Thinker

I'm sailing thru 'The Voyage of the Beagle' right now.

A couple of them were definitely lockers I've used for toproping (clipped to bolts.) Others are non-lockers that, I'm assuming, I've fallen on or lowered off of. I don't take many whippers...I'm too much of a wuss to put myself in that situation very often.

I was fondling my rack Sunday after an outing on Total Soul and found a biner with some sharp grooves gouged in it, presumably by bolt hangars, some of which were sharp enough to damage a rope. A closer inspection of my rack showed 7 biners with enough damage that I wanted take a small jeweler's file to....which I did. The photos below were taken after a small amount of filing...kind of an afterthought. My questions are: 1. Is there anything else that could cause such damage? 2. How many of you (other than sprot climbers) have biners dedicated to bolts? (i.e. once you clip them to a bolt you'll never clip them to a rope or sling.) 3. How long has it been since you've fondled (inspected) YOUR biners?

I was trying to be a bit cheeky....but it was obviously lost on you, Necro. My main point was that the CO2 level in the bag over your head wasn't going to be toxic....it was another factor that was going to do you in. To make it completely correct, I'll change my statement to "I trust you're making a joke. The CO2 in that case is probably not toxic. The lack of O2 is what's fatal." Better?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dingleberry

and remember co2 is not toxic!!! enjoy! I trust you're making a joke. The CO2 in that case is probably not toxic. The lack of O2 definitely is.

I have a couple of 50 footers I usually toss in the pack if I'm planning on toproping. They're leftovers from my days in the midwest (Pallisades Park, SD and Blue Mound, MN) where they were often essential pieces of TR gear. A 2nd rope or a static rap line works just as well, and are probably more common in a PacNWer's pack.

I'd consider using the bolders slung with webbing over the cam placements. Better yet, sling the huge bolder further back in the 2nd photo. dkemp, what did you use for your anchor?

OK after re-reading CBS's post I'll have to say this, while high levels of CO2 may or may not be toxic to humans, there are many other organisms that are likely more sensitive to it, so I'll not contradict CBS in that regard. I will question the definintion of pollutant, though. Don't the different EPA programs define terms in different ways in some cases? i.e. CERCLA vs RCRA vs CAA vs CWA? I think it's a bit more involved than the simple definition put forth above.

It's not a clear-cut issue. web page "The health and toxicity implications of carbon dioxide were reviewed by Michael Hodgson, MD of the University of Connecticut Health Sciences Center. His research indicates that, despite largely untested reports to the contrary, there is no physiological evidence that CO2 has any metabolic influence at concentrations below about 8500 ppm. Between 8500 -10,000 ppm the tidal flow of air through the lungs is increased and above 34,000 ppm the respiratory system becomes more rapid. At 40-45,000 ppm sweating occurs and at about 50,000ppm anxiety is induced. He also reported that in the 19th century, CO2 was used as a narcotic for surgery, where concentrations approaching 500,000 ppm (50%) were needed. Under all but extreme occupancy conditions, therefore, the removal of CO2 from a space on grounds that it in itself influences health cannot normally be regarded as an issue." edit: for reference..."Carbon dioxide is a constituent of the outdoor air and evidence suggests that its ambient concentration is gradually increasing. Actual outdoor concentration is dependent on locality and varies from between approximately 350 ppm, away from urban areas, to approximately 400 ppm in city environments."

Is this related to the fund Murray helps coordinate?

If you're going to get a filter, Katadyn http://www.katadyn.net/ is the Cadillac, IMHO. They can be completely disassembled, cleaned and repaired without specialzed equipment. It's what I'd take to any 3rd world country.

