kmurray

Now he is trying to pull his scam over at Mt. Whitney. Must be taking a vacation down in Ca. http://www.mt-whitney.info/viewtopic.php?t=634

I'm not amazed at all, cat. This issue comes up often, for beginners at the crags. I was at Josh yesterday, with a group of quite experienced climbers (one was celebrating his 25th year at Josh), and there was considerable debate over these issues. A related issue brought up was whether it is a good idea to rappel off the belay loop, and it seemed that the predominate thought was that one should not, but pass the biner through the two parts of the harness. Part of the logic was "it's a belay loop, not a rappel loop". Personally, I think there is no difference. As for things that have been done for decades....if one is using decades-old equipment, designed to be used that way, fine. But if one is using modern equipment, one should use it the way it is designed to be used.

A copy of current EMT protocols: http://www.med.wright.edu/em/gmvemsc/2004AdultBasic-FRmanual.pdf On page 73, 3.1.5 #3, it talks about when CPR will NOT be started, and it says: they will NOT start CPR on a victim of traumatic full arrest, unless they can get the patient to an ER within FIVE minutes, or the cause is suspected to be from a reversible cause, such as a heart attack, or focused trauma to the chest (getting hit by a baseball, for example) I don't post this advocating that people not do CPR in this situation, but rather to demonstrate that professionals do not consider this to be of value for the victim. The issue of doing it to make the family or rescuer feel better is another thing. I have often seen paramedics perform CPR that could have no beneficial effect (one-handed CPR with a light touch), only so that it can be said that CPR was done, and make people feel better. If we are talking about futile care, why not do useless things that do not put the rescuer at risk, rather than useless things that DO put them to some risk?

The answer to who did the climbing on location: Yates and Simpson, according to the talk I attended by Simpson. In fact, he was a little peeved that they did not receive onscreen credit for the climbing that they did.

While I have had many experiences in stopping CPR in people, and declaring them dead, I think there is a real problem with people doing things that have no value. For example, in a victim of traumatic full arrest, one of the few procedures that might save a life in a very small percentage of cases, would be opening the chest, and searching for a repairable tear. Dr. Clyde and I both have the skills to do that, but I venture that neither of us would, because we would be lacking the vast amount of equipment that is neccessary to make such a venture worthwhile. My point in posting is that with a person suffering a traumatic full arrest, there is nothing that you can do that will save their life in the field, and you should feel no guilt because you have not undertaken futile things. I, for one, would not want my last conscious thought to be of someone breaking my ribs, attempting to do effective, but fruitless CPR. A book that touches on this issue is "Dark Shadows Falling", by Joe Simpson, in which he discusses at length, the issue of being with a dying person in the wilderness, and the issues involved. I am not one to be overly morbid, but one of the reasons that we tend to be so unprepared for exposure to such things, is that we tend not to talk about it, and work through the issues. It is good to talk about it at length, both for the people involved, and for the people who may some day be involved. Also, in their death, those who pass give something to the rest of us, which is an ultimate tribute to them...

I am a physician of 20 years, and in contrast to the other poster, I have never seen a victim of *traumatic* full arrest be resuscitated, other than in a trauma center, with a massive effort, and tremendous resources. This is totally different than a person who has a heart attack, or other medical process that causes a reversible stopping of the heart. In the case of massive trauma, things like major arteries are torn apart, and CPR does NOT restore circulation in such cases. Even in the cases of resuscitation in the trauma center, massive, irreversible brain damage is the usual result.

"While this is definitely a concern, I think that it's a pretty rare thing to load a big biner 3 ways. We climbed this way for DECADES before belay loops were invented." However, the newer, huge 'biners, used for belaying, are much more prone to this loading than a simple oval, likely what you were using 20-30 years ago.

posted at rockclimbing.com: ========= Dear Friends: I never expected for any of us to nail down exactly what happened in the accident. There were simply too many variables. However there are certain indicators that suggest a general picture. One climber had a belay device attached to his harness with the rope crimped in it, and that suggests he was actively belaying at the time of the accident. He was also attached to a sling/cordalette configuration tied off to three SLCD's, which on close inspection showed signs of deformation consistant with them being ripped from an anchor point by a significant shock load. Lastly, one (both ?) of the climbers tie-in knots was so tight it couldn't be untied by hand but had to cut -- and what else can this mean except that he fell onto the rope with considerable force, and that the anchor held long enough to fuse his knot. While any number of scenarios are possible, the most obvious one is that someone was belaying, and someone was climbing. Someone fell, the anchor failed, and the rest we sadly know. If I'd been on hand to inspect the skid marks and impact area I highly doubt I would have put forth anything more definitive that what the RMRU said from the outset. Given all the variables, I have come to resprect and appreciate what the RMRU said in the end, that we will probably never know for sure quite how our fellow climbers died. Nevertheless, I have found this conversation constructive, but my mind can come up with no more to say. There is a time following the death of every person where we are finally left with the nothing more than the loss, and I wish people grace in that process. Sincerely, John Long

