time?
Um, his wife was in labor, and he was on Everest? Can we say "priorities?"
Priorities.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 25, 2011, 11:25:37 PM
Um, his wife was in labor, and he was on Everest? Can we say "priorities?"
An Everest climb is usually planned at least twelve months in advance, and is a pretty expensive trip - in the order of some tens of thousand dollars.
L.
Hey a couple dudes paraglided off of Everest the other day:
http://outside-blog.away.com/blog/2011/05/climbers-paraglide-from-everest-summit-to-namche-bazaar.html
It has been done before, but it's still a much more interesting (and quicker heh) way of getting down.
QuoteAn Everest climb is usually planned at least twelve months in advance, and is a pretty expensive trip - in the order of some tens of thousand dollars.
Yeah, just the climbing permits are running like $25k for a single person. It gets cheaper when you bring a group, but you're still looking at $10,000+ just for that. You still have to get the equipment together, get yourself over to the mountain, hire guides, etc. Lots of planning and money involved, and there's only, what...two-three weeks a year when it's "safe" enough to head up there?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 25, 2011, 11:25:37 PM
Um, his wife was in labor, and he was on Everest? Can we say "priorities?"
One of the potted plants at work was in an MBA program that, as part of his final class, had to go to China to a 10 day trip. Insisted on going, even though it was scheduled for when his wife was in her 9th month.
Sure as shit, on the second day over there, he flew right back because she delivered. At least he got to listen to it on the cell phone.
Talk about giving the lttle missus ammo for the rest of his life. What a douche.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 25, 2011, 11:25:37 PM
Um, his wife was in labor, and he was on Everest? Can we say "priorities?"
They should make a movie about that. Set it in World War II and have him meet the Dalai Lama. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2011, 04:27:51 AM
One of the potted plants at work was in an MBA program that, as part of his final class, had to go to China to a 10 day trip. Insisted on going, even though it was scheduled for when his wife was in her 9th month.
Sure as shit, on the second day over there, he flew right back because she delivered. At least he got to listen to it on the cell phone.
Talk about giving the lttle missus ammo for the rest of his life. What a douche.
Well hopefully he got to expense that trip. :)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 26, 2011, 01:37:05 AM
QuoteAn Everest climb is usually planned at least twelve months in advance, and is a pretty expensive trip - in the order of some tens of thousand dollars.
Yeah, just the climbing permits are running like $25k for a single person. It gets cheaper when you bring a group, but you're still looking at $10,000+ just for that. You still have to get the equipment together, get yourself over to the mountain, hire guides, etc. Lots of planning and money involved, and there's only, what...two-three weeks a year when it's "safe" enough to head up there?
If they'd been trying to have a baby, and not just oops, I'm pregnant - still odd priorities.