check this one out about TRing thru aluminum rap rings: web page "Several years ago, Linda and I were on a road trip through the Eastern side of the Sierras. One afternoon we were climbing on the West side of the Owens River Gorge, in a popular area with several climbs. Climbing behind us was a group of six people, top roping a 5.9. After doing a few climbs in the area, we decided to pack-it-in for the afternoon. As we were getting ready to leave, one of the climbers in the group suggested that we try the climb they had been top roping. He told us that although the climb was short and not very challenging, it had some good moves and was a lot of fun. He even offered to hang around and let us use their rope if we wanted to top rope the climb. I thanked him for his offer, but told him that I didn't want to hold them up and I would like to lead the climb. He pulled his rope and explained that they had been using the slings and ring at the bolts to tope rope the climb. While the other group packed up their gear and ate power bars, I headed up the climb. When I got to the top, I was a little concerned with the slings and rap ring that had been left at the bolts. The single aluminum rap ring was tethered to two bolts by several ancient slings. Since I wasn't happy with the anchors, I felt a little community service was in order and decided to replace the slings with some steel quick-links and chains. After tying into the hangers with my slings and lockers and lowering my end of the rope down to Linda, I hauled up my hardware and started cutting away the old slings. When I had cleared most of the old webbing, I was shocked by my first clear view of the rap ring. Two deep grooves had been worn into the rap ring by pulling countless ropes. I was amazed that the ring had held and no one had been injured. When I got to the bottom of the climb and showed the rap ring to the fellow who had offered to let us use his rope, he was devastated. All he could say was "Oh Shit!". The rest of his group came over to check out the rap ring, and a woman in the group really laid into him. I have been carrying the rap ring with me for several years as a reminder to check every station, and never take anything for granted. "

I'll shoot ya.........right on back to Spray where it's more stimulating to folks like yourself who were raised on Gilligan's Island and I Dream of Jeanie.

I took the time to read this article throughly, and it really presents a good discussion of giardia and other microbes in the back country. I thought it deserved being highlighted a bit better. Giardia Lamblia and Giardiasis With Particular Attention to the Sierra Nevada By Robert L. Rockwell, PhD (the following quote by no means summarizes the entire article, but seems germane to the discussion here) "Also, while so much attention is being given to Giardia, there are worse organisms to worry about such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and the other organisms mentioned earlier. In an informative study, [37] investigators contacted thousands of visitors to one of the high-use sites during the summers of 1988 through 1990. Water samples taken on 10 different dates at each of three locations exhibited Giardia cyst concentrations between 0 and 0.062 (average 0.009) per liter. A goal was to enlist volunteers who were cyst-negative before their trip, verified by stool analysis, and then determine what fraction were cyst carriers after the trip. Unfortunately, stool collection is not a particularly enjoyable task, and only 41 people agreed to participate. Of these, two acquired Giardia cysts during their trip, but neither came down with symptoms. Six of the others exhibited post-visit intestinal symptoms, but none tested positive for Giardia (interestingly, all six had filtered their water). In sum, no cases of laboratory-confirmed symptomatic giardiasis were found. The water that wilderness travelers are apt to drink, assuming that they use a little care, seems almost universally safe as far as Giardia is concerned. The study referred to earlier,2 in which the researchers concluded that the risk of contracting giardiasis in the wilderness is similar to that of a shark attack, is telling. What they did find is that Giardia and other intestinal bugs are for the most part spread by direct fecal-oral or food-borne transmission, not by contaminated drinking water. Since personal hygiene often takes a backseat when camping, the possibility of contracting giardiasis from someone in your own party—someone who is asymptomatic, probably—is real. Recalling that up to 7 percent of Americans, or 1 in 14, are infected, it is not surprising that wilderness visitors can indeed come home with a case of giardiasis contracted not from the water…but from one of their friends. This theme, that reduced attention to personal hygiene is an important factor for contracting giardiasis in the wilderness, is becoming more frequent in the literature.2, 10, 14, 37, [38] Outside of the Sierra, Giardia cysts in concentrations “as high as four per gallon [§]” have been detected in untreated water in northeastern and western states. [39] But even with this concentration, one would have to consume over nine liters of water to have a 50 percent chance of ingesting 10 or more cysts. Indeed, there may be as much unwarranted hysteria surrounding Giardia in wilderness water in these other areas as there is for the Sierra. For example, an oft-cited report describing acquisition of the disease by 65 percent of a group of students hiking in the Uinta Mountains of Utah [40] is now viewed with considerable skepticism. Specifically, the attack rate was far beyond that usually seen with water-contracted giardiasis, no cysts were identified in the suspect water, there was no association between water consumption rates and the likelihood of the disease, and the authors categorically discounted food-borne or fecal-oral spread, stating that it had never been reported (correct at the time).2 "

