cracked

Fuck you Scott, I've spent enough time in Europe to know that population centers are more dense, and hence public transportation is a more viable option. Quit blabbing on about your 'light rail', whatever you mean by that. You can't transfer a system from one scenario to a vastly different one and expect it to work. BTW, do us all a favor and learn to spell sometime. Thanks!

What part of 20% (not 30%) of all avalanche victims die of trauma(that's you head getting caved in, massive bleeding - things a beacon don't help) didn't you read? Sorry, I can't find that reference is the study you linked to. Could you quote it? I'm interested. Again, I don't see where your numbers are coming from.

Bullshit. First off, you have to look at developed countries where people are rich enough to own cars. In Europe distances are far smaller, so public transportation is a more viable option. A similarly effective public transportation system in North America would be WAAAAY more expensive. It's not the vicious cycle you make it out to be.

How so? 30% of avalanche victims die of trauma! In that those 57% includes ALL victims, including those who aren't using beacons or carrying shovels, etc. A more useful statistic is how many people survive after being located and uncovered using a beacon. Of course, the first rule is 'don't get caught', but if you do get caught, your best bet is to be located by a beacon. Saying that it's a 50/50 chance of dying in an avalanche overlooks the fact that you can swing the odds in your favor. I'd say a more useful statistic is 8/123 is significantly better odds than 50/50.

57% of people buried don't survive (from this study http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/rescue/avalanche%20survival%20chances.htm). Your best chance of survival is if your dug out in under 15 minutes - and it'll take about that long for people who know what they are doing to dig you out. Saying that 'only 57% survive' is true, but misleading. From that link (thanks, great info, BTW) "The only finding giving grounds for optimism is that the initial survival probability is much higher than previously assumed. Indeed, of the 123 skiers extricated within 15 min, only 8 were dead and, moreover, only 2 had died of asphyxia (extrication times 10 and 15 min), whereas the remaining 6 skiers had all sustained fatal injuries during descent of the avalanche. The survival probability then plummets from 92% at 15 min to only 30% at 35 min, in contrast to the hitherto-accepted gentle decrease from 67 to 55% (ref. 3) over the same period."

Of course, but in these two accidents it doesn't appear that the victims had thought about avalanches at all. Reading the avy report, I would have stayed at home.

Leather??? You cow-killer! At least I eat the cow too, while you're just being wasteful.

Is it me, or do skiers tend to be most aware of avalanches, while snowshoers and climbers less so?

That's a bit of a blanket statement. While I agree that we tend to drive more than necessary, there are people who drive a lot because they HAVE to. Those who have a 30 minute commute to work, for example. For those people, driving is a daily occurence because it is a necessity. People will change their actions only when there is an incentive to do so, and pollution isn't much of an incentive because it is a long term effect. So yes, it comes down to money, once again. And I still have no clue what Scott is trying to say.

You make a very good point about questioning leaders' decisions. But I'm confused. Are you somehow blaming the outdoor industry for leading people to feel comfortable in avy terrain? None of the victims were wearing a beacon, right? In these two examples, if the victims were using beacons, wouldn't they have had a much better chance of surviving? So encouraging people to use beacons in avy terrain would be positive, right? Of course, training in avoiding avy traps is more important than having a beacon, but IMHO they complement each other. It isn't the outdoor industry's responsibility to push for avy awareness. That's the job of the people who decided to go out there. Or am I misunderstanding your post?

Oh, great, Scotty's tripping again.....

All the Hummers I've seen were transporting a 30 year old yuppie chick around Bellvue from mall to mall. I think for this purpose there are more appropriate vehicles. IMHO, for the vast majority of people there are better choices than SUVs. Fuck the environment, I wouldn't buy one becaue they cost too much, their gas mileage is less than stellar, they aren't any safer than other cars, and I don't spend huge amounts of time on jeep trails where they might be appropriate. Drive an SUV, I don't care, when gas prices get high enough people will switch to smaller cars. Just like in Europe.

This piqued my curiosity, so I did a rough calculation. A 747 can go about 6100 miles w/out refueling. Max fuel capacity is 48,000 gallons, typical passenger load is 400 people. A Hummer gets roughly 10mpg, though it's impossible to find an "official" figure. Since most Hummers carry one person, occasionally two, it would take 610 gallons of gas to drive two people in a Hummer those 6100 miles to where the 747 lands. So that's 300 or so gallons per person. Compare to the 747: 120 gallons per person for the same distance. So the 747 is 2.5 times as efficient!

Gary, maybe you should direct your 'passion' to something a bit more fruitful:

Drive that Hummer to NZ. Do the same for a few hundred people. Figure out how many tons of pollutants are released. Figure out how many tons of pollutants are released by one flight on that 747. Let the results speak for themselves.

Ahh, cc.com, we know it all....even before it happens! Maybe we should flame more when we know more.

Ouch. That one hurt. I will, once you learn how to spell. I know where mine is, sorry about yours.

What's your genius theory of what happened? They found a blow-up Saddam rather than the real thing? It is logical that he wouldn't come out of a hole surrounded by heavily armed soldier and try to fight. Hello? Logic? Oh, wait....

Time will tell. Until then, we can have another Trask vs Allison cliche.

Sounds like someone has some pent-up angst!

Tumalo is fun, but if the weather's good that bowl will be tracked up in no time. Sometimes you get a boarder who postholes up the skin track . If you want a nice ski tour, go for the large hump to the south of 3F Jack, or do Maxwell Butte. Getting to the Sisters would require some skinning of flats, but I still want to do it. Imagine S. Sister with good pow....... .