The 10 Deadliest Mountains
#1: Annapurna (26,545 ft.)
Apparently there is a Men’s Vogue magazine. Somehow that’s never made it to our mailbox. The December 2007 issue has two articles of mountaineering interest though.
“The 10 Deadliest Mountains” is a slide show rating mountains by fatality rates among summit attempts. Number 1 is Annapurna (26,545 ft.) with a 41 percent fatality rate. Everest (29,029 ft.) is number 7 with a surprisingly low rate of 9 percent. It’s followed by our good old Northeastern peak Mount Washington (6,288 ft) at number 8.
Unfortunately the magazine doesn’t list fatality rates for every mountain, leaving me with some questions (I'd like to see a list with more stats). And you have to flip through the slide show to get what basic info there is on each mountain. Oh, and the site has a lot of annoying ads.
But the list itself is interesting. Here it is, in case you can't stand the pop-ups either:
- Annapurna (26,545 ft.)
#2: Nanga Parbat (26,657 ft.)
- Nanga Parbat (26,657 ft.)
- Siula Grande (20,814 ft.)
- K2 (28,251 ft.)
- Kangchenjunga (28,169 ft.)
- The Matterhorn (14,691 ft.)
- Everest (29,029 ft.)
- Mt. Washington (6,288 ft)
- Denali (20,320 ft.)
- Mt. Fuji (12,388 ft.)
The issue also has an article, “All-Time High,” on the Alpine Club’s first 150 years.
Comments
In some cases various mountains must have a higher rate simply because they are more accessible and therefore unskilled climbers attempt these peaks. For example, the Matterhorn is ahead of Everest. I'd take my chances on the easiest route on the Matterhorn before I'd do the same on Everest. The article seems like a another example where statistics are used but the data has no meaning.
What noise!
To have Washington on the list is ridiculous. Do a surprising number of "climbers" die on Washington? Sure, but then, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS are on the mountain each year. Is the weather amazingly bad up there? Sure, but then people freeze in Montana and on Ranier and Hood as well, but we don't bemoan them a place on some gruesome Top 10. I'll bet more people have been killed on the drive to Washington than on it, but we just won't see that little number. Washington, right between Everest and Denali; right.
Yes, I'd really like to see a chart with some stats to accompany a list like this. It made me wonder more about how they derived the rankings. The story suggests it's by fatality rate (using total number of climbers and total number of deaths), but doesn't provide numbers.
It would also be interesting to see the percentage rates of death, summits, and so on by route, by year, maybe by season, and so on.
Methinks Men's Vogue is not up to this task though.
Post a Comment
This post has been locked and is not accepting new comments
