Rewriting Dyatlov Pass Avalanche Insights for a Modern Audience

— The final observation at Dyatlov Pass eventually reassured Swiss scientists led by Alexander Puzrin about the avalanche explanation for the Dyatlov group’s deaths. Within that article, they express gratitude to a renowned Russian avalanche researcher. When did this subject first catch his attention? – In 2013, journalists from Komsomolskaya Pravda returned to the faculty, and an interview was given, though it did not fit the avalanche theory. There are about 70 versions, ranging from occult and delusional to cosmic energy clots and aliens. The story captivated him as a glaciologist, even though his focus is ice rather than snow. When did the gate come into view for him? – In 2019, an invitation to join the KP expedition arrived, and Andrey Malakhov flew there by helicopter for several hours. They camped in tents for a couple of days, and the task was to determine whether the avalanche version could be confirmed at least in part. At first, the slope seemed soft and the terrain was smooth, so the idea of an avalanche did not seem obvious. He went there with a density meter and a snow probe. At the site where the Dyatlovs’ tent stood, a snow study was conducted to assess how much snow had accumulated and what kind of snow it was. – Simultaneously, he joined the expedition through the Prosecutor General’s Office? – It was a four-person mission with Andrei Kuryakov from the Prosecutor General’s Office and two surveyors, coinciding in time with the researchers’ expedition. Their paths crossed exactly at the place of the tent. Later, some groups clung to various versions and limited contact at first. Yet when conversations took place in the main camp during evenings, over tea, a range of versions started to emerge. At the outset, the avalanche theory was not believed, but dialogue continued and a training program was shared to shed light on avalanche mechanics. A questionnaire was exchanged, followed by email correspondence. Kuryakov immersed himself in the material, and professional language was used, as with students. — What conclusions emerged after the measurements? “The entire mountain revealed protruding rock formations, common in winter. Instead of the tent, a hole was studied, the stratification examined, and the snow density measured. Crusts can form during wind, sun exposure, and thawing, creating a slip plane. Crusts were not observed, but a clear stratification existed between dense and loose snow, with a pronounced deep frost near the ground—an unusual snow type where flakes resemble prisms and goblets. Avalanche activity in deep frost is a known factor. On the surface, a very dense snowboard—frozen, wind-pressed snow—was present. Snow depths at the tent site varied from 90 to 180 centimeters, and nearby areas exceeded two meters. The tent was located where a rock protrusion ended, and the relief acted as a transition zone for avalanches originating from various angles. The differing snow thicknesses can be attributed to the tent’s length and position within or just outside the avalanche path. The slope angle measured about 21–22 degrees. In avalanche science, the minimum angle for avalanche occurrence is around 15 degrees. When the Dyatlov group set up the tent, they carved a niche into the slope, which could have served as a trigger for an avalanche. The goal was to determine whether an avalanche could initiate a chain of events. Field observations indicated that avalanches were plausible there, marking it as an avalanche-prone slope. – Then, in January 2021, an article by Puzrin appeared, supporting the avalanche version and arguing that the injuries were not inconsistent with this. But can a single observed avalanche settle the dispute? – Competitors often argue that avalanches were not observed here, by either locals or visitors, and that sometimes witnesses like Oleg Demyanenko, who saw the first avalanche this January, may be mistaken. Drawing from the words of a mentor, the founder of Soviet avalanche science, the response was that avalanches occur when a person enters the area. People can trigger an avalanche, while others may go unseen. Older generations might downplay memories, but that does not invalidate the discussion. How did the first avalanche evidence appear? – In the winter of 2021, a distant photograph from the Dyatlov tent showed a neighboring slope with a rut that could be an anomaly or a shadow. In September, a Swiss team conducted a drone-based digital terrain model, and by the campfire the observer concluded that the image suggested an avalanche. Oleg then proposed returning to the site in winter to test the hypothesis. – Ultimately, they left the site after witnessing an avalanche descend only half an hour earlier. Had the photographs truly captured an avalanche? – Yes, it was a real snowfall, a precedent. If such a phenomenon occurred then, conditions could recur at another time. The slope’s relief, steepness, wind exposure, and sun exposure were similar, suggesting that if the right conditions reappeared in the winter of 1959, an avalanche could occur again. – And not necessarily the same event? – The problem with many journalistic portrayals is the depiction of the avalanche as a majestic cloud of snow. A classic avalanche can manifest in many forms, from a dust avalanche caused by dry powder to wet avalanches that don’t form clouds. Plate avalanches and layered snow movements are also possibilities. The mechanism often involves a rupture of continuity, leading to a frontal slip—the so-called hornet. The movement is driven by a violation of stability, and it is not uncommon for skiers or freeriders to inadvertently trigger it. In the case of a person, cutting the slope can trigger the avalanche. There was a prominent US researcher, Edward LaChapelle, who first artificially triggered avalanches from skis, and he ultimately refrained from continuing. The Dyatlovs did something similar by carving into the slope. – A significant mistake? – Yes. Avalanche science was still in its infancy, with few teams exploring such terrains. The Dyatlov group pitched a tent in an extreme snowstorm and had limited options. It was a mistake, yet it is easy to sit back now and critique the tourist experience. – And could the board move a meter or two away and still crush the victims? – That scenario mirrors the Icarus reference: a cubic meter of snow can weigh about 400 kilograms. Critics argue that serious injuries, including broken ribs, would prevent walking a kilometer, but personal accounts show injuries vary. Climbers and hikers have continued after injuries, and in emergencies, comrades often assist. The primary conclusion is that fear of a second avalanche likely prompted a rapid exit from the tent. The chest injuries observed among the Dyatlov group are explained by abdominal pressure. The skull fracture appears linked to a heavy mass of snow pressing against the body, not a single blunt blow. – Did this case add anything new to science? It did not fundamentally alter scientific understanding, but Swiss researchers demonstrated a deep grasp of snow science and the basic physics of avalanche formation. The study also incorporated medical observations with glaciological analysis, enriching the broader context. The most recent observation of a snowfall on the pass supports the idea that avalanches descended there and may have been the underlying cause of the group’s fate. Frostbite still played a critical role, but the avalanche could have driven the group out of the tent, setting off subsequent events.