halocline
Contributor
Comparing scuba to mountain climbing needs some clarification. There's recreational scuba, which we can all more less agree is no-deco, no overhead diving. Then there's cave and tech diving. On the mountain climbing side, there's non-technical climbing, which IMO involves basically walking to your destination w/out ropes, pitons, etc, and then there's technical mountaineering, which involves equipment that's every bit as much life support as scuba gear, and takes place in some very hostile environments. (high altitude, dangerous weather, avalanches)
If you were to follow the careers of most high altitude pro climbers, you would find that an alarmingly high percentage of them end in death on a mountain. I feel fairly confident that pro tech and cave divers have a higher survival rate, although I'd be interested in statistics.
Comparing the relative danger of rec diving and rec (non-technical) mountain climbing is probably a more useful exercise. I would imagine that incidence of death/injury is about the same; very low. I would also venture a guess that statistically, swimming in lakes and the ocean is as "dangerous" as scuba.
If you were to follow the careers of most high altitude pro climbers, you would find that an alarmingly high percentage of them end in death on a mountain. I feel fairly confident that pro tech and cave divers have a higher survival rate, although I'd be interested in statistics.
Comparing the relative danger of rec diving and rec (non-technical) mountain climbing is probably a more useful exercise. I would imagine that incidence of death/injury is about the same; very low. I would also venture a guess that statistically, swimming in lakes and the ocean is as "dangerous" as scuba.