# Get off you're high horse Australia!



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

I was looking for a list of the most dangerous snakes on google and i came across this paper. 

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bush/myth.html



> For too long we have been telling the world, as well as each other, that Australia's snakes are the most venomous. On what evidence do we make this assumption? Solely on their ability to kill mice! What a joke!



It is well worth a read and makes some really good arguments about our snakes being pussies in comparison to some other snakes in the world. The author has a good old dig at the LD50 test (which we base most of our assumptions of our snakes being the most venomous on) and explains why it doesn't correlate to human envenomation.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 3, 2008)

I've read that paper before - love this comment:

"Nor do we have as negative an attitude to Australia's deadliest venomous animal: the honeybee, an exotic introduced from Europe!! It causes an average of ten deaths per year."


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Did you know that Australian pythons have killed more people than what we call the worlds most deadly snake?


----------



## craftsman (Oct 3, 2008)

This is quite an old paper (1995) but also very good one.
Dr. Jamie Seymour (James Cook University) recently conducted venom research using human cardiovascular tissue instead of mice. I would have to dig in to find the references to his work but there is a doco by Digital Dimensions (digitaldimensions.com.au) called "World's Worst Venom" produced for the Australian Natural History Unit (anhu.com.au). Worth seeing.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Where could we find that doco? Might try and youtube it.


----------



## craftsman (Oct 3, 2008)

go to the sites I mentioned in my post.


----------



## Inlandtaipan078 (Oct 3, 2008)

So if the numbers of the kingbrown were the same as the numbers of the _Oxyuranus microlepidotus i'll tell you_ if that this was the case this article is rubbish it doesen't matter how many mice are used! fact is they are rare and in three bites one survived 2 were herps and lasted five mins i'd like to see more real proof from this article lol


----------



## slacker (Oct 3, 2008)

A snake that causes more deaths than others is not necessarily the most deadly by default.
I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to _most deadly_ snake.

Just because there have been more recorded deaths for a given snake, it does not necessarily make it in itself any more or less deadly than another. The "victims" might not have had access to antivenin. They might not have the requisite knowledge or ability to apply proper first aid. The density of human inhabitants throughout the distribution of the offending snake might be greater. etc

If you look at the LD50 (based off Fry's compilation), without further information one would assume it'd be far better to be bitten by a western diamondback rattlesnake (18.5 mg/kg) than a red belly (2mg/kg). If I had a choice between getting bitten by one of those two, however, I can assure you that it would not be the diamondback that I would choose.

To quote Fry on this: "The debate of what are the most venomous snakes is one that occupies a disproportionate amount of time, it is of course purely academic... dead is dead."


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Inlandtaipan078 said:


> So if the numbers of the kingbrown were the same as the numbers of the _Oxyuranus microlepidotus i'll tell you_ if that this was the case this article is rubbish it doesen't matter how many mice are used! fact is they are rare and in three bites one survived 2 were herps and lasted five mins i'd like to see more real proof from this article lol



What?

No one has died from a fierce snake! Like i said, get off your high horse!

Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.


----------



## Inlandtaipan078 (Oct 3, 2008)

*Anthony vhs*

maybe you should check it out a bit more


----------



## Hooglabah (Oct 3, 2008)

he makes a valid point. 
however what he doesnt take into account is the actual human population hes saying that more people are killed by snakes in Srilanaka than in aus. okay fair enough thats true, but lets look at the people. Srilanaka is a mostly impoverished country with little or no wild life education and nowhere near as many readily accesible hospitals also thier population is substantialy bigger than ours and a far greater portion of their counrty is habited by humans. take that into account and then consider the fact that because there is a far lesser area of uninhabited terrain the snakes like cobras are forced to come in contact with people. never mind the fact part of thier culture involves snake charming and even gambling games that put them in extream risk of getting bitten (thus the gamble). basicaly the snake has had to evolve to deal with us. 
yes this makes them more DEADLY and DANGEROUS as the writer states but not more venomous as he starts the paper with. Aussie snakes (browns, tipans, tigers ect ) have the highest venom potency of any elepid.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

-aspidites- said:


> A snake that causes more deaths than others is not necessarily the most deadly by default.
> I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to _most deadly_ snake.
> 
> Just because there have been more recorded deaths for a given snake, it does not necessarily make it in itself any more or less deadly than another. The "victims" might not have had access to antivenin. They might not have the requisite knowledge or ability to apply proper first aid. The density of human inhabitants throughout the distribution of the offending snake might be greater. etc
> ...



By definition the most deadly snake is the one species that has killed the most people. You can't really argue that. Dangerous, deadly and venomous are three terms that are interchanged but shouldn't be, they all mean different things and cause a lot of confusion. The most deadly snake may not be the most venomous snake and the most venomous snake may not be the most dangerous because it never comes into contact with people. 

As for rattlers and vipers and bitis or whatever they are called. I would sure as hell rather be whacked by any aussie elapid that by any of those, they may not kill you but they do serious damage to your body. In alot of cases people don't make a full recovery, whereas our 'deadly' ones most people do fully recover.


----------



## pythons73 (Oct 3, 2008)

That was a very interested read,imo i reckon the most recorded deaths or bites,occur from browns,but that doesnt make it more deadlier than any other species.imo i no that browns chase ppl thats why more ppl get bitten,compared to red bellys etc.I havent had any experience with any other snakes...


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Inlandtaipan078 said:


> maybe you should check it out a bit more



Check what out a bit more? 

No one has died from a Fierce snake bite.


----------



## Hooglabah (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> What?
> 
> No one has died from a fierce snake! Like i said, get off your high horse!
> 
> Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.




yes thay have 2 people both died in the same week at the venoms reaserch facility last year in august i believe both people died in under half hour (anafalaxis). i found out when i called up to apply for volunter work there.


----------



## craftsman (Oct 3, 2008)

aspidites: "I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to _most deadly_ snake."

That is precisely what Jamie Seymour looked at - all the factors and not only with Australian snakes, also exotics, spiders and jellyfish. Interestingly, he identified one of thew small African vipers (I think Saw-scaled viper) as the most dangerous snake in the world.


----------



## Inlandtaipan078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Would that be becouse it's injected and a lot more venom is inserted


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Hooglabah said:


> he makes a valid point.
> however what he doesnt take into account is the actual human population hes saying that more people are killed by snakes in Srilanaka than in aus. okay fair enough thats true, but lets look at the people. Srilanaka is a mostly impoverished country with little or no wild life education and nowhere near as many readily accesible hospitals also thier population is substantialy bigger than ours and a far greater portion of their counrty is habited by humans. take that into account and then consider the fact that because there is a far lesser area of uninhabited terrain the snakes like cobras are forced to come in contact with people. never mind the fact part of thier culture involves snake charming and even gambling games that put them in extream risk of getting bitten (thus the gamble). basicaly the snake has had to evolve to deal with us.
> yes this makes them more DEADLY and DANGEROUS as the writer states but not more venomous as he starts the paper with. Aussie snakes (browns, tipans, tigers ect ) have the highest venom potency of any elepid.



The point he is making is that the LD50 'potency' test can't be reliably related to humans. Take the example of the olive whip snake he made. That made it i think in the top 20, that's higher than a collettes, pale headed snake, copper head etc but there is little chance that an olive whip will kill a person.


----------



## hodges (Oct 3, 2008)

pythons73 said:


> That was a very interested read,imo i reckon the most recorded deaths or bites,occur from browns,but that doesnt make it more deadlier than any other species.imo i no that browns chase ppl thats why more ppl get bitten,compared to red bellys etc.I havent had any experience with any other snakes...



Chase people ?.


----------



## Retic (Oct 3, 2008)

I think a lot of it does come down to bragging rights to be honest. My opinion is that the snake that kills the most people is the deadliest.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Hooglabah said:


> yes thay have 2 people both died in the same week at the venoms reaserch facility last year in august i believe both people died in under half hour (anafalaxis). i found out when i called up to apply for volunter work there.



I don't think that is the case mate. Unless you can find a reference for this claim? I think there was a death due to complications that stemmed from a fierce bite but that was years after the incident.


----------



## shane14 (Oct 3, 2008)

hahahaha thats weird


----------



## Hooglabah (Oct 3, 2008)

i'll see if i can get an official report or statement from the lab ( i still volunteer there from time to time)


----------



## m.punja (Oct 3, 2008)

very good nice read


----------



## slacker (Oct 3, 2008)

craftsman said:


> aspidites: "I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to _most deadly_ snake."
> 
> That is precisely what Jamie Seymour looked at - all the factors and not only with Australian snakes, also exotics, spiders and jellyfish. Interestingly, he identified one of thew small African vipers (I think Saw-scaled viper) as the most dangerous snake in the world.



Sounds on face value to be a much better test 



waruikazi said:


> The point he is making is that the LD50 'potency' test can't be reliably related to humans. Take the example of the olive whip snake he made. That made it i think in the top 20, that's higher than a collettes, pale headed snake, copper head etc but there is little chance that an olive whip will kill a person.



http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/ld50sc.html

Olive whip snake 714.2mg/kg. Lowland copperhead 0.5mg/kg


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Hooglabah said:


> i'll see if i can get an official report or statement from the lab ( i still volunteer there from time to time)



I remember the bites and they were serious enough for intensive care in both cases. If they were killed, which i really hope they weren't, it would be right over the media. Googling it i can't even find an article that has made reference to it.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

-aspidites- said:


> Sounds on face value to be a much better test
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looking at the LD50 i was wrong on all three, my mistake.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Inlandtaipan078 said:


> Would that be becouse it's injected and a lot more venom is inserted



Seriously, can you slow it down and explain what you are talking about. You don't make any sense.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

Sheela said:


> As if we want these venomous reptiles. .. are you a scientist in this field or what? .. i dont see you offering to be a 'guinea pig' to test the venom for scientific research ... any fool would know the reason less people die from these bites nowadays, is the anivenine available and also an awareness to these creatures.... either on land or in the water.... quick witted first aid application is another reason ... just because you dont always hear of people dying from bites etc doesnt prove that there are not any here ... why is it you dont see people happily splashing about in the pristine waters of the north? .. only another idiot would not know that ... certain parts of the whitsundays is known as Taipan alley .(gee, i wonder why) .. but as you the ever know all in these matters would say... 'so what' .. if you cared to count the amount of animals (you know, those four legged pets - cats, dogs, horses, cows etc) that are killed by these reptiles every year or even month ... you might change your mind ... but hey, thats not a snake bite, an ant bit them and they died ... wake up stupid .. you are most welcome to trek through the bush or swim in the waters up north any time you want ... i have had red bellied blacks at my back door on quite a few occassions ... this is not a contest idiot ... this is what God put on the earth and where .. we just happen to have been handed out five of the most venomous creatures on the planet ... snakes, cone fish, wasps, spiders, stone fish, various forms of jelly fish ... care to come and try these out for size ?... just as we all thought, big mouth and no brain .. why do we need scientists when we have you ? ....



BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Thanks for coming to the party, i really enjoyed your post! :lol:

I'm actually an Aussie snake catcher living in the one of the snake capitals of the world (the NT). Cone shells are the only thing on your list that i haven't had first hand experience with, but that's besides the point. 

Now to your comment about changing my mind. I don't need to change my mind because i keep an open mind, i do my best to look at all information available to me in an objective manner. When new information comes to light i don't dismiss it just because i don't like what it tells me. 

As for the rest of your post i don't really understand it, so until you clarify i wont make comment except to refer you to a previous comment of mine that i have quoted below.



waruikazi said:


> Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.



Yours sincerely
Self Appointed Herpetologist
Gordon


----------



## craftsman (Oct 3, 2008)

Wow! Sheela, the venom oozes out of you - you must be the deadliest creature on Earth. I am not sure why are you bringing God into this, was he a snake handler or a herpetologist?


----------



## bundy_zigg (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> What?
> 
> No one has died from a fierce snake! Like i said, get off your high horse!
> 
> Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.


 
Why dont you get off your high horse!! dont patronize people!

Sri Lanka, though an island of relatively small size, is the richest country in herpetological wealth in South Asia. Her rich and diverse herpetofauna consists of approximately 100 amphibian and 190 reptile species. Of these two groups nearly 60% species are endemic. Of the reptiles, 96 species are snakes. In Sri Lanka the annual death rate due to snakebite envenoming is one of the highest in the world being 6 in 100,000 population. Important factors which contribute to this high incidence of snakebite morbidity and mortality are: the presence of representatives of all the known snake families which contain venomous species (Colubridae, Elapidae, Hydrophiidae and Viperidae), the favorable climates and habitats, the socio-economic condition of the people, the preference of some victims for seeking traditional treatment for snakebite instead of western management (antivenom), clearing and alterations to the natural vegetation and habitats by people for settlements, agriculture and plantations. When you think about the fact that loads of people dont seek proper medical advice that leads to death then you cant say they have the deadliest snakes just the stupidest people!!
I dont really care what is the most venomous snake! I love our snakes and dont like them being called PUSSYS!!


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

craftsman said:


> Wow! Sheela, the venom oozes out of you - you must be the deadliest creature on Earth. I am not sure why are you bringing God into this, was he a snake handler or a herpetologist?



No but his worst enemy manifested himself as a snake. 

Now now i know i'm guilty of this too but lets play nice children.


----------



## bundy_zigg (Oct 3, 2008)

I would be happy for our snakes to be taken of the deadliest list!, all the back packers I work with all say how the only thing they hate is our snakes - so maybe if it was said that our snakes in fact arnt that bad we wouldnt have them all saying Australia is a deadly place  more tourism


----------



## Retic (Oct 3, 2008)

When you are fictitious you can be whatever takes your fancy.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

bundy_zigg said:


> Why dont you get off your high horse!! dont patronize people!
> 
> Sri Lanka, though an island of relatively small size, is the richest country in herpetological wealth in South Asia. Her rich and diverse herpetofauna consists of approximately 100 amphibian and 190 reptile species. Of these two groups nearly 60% species are endemic. Of the reptiles, 96 species are snakes. In Sri Lanka the annual death rate due to snakebite envenoming is one of the highest in the world being 6 in 100,000 population. Important factors which contribute to this high incidence of snakebite morbidity and mortality are: the presence of representatives of all the known snake families which contain venomous species (Colubridae, Elapidae, Hydrophiidae and Viperidae), the favorable climates and habitats, the socio-economic condition of the people, the preference of some victims for seeking traditional treatment for snakebite instead of western management (antivenom), clearing and alterations to the natural vegetation and habitats by people for settlements, agriculture and plantations. When you think about the fact that loads of people dont seek proper medical advice that leads to death then you cant say they have the deadliest snakes just the stupidest people!!
> I dont really care what is the most venomous snake! I love our snakes and dont like them being called PUSSYS!!



The fact that they kill the most people does make them _the_ most deadly snake in the world, that can not be argued, lots of death = deadly, the most deaths = the most deadly. 

There are lots of factors that contribute to snake bite deaths just like you have said, that is what this paper is getting at. This means that there are lots of factors that contribute to a snake being considered dangerous or not. Seriously which snake is more dangerous to you, the fierce snake that bit you in the Sydney Hospital or the collettes that bit you 5 hours from help?

