Comment on Literally a shitpost.
auzy1@lemmy.world 4 days agoYeah… In terms of a percentage of normal o2 percentage I think… I’m not a medical expert (so, i only know the basics)
mtnath.com/altitude/ shows both ways though (and the way I used).
So, I was actually wrong Island peak was approximately 45% percent. Everest is approximately 33% (they were off the top of my head). I just find that calculating this way is easier to understand.
It also goes into AMS, HAPE and HACE, which I actually forgot to mention at all. But basically, you either feel sick with AMS (I saw someone turn 20 years older, and go completely grey at 4500m), your brain can swell in your skull (HACE), or HAPE is when your lungs start filling with fluid.
Money can’t buy immunity from these conditions, and, whether anyone helps, doesn’t make easier for clients either (in fact, it makes it worse, if the help keeps pushing you). The reason the person I saw turned gray, was precisely because only myself and Sherpas were saying to go down. The rest of the group was encouraging him to push on.
YawningNostalgia@thelemmy.club 3 days ago
I am a medical expert. I’m not trying to be overly pedantic but my point was that regular sea level air is around 21% oxygen so you were making it sound like the air at high elevations is higher than it is at sea level.
It’s not a wording issue. The link you posted has a table that says 100% O2 at sea level. Literally every single figure in the chart on that page is wrong because they list it as “%O2” instead of saying percent of baseline, which would be out of 21%. So at sea level you’re getting 100% of the normal oxygen in the air, which is 21%, and that declines, but the table is written incorrectly. It says that 8848 meters above sea level the content of air would be 33% oxygen. The table under that is more accurate.
It’s just a bad table and bad writing. Idk if I’m explaining any of this properly.
auzy1@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It’s good to get a medical expert to explain. I’m not sure I fully understand, however, I have noticed in the past 5-10 years, all the sites have slowly been moving away from the above graph (I can’t even find the other 2 sites that used to have it).
So, the evidence seems to suggest you’re right. but, wouldn’t surprise me if its bad writing. I generally use the info off Alan Arnette’s site instead