perhaps of interest was this post this morning: ======= dear thank you for the attempts at in-depth analysis of the causes behind the death of our two fellow climbers, Dan and Kelly. It will perhaps serve to re-assess some of the tenets of anchor-building, and make our activities safer. After seing the pics of the anchor setup and the description of the state of the cams, I could not help remember a thread on Equalized vs. Pseudo Equalized Anchors http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36371&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0 which started with oldeclimber wrote: Let's start off by building a simple three point self equalizing anchor. Take three cams in perfect placements, and a long piece of cordelette tied end to end using a grapevine knot. For obvious reasons, I am off to that thread to discuss anchors. The discussion done there will be done in memory of Dave and Kelly.

(And NO ONE, to my knowledge, has posted or advocated: 1.never use SLCD's, 2.only use nuts, 3. never place pro until you are an expert in anchoring systems. ONLY that SLCD-exclusive systems may have weaknesses that may come into play in a fall, the EXACT reason that the anchor is placed in the first place. If the philosophy is that there will be no falling, then why screw around with all this gear?) (I dunno, it seems like you simple want to debate, and provoke. I'm sure that it must be entertaining to other readers, but I think we've make all our points, eh?)

BTW, it now looks as though the accident in SoCal *was* caused by a failed belay anchor. Three pieces, equalized.

MattP wrote:"If you would read this thread and think about what I've been saying for even as much as thirty seconds, you wouldn't think I was advocating learning to place gear first, and only then talking about "building an anchor." But in a previous post said: " I say emphasizing "SRENE" before learning how to put in the gear in the first place is putting the cart before the horse, and I'd perfectly happily climb just about any crag route around with someone who knew how to place gear but had no knowledge of "proper" SRENE techniques." So.....that is *exactly* what it sounds like you are advocating. However, I think that you started off with an incorrect premise about what the opening statement was about, and John Long's take on it. The advocacy was, it seemed to me, that the best anchors would combine different kinds of pieces, rather than just relying on SLCD's. Of course, you feel that a single SLCD is an acceptable anchor, backed up (apparently), but not equalized. The great thing about climbing is that you can do whatever you want. However, in this matter, you are clearly outside the mainstream of what is taught by every professional, everywhere in the world that I know of. It is true that experience teaches where you can "cut the margin", but that can only be learned through experience, not from *other* people's experience. It seems like there is some confusion as to what the climber is doing. Obviously, the concept of a "belay anchor" implies Trad, and that is how I took it. Personally, I think that any climber who starts their climbing career climbing Trad is foolish beyond comprehension. The route for most, is top-roping, sport (neither of which *requires* the ability to place pro), then finally to Trad. This seems a safe path for learning sequential skills. So, in the ideal world, a climber who is starting Trad would already be proficient with knots, belaying, ropework, equipment care.....and anchoring systems, as that generally *is* required to climb on TR, unless you have someone doing it for you. Hey, Jay, I wonder if you know that what apparently happened in SoCal, was that the lead climber slipped on moss?

Perkins, as a professional wordsmith, I appreciate that you may simply be parsing words, here. If I understand what you said, you are distinguishing between anchoring systems, and placing pro. Certainly you are correct, these are two different skillsets. And I would certainly agree, that creating a SRENE anchoring system is now, generally, a simple thing to do (although my *experience* in actually seeing what people do out at the crags continues to baffle me, as to why this cannot be done well, by a lot of people). And I would agree that placing pro is a vastly more complex undertaking. You say "Yes, anchor building is an art and a skill - but it is not in my view anywhere near as much of a mystery as is commonly suggested. Everytime I state this it is rebuffed" Which makes me think that you might have a minority opinion. Perhaps *you* may find these subjects simple, but perhaps many people do not. This may well have to do with learning processes....for example, someone with a doctorate may have down the process of learning, solidly, any particular function, even if it involves many steps. Someone who does not have that educational background may find the *process* of learning more challenging. Most climbers do not have doctorates. Although, I find it interesting that many of the early climbers were associated with university climbing clubs, Berkeley, Harvard, etc. Perhaps there is a draw to the subject? You also state: "Any new leader should spend a lot more time learning to place gear on lead, in my opinion, than learning how to build a John-Long-approved belay." Surely, you are not advocating that anyone should lead on an inadequate belay anchor? Perhaps you meant that any new leader, once they have mastered a bomber belay anchor, should spend a lot of time mastering the placement of gear. However, I'd agree that there are several ways to get to the goal.

not. it is was and will forever be lame to make gross simplifications about what may or may not be safe in a given situation. What gross simplification are you referring to? The oversimplification that it is wise to know and use a variety of techniques in varying situations? That no one technique is probably as good as using combined techniques, each of which has strengths and weaknesses, to optimize the result? To discuss what experts have said, to better understand the best way to conduct our sport?