The other point it is making is that the LD50 test of venom potency test how deadly the venom is to rodents. So if a snake, like a mulga that feeds on frogs and reptiles, is compared to a gwardar, which feeds on reptiles and mammals the results do not correlate and then to try and compare the affects to people... Although it is probably a good guideline the methodology is flawed because we aren't mice. 

I'm quite happy on my high horse thank you. I've learned from Sdaji that I could try not patronizing people, but i get more responses this way. I like it like this better.


----------



## slacker (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> The fact that they kill the most people does make them _the_ most deadly snake in the world, that can not be argued, lots of death = deadly, the most deaths = the most deadly.
> 
> There are lots of factors that contribute to snake bite deaths just like you have said, that is what this paper is getting at. This means that there are lots of factors that contribute to a snake being considered dangerous or not. Seriously which snake is more dangerous to you, the fierce snake that bit you in the Sydney Hospital or the collettes that bit you 5 hours from help?



Most deadly should reflect the potential, not just the actual number of recorded deaths. Saying a given snake is more deadly because the recipients of bites often don't (or can't) seek proper medical attention is very misleading. Sure, it has a higher tally, but is it really any more capable of delivering a deadly bite? That's the true question.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

-aspidites- said:


> Most deadly should reflect the potential, not just the actual number of recorded deaths. Saying a given snake is more deadly because the recipients of bites often don't (or can't) seek proper medical attention is very misleading. Sure, it has a higher tally, but is it really any more capable of delivering a deadly bite? That's the true question.



I disagree. I think most deadly has to have a direct correlation with the most death. Dangerous is the word that should be used to describe the potential. 

In the same scenario that you have given, for arguments sake, does a fierce snake have the capability of giving a lethal bite as a mulga? They are found in the middle of woop woop where there is incredibly little chance of them coming into contact with people. In this scenario which is the more dangerous/deadly?


----------



## bundy_zigg (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> I'm quite happy on my high horse thank you. I've learned from Sdaji that I could try not patronizing people, but i get more responses this way. I like it like this better.


 
Ahh all the more to fall , We in Australia are lucky to have such a good health care system. I think its got nothing to do with how many people they kill but what level their potency is! as far as im concerned and venomouse snake should be respected no matter how many deaths, as I would hate to become number one victim of a deathless snake


----------



## craftsman (Oct 3, 2008)

"the deadliest snake" is the same as saying "the nastiest person" - very subjective.
We need to understand that 'venom potency', 'fangs size', 'the snake's disposition', 'abundance', 'geographical distribution', the victims 'physical condition' and probably a number of other factors may or may not play role in the "deadliness" of certain species.
A deadly snake is one that has the potential to kill a human. "Deadliest" is a meaningless expression (in this case) IMO


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

craftsman said:


> "the deadliest snake" is the same as saying "the nastiest person" - very subjective.
> We need to understand that 'venom potency', 'fangs size', 'the snake's disposition', 'abundance', 'geographical distribution', the victims 'physical condition' and probably a number of other factors may or may not play role in the "deadliness" of certain species.
> *A deadly snake is one that has the potential to kill a human.* "Deadliest" is a meaningless expression (in this case) IMO



Totally agree with that, but most deadly or deadliest is the one that has killed the most.


----------



## bundy_zigg (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> Totally agree with that, but most deadly or deadliest is the one that has killed the most.


 
sure but it may not be the most venomous snake - just surrounded by the dumbest people.

Deadliest = killed the most people
Most venamous = kills the quickest


----------



## cris (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> Totally agree with that, but most deadly or deadliest is the one that has killed the most.



So a bee is more "deadly" than a long range multi nuke warhead missile because noone has ever been killed by such a weapon?


----------



## Khagan (Oct 3, 2008)

How bout we just end this arguement with the saying "The deadliest snake is the one that bites you" =P.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

bundy_zigg said:


> sure but it may not be the most venomous snake - just surrounded by the dumbest people.
> 
> Deadliest = killed the most people
> Most venamous = kills the quickest



Absolutely. 

Most dangerous = somewhere in between?


----------



## Mulga92 (Oct 3, 2008)

deadliness and venom toxicity are two very different things. australia has the top ten most venomous snakes, however, i would argue that something like the black mamba is far more dangerous than most australian snakes.

it all depends on what you would classify as dangerous, but i would think that a snakes danger would depend on both the effects of the venom and the snakes behaviour, i.e. activity levels, habitat and "personality" for lack of a better word.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

cris said:


> So a bee is more "deadly" than a long range multi nuke warhead missile because noone has ever been killed by such a weapon?



Yes. By the definition of deadly 'causing or tending to cause death' is more deadly than a long range multi nuke warhead missile because bees have killed more people.


----------



## bundy_zigg (Oct 3, 2008)

cris said:


> So a bee is more "deadly" than a long range multi nuke warhead missile because noone has ever been killed by such a weapon?


 
hahahahaha - didnt you know that! and bees are way more deadly than any snake
But the biggest killer would be humans as we kill more of each other than all animal deaths put together

*Come to Australia to see the worlds most deadliest animal - BUM-BUM-BUM - - - - - - - -*drum roll please* - THE HUMAN BEING:shock::shock::shock:*


----------



## Mulga92 (Oct 3, 2008)

well, more people are killed by vending machines every year than by sharks and crocodiles put together


----------



## craftsman (Oct 3, 2008)

I still reckon "sheela" is the deadliest species (at least on this forum). I attempted to read and understand her post again but it didn't get any better. What a literary masterpiece!
Definitely the deadliest!
END OF STORY FOR ME


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

It really puts it into perspective the threat that snakes pose to us eh Mulga. lol.


----------



## Khagan (Oct 3, 2008)

craftsman said:


> I still reckon "sheela" is the deadliest species (at least on this forum). I attempted to read and understand her post again but it didn't get any better. What a literary masterpiece!
> Definitely the deadliest!
> END OF STORY FOR ME



The ironic part is they complain about the number of cats and dogs killed by snakes... Hmm i wonder which there is more of, snakes killing cats and dogs or cats and dogs killing snakes plus other wildlife.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

craftsman said:


> I still reckon "sheela" is the deadliest species (at least on this forum). I attempted to read and understand her post again but it didn't get any better. What a literary masterpiece!
> Definitely the deadliest!
> END OF STORY FOR ME



Hahaha. That post made this whole thread worthwhile!


----------



## hydropython (Oct 3, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> I don't think that is the case mate. Unless you can find a reference for this claim? I think there was a death due to complications that stemmed from a fierce bite but that was years after the incident.



And yet you were the one claiming that more people have been killed by australian pythons.

I know of only one documented case of death attributed to python.... that was in about 2004.

I may be wrong, but i've not heard about any more.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 3, 2008)

hydropython said:


> And yet you were the one claiming that more people have been killed by australian pythons.
> 
> I know of only one documented case of death attributed to python.... that was in about 2004.
> 
> I may be wrong, but i've not heard about any more.



Yes i was. If you know about it why are you calling me out on it?


----------



## Dipcdame (Oct 3, 2008)

pardon my ignorance in the actual facts, but I ask here, would not the "number of snakes per capita, per size of land" have some sort of bearing on any result of who has the most dangerous? In my mind, the best formula would be to look at how densely populated a country is by both people and each species of snake, and gauge the number of bites. The ratio of bites to the number of snakes in a species to the number of people should be a good benchmark to compare to give the most dangerous species, would it not?


----------



## Nagraj (Oct 3, 2008)

A relevant presentation.

Bandwidth warning - nearly nine minutes long


YouTube - World's Deadliest Snakes: Ecogeeks 1


----------



## mebebrian (Oct 3, 2008)

i think the snake with the most potential to kill a human if bitten is the most deadly. The test on mice has to be invalid when refering to humans, we aint mice! It would be interesting to see the results of a human tissue test


----------



## junglepython2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Humans are mammals, I can't see how LD50 tests on fish and reptiles is going to shed much more light on the arguement.


----------



## cement (Oct 3, 2008)

Nagraj said:


> A relevant presentation.
> 
> Bandwidth warning - nearly nine minutes long
> 
> ...


 
Thats funny, they use a picture of a coastal taipan for the inland and for the eastern brown.
Sorta makes ya wonder.............


----------



## Tsubakai (Oct 4, 2008)

One of the more pointless threads I've read in a while. Thanks for giving me some mindless rubbish to read whilst winding down from work.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 4, 2008)

Tsubakai said:


> One of the more pointless threads I've read in a while. Thanks for giving me some mindless rubbish to read whilst winding down from work.



Atleast it's intelligent mindless rubbish. Well most of it anyway.


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Oct 4, 2008)

When you line every snake up and test the toxicity of their venom, we can go ahead and brag that we have some venomous snakes for sure. In their natural environment, however, the most venomous are not necessarily the most deadly to humans. 

Many snakes are shy and don't bite unless provoked (whether intentional or not) and many snakes live in places that are practically void of humans. So, although those snakes are venomous, they are not deadly. However, the shy, remote, highly venomous snake is still dangerous, should you cross its path.

If I were a traveller, venturing into the unknown, I would not want to know the venom toxicity of the snakes in the country I was visiting. I would rather know which are the deadliest snakes, because those are the ones I would most likely encounter on my journey.


----------



## cris (Oct 4, 2008)

IMO extremely large pythons are possibly the most dangerous as they will hunt and kill ppl. There is very little you can do to save your self too, a pressure bandage and AV wont help you much when you can pass out in seconds.

How dangerous a snake is depends on the indivdual situation.


----------



## COOP (Oct 4, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> Hahaha. That post made this whole thread worthwhile!


 

Your a tool, who cant be wrong. Everyone has different opinions, why argue with everyone who doesnt share yours > crap thread, 

P.S. get a life


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 4, 2008)

COOP said:


> Your a tool, who cant be wrong. Everyone has different opinions, why argue with everyone who doesnt share yours > crap thread,
> 
> P.S. get a life



Oooohhh. I guess you got me there. 

Truth is COOP i'm just more clever than a lot of people here and that make some people sad and angry. If i agreed with everyone what would there be to talk about?


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 22, 2011)

croc_hunter_penny said:


> When you line every snake up and test the toxicity of their venom, we can go ahead and brag that we have some venomous snakes for sure.



Actullay Australians cant claim that at all... You know why?? Becuase the OP and Brian Bush are right... Mice ARENT humans!!!! I swear the ld50 test and so called toxicity of Australian snakes has got to be the most ridiculous myth in the entire animal kingdom... All animals would have different ld50 values for different snake venom's... It's not even a mammal vs reptile/amphibian feeder... its literally each individual animal would have a different top 10... The claim that since australia has 6[ its not 7,8,9.10 like alot of the australian idiots claim]of the top 10 most venomous snakes drop for drop to mice means that they would have 6 of the top 10 to humans is absolutely abusurd... All animals would have a different top 20 and the common claim that Australia has the most venomous snakes is just complete garbage... Their lucky to have 1 or 2 of the most venomous to humans



waruikazi said:


> I was looking for a list of the most dangerous snakes on google and i came across this paper.
> 
> Australia's Venomous Snakes: The Modern Myth
> 
> ...


 

Wow!! I am speechless... Do I sense an actual intelligent knowledgeable Australian herpetologist..... I thought that Brian Bush was the only one._......._Damn I never through I would see the day where their would be another one... I'm impressed...


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 22, 2011)

I gathered the LD50 was just a comparable indicator. I think it is "others" who have wrongly "assumed" it has something to do with humans, when in fact it's nothing more than a basic gauge. I mean, how do you rate a sea-snake venom's on a mouse?? This venom wasn't produced by evolutionary means to deal with rodents. So what do we do? Have subject variations for LD50?

There are some venoms out there which probably wouldn't kill you, but after being invenomated by it, you'd probably wish you were :lol:


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 22, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> The other point it is making is that the LD50 test of venom potency test how deadly the venom is to rodents. So if a snake, like a mulga that feeds on frogs and reptiles, is compared to a gwardar, which feeds on reptiles and mammals the results do not correlate and then to try and compare the affects to people... Although it is probably a good guideline the methodology is flawed because we aren't mice.



Its not even a mammal vs reptile or amphibian eater issue... Its an individual animal issue. The inland taipan[ an exclusive plague rat eater] has the most drop for drop toxic venom to mice in the world... however it could be number 10 drop for drop to dogs, 20 drop for drop for cats, 15 for horses etc...If you tested every mammal[ including primates] with the ld50 tests virtually all would have different results and some would have drastically different results... reptiles would be very different results aswell...

So the ONLY way to tell which snakes are the most drop for drop venomous to humans is to either test it[by under the skin injections] on chimps or humans[ obviously impossible] or to look at studies on bites by various species of snakes and after factoring in everything coming to a rough guess as to which snakes are the most toxic to humans and cause the most severe bite symptoms....I have seen countless studies and the so called "most venomous australian snakes" for the most part dont cause anywhere near as severe of symptoms as Asian snakes do...Taipans are the exception but that appears to be it


----------



## DanTheMan (Jan 22, 2011)

The lack of sufficient medical treatment in a poor country can make a snake more dangerous, but lets say for arguments sake Inland Tai's were introduced and thrived in these countries where they cannot seek proper medical attention when bitten, fatal bites from Tai’s would surpass that of the other previously thought “deadliest” species that you speak of.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 22, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> I gathered the LD50 was just a comparable indicator. I think it is "others" who have wrongly "assumed" it has something to do with humans, when in fact it's nothing more than a basic gauge. I mean, how do you rate a sea-snake venom's on a mouse?? This venom wasn't produced by evolutionary means to deal with rodents. So what do we do? Have subject variations for LD50?
> 
> There are some venoms out there which probably wouldn't kill you, but after being invenomated by it, you'd probably wish you were :lol:



Thats all it is... and its a very "rough indicator at best." But honestly why do Australians seem to hype up and overrate everyone of their so called dangerous animals... I mean think about it... Australia has some of the LEAST dangerous animals of any continent yet they constantly boast and brag to foreigners that their animals are so deadly etc etc... Australia has 1 dangerous native large animal[ salty] thats it.... And then they have an assortment of "dangerous" marine venomous animals that kill like 1 person a year and are found all through the asian/pacific region.. Then its the snakes lol which are so ridiculously hyped and overrated by Australians. 

So why do Aussies seem to love to exaggerate the danger of their animals?

I asked one of my friends this[ his parents are australian through he grew up in Florida] and he also agreed that Australian animals have very ridiculous undeserved reputations and he said that in his opinion Australians do it because "its as an attempt to differentiate Australians from other western cultures. As our culture is very similar/influenced by USA/UK, we use our nature to make Australia seem unique."



DanTheMan said:


> The lack of sufficient medical treatment in a poor country can make a snake more dangerous, but lets say for arguments sake Inland Tai's were introduced and thrived in these countries where they cannot seek proper medical attention when bitten, fatal bites from Tai’s would surpass that of the other previously thought “deadliest” species that you speak of.


