UKH

In case people missed it:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/economist-explai...

"On a “death to safe returns” ratio, the mountain does better than other lesser-trodden peaks, like Annapurna for instance (where one climber dies for every three who make it to the top; at Everest it is 1:30" .......accounting for journalistic inflation of clickbait?

In reply to Offwidth:
This appears in one of the comments on this article;

'In May 2017 it was announced by Japanese billionaire Saburo Watanabe that it was his intent to string electric and oxygen lines to the summit of Everest.
A commercial deal has been signed with the Chinese government, according to Watanabe.
For an as yet undisclosed fee, anyone who is in reasonable condition and has some climbing ability will be able to summit Everest with apparent ease.
Outrage is being reported by the mountain climbing community.'

Has anyone else heard about this proposal.

In reply to Offwidth:

Having read that, it seems that 'The Economist explains...' banner under which it has been published is advertising something which the article doesn't deliver; not for this reader, at least.

T.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:


'Apparent ease' might be a stretch, but otherwise isn't this largely the case already?

In reply to Offwidth:

I guess the ratio is 'good' for Everest because it's a well-travelled relatively easy route. If you're in trouble there's a much higher chance that people from other teams may be able to help which isn't so likely on other mountains. As for oxygen lines to the summit - I can see them freezing up in short order.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

It's a wind up.