NOT TO BE A PEST OR ANYTHING(BUT ISNT THAT WHAT I DO BEST?? ) BUT COULD YOU DEFINE AND SUPPORT REGULARLY...THE ONLY PERSON I'VE KNOWN TO CONTRACT GIARDIA GOT IT IN NEPAL. The closest I can come 'off the cuff' while at work is this: Giardiasis Surveillance --- United States, 1992--1997 and this: web page which states there are 700 to 900 cases of giardia per year in the state of WA. I don't have a technical definition of regularly, but I could argue that the reasoable man would consider the 700 cases per year to be 'regular', even if only 10% (a number I've picked out of my ass) of the cases occur in the backcountry. Erik, your point is well taken. It would be an interesting topic to research thoroughly. I'm an engineer, so my knowledge on this subject is limited, but I'll check with my roommate who is a MD with an interest in bc medicine and see what she comes up with. PS. here's another pertinent article that jumped out at me. Giardia Lamblia and Giardiasis

Granted, the real risk of crypto and giardia is to humans with a special sensitivity to those organisms, a compromised imune system being one example. That's why I am personally comfortable treating my water with iodine. I really posted it to show some 'real' data about what iodine and cholorine do and don't kill. There is certainly some wiggle room in the 'study' regarding 'effective' treatment. How is that defined? Is it a 100% kill rate? Is it a LD50? How many organisms can one expect to find in a quart of water of any quality, and what is the minimum number of organisms required to infect a human? How does the risk of having complications due to crypto or giardia compare to the risk of eating spoiled food in the back country? How likely is it to get crypto or giardia from your drinking water vs from your own fingers (or your partners fingers) if a team is not rigorous about hygiene? My hunch is that more backcountry illness come from transfer of microbes between members in a party rather than from 'bad' drinking water sources, though both do regularly happen.

and Safe Drinking Water - Guidance for people with severely weakened immune systems Cryptosporidium is a parasite commonly found in lakes and rivers, especially when the water is contaminated with sewage and animal wastes. Cryptosporidium is very resistant to disinfection, and even a well-operated water treatment system cannot ensure that drinking water will be completely free of this parasite. Current EPA drinking water standards were not explicitly designed to assure the removal or killing of Cryptosporidium. Many large water systems already voluntarily take actions for greater control of Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants. By 2001, the water systems serving the majority of the United States population (those relying on a surface water source, such as a river, and serving more than 10,000 people) must meet a new EPA standard that strengthens control over microbial contaminants, including Cryptosporidium. EPA continues to conduct research on microbial contaminants which will be used for determining priorities for the drinking water program, including setting future standards and reevaluating existing standards. Cryptosporidium has caused several large waterborne disease outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness, with symptoms that include diarrhea, nausea, and/or stomach cramps. People with severely weakened immune systems (that is, severely immunocompromised) are likely to have more severe and more persistent symptoms than healthy individuals. Moreover, Cryptosporidium has been a contributing cause of death in some immunocompromised people. Individuals who are severely immunocompromised may include those who are infected with HIV/AIDS, cancer and transplant patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, and people born with a weakened immune system. BACKGROUND: Data are not adequate to determine how most people become infected. For example, we do not know the importance of drinking water compared to other possible sources of Cryptosporidium, such as exposure to the feces of infected persons or animals, sex involving contact with feces, eating contaminated food, or accidentally swallowing contaminated recreational water. Thus, in the absence of an outbreak, there are insufficient data to determine whether a severely immunocompromised individual is at a noticeably greater risk than the general public from waterborne Cryptosporidiosis. Even a low level of Cryptosporidium in water, however, may be of concern for the severely immunocompromised, because the illness can be life-threatening. The risk of a severely immunocompromised individual acquiring Cryptosporidiosis from drinking water in the absence of an outbreak is likely to vary from city to city, depending on the quality of the city's water source and the quality of water treatment. Current risk data are not adequate to support a recommendation that severely immunocompromised persons in all U.S. cities boil or avoid drinking tap water. In the absence of a recognized outbreak, this guidance has been developed for severely immunocompromised people who may wish to take extra precautions to minimize their risk of infection from waterborne Cryptosporidiosis. To be effective, the guidance must be followed consistently for all water used for drinking or for mixing beverages. During outbreaks of waterborne Cryptosporidiosis, studies have found that people who used precautions only part of the time were just as likely to become ill as people who did not use them at all. see the continuation and links on the EPA web page

