Interesting, but does this study exclude deaths, for example, from avalanches, poor weather conditions, falling rocks, falls etc., summit fever (although hypoxia may cloud some people's judgement somewhat) which may not have anything to do with lack of oxygen?
Hi MoT,
the researcher state the following:
We used exact logistic regression (conditional maximum likelihood) with survival as the dependent variable and supplemental oxygen (used and not used) as a factor, stratified by mountain (Everest and K2). So whether the weather was good or bad etc is not relevant as it wil strike both climbers with and without oxygen.
Beacuse all the 'objective' conditions (clothing, weather, altitude) are equal except the use of oxygen they make the connection between the factor and the dependent outcome: between the use of oxygen and the # of deaths.
Furthermore if you take all the avalanches and 'low altitude' deaths out than the difference between (non) oxygen would be even bigger I think.
But then again we could argue that anyone climbing without oxygen, takes more risks in general and therefore has a higher chance of dying anyway...?
I think it's an interesting issue, especially in a moral sense: what is the definition of high altitude mountaineering: does it include all possible means to make the body happy (clothing & gear including oxygen), or should oxygen be excluded as this is one of the main factors of altitude itself? But should down and other warm clothing be banned as well as cold is also one of the main features of altitude?
And should all meams possible be used to get up and down alive? Or is that taking away the fun of the sport? Siege style vs Alpine style etc...
Any input welcome
Thanks and keep climbing,
Harry
