Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes of course this is obvious. Aren't there bears up there? And wolves, giant snowstorms, miles and miles of complete isolation with no hospitals nearby, with no phone service to call for help? Not to mention the occasional earthquake, and in some parts of the state... Volcanoes... And water that will give you hypothermia? The fact that people live there every day is a monument to the survival skills of the human race. And there is not a single other state in the Union that compares to Alaska no... not even close.
Yes of course this is obvious. Aren't there bears up there? And wolves, giant snowstorms, miles and miles of complete isolation with no hospitals nearby, with no phone service to call for help? Not to mention the occasional earthquake, and in some parts of the state... Volcanoes... And water that will give you hypothermia? The fact that people live there every day is a monument to the survival skills of the human race. And there is not a single other state in the Union that compares to Alaska no... not even close.
I don't know where you're getting your information. Most people in Alaska live in fairly modern cities and don't live the type of subsistence lifestyle you're referencing, and even most of those who live off the beaten track have (gasp) modern amenities. Can't recall the last time a volcano blew in the state. If you'll actually look at the stats, you'll discover that bears and wolves really have little to do with Alaska's mortality rate.
Yes of course this is obvious. Aren't there bears up there? And wolves, giant snowstorms, miles and miles of complete isolation with no hospitals nearby, with no phone service to call for help? Not to mention the occasional earthquake, and in some parts of the state... Volcanoes... And water that will give you hypothermia? The fact that people live there every day is a monument to the survival skills of the human race. And there is not a single other state in the Union that compares to Alaska no... not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla
I don't know where you're getting your information. Most people in Alaska live in fairly modern cities and don't live the type of subsistence lifestyle you're referencing, and even most of those who live off the beaten track have (gasp) modern amenities. Can't recall the last time a volcano blew in the state. If you'll actually look at the stats, you'll discover that bears and wolves really have little to do with Alaska's mortality rate.
Met, at face value, the quote above yours is entirely accurate. Given your perspective, your statement is just as accurate. Place oneself in the wild, as many do on any given day here, and you have the Alaska as mentioned above. Stay home, or go to the grocery store, and the Alaska you mention is the perspective.
Although the historical record in Alaska goes back to ~1760 (there are a few earlier eruption accounts), the task of counting known eruptions and calculating an eruption frequency is complicated by the sparse and often inaccurate older accounts. Many times, a volcano is reported as "smoking" without further clarification of what that smoke may have been - a real eruption, normal fumarolic activity, or even atypically tall clouds rising above a summit because of unstable weather conditions. The term "eruption" as used here includes vigorous explosions which may not contain fresh (juvenile) magma, as well as magmatic explosions and the effusion of lava as flows and domes.
Figure 2
Since 1760, 30 Alaskan volcanoes have had more than 240 confirmed eruptions. This averages to just about one volcanic eruption per year. If we add in those volcanoes and eruptions that are suspected but not confirmed, then the average rises to about 1.7 eruptions per year.
However, these figures do not consider the large discrepancy in observation and reporting of Alaskan eruptions. For the past 40 years - a period in which we have fairly good records -- Alaska has averaged more than two eruptions per year.
As figure 2 shows, the frequency of reports of eruptions is higher now than in the past, and has been increasing during the twentieth century. The early years on this graph are heavily influenced by just a few expedition log books and the writings of Father Veniaminof: the ~120 possible eruptions during the Russian American period come from fewer than 20 documents, and eruptions from 1867-1940 are also probably significantly under-observed and under-reported. Increases from 1880-present day are probably the result of increased population, communications, and travel, rather than an actual increase in volcanic eruptions.
Met, at face value, the quote above yours is entirely accurate. Given your perspective, your statement is just as accurate. Place oneself in the wild, as many do on any given day here, and you have the Alaska as mentioned above. Stay home, or go to the grocery store, and the Alaska you mention is the perspective.
Although the historical record in Alaska goes back to ~1760 (there are a few earlier eruption accounts), the task of counting known eruptions and calculating an eruption frequency is complicated by the sparse and often inaccurate older accounts. Many times, a volcano is reported as "smoking" without further clarification of what that smoke may have been - a real eruption, normal fumarolic activity, or even atypically tall clouds rising above a summit because of unstable weather conditions. The term "eruption" as used here includes vigorous explosions which may not contain fresh (juvenile) magma, as well as magmatic explosions and the effusion of lava as flows and domes.
Figure 2
Since 1760, 30 Alaskan volcanoes have had more than 240 confirmed eruptions. This averages to just about one volcanic eruption per year. If we add in those volcanoes and eruptions that are suspected but not confirmed, then the average rises to about 1.7 eruptions per year.
However, these figures do not consider the large discrepancy in observation and reporting of Alaskan eruptions. For the past 40 years - a period in which we have fairly good records -- Alaska has averaged more than two eruptions per year.
As figure 2 shows, the frequency of reports of eruptions is higher now than in the past, and has been increasing during the twentieth century. The early years on this graph are heavily influenced by just a few expedition log books and the writings of Father Veniaminof: the ~120 possible eruptions during the Russian American period come from fewer than 20 documents, and eruptions from 1867-1940 are also probably significantly under-observed and under-reported. Increases from 1880-present day are probably the result of increased population, communications, and travel, rather than an actual increase in volcanic eruptions.