for what it's worth: Crypto Threat Growing, New Study Shows Iodine/Chlorine Ineffectual A joint guidance released by the CDC and the EPA this past summer outlined the grave new threat posed by the infectious protozoa Cryptosporidium to the immune-suppressed. Apart from a sturdy immune system, no cure has yet been found for Cryptosporidiosis, Government tests show that at least half of the municipal water systems in the country remain contaminated with Crypto even after the water is treated, and over 87% of surface water in the country is thought to be contaminated with Crypto. Public awareness of the Crypto threat is growing, but many may still believe that chemical disinfection (iodine tablets or chlorine crystals) will protect them from that threat. Several studies have shown that disinfection is not in fact effective. The latest study is entitled "Efficacy of Water Purification Tablets and Granules Against Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Giardia Cysts", dated August, 1995, and conducted by the Department of Microbiology & Immunology at the University of Arizona. When tested according to their usage instructions, neither the iodine product nor the chlorine product worked against Crypto. Though neither product claims to protect against Crypto, only Giardia or "protozoa", it is important for people to know exactly which pathogens they are and which they are not being protected against with any product. With the iodine, "the tablets were not effective in the inactivation of Cryptosporidium oocysts in either average or worst case water quality conditions." With the chlorine granules, "no inactivation of [Crypto] was observed..even after 6 hours of contact." The Giardia was more responsive than the Crypto to disinfection, although with both iodine and chlorine, "a longer contact time was required than recommended by the manufacturer to inactivate 99.9% of the Giardia cysts in worst case water." This parasite is common to all surface waters in the United States, Canada and overseas, and effective treatment of drinking water is needed to prevent its transmission.

there are a number of euro routes that have been put up for removable bolts. Two things about them are 1: the holes are sometimes hard to find if the rain has washed off the chalk, and 2: the removable bolts can be difficult (if not impossible) to remove after a significant fall.

I'm jealous....I have to work. Have a good one.

Iodine tablets. Then neutralizer tablets they sell are simply vitamin C tablets. I bite a VC pill in half, crush it, and dump it in my iodinized water and it's clear and fresh witin 10 seconds (not counting the 20 minute wait AFTER the iodine tab is completely dissolved.) Sometimes you get a little grit in the water if you're drinkin glacier melt. 'Filter' it thru a handkerchief or a shirt before treatement if you don't like the floaters and sinkers. Clorox bleach is an appropriate substitue, too. Emergency preparedness websites have the dose rates. I prefer the iodine because it won't destroy my gear if it gets loose in my pack, unlike clorox.

Make it so...

"I gots the girls, Dad! You bring the beer and the ropes." add your own caption.

The way I rack depends on the climb. I prefer to rack on my harness, but if I'm climbing a dihedral or chimney where I expect my hips to contact the rock I switch to a gear sling. To switch gear to the leader of the next pitch I move each piece of gear off my harness to a runner around my neck/shoulder and hand it off en masse to him/her. All that can usually be done while they are grabing a drink, snack, or a quick peek at the views. I don't think it really takes up that much time on most of the climbs in the PacNW. If I were to do a big wall I'd definitely want to have a system down beforehand to be more efficient....likely involving a gear sling.