 
No they wouldnt.. And I actullay think the Taipan is top 3 to humans based on the studies on human taipan bites that I have read[ not sure if number 1 like it is for mice through] its the other Aussie snakes that are completely overrated... But I dont see why the taipan would cause more deaths


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 22, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> So why do Aussies seem to love to exaggerate the danger of their animals?



I have no idea why Aussies like to brag about such things, particularly when most Aussies carry on like the biggest bunch of moronic wusses when faced with one! The run off (in most cases away from the snake) to grab something heavy in the hope of bashing in the brains of a creature that in reality wouldn't stand a bloody ghost of a chance against a human being...THEN.....stand around bragging about how fantastic and masculine they are! Go figure!

If I see someone killing a snake, I just automatically draw the conclusion that their balls are the size of tic-tacs and they love to cross dress. I dunno why I assume this, but I just do! :lol:


----------



## Snowman (Jan 22, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> What?
> Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.



Yet the author of that paper is Australian. Infact I doubt you could find a more Australian bloke than Brian Bush!


----------



## fugawi (Jan 22, 2011)

I have to laugh at these arguments, some are talking most deadly some most venomous...lets throw most toxic and poisonous into the mix as well, just to show how little most of you understand about the topic.
According to a legitimate scientific LD50 test, 6 of the top 10 most venomous LAND snakes are endemic to Australia. This cannot be argued with. It is a proven, measured fact. You can try to argue that we are not mice but human...true but mice are mammals and so are we, we have the same circulatory systems and function in the same way. Of course a snake will always envenomate a mouse with just enough venom to kill it but won't always envenomate a human, they strike in defense. Then you have different types of venom, neurotoxic, cytotoxic etc one travels down the lymph nodes and shuts down organs while the other causes necrosis and travels using the circulatory system, which is better? Neither/both, they are designed to function in different ways for different purposes on different prey sized small enough to fit in the mouth of the snake whole.
As far as deadly is concerned, there are far too many variables to take into account. Anyone CLAIMING "The Most Deadly" is just giving an OPINION and not stating scientific fact so you should take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 22, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I have to laugh at these arguments, some are talking most deadly some most venomous...lets throw most toxic and poisonous into the mix as well, just to show how little most of you understand about the topic.
> According to a legitimate scientific LD50 test, 6 of the top 10 most venomous LAND snakes are endemic to Australia. This cannot be argued with. It is a proven, measured fact. You can try to argue that we are not mice but human...true but mice are mammals and so are we, we have the same circulatory systems and function in the same way. Of course a snake will always envenomate a mouse with just enough venom to kill it but won't always envenomate a human, they strike in defense. Then you have different types of venom, neurotoxic, cytotoxic etc one travels down the lymph nodes and shuts down organs while the other causes necrosis and travels using the circulatory system, which is better? Neither/both, they are designed to function in different ways for different purposes on different prey sized small enough to fit in the mouth of the snake whole.
> As far as deadly is concerned, there are far too many variables to take into account. Anyone CLAIMING "The Most Deadly" is just giving an OPINION and not stating scientific fact so you should take it with a grain of salt.



I'm pretty sure everyone knows the difference between the most dangerous snakes and the most venomous snakes[ through in reality they are probably at least somewhat similar]... What people unfortunately fail to understand is the difference between the most venomous to mice and most venomous to any other animals[ including humans]... Thats what people need to learn through of course since it hasnt been tested we really dont know.
You are right that for what we know now australia has 6 of the top 10 to mice on a drop for drop basis based on the snakes tested... However NOT all the highly venomous snakes were/have been tested... so its not a fact by any means... Their are plenty of snakes that are missing from D.R. Bryan fry's ld50 chart through it is the most substantial list that we have as of now. Also it is 100 percent wrong to say that a snake has a set ld50 value... Thats just NOT true... Snake venom varies considerably depending on population, location etc... For example eastern brown snakes from queensland are said to be numerous times more toxic than the ones from SA[ atleast based on mice analysis  ] This type of variation likely applies to most highly venomous snakes... what I mean by that is a Naja Naja[ common indian cobra] from nepal may have a more/less potent venom than a Naja Naja from India or Sri Lanka etc even through they are all common cobras... venom composition and potency can vary quite a bit. So their is not set number for a specific snake... only a set number for the specific region/area where that snake was found... Other factors play a role aswell such as stress to the animal, what season it is, possibly even sex of the snake etc..

And no you are wrong on mice react basically like humans or other mammals would. they may act somewhat like humans would but their would be differences just like if you compared mouse and other animals to snake venoms.. I can post a decent amount of examples of huge variation in how different animals reacting to specific types of venoms etc... I'll find them all and post them tomorrow.


----------



## thecat (Jan 22, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I
> According to a legitimate scientific LD50 test, 6 of the top 10 most venomous LAND snakes are endemic to Australia. This cannot be argued with. It is a proven, measured fact. You can try to argue that we are not mice but human...true but mice are mammals and so are we, we have the same circulatory systems and function in the same way.


 
Not so. take that same t4est and apply it to spiders. The old sydney funnelweb has toxins that effect primates far more than other mammals like mice. testing Funnelweb venom to the LD50 on mice you'd conclude that funnelweb spiders would give a nasty bite but wouldn't be too much of a worry to healthy adult human.


----------



## longqi (Jan 22, 2011)

In asia there is a little snake called a Saw Scaled Viper
I have played with a few as well as King cobras and kraits etc
When the Saw Scale hits you his whole body is incorporated into the strike
EVERY strike leaves venom
They kill a lot of people and dont back off
Inland Taipans are not aggressive
Saw scale is a long way down the venom count but I would put it right up there as VERY dangerous
less than one metre but nasty


----------



## the_jungle_jim (Jan 22, 2011)

another rubbish thread based on recorded and documented data which is relying on the ignorance, stupidity and lack of communication regarding a real danger in an undeveloped country. Yes it is stupidity when you know that something on the ground can kill you if you tread on it or get to close to it and you don't watch where you walk, if you don't know then it is a lack of communication, if you don't worry it is ignorance!

*someone said no deaths have been recorded from inland tais, but find a traditional aboriginal from their habitat who has been passed down info about them and ask him or her to catch one for you.*

i bet that they have killed lots of humans in the past, but gradually they taught each other to keep well clear of them through a well deserved respect. Death adders are feared and yet the pre anti venom death rate to humans was only about 33%.

I agree also that I would rather be tagged from some of our elapids instead of a malaysian pit viper, but adders have cytotoxic venom and blacks have toxins that damage various elements in our bloodstream, so if i was close to medical treatment i would rather be tagged by a tai or a brown, than anything else. If I wasn't close i would prefer to be tagged by the "deadliest" and cut my foot (preferably toe) or hand off (preferably finger).

and longqi, yes inlands aren't aggro, but when captive they lose their fear of humans and stop being shy, so an escaped captive in summer would be a nightmare. I have seen a large breeding pair which if they escaped when they were hungry, they would be the deadliest.

It is all circumstantial.


----------



## spotlight (Jan 22, 2011)

waruikazi can you please stop using my quote on the end of all your posts, its getting a little old and its also making fun of freedom of speed on this site!!.'
thanks mate


----------



## antmisk (Jan 22, 2011)

So lets put fierce snakes and browns or any other Australian ven in a heavily populated
place and see what happens.


----------



## DanTheMan (Jan 22, 2011)

Ok my last post didn’t explain my point clearly, bad example. What I’m saying is that what makes a snake the deadliest is not really their venom. Factors such as population and lack of sufficient medical facilities that other countries have play a role in this.
 Everyone is trying to argue their point when no one is actually talking about the same thing. Some saying deadly, some most venomous, people are getting the two confused.
Australia definitely doesn't have the 'deadliest' snakes, and I agree that the LD50 test may not be relevant to humans, but how do we know? No one can really argue against it until testing on humans is done. As far as the most 'venomous' snakes, considering we only really have the LD50 test to go by for the moment, Australia wins.

Edit - damn it I accidently changed the font somehow and can't find the origonal one...


----------



## mrkos (Jan 22, 2011)

sums my thoughts up completely its like arguing whats more deadly the great white shark or the bull shark. Bull sharks are obviously more feroscious,more numerous and hurt more people but the great white has the power and size to inflict catastrophic damage when it attacks in earnest. In saying thats orcas are more deadlier than both of them put together. This argument comes down to the true meaning of the word deadly maybe our fierce snake should be renamed potentially deadliest land snake on earth


DanTheMan said:


> The lack of sufficient medical treatment in a poor country can make a snake more dangerous, but lets say for arguments sake Inland Tai's were introduced and thrived in these countries where they cannot seek proper medical attention when bitten, fatal bites from Tai’s would surpass that of the other previously thought “deadliest” species that you speak of.


----------



## the_jungle_jim (Jan 22, 2011)

as i said why don't we ask some aboriginals related to the tribe/tribes that were in the known distribution of the inland tai if they remember stories about them. 

i do know that there are stories passed down about the coastal tai.

If you find someone who has been told stories passed down, ask them to help you find and catch them alive lmao.



antmisk said:


> So lets put fierce snakes and browns or any other Australian ven in a heavily populated
> place and see what happens.


 
yes but lets put them into somewhere like india where the population is huge, densely poplulated and as far as snakebite goes uneducated, just wait 20 years and then see the stats. 

wouldn't take long for us to be placed on the high horse forever!


----------



## mrkos (Jan 22, 2011)

surely the LD50 test used on coastal taipans which are second on the list would have some relevance they have killed people in the past and what about the taipan species found in png i think the locals there would agree on taipans being top of the list. We all know they are not the most aggressive snakes on earth but they pack the hardest punch making them IMO the most deadly


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Jan 23, 2011)

David williams could enlighten us on the PNG Taipan and Death adder Deathrate and it being one of the highest rates of snakebite death per population in the world,
not sure if he posts here
or Bryan frys opinion would be highly regarded also


----------



## Snake-Supplies (Jan 23, 2011)

maybe because shri lanka has 238947209341320948 more people than Aus does...


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 23, 2011)

thecat said:


> Not so. take that same t4est and apply it to spiders. The old sydney funnelweb has toxins that effect primates far more than other mammals like mice. testing Funnelweb venom to the LD50 on mice you'd conclude that funnelweb spiders would give a nasty bite but wouldn't be too much of a worry to healthy adult human.



This isnt the only example... I have tons more that I will be posting sometime later today of huge differences in toxicities of different venom's for different mammals.... As I said before... its not even a mammal vs non mammal issue... Its an individual mammal issue... Dogs.. cats, cattle, mice, humans, horses, elephants etc would react differently to different toxins.



longqi said:


> In asia there is a little snake called a Saw Scaled Viper
> I have played with a few as well as King cobras and kraits etc
> When the Saw Scale hits you his whole body is incorporated into the strike
> EVERY strike leaves venom
> ...



Yes russells and saw scaled vipers are very very dangerous snakes.... Kraits are also very dangerous at night.. Kraits are highly nocturnal so during the day they are very docile and sluggish and shy and almost never bite people.. but at night they can be rather aggressive and are alot more active

Kraits actullay go into peoples homes at night in search of the lizards and skinks that are in the homes and bite people who are sleeping.. They are VERY feared throughout their range especially the common krait.

Oh and actullay contrary to popular belief.. their actullay is a decently good supply of antivenom in India/Sri Lanka... its just people waste their time going to quacks and "healers" instead of going to the hospital and the roads/way of transportation is terrible... So people often either die before they arrive or they get to the hospital and the venom has had so much time to cause damage that they die... If you get bitten by a snake and go to the hospital straight away.. You will likely survive and they do have a decent supply of antivenom...


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Jan 23, 2011)

I would surmise that the myth of "9 of the 10 Deadliest Snakes in the World) probably gained global attention with the release of the 1998 "documentary : Ten Deadliest Snakes in the World by Steve Irwin. Not knocking the man but by passing this myth off as fact has done nothing positive and in all liklihood, solidified the Australian general public's irrational hatred for snakes. (You should have seen the look on the little old lady's face on Friday when I opted to show her the harmless GTS I removed from her front entry, thought she was going to have a heart attack). While there is no doubt that based on the LD50 test, Australian elapids are indeed highly toxic and deadly to mice, one cannot argue the fact that, to humans, they are simply not that deadly. Not to say I want to get bitten, but going by the numbers, there are 1.1 deaths per year by snakebite in Australia. It is hard to nail down any sort of exact numbers internationally, but working off the averages I could find, globally, estimates are somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 (yes, an unreliable range to be sure), snakebites per year. In any "study" I have found, all have offered up the Saw Scaled Viper as the deadliest snake in the world, often attriubeted with causing half of the snakebite deaths in the world every year. The Russel's Viper and Common Krait are then usually offered up as #2 and #3.

Of all the factors that come into play, the LD50 results do not at all qualify as a reliable determinator for "deadliness" or even toxicity to humans. It was a misuse of those particular test results, for commercial gain, that created this myth. I mean, you would not sell nearly as many DVD's with a title like: "The Ten Deadliest Snakes in the World if You're a Mouse, But Very Seldom, If Ever Kill Humans". Is this an invitation to people to start snuggling with their favorite elapis? No, don't be an idiot. Are they dangerous? That is a question that would be posed by a stupid person (questions cannot be stupid apparently). 

As an aside, I have heard of no deaths attributed the bite of O. microlepidotus. Based only on the word of herpers with as much experience as I have had life, I have heard of between 7-9 envenomations and no deaths. Back in 2008 when this thread was started, someone mentioned that this is not so. Does anyone have a link to the information concerning these supposed fatalitites? I have looked but could find nothing on the subject. All I could find was the following undated piece from AVRU: 


> Fierce snake venom is also similar to that of the coastal taipan, although it is more toxic by weight. Similar clinical effects of paralysis and clotting disturbance are caused by envenomation. Average venom yield is 44mg, with a record yield of 110mg. All recorded bites to date have been to snake handlers and no deaths have been documented.


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 23, 2011)

antmisk said:


> So lets put fierce snakes and browns or any other Australian ven in a heavily populated
> place and see what happens.


 
Can you imagine eastern browns in India?? The population would be reduced by half! :lol: All those budding snake-charmers wouldn't stand a chance! 

I seriously don't understand the point of this thread? LD50 supposedly defines the toxicity level of a venom on a subject, that subject (right or wrong) is measured using mice. It is proven that inland taipans kill 50% of the mice tested, faster than any other land snake, with the eastern brown ranking just a fraction under (of course the coastal tai is in there as well). So I don't quite understand the point that's attempting to be made here?? Are you saying just because something has bitten more people, that it's potency has somewhat increased?? :lol: Not the point of the LD50 test....and yes, as I said before, perhaps the test of LD50 should be over 3 subjects (maybe 4 if you wanted to include amphibians?....is this starting to look stupid or what! :lol (mice, insects and fish) as all would behave different to venoms that have evolved to suit the needs of the animal administering it.

I think people are mixing their words here, dangerous doesn't necessarily mean deadly (or visa versa)


----------



## bigguy (Jan 23, 2011)

This topic has been flogged to death so many times. There are 3 ways to classify snakes, yet everyone here trys to roll it all into one classification. WILL NOT WORK.

