Annapurna is indeed the statistically most dangerous mountain in the world but i believe you have misinterpreted the statistics. such high ratios are usually found in summits to fatality calculations, for every ten climbers who summit, four die trying; this can make a peak seem deadlier than it actually is, as both deaths and successes are dwarfed by the number of failed attempts.
Additionally, i feel compelled to point out that Everest has far more than two routes, (perhaps you meant two standard routes on which guide services operate?) and that there are no peaks over 8000 meters, or even 7000 meter peaks, outside of the central ranges of Asia.
I agree with much of your post, but am curious on the below:
Annapurna is indeed the statistically most dangerous mountain in the world but i believe you have misinterpreted the statistics.
How so? Other mountains have higher death rates (even those with a long climbing history) and other mountains have had a higher number of deaths.
You could probably arrange the criteria to make it fit; for example Annapurna is probably the deadliest mountain that has been climbed by over 150 people, as far as death ratios go, but other than that one statistic how is is statistically the most dangerous mountain in the world and which criteria/statistic was used?
Other mountains have far higher death ratios and other mountains have had far more deaths.
this gives a nice summary of the point i was trying to make: http://www.adventure-journal.com/2012/06/the-list-the-deadliest-mountains-in-the-universe/
most of these lists seems to deal only with the most prominent peaks, are there other, more obscure peaks, which you believe have higher deaths-to-summits rates (Annapurna has .33)?
That list is pretty bogus. Kilauea, for example, is actually one of the world's safest volcanoes (which is why is so heavily studied). The eruptions are non-violent and predictable. Just before I was there though, some people actually did get hurt. They were tourists roasting marshmallows on the lava (no joke!) when they got burned.
More....
more obscure peaks, which you believe have higher deaths-to-summits rates (Annapurna has .33)?
Several of them, even famous mountains. Gongga Shan/Minya Konka is actually a very famous mountain (and was so even more in the past since it was once reported higher than Everest) and has a deaths-to-summits ratio of 0.73. It was first climbed in 1932, thus has a long climbing history. The death ratio finally dropped below 1.0 in 1999. Of mountains with a long climbing history, it may(?) have the highest death rate.
Meili Xue Shan is more obscure than Gongga Shan, but has killed at least 19 people so far and still no one has summitted, despite strong attempts. It's death ratio is infinity.
Other dangerous mountains with high death rates are Batura Share and Ultar, but I don't know their current ratios.
Annapurna is always the peak i have heard referenced as the most dangerous mountain, but i think what is often meant is most dangerous of the 8000 meter peaks; it is interesting that a 7000 meter peak would have a higher death rate. by Meili Xue Shan did you mean Kawagarbo, the highest peak in the range? it has the rate you described but it's sort of a cheap shot, it had one terrible accident and climbing has since been banned.
jacobsmith - Nov 2, 2012 1:18 am - Voted 3/10
Annapurna deathsAnnapurna is indeed the statistically most dangerous mountain in the world but i believe you have misinterpreted the statistics. such high ratios are usually found in summits to fatality calculations, for every ten climbers who summit, four die trying; this can make a peak seem deadlier than it actually is, as both deaths and successes are dwarfed by the number of failed attempts.
Additionally, i feel compelled to point out that Everest has far more than two routes, (perhaps you meant two standard routes on which guide services operate?) and that there are no peaks over 8000 meters, or even 7000 meter peaks, outside of the central ranges of Asia.
Scott - Nov 2, 2012 9:24 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Annapurna deathsI agree with much of your post, but am curious on the below:
Annapurna is indeed the statistically most dangerous mountain in the world but i believe you have misinterpreted the statistics.
How so? Other mountains have higher death rates (even those with a long climbing history) and other mountains have had a higher number of deaths.
You could probably arrange the criteria to make it fit; for example Annapurna is probably the deadliest mountain that has been climbed by over 150 people, as far as death ratios go, but other than that one statistic how is is statistically the most dangerous mountain in the world and which criteria/statistic was used?
Other mountains have far higher death ratios and other mountains have had far more deaths.
jacobsmith - Nov 2, 2012 11:25 am - Voted 3/10
Re: Annapurna deathsthis gives a nice summary of the point i was trying to make: http://www.adventure-journal.com/2012/06/the-list-the-deadliest-mountains-in-the-universe/
most of these lists seems to deal only with the most prominent peaks, are there other, more obscure peaks, which you believe have higher deaths-to-summits rates (Annapurna has .33)?
Scott - Nov 3, 2012 5:18 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Annapurna deathsHi Jacob,
That list is pretty bogus. Kilauea, for example, is actually one of the world's safest volcanoes (which is why is so heavily studied). The eruptions are non-violent and predictable. Just before I was there though, some people actually did get hurt. They were tourists roasting marshmallows on the lava (no joke!) when they got burned.
More....
more obscure peaks, which you believe have higher deaths-to-summits rates (Annapurna has .33)?
Several of them, even famous mountains. Gongga Shan/Minya Konka is actually a very famous mountain (and was so even more in the past since it was once reported higher than Everest) and has a deaths-to-summits ratio of 0.73. It was first climbed in 1932, thus has a long climbing history. The death ratio finally dropped below 1.0 in 1999. Of mountains with a long climbing history, it may(?) have the highest death rate.
Meili Xue Shan is more obscure than Gongga Shan, but has killed at least 19 people so far and still no one has summitted, despite strong attempts. It's death ratio is infinity.
Other dangerous mountains with high death rates are Batura Share and Ultar, but I don't know their current ratios.
jacobsmith - Nov 5, 2012 12:53 pm - Voted 3/10
Re: Annapurna deathsAnnapurna is always the peak i have heard referenced as the most dangerous mountain, but i think what is often meant is most dangerous of the 8000 meter peaks; it is interesting that a 7000 meter peak would have a higher death rate. by Meili Xue Shan did you mean Kawagarbo, the highest peak in the range? it has the rate you described but it's sort of a cheap shot, it had one terrible accident and climbing has since been banned.