Welcome, guest [login | register]

Posted by Bill S on January 30, 2008 at 6:08:25 pm EST
In reply to Perils of Winter posted by calamity on January 12, 2008 at 6:14:20 pm EST

According to avalanche.org and numerous sources of data on avalanche deaths and injuries, approximately 70% of avalanche deaths are due to trauma, while the remainder are combined effects of hypothermia and suffocation (which is exacerbated by hypothermia, which is why the AvaLung is only partially effective). These are reported as avalanche deaths, despite the contribution of hypothermia.

According to the coroner's report, John Miksits' death in April 2000 was due to hypothermia (no trauma involved). John was a good friend and climbing partner, not only of mine, but many of the regulars on the original rec.climbing.useful when it was part of VFTT, before Dave and Alicia took it over to create Trailspace. This death is not included in the NWS data for year 2000, since it took place in a "normal" Mt Shasta winter storm (not considered in the NWS "severe weather" criteria), but was eliminated as a "mountaineering accident". Similarly the death of the one body recovered from the recent Mt Hood accident was classified as due to hypothermia by the coroner, but is considered by the NWS to be a "mountaineering accident", hence will not be included. The probable deaths of his two companions will be considered by NWS as a "mountaineering accident", although a major contributing factor is probably hypothermia and the resulting clouded judgment.

These are just a tiny sample of the deaths that are excluded from the NWS data by their selection criteria, despite being caused directly or indirectly by hypothermia. It is important in understanding the meaning of the numbers to fully understand the context of the data, including all selection criteria. Blithely claiming that the "context" is the entire population of the US is at best naive.

That being said, the principle of freedom of speech allows anyone to say almost anything they want on the internet, no matter how inaccurate or misleading. That caveat should prompt the reader to learn at the very least the basics of statistics and selection effects and the many pitfalls of incomplete sampling and reporting. Numbers without the full context and understanding of the selection criteria are nothing more than random numbers.

Replies

View: flat | threaded

There have been no replies

Post a Reply

Before replying, please read the complete thread.