The 10 Deadliest Mountains

This thread is for comments on the article "The 10 Deadliest Mountains"

#1: Annapurna (26,545 ft.)

Apparently there is a ...

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.