What is the most toxic snake = Fierce Snake
What snake kill the most humans = Saw Scaled Viper followed closel by the Russels Pit Viper and Asian Cobra
What snake has the highest potental of death without hospital treatment = probably Coastal Taipan

Jamie Seymour of James Cook Univerity conducted tests of snake venoms on human tissue and found Fierce, Common Browns and Coastal Taipans were in fact the most destructive. This negates Bush's paper of humans are not mice. Give it a rest guys. The results speak for themselves. It appears the old LD50 tests were right.

Why do overseas snakes kill more people than in Australia. Quite simple. 

Our snakes are in no way near the numbers found in 3rd world countries. Our human popualation of only 23 million is spread out over a massive country. Most people wear appropiate clothing. We have devoloped the most effective first aid treatment for bites(pressure and immobilisation). We have the best antivenoms in the world and treatment is free. 

In most 3rd world countries the snake populations could be anywhere from 100 to 1000 times greater per square klm than Australia. The humam population is 100 to 1000 times greater per square klm than Australia. Due to poverty and or monsoonal rains creating mud, shoes and long pants are rarely worn. Nearly all the bites in these countries occur on the lower limbs or feet. There is no first aid taught . Antivenoms are some of the worst quality. Good hopitals are rare and treatment could cost a years wages for most people. It is all of the above factors that cause the massive death rates overseas, not that our snakes are pussies.

Of all of the world venomous snakes, the Coastal Taipan is considered by most people to have the highest risk of causing death from a bite. Before antivenom in 1955, it was 100% death rate from a full bite of a Taipan. This is the only species of snake in the world that caused 100% death rate. Its large, massive fangs for an elapid, huge venom glands, 3rd most toxic venom, and lands multible bites in blinding spead.Not a good combination. Even though death from Taipans are rare these days in Australia, they are causing havic in PNG, which now has the highest snakebite death per population in the world. David Williams continual work in PNG would varify this. 

The quote Aussie pythons are more dangerous than Fierce Snakes is true at this point in time. Python= 1 human death Fierce Snake = 0 As I always say to people in my shows, Fierce Snakes have never caused a death that we know of, but it would be a different matter if they were found in peoples backyards in the suburbs. Luckerly they are not.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 23, 2011)

bigguy said:


> What is the most toxic snake = Fierce Snake
> What snake kill the most humans = Saw Scaled Viper followed closel by the Russels Pit Viper and Asian Cobra
> What snake has the highest potental of death without hospital treatment = probably Coastal Taipan
> 
> Jamie Seymour of James Cook Univerity conducted tests of snake venoms on human tissue and found Fierce, Common Browns and Coastal Taipans were in fact the most destructive. This negates Bush's paper of humans are not mice. Give it a rest guys. The results speak for themselves. It appears the old LD50 tests were right.



I have done extensive research and never found anything on the so called test conducted by Jamie Seymout[ who is biased and not very credible imo ] I did see that show where seymour claimed that he tested snake venoms on grown human heart cells and that the inland taipan was the most toxic... but he never said anything about the brown snake or anything else..And also Human heart cells.... come on lol. I wasnt aware intercelluar tests were accurate in a normal snakebite..lol.. Thats an equally flawed way of testing and as I said I have never come across this so called test that he did.. Only accurate ways of testing would be a under the skin test[ subcutaneous or intravenous etc].. Testing it on artificially grown human heart cells is useless.

As for the highest untreated death rate... Well first off NO snake has an 100 percent untreated mortality rate... Simply because all snakes can give dry bites. The coastal taipan doesnt always envenomate with every bite..It gives dry bites or bites with only an extremely small amount of venom just like other snakes do... But I do agree that a full coastal taipan envenomation would probably have a 90-100percent fatality rate if untreated and it is definately top 3 and possibly number 1 for humans.


The ld50 lists are not accurate... Just as the they would not be accurate for dogs, cats, horses, rhinos, cattle, frogs, snakes, humans... Its a rough guide for anything thats not a mouse... thats it and I will post some evidence to support my claim later tonight


----------



## cement (Jan 23, 2011)

I don't know who called our elapids pussies, but I think you may be part of the overall feel of this irresponsible thread trying to downplay an envenomation from highly venomous snakes.

I have met the fella who has been administered the record dose of taipan antivenom for his bite from a coastal tai which he copped under the armpit, and he was extremely fortunate to have got to the hospital. Not to mention extremely fortunate to have come back at all as he was, for so long, basically dead.

To try to downplay the effects of envenomation even from our "harmless" elapids, is irresponsible and downright dangerous in itself as NO-ONE knows how a bite will affect them. I was given some examples from S. Eipper the other day-
Demansia- confirmed death of 1 person in PNG
Hemiaspis- have caused significant local and mild systematic effects, however they have caused a very serious anaphylactic reaction in a herper who has been bitten previously by other species.
Cacophis- have killed large dogs there fore potentially dangerous to young or elderly people.
Parasuta- have caused an anaphylactic death in Vic 2007
Boiga- have causd significant envenomation in minors in Guam, and anaphylactic reactions in herpers
Vermicella- have caused systemic evenomations
Cryptophis- has caused one death.
And the list goes on...


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 23, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> Can you imagine eastern browns in India?? The population would be reduced by half! :lol: All those budding snake-charmers wouldn't stand a chance!
> 
> I seriously don't understand the point of this thread? LD50 supposedly defines the toxicity level of a venom on a subject, that subject (right or wrong) is measured using mice. It is proven that inland taipans kill 50% of the mice tested, faster than any other land snake, with the eastern brown ranking just a fraction under (of course the coastal tai is in there as well). So I don't quite understand the point that's attempting to be made here?? Are you saying just because something has bitten more people, that it's potency has somewhat increased?? :lol: Not the point of the LD50 test....and yes, as I said before, perhaps the test of LD50 should be over 3 subjects (maybe 4 if you wanted to include amphibians?....is this starting to look stupid or what! :lol (mice, insects and fish) as all would behave different to venoms that have evolved to suit the needs of the animal administering it.
> 
> I think people are mixing their words here, dangerous doesn't necessarily mean deadly (or visa versa)


 

First off your eastern brown comment is laughable... The people in india would GLADLY rather have an eastern brown then a few of the snakes that they have now... Or atleast I would.....And your way off.. The truth is EVERY single animals has a different ld50 value... Its not a mammals vs amphibians vs reptiles issue... its an each animals issue... Dogs, cats, humans, mice, mongooses, cattle, horses all would have a different ld50 top 20 for snake venoms... Of course some may have very similiar and maybe even virtually identical results... but their is no set "most venomous snake or top 10".... Only a set "most venomous snake or top 10" for 1 particular animal



moosenoose said:


> Can you imagine eastern browns in India?? The population would be reduced by half! :lol: All those budding snake-charmers wouldn't stand a chance!
> 
> (or visa versa)



The snake charmers de-fang the cobras... Thus making them not dangerous...Thats why it was banned in India as it is animal cruelty... They would do the same thing to browns if they did snake charming with browns[ which they wouldn't as cobras are considered a sacred snake]..


----------



## slim6y (Jan 23, 2011)

cement said:


> I don't know who called our elapids pussies, but I think you may be part of the overall feel of this irresponsible thread trying to downplay an envenomation from highly venomous snakes.
> 
> I have met the fella who has been administered the record dose of taipan antivenom for his bite from a coastal tai which he copped under the armpit, and he was extremely fortunate to have got to the hospital. Not to mention extremely fortunate to have come back at all as he was, for so long, basically dead.
> 
> ...


 
You're 100% correct cement.... How is T by the way? Haven't seen him in years.... Worst possible luck to be bitten by a tai... and even worse under the armpit... Try pressure bandaging that....

Australians have been thoroughly aware of the dangers of snakes from the dawn of Australian time... They are thoroughly dangerous... There's NO ifs, NO buts, NO maybes... 

There's anywhere from (a stat I haven't seen actually proven yet) 6 snake bite related deaths per year. This is tiny (and considered minor) in comparison to India or Africa... But there are clear cut (non LD50 related) reasons for this... 

An LD50 is the considered LD to kill 50% of a 'population' it is NOT just tested on rats or mice... There maybe other animals also tested. I know this for a fact with herbivorous animals being tested for the LD50 of aminita species (toxic fungi). 

When human volunteers come forward, then maybe we can have an LD50 for humans... But until then we use extrapolation techniques that will 'match' as close as realistically without using humans. 

Personally - Australia does like the highest predatory animal density population in the world (South Australia somewhere)... We do like the spotlight... and it is purely advertised - the potential is there. 

So - while bees and mosquitoes still kill more people per year than any other creatures... Our snakes still remain highly venomous and extremely dangerous - and should be avoided... Even the young fellow mentioned above (bitten under the armpit) was a considerably experienced snake handler... You can never be quit sure - can you?


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 23, 2011)

slim6y said:


> You're 100% correct cement.... How is T by the way? Haven't seen him in years.... Worst possible luck to be bitten by a tai... and even worse under the armpit... Try pressure bandaging that....
> 
> Australians have been thoroughly aware of the dangers of snakes from the dawn of Australian time... They are thoroughly dangerous... There's NO ifs, NO buts, NO maybes...
> 
> ...


 

My intention was not at all to say that Australia doesnt have dangerous snakes and animals in general[ it definitely does] Just that I think that Aussies have a tendency to exaggerate and overrate the danger and lethality of their animals. Why they do this... well I have a decent idea but they definitely do it and some people like Seymour/ Steve Irwin should know better than to do that sort of crap. I have a huge amount of respect for Irwin and was/am a fan of him.. but he was more knowledgeable on crocs than he was on snakes imho..

If anything snakes from other continents are 10x more downplayed in the danger that they pose than the "overhyped Australian snakes" atleast imo this is the case. Of course the fact reamins that their are plenty of snakes in Australia that can and will bite and kill you if you are foolish...so caution and respect and common sense should always be taught..

I still fail to see how "australia has the most dangerous animals of any place in the world." I hear this extremely ignorant comment all the time[ Not saying that you said it] and its just complete ridiculous garbage... I mean think about it for a minute.. Australia has ONE dangerous large native animals that can go on land... Thats it.... Now look at Asia/Africa and even North America and think of all their dangerous large potential land animals...Then Australia has the always talked about venomous marine animals.... Which can be be deadly but only on extremely rare occassions kill/hurt people.. People also forget that these marine animals are NOT exclusive to Australia... Stonefish, Box Jellies,Conesnails, Blue ringed Octopuses etc are found through the indo pacific region and depending on the animals even elsewhere... Yet you never hear them being listed as a countries most dangerous animals yet in Australia they for some reason get all this ridiculous hype about them being horribly dangerous and blah blah blah and its just confusing to me to say the least.. I've talked to people who have done walking safaris in Africa who then ask me... "I dont think I would go/live in Australia... To many horribly dangerous animals with venom etc etc that kill so many people" and its just incredibly ridiculous that people think like that when its so untrue. Sure those animals are potentially dangerous but the chance of seeing one is incredibly rare and they are found in quite a few other countries.

Of course Aussie snakes can be dangerous but so can highly venomous snakes everywhere and the reputation[ what ignorant people believe/think] is that like Australia has some monopoly on highly dangerous/venomous snakes and they dont by any stretch of the imagination


----------



## cement (Jan 23, 2011)

Ok I officially give up on trying to get the point of this thread.

If you hear this "all the time", its a first for me!

"I still fail to see how "australia has the most dangerous animals of any place in the world." I hear this extremely ignorant comment all the time[ Not saying that you said it] and its just complete ridiculous garbage..

Most tourists I know, hear that we have some dangerous wildlife, but some reckon we have kangaroos bouncing down Pitt St in Sydney too. I don't know of anyone who goes around saying we have the most dangerous animals in the world.
Not worth 7 pages of ....

Slim, yep he is a great handler and last I heard, now a catcher in NT, and getting involved with crocs.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 23, 2011)

The focus on venom distorts the argument totally. A snake with potent venom may not be as likely to kill you as a snake with milder venom but a far better delivery system - the long hypodermic fangs of a viper are far more efficient than the scratch & run fangs of our dangerous elapids. Cultural responses following a bite also play a big part in how a snakebite is treated in various parts of the world.

It's all about how you define 'dangerous' & 'deadly' - far too many variables for me!

Jamie


----------



## mrkos (Jan 23, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> The focus on venom distorts the argument totally. A snake with potent venom may not be as likely to kill you as a snake with milder venom but a far better delivery system - the long hypodermic fangs of a viper are far more efficient than the scratch & run fangs of our dangerous elapids. Cultural responses following a bite also play a big part in how a snakebite is treated in various parts of the world.
> 
> It's all about how you define 'dangerous' & 'deadly' - far too many variables for me!
> 
> Jamie



pretty much sums this whole argument up completely


----------



## the_jungle_jim (Jan 23, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> My intention was not at all to say that Australia doesnt have dangerous snakes and animals in general[ it definitely does] Just that I think that Aussies have a tendency to exaggerate and overrate the danger and lethality of their animals. Why they do this... well I have a decent idea but they definitely do it and some people like Seymour/ Steve Irwin should know better than to do that sort of crap. I have a huge amount of respect for Irwin and was/am a fan of him.. but he was more knowledgeable on crocs than he was on snakes imho..
> 
> If anything snakes from other continents are 10x more downplayed in the danger that they pose than the "overhyped Australian snakes" atleast imo this is the case. Of course the fact reamins that their are plenty of snakes in Australia that can and will bite and kill you if you are foolish...so caution and respect and common sense should always be taught..
> 
> ...


 
GET OFF YOUR HIGHHORSE mmafan555, I am guessing you are from the USA. 

And you dare to call us arrogant. 

As I say find an aboriginal from the vicinity that they are found in with stories of inland tais and ask one of them to help you catch one. lmao.

If one of my mate's "fiercies" escaped when it was hungry on a warm day in Sydney, it would be a a true test when it saw a food source. Being captively bred they have lost their fear of humans and see us as their mealticket. When I see them, as soon as they see me their eyes follow me.

mmafan55, why don't you come over and get tagged by a juvinile and agree (by contract) to deny any help for lets say 5 minutes, then you must ask for help (part of the agreement) if you can. Come on, they're just pussies and you're not a mouse are you?


----------



## Shredder (Jan 23, 2011)

This argument seems to go on like the rpm/jag debate.

Question for waz,

Whats the deadliest spider in the world and how many people have died from it?


----------



## Klaery (Jan 23, 2011)

I didn't have time to read through all posts but did want to agree with you regarding the LD50 test on mice and how it is not always relevant to humans. Look at funnelwebs. A mouse would just about explode due to the excess liquid before it died of funnelweb venom. A primate on the other hand...



Shredder said:


> Whats the deadliest spider in the world and how many people have died from it?



Haha good question and brings up similar arguments. I bet 9/10 people wouldn't even know what the most dangerous spider is Australia is (If you were bitten and there was no medical aid). I bet many people straight of the bat think sydney funnelweb but in theory it does not rate top 2 by a fair margin.