My point was that most people don't live the livestyle referenced by the commentary I was responding to and that that lifestyle really has little to do with the "danger" factor of living in Alaska.
The accuracy of the post by itself isn't the point -- the point is the accuracy of the post in relation to Alaska's "danger factor." How many people are really killed or hurt by these conditions? I'm not denying that some people live that way, but I can't find any evidence that those conditions are responsible for a high mortality or injury rate; I was responding to the question in that particular context because it was the only way to tie it the theme of this thread, which, after all, is about reasons why Alaska is a "dangerous state."
How many people per year are killed by volcanic activity in the state? I don't keep track of the volcanoes, but if they were a significant danger factor, I wouldn't have to. Again, how do they contribute to Alaska being a dangerous state? I suppose that theoretically one could blow and wipe out a bunch of people, but that could happen pretty much anywhere on the Pacific Rim.
BTW, I see bears almost every day when I'm at my place in Alaska, but I'm probably more likely to be killed or hurt in a vehicle accident there or elsewhere than to perish in a bear attack. And FYI, before you twist what I've said further, my place in Alaska is pretty far from the nearest city, and I do a bit more when I'm there than simply go to the grocery store. You have no idea what my "perspective" is, but I can assure you it's not that of someone who lives in one of the cities.
Again, how many people are killed on an annual basis by bears, wolves, so-called monster snow attacks, volcanoes, earthquakes, hypothermia, and all the other perils of living in the wilderness? Pffft. More Alaskans are killed by drunk drivers than all of these things combined.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 02-20-2016 at 12:17 PM..
My point was that most people don't live the livestyle referenced by the commentary I was responding to and that that lifestyle really has little to do with the "danger" factor of living in Alaska.
If the quote above me is entirely accurate, how many people are really killed or hurt by these conditions? I'm not denying that some people live that way, but I can't find any evidence that those conditions are responsible for a high mortality rate; I was responding to the question in that particular context because it was the only way to tie it the theme of this thread, which, after all, is about reasons why Alaska is a "dangerous state."
How many people per year are killed by volcanic activity in the state? I don't keep track of the volcanoes, but if they were a significant danger factor, I wouldn't have to. Again, how do they contribute to Alaska being a dangerous state?
Like I said, taken at face value, it is accurate. The reality of someone being killed by any of those factors is, for the most part, remote.Some exceptions which come to mind are; death by injury while out in nature, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, etc., people die during those activities each year here, sometimes several die. Low temps and cold water take lives repeatedly in Alaska. Also, bear maulings do occur with some regularity though they are few, the majority end in injury, rather than death for the victim.
As for the volcano link, that was intended to inform those interested in how often volcanoes do erupt in Alaska, and what kind of impact an eruption can have on life, activity, commerce, etc,. if any at all. From the human perspective and experience, most eruptions are seemingly innocuous in general here in Alaska.
To clarify, I did not read this entire thread, I merely caught the end and saw the last two posts and interjected. Once again, perspective. If one considers the likely hood of experiencing the great outdoors in any state in the U.S.A., and has the desire, or patience to delve into statistical ether net, I think one would find that Alaska on a per capita basis would lead the tables in deaths when considering the most popular activities, where they occur, when they occur and the length of time emergency response has to react and administer care if at all possible.
Sigh. I didn't say it wasn't accurate taken by itself. Again, what I said is that Alaska's so-called extreme environment doesn't account for its relatively high violence and medium mortality rate, which is what this thread is about. Again, I didn't say that people don't get mauled by bears in Alaska -- just that bear maulings don't account for Alaska's relatively high violence rate (more people probably die of various wilderness encounters in Yellowstone than Alaska.) The state with the highest number of animal-caused deaths per year is actually Texas according to a recent article in the Washington Post, and Wyoming probably beats Alaska in wilderness related deaths. No one said that wilderness encounters gone wrong don't happen in Alaska, btw, but I don't think they have the significance a previous poster tried to give them, especially within the context of the subject matter of this conversation.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned (that I've seen; I haven't read this ancient thread either) is that Alaska has the highest rate of gun violence in the country.
The leading cause of death in Alaska is most likely due to substandard medical care, but that really doesn't have much to do with violence rates either.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 02-20-2016 at 01:50 PM..
Sigh. I didn't say it wasn't accurate taken by itself. Again, what I said is that Alaska's so-called extreme environment doesn't account for its relatively high violence and medium mortality rate, which is what this thread is about. Again, I didn't say that people don't get mauled by bears in Alaska -- just that bear maulings don't account for Alaska's relatively high violence rate (more people probably die of various wilderness encounters in Yellowstone than Alaska.) The state with the highest number of animal-caused deaths per year is actually Texas according to a recent article in the Washington Post, and Wyoming probably beats Alaska in wilderness related deaths. No one said that wilderness encounters gone wrong don't happen in Alaska, btw, but I don't think they have the significance a previous poster tried to give them, especially within the context of the subject matter of this conversation.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned (that I've seen; I haven't read this ancient thread either) is that Alaska has the highest rate of gun violence in the country.
The leading cause of death in Alaska is most likely due to substandard medical care, but that really doesn't have much to do with violence rates either.
True in the past from what I can see, most recent data from CDC indicates that Louisiana surpasses Alaska by merely .1%, negligible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
