2 ms·
Ok - so it's worth remembering that this was created[1] by a "content marketing agency" on behalf of a law firm. AKA, this is an ad. That said, the North Casc
by atourgates 4y ago
Ok - so it's worth remembering that this was created[1] by a "content marketing agency" on behalf of a law firm.
AKA, this is an ad.
That said, the North Cascades data is wild, suggesting that you're 6x more likely to die on a visit to that National Park than any other.
It is a rugged and remote landscape, but 6x more dangerous makes me suspect the accuracy of the underlying data.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/12/02/travel-alert-the-national-park-where-youre-most-likely-to-die/?sh=70000f165c9c https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/12/02/tra...
- tshaddox 4y agoI’m guessing it’s a combination of extremely small sample size and the North Cascades being disproportionately used for dangerous activities like rock climbing and mountaineering.
- readthenotes1 4y agoOne of the most interesting ads I've come across!
- Zigurd 4y agoTrue that it is on a site promoting a law firm. But, I don't see a reason to doubt this is an aggregation and visualization of Park Service data. I have some gripes about per capita deaths in some visualization and absolute numbers in others, etc. I do not see tendentiousness, though. There is no "See! They are negligent!" here.