Matt, where I am coming from is that anchoring is a complex subject, and simplistic approaches are probably not reasonable. I, like you, see astonishingly poor practices on the crags. I think that discussion of these things can be enlightening for people. None of us like to see accidents, and I think the people newer to the sport benefit from sophisticated comments on anchors, such as yours.

ketch, those discussions were on this board, but I'm not sure what the right search words would be to find them. It seems like the discussions began with the topic of whether a person should learn anchoring first with active or passive pro. Oh, and I suppose I should expose my little joke. The poster that made that assertion that I quoted was John Long, who is a frequent contributor to Rockclimbing.com. It was interesting to see his take on the issue.

In the accident in Cal, before it was established that the climbers were not anchored, and the discussion centered (on Rockclimber.com) on the possible anchor failure, one post said: ======== vivalargo Sport Climber Friends, In reading over the review of the anchor configuration -- although the facts are still not firmly established -- it looks like the entire anchor (which failed) was built on SLCD's (spring loaded camming devices). Opinions will pour in about the relative safety/danger of using only SLCD's for a primary anchor, and I suspect that in light of the fact that the cams were Camalot's, that brand will take some heat as well. But for whatever my opinion is worth, I believe the problem is not with Camalots, rather with rigging any primary anchor only with SLCD's. Because SLCD's can pivot under a shockload, I have always been terrified of rigging a anchor exclusively from said units. I always try and get a big taper or Hex in or better yet, a natural anchor. Not always possible, but the recent tradegy would seem to suggest we should try whenever possible. JL ============= I've heard discussion of such things in the past, but it was interesting to see it revisited, in the context of a recent accident.

Wow, you guys up in Seattle really have a different group of public servants than us in Los Angeles. In several different climbing areas in our region, there is not even recognition that climbing even exists. I'm fairly astonished that your folks want your input, and are even considering doing something to help the development of your sport. I think this is a great idea. I'm going to start to look if there is some similar thing that could be done down here.

If you are going to criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you are a mile away from them.......and you have their shoes.

Merriam-Webster Online dictionary: OBSCURE:relatively unknown, not famous But you said: "Just because you have not heard about the journal does not make it obscure" And to that I say, on my planet, Earth, in plain English, yes it does! You further state: "Quite on the contrary, this journal, along with Journal of the American Water Works Association is where most of the Giardia and Cryptpsporidium research has been published and has had important impacts on public policy and the way municipal treatment plants do their business. " Which is great, I guess, but is NOT where the information used to develop medical treatments are published and discussed. I know I am going out on a limb, but I dont think the average backpacker uses those journals to educate themselves to the perils of backcountry water. Shockingly, I am virtually certain that no physician does, either. I would be astonished if any gastroenterologist or infectious disease specialist has ever read either of them. You state: "No, I did not do paristology work on human specimens (much easier than doing it in environmental samples, license or no)" If you don't do it, and are not licensed to do so (and have therefore not gone through the training required), then how can you make statements authoritatively about how easy/hard something is to do?

Now I am really confused. Rockwell does NOT assert that " his own conclusions based on the fact that he has never exhibited symptoms of the disease.", as anyone who reads his paper can see. It makes me wonder if you actually DID read the paper, as you originally claimed that you had not, in it's entirety. Once again, you flatly state that his information is wrong, but you do not state WHAT is wrong. You notice that I specifically state what I disagree with, in your postings. That allows you to attempt to refute me. However, you don't give the same opportunity to the guy you are trashing. Not fair, and not reasonable. What is the huge disservice? How about this: you have stated in your posting that you have worked for a company selling filters. Seems to me that you have a conflict of interest in pushing these devices, and are fighting like a dog to perpetuate the myth that people need these largely useless devices. Rockwell, a prominent volunteer member of a SAR service, who is retired, gets no kickbacks from anyone. What service are you performing?

