Earthquake and Avalanche at Everest base camp after the earthquake


http://altitudepakistan.blogspot.com/2015/04/spring-2015-everest-base-camp-avalanche.html

How crazy scary does this look http://videosift.com/video/Swiss-Avalanche-Complete-Burial-and-Rescue

*length=4:48
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Avalanches-Frontier-Psychiatrist-WTF

The Avalanches - Since I Left You has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:48 - length declared by Zawash.

The Avalanches - Frontier Psychiatrist (WTF) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

Hockey is a violent sport. A lot of hockey people think that allowing fights, which in the NHL usually happen between each team's designated "goons", prevents or lessens other dirty/dangerous play that would build up with unchecked aggression that is a pretty natural part of the sport. That's an oversimplification, but one of the major justifications.

I love watching hockey. I think it is a great sport that allows for many different paths to victory -- you can have a winning team made up of fast, graceful, highly skilled players, OR cerebral, teamwork based players, OR intimidating, brute force goons. Or a mix of any/all of those.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a fan. I didn't grow up with hockey in my blood (not from Canada), but became a fan in my teens. But, I do actually see a certain amount of logic in the hockey pundits argument that fighting cuts down on other dirty play. I think that if anyone watches enough hockey, they see evidence that it is true. Maybe not quite as true as the pro-fight pundits suggest, but it is there.

Better officiating, penalties, and suspensions for the kinds of dangerous / dirty play that fighting is supposed to cut down on would help. Even though I think fighting has a place in the game, the NHL does need to evolve some more consistency in those areas.

I'm a Colorado Avalanche fan. The Avs main rival for a long time was the Detroit Red Wings, and then a former Wings player (Brendan Shanahan) became the head of player safety. His job was basically to review dirty plays or plays that resulted in an injury, and dole out warnings/suspensions/fines. He took a lot of flack for inconsistency; many people thought that in two similar incidents he might hand out a long suspension to one and a slap on the wrist to the other. But even though he was from my "rival team", I thought he did a pretty good job, and it represented a great step forward for the NHL. The thing that I thought he did really well was that for every incident he reviewed, there was always a video available on the internet showing what happened from multiple angles followed by his thoughts on it, what disciplinary action he was going to issue, and his justifications for it. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree about that kind of stuff, but he put it out in the open instead of behind closed doors.

To me, that was a big step forward for the NHL. If they continue on that path, I think it is reasonable to suggest that fighting will become less important/necessary/beneficial. But I think it will always be at least a small part of the game.

Sometimes, on a whim, I wonder if Putin started to change radically due to Snowden (though it did start a bit before then, but it would only cause a gigantic avalanche afterwards).

Happened across this while looking at avalanche videos

if you're interested,....

generally you wear a transceiver (sometimes called a beacon). Everyone wears one and it constantly transmits. If someone gets buried , the rescuers switch to search mode. Old transceivers just beeped faster as you got closer, but modern digital transceivers generally have a distance and direction readout. They're still only good for about 100 feet.

You have 15-20 mins to dig someone out before Bad Shit happens (oxygen depravation, etc). The digging itself takes most of the time, so finding them quickly is imperative. All of which assumes they haven't already died of trauma in the initial slide.

I think your efforts are commendable, but doomed to fail. Trance is not interested in learning, and when you teach him something he can't find a crazed, wrong link to discount your knowledge with, he'll simply ignore it and move on to more and more infantile argument. He recently became my second ignore.
I am glad you called him out on his doctorate in underwater basket weaving, unfortunately for us all it does not help him understand science in the least, or the scientific method, but somehow convinces him that it does.
EDIT: Oh, "doctorate in Social 'science'", which he must mistakenly believe is a true science and not a misnomer.
I see he continues with his intentional miss-reading and/or miss-quoting, claiming you said purely consensus is the ONLY way science progresses, not that it's the way that progression is accepted by the scientific community. Me thinks this miss-understanding is an intentional miss-statement in order to continue his 'debate' by constantly changing either his own, or your stance on the subject.
I also noted the passive aggressive (and terrible English) statement " the manner in which I posted the links may not have been "fair," ", to me implying you just couldn't assimilate that much information, not conceding that it was all an attempt at an overwhelming avalanche of BS propaganda.
Kudos on your reasoned, patient approach. I ran out of patience with the kindergarten argument style and quit him.

Avalanche? what bloody ava.....HOLY SHIT!!

Use enough dynamite there, boys?

There are varying levels of trust. I trust the drivers around me to not do anything too stupid. I trust that the money I earn will buy me food and clothing (and beer!).

More importantly, I trust the people I go snowboarding with that they'll dig me out of an avalanche, and the people I train with in Aikido that they can receive a technique safely and the senseis who demonstrate a technique on me that they won't do any permanent damage.

Most importantly, I trust my wife.... with everything.

Awsome how you can see it slabing and then cracking when the charge goes off.

I would highly recommend doing an avalanche safety course if you're in any way serious about skiing or snowboarding. In addition to the obvious benefits of helping keep yourself alive, you learn heaps about the snow pack. It's really good fun.

Your video, Controlling Avalanche Risk with 50 lb bombs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't always control avalanche risk, but when I do, I use 50 lb bombs