Most dangerous mountain?

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
User Avatar
Scott
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8329
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Thanked: 1138 times in 594 posts

by Scott » Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:22 am

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?

User Avatar
Baarb

 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:42 pm
Thanked: 43 times in 30 posts

by Baarb » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:55 am

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.

User Avatar
radson

 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:34 pm
Thanked: 122 times in 86 posts

by radson » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:45 am

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.

User Avatar
nattfodd

 
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:11 am
Thanked: 10 times in 5 posts

by nattfodd » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:20 am

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.

User Avatar
visentin

 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:27 pm
Thanked: 88 times in 58 posts

by visentin » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:39 pm

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

User Avatar
Buz Groshong

 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm
Thanked: 687 times in 484 posts

by Buz Groshong » Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:21 pm

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.
Last edited by Buz Groshong on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User Avatar
Buz Groshong

 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm
Thanked: 687 times in 484 posts

by Buz Groshong » Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:24 pm

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.

User Avatar
barrys

 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:48 pm
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts

by barrys » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:27 pm

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?

no avatar
jddeetz

 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:15 pm
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by jddeetz » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:52 pm

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.

User Avatar
Luciano136

 
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:46 pm
Thanked: 10 times in 9 posts

by Luciano136 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:11 pm

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.

User Avatar
Luciano136

 
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:46 pm
Thanked: 10 times in 9 posts

by Luciano136 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:17 pm

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.

User Avatar
RickF

 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:45 pm
Thanked: 31 times in 26 posts

by RickF » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:39 pm

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.

User Avatar
RickF

 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:45 pm
Thanked: 31 times in 26 posts

by RickF » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:51 pm

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.

User Avatar
kamil

 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:31 pm
Thanked: 22 times in 17 posts

by kamil » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:54 pm

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? :lol:
Great comparison BTW.

User Avatar
Hotoven

 
Posts: 1864
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:06 pm
Thanked: 118 times in 89 posts

by Hotoven » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:18 pm

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!!

PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests