Total number of deaths.
Probably Mt Blanc. Some years back I read the mountain had claimed over 2000.

I've heard that too, but others have said that the 1000+ people killed on the mountain wasn't really correct even though you often read it.

Does anyone know the real figures or if 1000+ is correct?

RickF wrote:This is a danger rating method I propose:

Number of attempts x fatality ratio = rating.

This appears akin to the theory of risk, where:

Risk (Danger) = Hazard (Fatality ratio) x Vulnerability (Number of attempts)

I think there's something way off with your figures though, if you believe the stats off 8000ers.com ~4000 people have been up top of Everest, and who knows how many who didn't make it to the top. Therefore the actually 'number of attempts' on Everest is perhaps at least 10 times the stated figure.

Baarb wrote:

RickF wrote:This is a danger rating method I propose:

Number of attempts x fatality ratio = rating.

This appears akin to the theory of risk, where:

Risk (Danger) = Hazard (Fatality ratio) x Vulnerability (Number of attempts)

I think there's something way off with your figures though, if you believe the stats off 8000ers.com ~4000 people have been up top of Everest, and who knows how many who didn't make it to the top. Therefore the actually 'number of attempts' on Everest is perhaps at least 10 times the stated figure.

yeah, thats what I thought on seeing those numbers. Probably best to look up Ms Elizabeth Hawley for those numbers.

RickF wrote:This is a danger rating method I propose:

Number of attempts x fatality ratio = rating

Well, now that exactly gives you the number of deaths on the mountain, since the definition of the fatality ratio is number of deaths / number of attempts.

nattfodd wrote:

RickF wrote:This is a danger rating method I propose:

Number of attempts x fatality ratio = rating

Well, now that exactly gives you the number of deaths on the mountain, since the definition of the fatality ratio is number of deaths / number of attempts.

You should include in it also unsuccessful attempts which ended by non-fatal accidents too

RickF wrote:This is a danger rating method I propose:

Number of attempts x fatality ratio = rating

Acutally, Number of attempts x fatality ratio = number of deaths.

Oops! Nattfodd beat me to it.

Scott wrote:

Total number of deaths.
Probably Mt Blanc. Some years back I read the mountain had claimed over 2000.

I've heard that too, but others have said that the 1000+ people killed on the mountain wasn't really correct even though you often read it.

Does anyone know the real figures or if 1000+ is correct?

This subject came up on an SP forum a few years ago. At the time I knew that the Matterhorn had about 1,000 deaths, and I learned that Mt. Blanc had over 2,000 (I think those were the numbers). This information came from reliable sources.

A Chamonix guide and my landlord at the time both told me, about three years ago, that Mont Blanc had claimed over 2,000 lives - but that is the whole Massif, verte,drus and the rest. Of course it doesn't just cover climbers too - alot of skiiers/boarders round these parts.

To be the best of my knowledge, taken from a report in a swiss newspaper earlier in the summer, the Matterhorn has killed over 600 people. 1998 edition of 4000m Peaks by the classis routes claims it's 500, and also so says that average yearly number of deaths in the Mont Blanc massif is nearly into triple figures.

That said these figures have alot more to do with how popular these areas are than how dangerous the mountain is. I would think that Mont Blanc has more deaths related to 'mountain activities' (not suicides!) than any other but sounds like Kawakorpo/Kawagebo has to be a good candidate for most dangerous, or something around Latok or this......
http://www.summitpost.org/image/237197/ ... 6925m.html

Something that hasn't even been attempted due to it's difficulty (and not necessarily it's access) is a good candidate in my eyes. I guess that's a different question.....when talking about big peaks does hard = dangerous?

I can't speak for the danger level of one peak vs. another.

Of course, the danger level of a route/mountain varies with the experience of the group that is attempting it! Some peaks like Denali I would imagine get a lot of traffic from inexperienced climbers which directly contributes to fatality.

On the other side of the coin random unpreventable accidents can and will occur. An avalanche, a weak snow bridge over a crevasse, or a rock falling on your head for example.

nattfodd wrote:

RickF wrote:This is a danger rating method I propose:

Number of attempts x fatality ratio = rating

Well, now that exactly gives you the number of deaths on the mountain, since the definition of the fatality ratio is number of deaths / number of attempts.

LOL

Percentage is really the only way to go IMO. If you just take the number of deaths, driving a car is a lot more dangerous than climbing the mountain where all 19 people died.

barrys wrote:.....when talking about big peaks does hard = dangerous?

I think there's probably a positive correlation between fatality ratio and difficulty.

There are certainly exceptions though because you might be able to protect a certain hard route better than another easier route, which could make the easier route more dangerous.

Luciano136 wrote:A percentage is probably the most well accepted way to measure it I'd say. If you have 10 different attempts and 7 die, it must be pretty dangerous

I respectfully disagree. Using only the percentage, or fatality ratio as I have referred to it, does not account for number of people drawn to the mountain. The attraction is a key component of the danger.

Think about this analogy, the drug propyfil (spelling?) is more lethal than heroin, but heroin is a more accessible and euphoric substance so more people abuse heroin, making it the more dangerous drug.

Annapurna is like the propyfil, highly lethal but not very accessible and draws fewer people.
Everest is like heroin, less lethal but being the highest in the world, with plenty of available commercial guiding, it draws many people. So Everest, like herion, is more dangerous.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:No offense but if you need a formula to determine most dangerous mountain, you're asking the wrong questions.

DMT

In another thread about rating climbs similar points were made. People, including many of here on SP will attempt to compare, catagorize, rank, and rate things. Some people make lists of goals, consider statistics and plan trips. Others think these behaviors are foolish and they just "go do it" so to speak. Maybe its a right-brain vs. left brain behavior. To each his/her own.

I'm the list-maker, goal-setter, planner-type so maybe thats why I'm finding this topic so thought provoking.

RickF wrote:Annapurna is like the propyfil, highly lethal but not very accessible and draws fewer people.
Everest is like heroin, less lethal but being the highest in the world, with plenty of available commercial guiding, it draws many people. So Everest, like herion, is more dangerous.

No pun intended?
Great comparison BTW.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:
And make some snap decisions... how about for this weekend. Forget your plans, scrap them! Go do something WILD!

DMT

Great Advice, Mt. Sunflower, here I come!!