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 24, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> First off your eastern brown comment is laughable... The people in india would GLADLY rather have an eastern brown then a few of the snakes that they have now...



Laughable?? You make me laugh :lol: Clearly you've had nothing to do with eastern browns! 

Also, the biggest problem in places like India is undoubtably their access to antivenom, hence the increase in fatalities! So, the highly dangerous state of affairs that seems to paraded around here so loosely in regards to snake-bite in these particular countries comes down purely to the very basic fact that they are limited to poor access to medical aid and suffer from over-population! Nothing more.

Quite frankly I couldn't care less who has the deadliest. It seems to be ruffling a few foreign feathers though :lol: A bit of jealousy creeping in there for some reason!? So until there is another measurement of toxicity levels, the current one would have to stand?? What else is available?


----------



## D3pro (Jan 24, 2011)

*The most venomous snake, is the one that just bit you.*


----------



## Darlyn (Jan 24, 2011)

"First off your eastern brown comment is laughable... The people in india would GLADLY rather have an eastern brown then a few of the snakes that they have now... "

Wow, you speak for all of India, and you reckon Aussies exagerate!


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 24, 2011)

I called them pussies. Purely to entice an emotional response from Aussie herpers and wow did it work! Two and a half years later it still has people in a twist.

I look at this thread at the reliable information in it differently, i don't think it down plays an envenomation from anything. If you read what is written you'll see that i have shown pretty categorically that bites, from apparently less toxic snakes, kill far more people than the supposedly more dangerous. 

The thing that saves or kills you is the medical attention that you recieve post bite. I think i'm one of the bigger safety Sam's on this site, i don't encourage complacency when it comes to snake bites.



spotlight said:


> waruikazi can you please stop using my quote on the end of all your posts, its getting a little old and its also making fun of freedom of speed on this site!!.'
> thanks mate



Trying to censor my signature makes more fun of freedom of speed! But OK i'll keep my eye out for another post i think is silly enough. 



cement said:


> I don't know who called our elapids pussies, but I think you may be part of the overall feel of this irresponsible thread trying to downplay an envenomation from highly venomous snakes.
> 
> I have met the fella who has been administered the record dose of taipan antivenom for his bite from a coastal tai which he copped under the armpit, and he was extremely fortunate to have got to the hospital. Not to mention extremely fortunate to have come back at all as he was, for so long, basically dead.
> 
> ...


----------



## 85Hickey (Jan 24, 2011)

I thought this is how the thread would turn out. What a waste


----------



## -Peter (Jan 24, 2011)

All comes down to the interpretation of, most dangerous, most venomous, most lethal, most deadly, most harmful all in relation to human biology..
Then you have to take into account population, geography, local attitudes, beliefs and customs and medical facilities and treatments available.


What kills people in India and SE Asia is poor knowledge, poor facilities, expensive treatments, population density and habitat coinciding.


----------



## spotlight (Jan 24, 2011)

thanks waruikazi for being so understanding and correcting my spelling!


----------



## cement (Jan 24, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> I called them pussies. Purely to entice an emotional response from Aussie herpers and wow did it work! Two and a half years later it still has people in a twist.
> 
> I think your egomaniac nature would like to believe you have us all in a twist. Seem to be batting off over nothing there waruikazi.
> 
> ...


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 25, 2011)

cement said:


> I think your egomaniac nature would like to believe you have us all in a twist. Seem to be batting off over nothing there waruikazi.
> 
> Yeah ok whatever.
> 
> Wow thats good to hear, but why not, their pussies right??




You certaintly seem to be in a bit of a twist, you've gone from thinking about snake bites to me batting off... 

Take this info however you like. After looking at this thread, if you think that my comments and the article i posted mean to say that Aussie elapids aren't dangerous then that is your perogative. And more power to you! I thought you may have been more intelligent than that but yeah ok, whatever.


----------



## hugsta (Jan 25, 2011)

You can't really compare an overcrowded 3rd world country to Australia. As far as I am concerned we have the worlds most venomous snakes, until a test other than an LD50 proves it otherwise. It is all we have to go on that compares all snakes the same way. And the most deadly snake will always be the one that is repsonsible for the most fatalities, whether that it caused from bad education, a lack of hospitals, available anti-venom etc. the one responsible for the most deaths will be the most deadly.

However, I am sure if you could supply hospital care and anti-venom, education on snake bite etc the way we have it here in Sri Lanka, I am sure the death rate over there would be non existant as well or very minimal and therefore the snake there would not be so deadly.


----------



## fugawi (Jan 25, 2011)

HAHAHA you guys keep trying to put this back to "most deadly", start reading your own thread guys. As everyone keeps saying, two vastly different things. Venomous is a measurable toxicity level whereas deadly is just a pointless argument with too many variables. Who is more deadly Pres Obama with his finger on the button or good ole Ben, the SAS soldier, who just got a VC for killing Taliban with his bare hands? One could kill most of the population of the world, then there is Ben who could kill a complete "seal team" without breaking a sweat. Really, really stupid and pointless argument. So lets just forget deadliest.
You guys keep bringing up Funnel Web venom and how it doesn't effect mice but we are not talking about spiders. Lets just look.....Coastal Tai bites mouse, mouse dies....Coastal Tai bites (wet) human, human dies.....dog, dog dies....in fact the only thing that could survive its bite is possibly a large varinid like a Perentie. Ergo...spider argument doesn't work here. There is a long 240 year history of snake bite fatalities in Australia and except for the odd dry bite almost all, up to the advent of antivenom, were fatal. This is where the reputation for venomous animals came from, not just the LD50 test. You say that a lot of the critters are not just in Aus but spread over Australasia, true but no other country has them all like Australia. We have more venomous animals than any other country in the world, with a long list of HUMAN fatalities attributed to them.
At this point in time the LD50 test is the only scientifically accurate test of venom toxicity we have. The only difference between mice and humans for snake bite would be body mass.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 25, 2011)

fugawi said:


> You guys keep bringing up Funnel Web venom and how it doesn't effect mice but we are not talking about spiders. Lets just look.....Coastal Tai bites mouse, mouse dies....Coastal Tai bites (wet) human, human dies.....dog, dog dies....in fact the only thing that could survive its bite is possibly a large varinid like a Perentie. Ergo...spider argument doesn't work here. There is a long 240 year history of snake bite fatalities in Australia and except for the odd dry bite almost all, up to the advent of antivenom, were fatal. This is where the reputation for venomous animals came from, not just the LD50 test. You say that a lot of the critters are not just in Aus but spread over Australasia, true but no other country has them all like Australia. We have more venomous animals than any other country in the world, with a long list of HUMAN fatalities attributed to them.
> At this point in time the LD50 test is the only scientifically accurate test of venom toxicity we have. The only difference between mice and humans for snake bite would be body mass.



Bull crap... Humans and mice and dogs, cats, every other mammal react very differently to different toxins... As for the fatality rate actullay if you read studies... Aussie snakes dont seem to cause as bad symptoms as Asian Snakes... The taipan is an exception and I think it is the most venomous snake to humans as well as mice... through their another snake that I think could rival it... Stop saying that people are getting most venomous and most deadly confused... we aren't... People are getting most venomous to MICE and most venomous to other animals confused.... The most deadly should only have to do with human fatalities no matter the conditions.

As for the taipan... I could think of a few animals that would have a chance of surviving its bite[ mongoose, meerkat, honey badger, etc]... All these animals are known to be resistant to neurotoxins... so theirs a good chance that they could survive a taipans bite even if it has a more potent neurotoxin than a say a cobra. The taipan is also hemotoxic and causes your blood to not clot so maybe that would allow it to kill a neurotoxic resistant animal like a mongoose. But I honestly have no idea

And lol the reputation of your venomous snakes has little to do with fatalities in the past.... It comes from the mouths of the "exaggerating Aussies"


----------



## Klaery (Jan 25, 2011)

fugawi said:


> You guys keep bringing up Funnel Web venom and how it doesn't effect mice but we are not talking about spiders. Lets just look.....Coastal Tai bites mouse, mouse dies....Coastal Tai bites (wet) human, human dies.....dog, dog dies....in fact the only thing that could survive its bite is possibly a large varinid like a Perentie. Ergo...spider argument doesn't work here.


 
I don't understand your logic? The funnelweb argument is just providing evidence of a *venom* obviously affecting different animals in different ways. Nothing to do with spiders, it is about venoms (though it seems you have missed the point). Are you saying that snake venom is somehow vastly different from all other venoms in this respect?


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 25, 2011)

Here are some examples of different animals reacting differently to given toxins

1. Sydney funnel web venom causes only extremely mild signs in dogs cats mice rabbits etc but is very toxic and potentially lethal in even adult humans. The funnel web possessed a neurotoxin
Spider Envenomation, Funnel Web: eMedicine Emergency Medicine



2. Queensland Tarantula venom causes only very mild symptoms in humans, even in young children[ local pain] yet has a near 100% DEATH rate for dogs and a nearly 50 percent death rate for cats

"There were nine confirmed bites by spiders of the family Theraphosidae in humans and seven in canines. These included bites by two Selenocosmia spp. and by two Phlogiellus spp. The nine spider bites in humans did not cause major effects. Local pain was the commonest effect, with severe pain in four of seven cases where severity of pain was recorded. Puncture marks or bleeding were the next most common effect. In one case the spider had bitten through the patient's fingernail. Mild systemic effects occurred in one of nine cases. There were seven bites in dogs (Phlogellius spp. and Selenocosmia spp.), and in two of these the owner was bitten after the dog. In all seven cases the dog died, and as rapidly as 0.5-2h after the bite. This small series of bites by Australian theraphosid spiders gives an indication of the spectrum of toxicity of these spiders in humans. Bites by these spiders are unlikely to cause major problems in humans. The study also demonstrates that the venom is far more toxic to canines."

Bites by spiders of the family Theraphosidae in hu... [Toxicon. 2003] - PubMed result


3. For Redback spider and Black Widow bites. 
“There is considerable species variation in susceptibility to envenomation. The guinea pig, horse and camel are very susceptible while the dog is relatively resistant to the effects of the venom. It is seldom lethal in dogs unless a considerable number of bites are inflicted, as would most likely only occur under experimental conditions. The susceptibility of the cat probably lies between that of guinea pigs and dogs."
"Redback antivenom is not normally required as a life saving measure in dogs, but its use may be considered in cases where redback envenomation is suspected in order to relieve the immediate discomfort or where a pre-existing condition, such as cardiac dysfunction, is present.”

“It is reported that cats, being more susceptible to redback venom, do receive antivenom from veterinarians and respond dramatically in minutes with significant lessening of signs."

Spider Bite | Australian Venom Research Unit

So their u have it many different animals reacting way differently to different individual neurotoxic venom's. The dog is resistant to the neurotoxic venom of the redback and black widow, extremely weak to the neurotoxic venom of the tarantula and highly resistant to the funnel web neurotoxin. The cat is then highly resistant to the funnel web, weak to the redback and the black widow and very weak to tarantula[ through not as weak as the dog]. Humans are weak to the funnel web, very resistant to the tarantula and moderately strong to the funnel web/black widow. Rabbits are very resistant to the funnel web neurotoxin yet they get taken out in the 20's by black mamba neurotoxins and the same goes for dogs[ I have an account where 4 dogs were killed at once by a single black mamba] yet they are resistant to most spider neurotoxins[ except for the tarantula which they are extremely weak to] and they extremely weak to many snake neurotoxins.

And look at this... A single black mamba killed 15 rabbits at one time[ without getting hurt]

Black Mamba | Nature | PBS Video

The scene happens from 00:31:48-00:32:12 

So this is another example... Both the black mamba and the funnel web are neurotoxic... but the funnel web barely hurts rabbits at all and a black mamba venom absolutely devastates them... So why is that..? Easy awnser... because ALL animals react differently to different snake venoms.. Their is no uniform level of toxicity for all animals... And the only way to get an acurate reading is to test it on THAT SPECIFIC ANIMALS ie humans... Obviously this will never happen but the mice tests are a sorry excuse for a "toxicity study"


----------



## hugsta (Jan 25, 2011)

You are correct mmafan555, but this debate is also pointless. As I posted, until a different test is carried on different animals the only thing we have to compare all snakes to is an LD50, all the rest is just speculation that snake X can be more venomous then snake Y when used on humans.

Fugawi you can't compare people with reptiles, what a stupid analagy. That is like saying what is most deadly, the coastal taipan who is at war with people or the inland taipan that has commanded his minions to take down the terrorist human race. Get some real analagies if you want to compare things.

As far as deadly goes, why is so complicated. Snake X killed 50,000 ppl this year, snake Y killed 44,975 therefore snake X is the most deadly to humans. All the determining factors inbetween are at this stage uncontrollable, so unless Sri Lanka suddenly becomes a 1st world country with premium hospitals all over the place, anti venom readily available to administer, an education system that teaches them about reptile safety and awareness etc etc, nothing is going to change.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 25, 2011)

hugsta said:


> You are correct mmafan555, but this debate is also pointless. As I posted, until a different test is carried on different animals the only thing we have to compare all snakes to is an LD50, all the rest is just speculation that snake X can be more venomous then snake Y when used on humans.
> 
> Fugawi you can't compare people with reptiles, what a stupid analagy. That is like saying what is most deadly, the coastal taipan who is at war with people or the inland taipan that has commanded his minions to take down the terrorist human race. Get some real analagies if you want to compare things.
> 
> As far as deadly goes, why is so complicated. Snake X killed 50,000 ppl this year, snake Y killed 44,975 therefore snake X is the most deadly to humans. All the determining factors inbetween are at this stage uncontrollable, so unless Sri Lanka suddenly becomes a 1st world country with premium hospitals all over the place, anti venom readily available to administer, an education system that teaches them about reptile safety and awareness etc etc, nothing is going to change.



Nice post and I agree 100 percent. Arguing "most venomous/most dangerous" is pointless and their are so many variables and factors especially with most dangerous that its kind of a endless and useless arguement. The actual snake that bites you isnt all that important in your chance of survival... What really plays a role in your chances for survival is the post bite treatment that you get and how fast you get it and obviously Sri Lanka, Burma, India arent even remotely comparable to Australia in that regard not to mention reptile awareness/education etc and the fact that compared to these countries Australia is huge land wise but has a tiny population and an extremely low population density.


----------



## cement (Jan 25, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> You certaintly seem to be in a bit of a twist, you've gone from thinking about snake bites to me batting off...
> 
> Take this info however you like. After looking at this thread, if you think that my comments and the article i posted mean to say that Aussie elapids aren't dangerous then that is your perogative. And more power to you! I thought you may have been more intelligent than that but yeah ok, whatever.




At the risk of sounding unintelligent, if you can't measure the potency of a venom on humans, then how do you know?  

To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed. 

This is all about the LD50 right? So if the LD50 is not a good test (which i agree it isn't) Then how do we know that your overseas species are more toxic? There is NO test for snake venom toxicity on humans that could be done so what the hell is everyone batting off over on this thread?

