hawkeye69 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 first of all, the SAR statistics about number of rescues and dollars spent speak for themselves. i am sure that nobody wants to send Ms. Kim a bill for all the search efforts ot find her family in the coastal oregon mountains. but, hey, they drove by 3 signs indicating that the road was closed, how stupid was that? the bottom line is that these rescues show a great human spirit. a willingness for ohers to help those in peril. so to respond to someone who is worried about the bill you only need indicate that if it were them who needed help others would want to help them as well. no matter how fucking stupid they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfishjon Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 Somebody referred to diabetes as a disease solely having to do with dietary habits.....this is bs. There is Type 1 (early onset) and Type 2......they might as well be two different diseases...Three people in my family had Type 1, and my family's pretty active....I lost my bro at 38 years old to diabetic complications....I'd climbed many a Cascade peak with him before this incident, so obviously he was in good shape.....so just an fyi, don't confuse Type 1 from Type 2(which is the one fat people often get). i dont see anyone refer to diabetes as SOLELY a result of diet, but maybe i am missing something. I see some of the behaviors/diets listed as risk factors for diabetes... which they most certainly are...true that they didnt specify which type, but they were not incorrect in what they were stating you are absolutely correct in regards to diabetes MELLITUS having 2 types..there is actually another if we really want to get technical, Diabetes Insipidus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocRock Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Epidemiologically speaking the trends in the incidence of diabetes do follow very closely the trends in the incidence of obesity in the US. Risk factors also include genetics, which includes ethnic background, ie. native americans, pacific islanders and alaskan natives are at a significantly higher risk than the general population and their diet consists mainly of fish. Gestational diabetes and being the progeny of a gestationally diabetic mother also increase ones risk for diabetes. There is a significant increase in the number of children developing diabetes type 2 in recent years, this seems to be due to the increase of obesity in the pediatric population. Genetic syndromes and other diseases are also eitiologies of diabetes. Unfortunately, the world wide statistics regarding the incidence of diabetes look just as grim as the US statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niyol Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 By moving this crap to "Spray" and pointing said user to some facts about rescue costs and directing them to the WTA website Spray forum: "If it's not climbing related this is where you post it. Be warned this forum is not for the thin skinned." i dunno, maybe i am wrong, but this seemed to be related to climbing...thanks for replying nonetheless!! I suspect that after all the media attention that this incident recieved nationwide we can fully expect some idiot to come up with a bill to restrict climbing in some way. Thus, this becomes most definitely a climbing related issue. I have seen bb posts and "letters to the editor" and all kinds of misguided crap from non-climbers advocating everything from closing Mt. Hood to climbing during the winter to requiring that climbers pay for rescue because of the "burden" that rescue places on society. One thing that reading the posts by non-climbers on this board over the past several days is that the public has very little understanding of what climbing is about; for instance I saw a letter to the editor in the Albany Herald by some guy who was calling for closing the mountain to climbing during the winter (because we poor misguided thrill-seeking climbers were just too stupid to understand that the mountain is too dangerous to be atempted in the winter). The media, by frequently referring to the three climbers as "hikers", also served to create a bias that the climbers were perhaps irresponsible or misguided in attempting to climb the mountain during the winter. The average "Joe Couch Potato" may not understand that to climbers who have done multiple Ranier ascents and who may preparing for an Everest climb, the idea of a winter climb on Hood or a comparable mountain is not only reasonable but constitutes necessary preparation. Perhaps it is because this incident is still pretty raw, but it seems to me that the media coverage and some of the posts have assumed that climbers in general are adrenaline junkies who must pursue ever increasing risks to satisfy a need for thrill. That does not seem an accurate portrayal to me. Sometimes situations get very intense and sometimes climbers die... even when they have done everything right. Oftentimes though climbing is mostly really hard work, hours of rest-stepping, being cold, tired and sore and puking from the altitude and exertion and making it to the top anyway... or having the judgement to turn around within sight of the top because conditions are deteriorating too badly. It is sad that climbers died on Mt. Hood... but it is not a tragedy... they chose to climb, most likely they were there because climbing was an integral part of their lives and they accepted the risks. The tragedy would be if the sensationalism surrounding this incident resulted in restrictions being placed on access to mountains or misguided financial burdens being placed on climbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimatic Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 As a fat smoking lazy bastard, drawn to this site by the sad recent news and the Discovery Channel's show about climbing Everest, let me just say this. In a world of Paris Hiltons, Ashlee Simpsons, Tucker Carlsons, Bill O'Reillys, Ann Coulters, Rush Limbaughs, Terrell Owens, OJ Simpsons, Ken Lays, Osama BinLadens, and George W. Bushes, It seems to me that climbing a mountain would have to be one of the purest, physically and mentally demanding, spiritually fulfilling, and by far one of the most honest ways of making it to the top in this life. My hat's off to you climbers. You have my highest respect, and more importantly, you are inspiring! Therefore, I would have to put rescuing climbers in need right up there with saving the children and feeding the hungry. If there's ever any need in donations for this cause, I would be honored to help. Rock On Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 "Gotta hate risk inclined people who outsource the bills to the rest of us" "It really sucks if they don't find anyone to charge for the rescue." overheard while discussing the Mt Hood scenario by a non-climber... thoughts?? I was too miffed to even respond You tell them they're full of shit, then direct them to this webpage. It's the report from the AAC that someone mentioned over in the original Mt. Hood rescue thread several days ago. I don't have the time to go back through all 53-odd pages to find the guy's name and give him credit for originally pointing this report out to folks. Oh, and if 8 pages of reading will cause you armchair mountaineers out there to miss the next episode of Dancing with the Stars, then see if you can get through just the Executive Summary. This report came out in May of 2005, and I referenced it in the thread that is linked in the next paragraph (from July, 2005), but I don't think anyone outside of the climbing/mountain rescue community has ever read it. I keep a few copies printed off and stashed in my rig for distribution whenever I hear this kinda bullshit about "crazy, risk-taking, irresponsible, selfish, adrenaline-junkie climbers ought to be getting charged for the taxpayer's costs of rescuing their sorry asses." I pull out a copy, hand it to them, and kindly suggest that they read it, then ask them to consider making a tax-deductable donation to their local Mountain Rescue unit. It shuts up quite a few, but not all. Some people just don't want to become informed. And I write letters to the editor, like the one here from last year. Alisdair and Kellie got published, but I was apparently too verbose for the likes of the P-I editorial staff. It's the seventh post on Page 5, if you care to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valid ASB Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 last month i was walking along a popular cliff area in my city when i came upon a rescue in progress. 3 people (2 men and 1 women) were drinking and messing around by the cliff and the women fell over and down about 75 feet. she was critically injured and not able to move. broken back, legs and other injuries. i counted 15 fire trucks, 2 helicopters, and loads of other people assisting. i dont know who paid for the rescue but i didnt see anyone on the news griping about the cost of rescuing drunk people on cliffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 last month i was walking along a popular cliff area in my city when i came upon a rescue in progress. 3 people (2 men and 1 women) were drinking and messing around by the cliff and the women fell over and down about 75 feet. she was critically injured and not able to move. broken back, legs and other injuries. i counted 15 fire trucks, 2 helicopters, and loads of other people assisting. i dont know who paid for the rescue but i didnt see anyone on the news griping about the cost of rescuing drunk people on cliffs. Good. We should not complain about the financial costs of doing what is morally imperative: to help others in need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigtree Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 "Gotta hate risk inclined people who outsource the bills to the rest of us"..."It really sucks if they don't find anyone to charge for the rescue."...thoughts?? I was too miffed to even respond I don't hate it; rather, I relish in the fact that I can externalize such costs when necessary onto the rest of society just as others do in return every day of their lives (e.g., smokers and fat people jacking up health care costs, a careless cyclist or pedestrian who gets pasted due to inattentiveness, inexperienced/urbanite hikers getting lost 200 metres into the forest requiring rescues on a regular basis, SUV drivers contributing to global warming...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 BTW, who is "the rest of us"? Does it sound like folks talk about climbers as if they are not taxpayers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Is that why my insurance premiums are so high? No. Your insurance company has shareholders and CEO's receiving exorbitant salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Either that or you fall into the high risk category--which means that you are actually costing the rest of everyone. And just a little reality check: you are chosing to pay your insurance premiums. It is your option to have insurance in the first place. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 CLIMBING RESCUE COSTS ARE AN INSIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR SOCIAL WELFARE BUDGET! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.