"Where was this research published?" Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology ================= Excellent, an obscure journal, where it made NO contribution to what people do in the real world. Can't remember the last time that I saw something reported in the lay press, from findings in that journal. ============ "It is hard to imagine a more primitive system of doing a lab test than the truly obscure stuff that you mention. That, of course, is typical of someone who has no clue about real-world human laboratory testing, and is confined to a basement to have the luxury of taking, say, a month to get a result. Those of us who are skilled in running a human clincal lab, and doing clinical testing in the real world, laugh at the characterization of such testing as anything but approaching third world technology. There are so many places for error to be introduced, it is not even funny." Clearly you are ignorant to the methodology used to examine water. The methods that you refer to as "truly obscure stuff" are described fully in 'Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wasterwater' published jointly by the Water Environment Federation, the American Water Works Association, and the American Public Health Association. These methods are used by virtually every lab in the country that does water testing. =========== Clearly, you are ignorant to sophisticated methods of laboratory evaluation. Clearly, you have not worked in a lab subject to mandatory evaluation of their accuracy and precision on blind assays. I don't dispute that the methodology is common, nor that it is accepted.....the original poster simply described it as primitive, and I agree. ============ Surely you should know that the methodology used for human clinical work is not applicable to environmental work. I know this because I worked in a human clinical lab (BFD, takes very little skill). ========== Surely you know that the methodology used for environmental work is not applicable to human clinical work. Problem is, that most of the posters here are human, and what concerns us is what happens to humans. BTW, I know that you did NOT work in a human clinical lab doing parasite identification, because that takes a license to do. Simply because you washed glassware or logged specimens does not make you an expert in assessing the skill of people doing a job that you are not legally qualified to do. "No, I'm not a doctor, but I play one on television" doesn't quite work. ========== "Do you also do film reviews of pictures you have not seen? I can't imagine an institution that would have as a graduate student, a person who doesn't read a paper fully, then publishes a criticism of that paper. Any image of scientific credibility would seem to go out the window!" What paper? I saw no published paper. What was published was one layman's opinions on the internet. What was published on the internet would not have stood up to peer review. I did indeed read the article in its entirety and I stand by my critism. And I walk out on bad movies. ========= Let me quote you: "I have not read the entire article" So if my criticism of what you said was wrong, because you did not tell the truth, then I apologize. You may walk out on bad movies, but if you hold yourself out to be a critic, you better not do that, and then criticize that which you have not seen. That is simple dishonesty. If you want to parse words by trying to define, for the largely lay audience here, the difference between an article and a paper, then go ahead. Frankly, I doubt that anyone cares. =========== And finally, you have a huge stick up your ass. ========== That sounds like a productive way to convince others that you are correct in your assertions. Personally, I find that when people revert to personal attacks, it is because they cannot attack the arguments, and so, they have to attack the person, because they have been so insulted as to actually have their assertions questioned. For example, you say: "contained many glaring errors" But you do not list or discuss these. Everyone is just supposed to take your word for this? You seem to want to trash the "article" that was written, but what, about the point of the article, do you take issue with? You could take a productive path, contact the author, and make helpful suggestions as to how to make the information better. The author, Rockwell (who I do not know), has and is, making a significant contribution to the outdoor community. What are you contributing, other than sniping remarks? If you are incapable of discussing your assertions without launching into attacks upon people who question your statements, perhaps you better let the adults do the talking.

danielpatricksmith said ======= I did my graduate research on Giardia and Cryptosporidium 10 years ago. ========= Where was this research published? Also, ======= Someone commented: "I remember reading about the test for giardia. It is quite primitive." And dps responded: "What do you mean by primitive?" ========= It is hard to imagine a more primitive system of doing a lab test than the truly obscure stuff that you mention. That, of course, is typical of someone who has no clue about real-world human laboratory testing, and is confined to a basement to have the luxury of taking, say, a month to get a result. Those of us who are skilled in running a human clincal lab, and doing clinical testing in the real world, laugh at the characterization of such testing as anything but approaching third world technology. There are so many places for error to be introduced, it is not even funny. ========= Finally, "I have not read the entire article, but" Do you also do film reviews of pictures you have not seen? I can't imagine an institution that would have as a graduate student, a person who doesn't read a paper fully, then publishes a criticism of that paper. Any image of scientific credibility would seem to go out the window!

There are often posters of the mexican volcanoes on sale at EBay, in the climbing section

For those who think that beacons are a good thing, you might want to read the following excellent article, which takes an in-depth look at the issues, and notes that such equipment is likely to increase your odds of dying in an avalanche: http://www.adventureplus.org/avalanche.htm It certainly changed my thinking.