Do aussie snakes have the most toxic venom in the world? Who really gives a stuff?? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that they are right up there. Does anyone care for some inland Tai, brown or tiger directly into the vein? All the first aid in the world would be hard pressed saving a life there.

Who are you talking at when you say get off your high horse? An imaginary band of yobs who paint themselves green and gold and shout from the rooftops that we are the best because we have THE MOST VENOMOUS??

Like its been said, until we have another test, its all we got, if your that upset about it and feel the need to ridicule it then be my guest. There is more important things to do then carry on with this crap.

later wazza


----------



## slim6y (Jan 25, 2011)

Here's an LD50 taken on pigs - it is assumed that pigs are jolly close to humans.... 

Optimization irradiation conditions for determinat... [Strahlentherapie. 1975] - PubMed result

What about LD50 taken dermally, orally, IV etc... 

Here's another LD50 video - with monkeys:

[video=youtube;cQ7J7UjsRqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg[/video]




PS - sorry about the vid... poor taste... but it's damned funny!!!


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 26, 2011)

the_jungle_jim said:


> GET OFF YOUR HIGHHORSE mmafan555, I am guessing you are from the USA.
> 
> And you dare to call us arrogant.
> 
> ...



Lol yes I am American... and I didn't say that Australians are arrogant[ their not]... but they do imo tend to exxagerate and imo they do seem to love pushing the idea to foreigners that they have all the worlds most deadly animals etc and it confuses me alittle... And lol I didnt say that a brown snake isnt dangerous to humans... it obviously is a dangerous animal. You misunderstood my argument/posts completely. Obviously I would have to be mentally retarded to let a brown snake bite me... just as you would be if you let a so called "lesser venomous" non native snake bite you


----------



## slim6y (Jan 26, 2011)

Hey mmafan.... Perhaps then you'd like to elaborate...

Please describe (in your words, not dictionary or google words) what you believe the meaning of a 'dangerous animal' is:

It may help to clear up your ideas to settle what we believe you're talking about... 

And to be totally honest - all those 'dissing' the LD50 tests - again, I see no clear evidence to suggest that they're not accurate for their purpose... In fact, I think they substantially cover exactly what they're designed to do... And - what a thankless job these rats, mice, guinea pigs, pigs, cats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, etc etc did for US! And now, you're saying (some people) that it was a waste of time... They gave our life so we could put better make up on our faces, wear sunscreen, ingest paracetamol, dye our hair brown, wear nicer smelling perfumes... They gave up their lives so we could test the lethality of snake venom, spider venom, probably even centipede and scorpion too... Bees, wasps, hornets... Maybe, just maybe they also tested anti-venoms and remedies that we currently use...

To me, the LD50 test is the test that we have used conclusively for the past 60 or 70 years and no one (until now) has really even batted an eyelid to say... whoa... that's no good, we're humans!!!

So I am suggesting that we firstly take the unemployed and those that dropped out of school to begin doing our first set of human tests... We should use drug users too... just to see... Then I think Lawyers and hairdressers - and maybe those make up sales assistants too... They can be another test group... I'm happy to be in a control group... So long the control is 'nothing administered'. 

Otherwise, let's just keep what we have, understand it's ideal for our current situation, and use the information gathered as required... And we'll stick with what most of the world also suggests, we have at least the first 5 or 6 spots of the world's most venomous snakes... And to top that off... they're damned dangerous if you get bitten as a human... Though many people survive due to modern medicine and the fact that there is a quick pressure bandage remedy that can keep you alive (depending on snake and bite location) for hours.

Currently at JCU - a friend of the family is working on a self tightening pressure bandage that will firther save lives - by applying just the right amount of pressure to the affected limbs... Now why would they have such funding if Australian venomous snakes weren't 'dangerous' - oh, it's because we're on our high horses with too much money... I am thankful for these researchers and the fact they may save lives... but not that of mice, rats, and many other prey items....


----------



## Klaery (Jan 26, 2011)

Sorry to bring up the funnelweb again but using your logic 'accurate for the purpose' it is harmless. I think what people where trying to say (myself included) Is that the LD50 test using mice while useful is not conclusive. You CAN NOT state with any certainty that Snake A has a potentially more dangerous bite to a human (all things being equal) than snake B because just because it kills more mice. You say there is no clear evidence of this. I don't know how you reach that conclusion but if you truly believe this then I guess no adding of peer reviewed papers as done above would change your mind.


----------



## hugsta (Jan 26, 2011)

danielk said:


> Sorry to bring up the funnelweb again but using your logic 'accurate for the purpose' it is harmless. I think what people where trying to say (myself included) Is that the LD50 test using mice while useful is not conclusive. You CAN NOT state with any certainty that Snake A has a potentially more dangerous bite to a human (all things being equal) than snake B because just because it kills more mice. You say there is no clear evidence of this. I don't know how you reach that conclusion but if you truly believe this then I guess no adding of peer reviewed papers as done above would change your mind.


 
This is a revolving arguement that is not going anywhere. You cannot argue that an LD50 is useless or not conclusive until you can prove otherwise. We can say that snake A is more venomous than snake B as there is a test that is consistant amongst all snakes and list them in order of toxicity to prove it. You cannot comapre human fatalaties due to snake bite either due to 3rd world countries being the most affected, so therefore severe lack of hosptials and anti-venom and extremely poor education assist in making up the numbers of ppl killed each year. There are a lot more people bitten out here compared to those that have died and that is purely because we have an educated society, anti-venoms and readily avilable hospitals, helicopters etc to help save those that get bitten.And NO ONE will ever prove LD50 to be incorrect as you cannot (humanely) use humans as guinea pigs to do a 'real' test on the venoms reactions in people. And even then, you have all the varying factors in each individual such blood types, allergies etc etc that can affect the way venom reacts in each indivdual.

So debating over this is that and that and this is all heresay until someone can provide documented proof/study done on humans. Yes there may be a change in the 'what is most venomous to humans' list, but it aint gonna change now or in any forseeable future. So just learn to deal with the facts we have, and not the possibilities that ppl are randomly guessing at.


----------



## double0dappa (Jan 26, 2011)

Very true HOOGLABAH. I mean Sri Lanka has a bigger population than Australia on an island smaller than Tasmania. There wouldn't be many place's snakes could be without being surrounded by humans. Of course they're gonna have way more bites than anywhere else


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 26, 2011)

cement said:


> At the risk of sounding unintelligent, if you can't measure the potency of a venom on humans, then how do you know?  I knew you would get there eventually!  That is what this whole thread is all about!
> 
> To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems What kind of moron thinks an elapid bite wont leaves symptoms? Who the hell said that?, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed.
> 
> ...


 
It took you some time and you went on a strange path but you got there eventually. I guess you are as intelligent as i originally thought you may have been.


----------



## Klaery (Jan 26, 2011)

hugsta said:


> This is a revolving arguement that is not going anywhere. You cannot argue that an LD50 is useless or not conclusive until you can prove otherwise. We can say that snake A is more venomous than snake B as there is a test that is consistant amongst all snakes and list them in order of toxicity to prove it.


 
Yes you can, but only if you are talking about the venoms affect on mice. As for your comment stating it is correct until proven otherwise, well thats not how science works. You gather evidence to back up a claim, it isn't correct purely because nobody has dis proven it. Besides the point anyway as it has been shown over and over again that different animals react differently to different venoms and this has already been stated many times in this thread with supporting evidence.


----------



## hugsta (Jan 26, 2011)

But the point is it has been proven, via an LD50 test. This proves the levels of venom toxicity in snakes. How can you say it is no good when you have absolutely nothing to compare it with? Your arguement is null and void as you cannot prove that viper venom is more potent to humans then taipan venom without doing the relevant tests. It is all just heresay.

Talking about the posability of the way it may affect ppl is irelevant if you cannot carry out a venom test on them. Yes, all venoms react differently to all different animals. Venom even reacts differently to me compared to you if we were invenomated. I agree that venom reacts differently, but we are talking directly about its effects on humans. And there is no test and nothing at all that can or will prove which is most toxic to humans. End of story.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 27, 2011)

hugsta said:


> But the point is it has been proven, via an LD50 test. This proves the levels of venom toxicity in snakes. How can you say it is no good when you have absolutely nothing to compare it with? Your arguement is null and void as you cannot prove that viper venom is more potent to humans then taipan venom without doing the relevant tests. It is all just heresay.
> 
> Talking about the posability of the way it may affect ppl is irelevant if you cannot carry out a venom test on them. Yes, all venoms react differently to all different animals. Venom even reacts differently to me compared to you if we were invenomated. I agree that venom reacts differently, but we are talking directly about its effects on humans. And there is no test and nothing at all that can or will prove which is most toxic to humans. End of story.



Awesome... So then why not say... "we cant say for sure which snakes have the most toxic venoms on a drop for drop basis because the only way to be sure would be to test it on humans, which is impossible"... Now that would be the correct and logical thing to say if you were truly interested in getting correct facts on venomous snakes... But unfortunately alot of people would just prefer the far more glamorous hyped answer even at the expensive of the real true answer.

This is off topic, but for the Coastal Taipan.... Aren't they pretty rare in Australia?? I know their common in Papua but I remember talking to someone who said that they are rarely encountered or seen in Oz


----------



## Wild~Touch (Jan 27, 2011)

Aren't they pretty rare in Australia?? 

Just because they are rarely seen does not necessarily mean they are rare. All depends who you talk to.

Cheers
Sandee


----------



## cement (Jan 27, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> It took you some time and you went on a strange path but you got there eventually. I guess you are as intelligent as i originally thought you may have been.



To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems What kind of moron thinks an elapid bite wont leaves symptoms? Who the hell said that?, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed. 

You said something along these lines.
It seems to me that the point of the thread was more splitting hairs over the difference in word meanings between dangerous and deadly, and now a lesson in comprehension. A pointless exercise, that was carried on by some moron. Seriously not worth treating yourself like an amusement park over.

Keep up with the patronising though, its one of your most endearing qualities.


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

I vote this as the dumbest thread I've ever read on this site! :lol:

It's dumber than "meet my snake Monty" lol


----------



## Mighty_Moose (Jan 28, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> I vote this as the dumbest thread I've ever read on this site! :lol:
> 
> It's dumber than "meet my snake Monty" lol



+1 lol, At least there is no argument about Monty.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 28, 2011)

cement said:


> To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems What kind of moron thinks an elapid bite wont leaves symptoms? Who the hell said that?, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed.
> 
> You said something along these lines.
> It seems to me that the point of the thread was more splitting hairs over the difference in word meanings between dangerous and deadly, and now a lesson in comprehension. A pointless exercise, that was carried on by some moron. Seriously not worth treating yourself like an amusement park over.
> ...


 
They dont leave the kind of after bite symptoms anywhere near as frequently as snakes from elsewhere do... Of course some of the credit for that goes to the hospitals and excellent medical care that you receive in Australia and also the "reptile" awareness that the people have...But they still tend to cause less after bite symptoms... Elapids in general usually cause less after bite symptoms and of course their are no vipers in australia.

Digits/Limbs removed?? What... Which aussie snakes cause necrosis? I know the tiger snake can cause renal failure and maybe some brown snakes could aswell..

And its quite obvious what the main point is of this thread... It really isnt even talking about "dangerous or deadly" and I think that you know that but you are just choosing to ignore it... The point of this thread is pretty obvious.


moosenoose said:


> I vote this as the dumbest thread I've ever read on this site! :lol:
> 
> It's dumber than "meet my snake Monty" lol


 

This thread has 10x more value and worth than a "top ten most venomous or deadly snakes thread" with 6+ of them being australian snakes.... or in Steve Irwins case all 10 of them being australian....The reason I bumped this thread was because their was some incorrect information in it and it needed to be corrected... Of course I'm not the only one... The original starter of the thread and a few others also knew about the truth about the ld50 test and of course Brian Bush.


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

More value? In who's opinion? Yours? :lol:


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 28, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> More value? In who's opinion? Yours? :lol:



Hell yes... And unlike most of the australian fanboys on here I have actullay posted evidence to support my claims... To say that australia has 6 of the top 10 most venomous drop for drop snakes to humans is a stretch.... Irwins claim that they have the top 10 was just absolutely retarded/wrong


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 28, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> They dont leave the kind of after bite symptoms anywhere near as frequently as snakes from elsewhere do... Of course some of the credit for that goes to the hospitals and excellent medical care that you receive in Australia and also the "reptile" awareness that the people have...But they still tend to cause less after bite symptoms... Elapids in general usually cause less after bite symptoms and of course their are no vipers in australia. Aussie elapid bites certaintly can cause some pretty serious long term effects. I knew a lady who's 15yo daughter got bitten by a gwardar. At the time of the bite she had only just started getting her period. After the bite it took another 4 years before she started menstuating again. It may or may not have been caused by the bite but there definately can be some serious long term effects.
> 
> Digits/Limbs removed?? What... Which aussie snakes cause necrosis? I know the tiger snake can cause renal failure and maybe some brown snakes could aswell.. Black snakes cause necrosis, i know of atleast one case where a mulga bite (well several mulga bites in the one sitting) caused the loss of a mans arm.
> 
> ...


 


cement said:


> To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems What kind of moron thinks an elapid bite wont leaves symptoms? Who the hell said that?, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed.
> 
> You said something along these lines. Where did i say elapids don't leave symptoms after a bite? Quote the post where i said that.
> It seems to me that the point of the thread was more splitting hairs over the difference in word meanings between dangerous and deadly, and now a lesson in comprehension. A pointless exercise, that was carried on by some moron. Seriously not worth treating yourself like an amusement park over. Well i was amused, especially with you making stuff up and then arguing against it.
> ...


 
Cement i didn't post this thread for you. Do you realize that? I posted it for me, because two and a half years ago this was a point of interest of mine. So now when i say get off your high horse, i'm talking to you. Get off your high horse Cement, this thread is not about you. 

Like i said, take the info in this thread how ever you like. What has been said is hardly new or ground breaking, perhaps you aren't as intelligent as i was beginning to give you credit for. But you know, yeah ok, whatever.


----------



## wiz-fiz (Jan 28, 2011)

I only read 1/4 of the paper, but it seems to me that he is mistaking how venomous something is for how deadly it is? deadly being how many people it kills each year, and venomousity being how many people it can kill with 1 drop or however they say how venomous. 
Have i got the right terminology? or am i just completely wrong?


Will


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Hell yes... And unlike most of the australian fanboys on here I have actullay posted evidence to support my claims... To say that australia has 6 of the top 10 most venomous drop for drop snakes to humans is a stretch.... Irwins claim that they have the top 10 was just absolutely retarded/wrong



Claims of what? I hear an awful lot of tin-rattling with very little evidence to back it up. I understand, to a degree, the point you are trying to push, but unless there is another measurement of toxicity levels available, you and your pansy snakes (who are out of the top 10) are just going to have to suck it up :lol:


----------



## hugsta (Jan 28, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> Claims of what? I hear an awful lot of tin-rattling with very little evidence to back it up. I understand, to a degree, the point you are trying to push, but unless there is another measurement of toxicity levels available, you and your pansy snakes (who are out of the top 10) are just going to have to suck it up :lol:


 
It is starting to seem to me it more like mmafan555 is upset that the snakes they have there aren't as venomous as ours. We ca say we have X amount of the most venomous snakes in the world as the LD50 proves it, there is no other test to prove otherwise, so why are you guys continuing on a path that has no results? Anyway, enough of this continuing dribble if you ask me, the points have been made, nothing left to discuss really.


