Intrade Founder / CEO Dies

[Zanza2]

Apparently some 52 people died on Everest from 2001-2010, while there were 3790 successful attempts to reach the summit (and probably quite a few where people went back before reaching the summit), so the risk in the last ten years is closer to 1.4%. Still too high for my taste. In 2010, there were 3 fatalities with 533 people reaching the summit, i.e. 0,5% fatality risk. That might just be worth it...

Source: http://www.8000ers.com/cms/en/everest-general-info-185.html

[Martim Silva]

Well, he DID become the first Irishman to die in the Everest...

Though for some reason this story only makes me think of graphs showing sharp fluctuations in stock prices... 

[Pedrito]

Everyone even marginally interested in the argument should have as mandatory read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer. He's an accomplished climber who was commissioned by a climbing magazine to reach the summit and write about it, and got stuck in a snowstorm. Of his 1996 expedition, even if led by an expert guide, eight people lost their lives, guide included 

L.

[grumbler]

Our 8000ers, from most dangerous to least dangerous, summits vs. deaths:

Annapurna (8,091 m)
In total, only 130 climbers have summited Annapurna, while 53 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 41%.
Nanga Parbat (8,125m)
216 climbers have summited Nanga Parbat and 61 have died. The overall fatality rate thus 28.24%.
K2 (8,611 m)
Fewer than 200 climbers have summited the world's second highest peak – 198 total. 53 have died. K2's overall fatality rate is 26.77%.

Kangchenjunga (8,586 m)
To date, only 185 climbers have summited Kangchenjunga and 40 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 22%.
Manaslu (8,163 m)
To date, 240 climbers have summited Manaslu and 52 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 21.67%.
Dhaulagiri (8,167 m)
To date, 313 climbers have summited Dhaulagiri and 56 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 18%.
Makalu (8,485 m)
To date, 206 climbers have summited Makalu and 22 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 11%.
Gasherbrum I (8,080m)
Since 1958, only 195 climbers have summited Gasherbrum I and 21 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 10.77%.
Shisha Pangma (8,027m)
To date, 201 climbers have summited Shisha Pangma and 19 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 9.5%.
Everest (8,848m)
Today, Everest has hosted close to 2,000 successful summits. 179 people have perished giving a fatality rate of 9.3%.
Broad Peak (8,051 m)
A mere 255 climbers have summited Broad Peak and 18 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 7%.
Lhotse (8,516 m)
To date, 243 climbers have summited Lhotse and 11 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus about 4%.
Gasherbrum II (8,034 m)
As for GII, a total of 650 climbers have summited the peak and 17 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 2.62%.
Cho Oyu (8,188 m)
To date, about 1,400 climbers have summited Cho Oyu and 35 have died. The overall fatality rate is thus 2.5%,

Damn, compared to a lot of these, Everest is downright safe. 40% fatality rate for Annapurna???

Some bad stats there.  Annapurna has had 53 deaths out of 183 climbers who have either summited or died.  That's not a 41% death rate unless all of the deaths occurred on the way down, and so the 132 number includes all summiters and all deaths.

Plus, for our purposes, summits by guides don't count.  That's probably half the Everest summits (maybe more: in 2010, 315 of 513 summits were by guides).  The safest year for Everest, last year, would then be less than 3% climber fatalities if all four fatalities that year were climbers.

Still too much for Zanza2 is correct to note that we should look at more recent data to evaluate this guy's risk, but even the 4% average over the last ten years is too high for a family man.

[grumbler]

Everyone even marginally interested in the argument should have as mandatory read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer. He's an accomplished climber who was commissioned by a climbing magazine to reach the summit and write about it, and got stuck in a snowstorm. Of his 1996 expedition, even if led by an expert guide, eight people lost their lives, guide included 

L.

Agree that it is a great read, but should be read with a grain of salt.  There is controversy over what exactly happened that day.

[Pedrito]

Everyone even marginally interested in the argument should have as mandatory read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer. He's an accomplished climber who was commissioned by a climbing magazine to reach the summit and write about it, and got stuck in a snowstorm. Of his 1996 expedition, even if led by an expert guide, eight people lost their lives, guide included 

L.

