Hi Lucian
I'm working through the mountain climbing figures in your chart...
Jed Williamson informs me that there are about 250-300,000 active climbers in the US. His criteria is that they climb using ropes at least ten days a year. Jed publishes an annual summary of reported mountain deaths -- essentially a root cause analysis of them so that other can learn. Jed states that on average there have been 30 deaths per annum over the past 10 years.
Mount Hood in Oregan is extremely popular among experienced and novice climbers. Some 40,000 people fill out permits to climb it every year. In the past 100 years, experts say there have been 130 deaths on Mount Hood.
Your chart suggests about 80 deaths per year and about 1 death per 400 encounters... making a total of 32,000 encounters. Given that 40,000 climb a single mountain and 250-300,000 climb using ropes at least ten days a year, your data might also do the climbing industry an injustice.
300,000 / 30 = 1:10,000 which places them more in the vicinity of chemical manufacturing and chartered flights.
A comparison worth considering is the space shuttle. The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts in just 113 flights. The accident rate of one of every 62.5 missions. It's actually very difficult to find any activity more dangerous that going to hospital -- the space shuttle is one that stands out...
Close to 2,000 people have successfully climbed Everest; 179 people have died giving a fatality rate of 9.3% (fatality rate is defined as successful summits compared to fatalities). However, since 1992 fatality statistics have changed the rate has dropped to 5.5%; 65/1166. I can't find the stats on those who turned back before reaching the summit.
So in this case, successfully climbing Mt Everest, there are 11 fatalities per year, and 1 death per 18 encounters;
Your chart is stunning - although the use of log scales makes medicine look a lot safer than it is. The incorrect data is unfortunate -- and I find it fascinating that so many people have copied the slide into their presentations with no critical analysis.
Regards
Ron Law
Top of Document