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

I think this might sum it up?


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 28, 2011)

Hahahahaha!



moosenoose said:


> I think this might sum it up?


----------



## byron_moses (Jan 28, 2011)

but my high horse is so cute


----------



## scorps (Jan 28, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> I'm actually an Aussie snake catcher living in the one of the snake capitals of the world (the NT). Cone shells are the only thing on your list that i haven't had first hand experience with, but that's besides the point.


 

Come to Cairns one day Gorden ill take you scuba diving and well go play with some cone shells


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 28, 2011)

scorps said:


> Come to Cairns one day Gorden ill take you scuba diving and well go play with some cone shells



I'm good, i'm quite happy to never come into contact with one of them!


----------



## redlittlejim (Jan 28, 2011)

Hey scorps, who do you dive with? or do you have your own gear?
My wife's family business is diving and collecting fish and coral on the reef!!! funny enough they love eels and sea snakes but are scared of my little coastal!!


----------



## hugsta (Jan 28, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> I think this might sum it up?


 
Lmao moose, say no more....


----------



## cement (Jan 28, 2011)

byron_moses said:


> but my high horse is so cute


 
Apparently I have one just like that.....only higher! I'm feeding it up to get higher then Gordies


----------



## junglepython2 (Jan 28, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Hell yes... And unlike most of the australian fanboys on here I have actullay posted evidence to support my claims... To say that australia has 6 of the top 10 most venomous drop for drop snakes to humans is a stretch.... Irwins claim that they have the top 10 was just absolutely retarded/wrong



What evidence? The only evidence you have posted is that humans MAY react differntly to mice which isn't rocket science. I haven't seen any real evidence that Australia doesn't have some of the most venomous snakes drop for drop. Unless there is LD50 studies done on humans, using mammal models is by far the best guide we have.


----------



## cement (Jan 28, 2011)

And its quite obvious what the main point is of this thread... It really isnt even talking about "dangerous or deadly" and I think that you know that but you are just choosing to ignore it... The point of this thread is pretty obvious.

This thread has 10x more value and worth than a "top ten most venomous or deadly snakes thread" with 6+ of them being australian snakes.... or in Steve Irwins case all 10 of them being australian....The reason I bumped this thread was because their was some incorrect information in it and it needed to be corrected... [/QUOTE]


mmafan555 said:


> Digits/Limbs removed?? What... Which aussie snakes cause necrosis? I know the tiger snake can cause renal failure and maybe some brown snakes could aswell..
> 
> It may be true that australia's major species of elapid don't actually carry a necrotic toxin in their venom, but like you mention the Tiger has (rarely) caused necrosis..so go figure.. I have a friend that lost a finger to a red belly bite, it was caused by a complication after envenomation called dry gangrene. If gangrene isn't a form of necrosis then what is? And something to think about is the simple fact that if he hadn't been bitten he would still have his finger.
> 
> ...


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm sure Neville Burns is one such well known Australian handler/enthusiast who can vouch for a loss of digit due to a black snake bite.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 28, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> Claims of what? I hear an awful lot of tin-rattling with very little evidence to back it up. I understand, to a degree, the point you are trying to push, but unless there is another measurement of toxicity levels available, you and your pansy snakes (who are out of the top 10) are just going to have to suck it up :lol:




First off for the 100000000 time... Australia does NOT have the top 10 most venomous snakes to humans based on those stupid mice tests... It has 6 of the top 10 based on the ld50... So if your going to be ignorant enough to give the mice tests credibility... at least accurately portray the test and dont lie about it.. And in reality its only 4 of the top 10 as 3 different sub types of tiger snakes are used...which makes it 6.. It the inland taipan, coastal taipan, eastern brown and then the 3 tiger snakes...So please if your going to use the dumb tests atleast use it accurately.



junglepython2 said:


> What evidence? The only evidence you have posted is that humans MAY react differntly to mice which isn't rocket science. I haven't seen any real evidence that Australia doesn't have some of the most venomous snakes drop for drop. Unless there is LD50 studies done on humans, using mammal models is by far the best guide we have.


 

This... and I'm going to post more direct snakebite studies tommorrow... 


Here are some examples of different animals reacting differently to given toxins

1. Sydney funnel web venom causes only extremely mild signs in dogs cats mice rabbits etc but is very toxic and potentially lethal in even adult humans. The funnel web possessed a neurotoxin
Spider Envenomation, Funnel Web: eMedicine Emergency Medicine



2. Queensland Tarantula venom causes only very mild symptoms in humans, even in young children[ local pain] yet has a near 100% DEATH rate for dogs and a nearly 50 percent death rate for cats

"There were nine confirmed bites by spiders of the family Theraphosidae in humans and seven in canines. These included bites by two Selenocosmia spp. and by two Phlogiellus spp. The nine spider bites in humans did not cause major effects. Local pain was the commonest effect, with severe pain in four of seven cases where severity of pain was recorded. Puncture marks or bleeding were the next most common effect. In one case the spider had bitten through the patient's fingernail. Mild systemic effects occurred in one of nine cases. There were seven bites in dogs (Phlogellius spp. and Selenocosmia spp.), and in two of these the owner was bitten after the dog. In all seven cases the dog died, and as rapidly as 0.5-2h after the bite. This small series of bites by Australian theraphosid spiders gives an indication of the spectrum of toxicity of these spiders in humans. Bites by these spiders are unlikely to cause major problems in humans. The study also demonstrates that the venom is far more toxic to canines."

Bites by spiders of the family Theraphosidae in hu... [Toxicon. 2003] - PubMed result


3. For Redback spider and Black Widow bites. 
“There is considerable species variation in susceptibility to envenomation. The guinea pig, horse and camel are very susceptible while the dog is relatively resistant to the effects of the venom. It is seldom lethal in dogs unless a considerable number of bites are inflicted, as would most likely only occur under experimental conditions. The susceptibility of the cat probably lies between that of guinea pigs and dogs."
"Redback antivenom is not normally required as a life saving measure in dogs, but its use may be considered in cases where redback envenomation is suspected in order to relieve the immediate discomfort or where a pre-existing condition, such as cardiac dysfunction, is present.”

“It is reported that cats, being more susceptible to redback venom, do receive antivenom from veterinarians and respond dramatically in minutes with significant lessening of signs."

Spider Bite | Australian Venom Research Unit

So their u have it many different animals reacting way differently to different individual neurotoxic venom's. The dog is resistant to the neurotoxic venom of the redback and black widow, extremely weak to the neurotoxic venom of the tarantula and highly resistant to the funnel web neurotoxin. The cat is then highly resistant to the funnel web, weak to the redback and the black widow and very weak to tarantula[ through not as weak as the dog]. Humans are weak to the funnel web, very resistant to the tarantula and moderately strong to the funnel web/black widow. Rabbits are very resistant to the funnel web neurotoxin yet they get taken out in the 20's by black mamba neurotoxins and the same goes for dogs[ I have an account where 4 dogs were killed at once by a single black mamba] yet they are resistant to most spider neurotoxins[ except for the tarantula which they are extremely weak to] and they extremely weak to many snake neurotoxins.

And look at this... A single black mamba killed 15 rabbits at one time[ without getting hurt]

Black Mamba | Nature | PBS Video

The scene happens from 00:31:48-00:32:12 

So this is another example... Both the black mamba and the funnel web are neurotoxic... but the funnel web barely hurts rabbits at all and a black mamba venom absolutely devastates them... So why is that..? Easy awnser... because ALL animals react differently to different snake venoms.. Their is no uniform level of toxicity for all animals... And the only way to get an acurate reading is to test it on THAT SPECIFIC ANIMALS ie humans... Obviously this will never happen but the mice tests are a sorry excuse for a "toxicity study"



hugsta said:


> It is starting to seem to me it more like mmafan555 is upset that the snakes they have there aren't as venomous as ours. We ca say we have X amount of the most venomous snakes in the world as the LD50 proves it, there is no other test to prove otherwise, so why are you guys continuing on a path that has no results? Anyway, enough of this continuing dribble if you ask me, the points have been made, nothing left to discuss really.


 
Australians are most likely going to say to people that "australia has the worlds deadliest venomous snakes" and "australia has the most deadly animals in the entire world" etc etc no matter what evidence I provide... so your right there is no point to this thread in reality...


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

I wanted so desperately to post this next pic....but I'm enjoying the thread too much. Don't let it deter you....please continue


----------



## hugsta (Jan 28, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> First off for the 100000000 time... Australia does NOT have the top 10 most venomous snakes to humans based on those stupid mice tests... It has 6 of the top 10 based on the ld50... So if your going to be ignorant enough to give the mice tests credibility... at least accurately portray the test and dont lie about it.. And in reality its only 4 of the top 10 as 3 different sub types of tiger snakes are used...which makes it 6.. It the inland taipan, coastal taipan, eastern brown and then the 3 tiger snakes...So please if your going to use the dumb tests atleast use it accurately.
> 
> 
> Australians are most likely going to say to people that "australia has the worlds deadliest venomous snakes" and "australia has the most deadly animals in the entire world" etc etc no matter what evidence I provide... so your right there is no point to this thread in reality...


 
Ok can you please link the scientific test that has been carried out on humans to prove what is the most toxic snake venom when used on humans. Oh wait, you can't, why because there is none. I don't see anywhere that an australian has said that Australia has the top 10 most venomous snakes in the world, but you seem to be hung up on the fact the we think we do. Get over yourself, you cannot prove you are correct with how all snakes venom reacts in people as there is no test that proves otherwise. And no, most Aussies don't say we have the most 'deadliest' snakes in the world as that is not true. Stop trying to dig up ****e from nowhere...geez. 

Hahaha, love your work moose, go to see you are still on the ball after all these years on APS...lol


----------



## Klaery (Jan 28, 2011)

hugsta said:


> Ok can you please link the scientific test that has been carried out on humans to prove what is the most toxic snake venom when used on humans. Oh wait, you can't, why because there is none.


 


hugsta said:


> We ca say we have X amount of the most venomous snakes in the world as the LD50 proves it





hugsta said:


> But the point is it has been proven, via an LD50 test. This proves the levels of venom toxicity in snakes. How can you say it is no good when you have absolutely nothing to compare it with? Your arguement is null and void as you cannot prove that viper venom is more potent to humans then taipan venom without doing the relevant tests. It is all just heresay.



I don't have a problem with Australia claiming to have the top whatever number of deadly snakes or not. In fact I think it very likely that we do. Stop using LD50 on mice as a reliable reference though as has already been said like a billionty times it is not conclusive and thus is NOT evidence. 

I do not think mmafan has any evidence what so ever that Aus snakes should not be in their current places as the most venomous. But on the other hand I do not believe the people arguing with him have any evidence what so ever that they should be.

The best we can do is guess.


----------



## junglepython2 (Jan 28, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> This... and I'm going to post more direct snakebite studies tommorrow...
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of different animals reacting differently to given toxins
> ...



All that shows is that animals react differently to venoms. It doesn't show that o/s snakes are more venomous.......
Once again unless you have some other relevant info, the LD50 tests are only guides but they are the best guides that we currently have on snake toxicity to humans. I do however look forward to reading these further snakebite studies you have.


----------



## redbellybite (Jan 28, 2011)

Can guarentee that an EASTERN BROWN BITE can kill ..this was done on a human and he died ...bought back to life had 3 heart attacks etc it [email protected]#$%%^^ed him up big time ...so this one is on top of the list now


----------



## tigerbudgie (Jan 28, 2011)

who cares? the fact is they kill you if they bite you and you don't get treatment.


----------



## Parko (Jan 28, 2011)

''Get off you're high horse Australia'' as written by the original poster should actually be written ''Get off your high horse Australia''.This can be proven with an English dictionary.


----------



## GellyAmbert (Jan 28, 2011)

Now i may not have read all of this thread.... i may have only gotten about 5 pages into it before i decided it was just going round in circles.....

But does anyone else feel kinda sorry for the feirce snake..?? always used as the example of a snake with a bite like fairy floss???


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 28, 2011)

hugsta said:


> Ok can you please link the scientific test that has been carried out on humans to prove what is the most toxic snake venom when used on humans. Oh wait, you can't, why because there is none. I don't see anywhere that an australian has said that Australia has the top 10 most venomous snakes in the world, but you seem to be hung up on the fact the we think we do. Get over yourself, you cannot prove you are correct with how all snakes venom reacts in people as there is no test that proves otherwise. And no, most Aussies don't say we have the most 'deadliest' snakes in the world as that is not true. Stop trying to dig up ****e from nowhere...geez.
> 
> Hahaha, love your work moose, go to see you are still on the ball after all these years on APS...lol



Lol I could pull up about 50 sites that say that australia has 7-10 of the deadliest venomous snakes in the world etc etc... Irwin said that OZ has all ten lmao....Australians love to talk up their dangerous animals.....Seymour is the absolute worst and he has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. Theirs nothing wrong with that and I'm sure some of it is very true... but it does get tiring at times.. You know what if you want to believe that the ld50 test is okay than go right ahead.... You are right their is obviously no test on humans or any type of primate that I know of... so the only thing we really have is mice...I dont think its credible for humans... but thats just my opinion and you are entitled to yours....But if your going to use it please be accurate with it and say 6 of the top 10 instead of all the other wrong info...But also remember that means its perfectly safe to pick up a funnel web as their likely not dangerous to you... and also next time you go for a walk dont worry about your dog getting a tarantula bite... as tarantula bites only cause mild symptoms in humans so it should be all good...etc etc



junglepython2 said:


> All that shows is that animals react differently to venoms. It doesn't show that o/s snakes are more venomous.......
> Once again unless you have some other relevant info, the LD50 tests are only guides but they are the best guides that we currently have on snake toxicity to humans. I do however look forward to reading these further snakebite studies you have.



Well it shows that the is a very likely chance that the ld50's for humans would be different than the ld50's for mice, dogs, cats, elephants, cattle, mongooses etc. So its not credible to just delcare that Australia has 6 of the top 10 just because they do for mice... Of course theirs no test on humans to prove that they it isnt credible either....

I will post the studies soon[ I need to find them all] but the thing with studies is that their are so many factors that effect envenomation symptoms that it is very hard to compare them are reach a conclusion...It's a bit like the ld50 in that regard through its probably even more hard to judge how credible it is.



danielk said:


> I don't have a problem with Australia claiming to have the top whatever number of deadly snakes or not. In fact I think it very likely that we do. Stop using LD50 on mice as a reliable reference though as has already been said like a billionty times it is not conclusive and thus is NOT evidence.
> 
> I do not think mmafan has any evidence what so ever that Aus snakes should not be in their current places as the most venomous. But on the other hand I do not believe the people arguing with him have any evidence what so ever that they should be.
> 
> The best we can do is guess.