Agree that it is a great read, but should be read with a grain of salt.  There is controversy over what exactly happened that day.

[Languish]Yes, because no one except him survived to witness what really happened! [/Languish] Okay, it was a cold one. 

Krakauer does a good job by making readers understand what are the physical and mental strains someone up there is experimenting.

L.

[grumbler]

[Languish]Yes, because no one except him survived to witness what really happened! [/Languish] Okay, it was a cold one. 

No, of course not.  There were plenty of survivors.  In fact, other survivors have written books about this.

Krakauer does a good job by making readers understand what are the physical and mental strains someone up there is experimenting.

Agreed - and he also makes us understand why people want to climb, and why Everest has become so commercial.

[Berkut]

I watched the Discovery episodes about Everest, it was very, very interesting (I thought).

It also struck me as very...mechanical. Like so many people have done it, and do it, that it feels kind of, I don't know...controlled?

Which maybe makes it more dangerous, to some degree - it seems so routine, that people don't give it the respect it deserves. Sure, there are guides, and ropes, and all that...but it will still kill you dead if something goes wrong.

Anyway, the entire thing seemed kind of fake somehow, like it didn't really seem like what I imagined extreme mountain climbing to be - way to "supported" or something.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I watched the Discovery episodes about Everest, it was very, very interesting (I thought).

It also struck me as very...mechanical. Like so many people have done it, and do it, that it feels kind of, I don't know...controlled?

Which maybe makes it more dangerous, to some degree - it seems so routine, that people don't give it the respect it deserves. Sure, there are guides, and ropes, and all that...but it will still kill you dead if something goes wrong.

Anyway, the entire thing seemed kind of fake somehow, like it didn't really seem like what I imagined extreme mountain climbing to be - way to "supported" or something.

You mean Beyond the Limit?  That's definitely an interesting show, but the goddamn reality TV-like voice over really gets on my nerves sometimes. 

Anyway, yeah, I've seen posts and heard people say that Everest is now more of a super difficult "hike," much of it due to the conditions (low oxygen, weather, etc), instead of a very technically difficult high altitude climb like K2 and probably Annapurna.  I think they may have actually mentioned something like that in the show at one point too. 

[The Brain]

Everest is just an unusually tall pile.

[Berkut]

Anyway, yeah, I've seen posts and heard people say that Everest is more of a super difficult "hike," much of it due to the conditions (low oxygen, weather, etc), instead of a very technically difficult high altitude climb like K2 and probably Annapurna.  I think they may have actually mentioned something like that in the show at one point too. 

Exactly. Like if you could be certain to have good weather, and not too many people trying to summit with you, a relatively inexperienced climber who was in decent physical condition could manage it on oxygen.

[Pedrito]

I watched the Discovery episodes about Everest, it was very, very interesting (I thought).

It also struck me as very...mechanical. Like so many people have done it, and do it, that it feels kind of, I don't know...controlled?

Which maybe makes it more dangerous, to some degree - it seems so routine, that people don't give it the respect it deserves. Sure, there are guides, and ropes, and all that...but it will still kill you dead if something goes wrong.

Anyway, the entire thing seemed kind of fake somehow, like it didn't really seem like what I imagined extreme mountain climbing to be - way to "supported" or something.

That's exaxctly why, although nto being a terribly difficult climb, the death toll is still high. Several people trying to the summit, not all of them in the best conditions to try, plusscarce respect for the mountain --> recipe for disaster.

Oh, and the Annapurna is so deadly mainly because of avalanches falling from it more often than from other 8000s.
On the Annapurna died Anatoly Boukreev (sp?) who was one of those that reached into safety in the 1996 Everest expedition that Krakauer told in his book, and the main opposer of Krakauer's version of the events that led to the disaster.

L.

[sbr]

I don't understand the urge to do things like climb Mt. Everest.  Ok, we get it, you're a fucking badass... stop trying to prove it over and over. 

No kidding.  I can almost understand doing it once, but why in the world would you want to do it a second time?

[DontSayBanana]

Um, his wife was in labor, and he was on Everest?  Can we say "priorities?"

[Habbaku]

Priorities.