 

But why do you think its "very likely" that australia has the top number of venomous snakes? What real evidence is their for that? If not for the ld50 what reliable references for such a statement do you have? I agree with you...the real awnser is that none of us have any real clue as to which snakes are the most potent to humans... we can hypothesize and make decent guesses and maybe get a few of them right but we certainly dont know for a fact and statements such as "this is the 2nd most toxic land snake etc etc" are unforunded imo and this debate is useless because their is no evidence either way


----------



## AllThingsReptile (Jan 28, 2011)

im staying out of this, i have a strong belief about certain factors, but im not going to share


----------



## junglepython2 (Jan 28, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Well it shows that the is a very likely chance that the ld50's for humans would be different than the ld50's for mice, dogs, cats, elephants, cattle, mongooses etc. So its not credible to just delcare that Australia has 6 of the top 10 just because they do for mice... Of course theirs no test on humans to prove that they it isnt credible either....
> 
> I will post the studies soon[ I need to find them all] but the thing with studies is that their are so many factors that effect envenomation symptoms that it is very hard to compare them are reach a conclusion...It's a bit like the ld50 in that regard through its probably even more hard to judge how credible it is.



Using envenomation symtoms from uncontrolled studies or reports is next to useless in deciding who has the most toxic venom drop for drop for numerous reasons. While not perfect the LD50 is the only controlled test we currently have. On a side note I have no doubt that overseas snakes have more serious symptoms or side-effects for those that manage to survive the bite.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 28, 2011)

Hooglabah said:


> he makes a valid point.
> however what he doesnt take into account is the actual human population hes saying that more people are killed by snakes in Srilanaka than in aus. okay fair enough thats true, but lets look at the people. Srilanaka is a mostly impoverished country with little or no wild life education and nowhere near as many readily accesible hospitals also thier population is substantialy bigger than ours and a far greater portion of their counrty is habited by humans. take that into account and then consider the fact that because there is a far lesser area of uninhabited terrain the snakes like cobras are forced to come in contact with people. never mind the fact part of thier culture involves snake charming and even gambling games that put them in extream risk of getting bitten (thus the gamble). basicaly the snake has had to evolve to deal with us.
> yes this makes them more DEADLY and DANGEROUS as the writer states but not more venomous as he starts the paper with. Aussie snakes (browns, tipans, tigers ect ) have the highest venom potency of any elepid.



I agree it's all really about what would be worse to get bitten by , not how many people die from.....The real test would be getting a large number of people and envenomating them with different snake poison and testing the kill rate and speed, however seeing the impracticality of this they used mice instead. Which is why i'd go with the Ld50 test.


----------



## AllThingsReptile (Jan 28, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> I wanted so desperately to post this next pic....but I'm enjoying the thread too much. Don't let it deter you....please continue


snake food........


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 28, 2011)

We've got the deadliest nar-nar-nana-nar


----------



## eipper (Jan 28, 2011)

this thread is load of entertainment and not much more...

a few misconceptions.....Australia has the top 10 most toxic snakes to mice.....not true....

The list that seems to be continually referred to is list complied by Broad et al in the late 70's.....it has predominately Australian species from which they had run ld50 tests on. Three controls were added to the list to gauge where Australiasian species were in regard to other well known dangerous species... _Naja naja_ (which may of been N. kaouthia or another species), _Ophiophagus hannah_ and _Crotalus adamanteus_, with regards to these three controls, a number of Australian snakes were more toxic.

The ld50 differs on the injection site....subcutaneous is most indicative of snake envenomations, however even lower venom weights are required for intravenous injection sites.

While Mice ARE flawed as test subjects, they can be used as an indicator of what could happen, results can be calculated to give an estimation what what dosage would be required to kill a mammal of a certain body weight. Species that prey on species other than mammals may have a higher ld50 rating for mice.....they are designed to eat other things....their ld would most likely be higher in their chosen prey type.

With regards to the actual dangerousness of a snake, there are 5 factors that should be considered (see a paper in Venoms and Victims published by Queensland Museum) toxicity, yield, fang length, temperament and geographical proximity...all of these ring true dependant on which ever localities you wish to include.

The myth that viperids have mainly cytotoxic/haemotoxic fractions and that elapids are restricted to neurotoxins and coagulants does not ring true...._Crotalus tigris_ and _Pseudechis porphyriacus_ are examples from both sides....

Finally.....at the end of the day snake venom has differing adverse reactions on different people.....sensitivities/immunities are different for each person....so therefore the most dangerous is the one that just bit you....

MMAfan....there are plenty of records of localised necrosis from Australia species

Cheers,
Scott Eipper


----------



## Klaery (Jan 29, 2011)

danielk said:


> I don't have a problem with Australia claiming to have the top whatever number of deadly snakes or not. In fact I think it very likely that we do. Stop using LD50 on mice as a reliable reference though as has already been said like a billionty times it is not conclusive and thus is NOT evidence.
> 
> I do not think mmafan has any evidence what so ever that Aus snakes should not be in their current places as the most venomous. But on the other hand I do not believe the people arguing with him have any evidence what so ever that they should be.
> 
> The best we can do is guess.


 


mmafan555 said:


> But why do you think its "very likely" that australia has the top number of venomous snakes? What real evidence is their for that? If not for the ld50 what reliable references for such a statement do you have? I agree with you...the real awnser is that none of us have any real clue as to which snakes are the most potent to humans... we can hypothesize and make decent guesses and maybe get a few of them right but we certainly dont know for a fact and statements such as "this is the 2nd most toxic land snake etc etc" are unforunded imo and this debate is useless because their is no evidence either way


 
That is why I said I 'think'. Feelings/guesses are not facts and I thought you would have been one of those in this thread who knew the difference the way you have been talking. As I said we would just be guessing and the LD50 test for mice is no real indication.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 29, 2011)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> I agree it's all really about what would be worse to get bitten by , not how many people die from.....The real test would be getting a large number of people and envenomating them with different snake poison and testing the kill rate and speed, however seeing the impracticality of this they used mice instead. Which is why i'd go with the Ld50 test.


 

First off... In responding to hooglabah...Taipans, browns, tigers do not have the highest venom potency based on the ld50 tests... The order is actullay... Inland Taipan, Eastern Brown, Coastal Taipan, Many Banded Krait, and then a few aquatic snakes and then the peninsula tiger snake... The many banded krait intervenes between the coastal taipan and the peninsula tiger snake for land snakes.



eipper said:


> this thread is load of entertainment and not much more...
> 
> a few misconceptions.....Australia has the top 10 most toxic snakes to mice.....not true....
> 
> ...



I never said anything about vipers only having cytotoxic or hemotoxic venoms or elapids only have neurotoxins... I said generally this is the case...Their are a few vipers that are entirely cytotoxic and not hemotoxic and there are a few vipers that have cause hemotoxiity and neurotoxicity in bites[ Sri Lankan Russells Viper] and then their are the extremely rare vipers that cause pretty much only neurotoxicity [ Movave Rattler]... Most vipers however cause necrosis/ or some type of local effect and then a range of hemotoxicity that ranges in severity... and most do not cause neurotoxicity.. For elapids there are exceptions as well.. Spitting cobras dont cause neurotoxicity... they cause severe necrosis.. and some non spitting cobras cause severe necrosis[ which is very unusual in a elapid bite] and neurotoxicity.

2 things you are leaving out... 1].... NOT all of the highly venomous snakes were tested in the ld50... Their are actullay quite a lot of snakes that are missing from the test and have never received an ld50 value because their venom hasnt been subjected to the test.... Their's a myth that people seem to think that all the lethally venomous snakes are in the ld50 test... and they are not.


2].... Their is no set ld50 value for a given snake... because venom composition and effects can vary tremendously in potency and components throughout a snakes range. A spectacled cobra from India will not have the same ld50 value as a spectacled cobra in nepal/sri lanka/pakistan etc etc...A russells viper will not have the same ld50 value in India as a russells viper in Sri Lanka/Burma etc etc...So in that regard it is also flawed as well... Also some snakes start to produce poorer quality of venom when in captivity as they stress out... which could also effect the test.



danielk said:


> That is why I said I 'think'. Feelings/guesses are not facts and I thought you would have been one of those in this thread who knew the difference the way you have been talking. As I said we would just be guessing and the LD50 test for mice is no real indication.



I wasn't challenging you views or anything[ You have shown to me in this thread that you are knowledgeable on snakes].. I was just wondering why you have the opinion that they are most likely the most venomous...Your completely right that none of us know for certain and we can only make a rough guess in reality


----------



## Jungletrans (Jan 29, 2011)

" Facts " are funny things and can be twisted to prove anything . Did you know that ; Worldwide more people are kicked to death by donkeys than die in airplane accidents .


----------



## slim6y (Jan 29, 2011)

Jungletrans said:


> " Facts " are funny things and can be twisted to prove anything . Did you know that ; Worldwide more people are kicked to death by donkeys than die in airplane accidents .


 
But if you were going to be kicked by an aeroplane, the aeroplane would surely be more deadly though... right???

I would say they LD50 for donkey kick vs Aeroplane kick would be very one sided... You could test that on everything from mice to horses... and I'd say the outcome for donkey kick would be a decreasing LD50 proportional to size... Where the LD50 for the Aeroplane kick would remain high regardless of size of the target animal.


----------



## Klaery (Jan 29, 2011)

But the donkey has a mind of its own :S unstoppable! 



mmafan555 said:


> I wasn't challenging you views or anything[ You have shown to me in this thread that you are knowledgeable on snakes].. I was just wondering why you have the opinion that they are most likely the most venomous...Your completely right that none of us know for certain and we can only make a rough guess in reality



Sorry mate didn't mean to sound so pointed in that post, was just making sure that my view wasn't confused by others  I mentioned my gut feeling just as a side note so that others knew when I was arguing the validity of ld50 it was coming from the point of reason rather then my personal feelings. 

Haha I would know a lot less about elapids than most in this thread. I keep funnelwebs though so have done my fair share of venom research ;-)


----------



## mmafan555 (Jan 29, 2011)

Jungletrans said:


> " Facts " are funny things and can be twisted to prove anything . Did you know that ; Worldwide more people are kicked to death by donkeys than die in airplane accidents .


 
What exactly are you trying to say?... Please tell me you are not comparing the dame inflicted by bites of aussie elapids to airplane accidents and then the damage inflicted by bites from other highly exotic venomous snakes to kicks from donkeys... Please clarify



danielk said:


> But the donkey has a mind of its own :S unstoppable!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well regardless of your experience with elapids... you showed a lot of common sense in this thread when many others did not...As for the funnelwebs eek! I hate spiders... not gonna lie they scare the **** out of me.. I could be near any snake and not be scared but spiders... hell no their scary as hell


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 1, 2011)

Just out of curiosity.... If australians constantly claim to have the most venomous snakes based on the ld50... The why do they also constantly claim that they have the most venomous spider[ the funnel web] as it scores so low on the ld50??? Hmmmm.....


----------



## hugsta (Feb 1, 2011)

danielk said:


> I don't have a problem with Australia claiming to have the top whatever number of deadly snakes or not. In fact I think it very likely that we do. Stop using LD50 on mice as a reliable reference though as has already been said like a billionty times it is not conclusive and thus is NOT evidence.
> 
> I do not think mmafan has any evidence what so ever that Aus snakes should not be in their current places as the most venomous. But on the other hand I do not believe the people arguing with him have any evidence what so ever that they should be.
> 
> The best we can do is guess.


 
Daniel we do not have the most deadly number of snakes. Most deadly generally refers to the animal responsible for the most deaths, and Australian snakes are pretty low on the list. They are however highly venomous, an entirely different thing. Secondly, the LD50 is a reliable source of info, it is the only one we have, if we didn't have it, this discussion would not exist, or you could say the animals that kill the most people must be the most venomous, again this would be false and purely up to the individuals personal believe that snake x or y must carry the most toxic venom due to the amount of people they kill.

Also, if you care to read my previous posts, you will read that I agree that venoms react differently to different people and also to different animals. I am not debating this fact. I am however saying that you cannot compare an LD50 test against tests that do not exist, therefore it is an inconclusive arguement. If an LD50 was carried out on primates, then the whole list of most venomous reptiles may change, but until this happens, we cannot argue the proven facts of an LD50 test on mice.



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> I agree it's all really about what would be worse to get bitten by , not how many people die from.....The real test would be getting a large number of people and envenomating them with different snake poison and testing the kill rate and speed, however seeing the impracticality of this they used mice instead. Which is why i'd go with the Ld50 test.


 
Really..!!! So what would be worse to get bitten, something that will cause severe necrosis or something that will kill you..?? I will have the necrosis thanks, would rather lose a hand or severely scarred than be dead any day. JMO



mmafan555 said:


> Lol I could pull up about 50 sites that say that australia has 7-10 of the deadliest venomous snakes in the world etc etc... Irwin said that OZ has all ten lmao....Australians love to talk up their dangerous animals.....Seymour is the absolute worst and he has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. Theirs nothing wrong with that and I'm sure some of it is very true... but it does get tiring at times.. You know what if you want to believe that the ld50 test is okay than go right ahead.... You are right their is obviously no test on humans or any type of primate that I know of... so the only thing we really have is mice...I dont think its credible for humans... but thats just my opinion and you are entitled to yours....But if your going to use it please be accurate with it and say 6 of the top 10 instead of all the other wrong info...But also remember that means its perfectly safe to pick up a funnel web as their likely not dangerous to you... and also next time you go for a walk dont worry about your dog getting a tarantula bite... as tarantula bites only cause mild symptoms in humans so it should be all good...etc etc



Once again it is you mmafman that is consistantly bringing up Australia and they way 'we' are going on about having the most venomous snakes in the world, but you are the only one mentioning it....!!!

Maybe you just need to realise that we have the most venomous snakes in the world, the most venomous spiders in the world and the most venomous jellyfish in the world to go along with our deadly great whites. You should come over for a holiday and get away from your pansy asss snakes and spiders.


----------



## Redtailed (Feb 1, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Oooohhh. I guess you got me there.
> 
> Truth is COOP i'm just more clever than a lot of people here and that make some people sad and angry. If i agreed with everyone what would there be to talk about?


up yourself much?


----------



## Echiopsis (Feb 1, 2011)

This thread is the most long winded, cyclic waste of time i have ever read. The fact of the matter is we have snakes that can potentially kill you, does anything after that really matter if youve been bitten?



hugsta said:


> Really..!!! So what would be worse to get bitten, something that will cause severe necrosis or something that will kill you..?? I will have the necrosis thanks, would rather lose a hand or severely scarred than be dead any day. JMO


 
Id take possble death personally, not interested in having my flesh necrotise, particularly if ive been bitten while answering the call of nature :lol: Each to their own....


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Feb 1, 2011)

Echiopsis said:


> This thread is the most long winded, cyclic waste of time i have ever read. The fact of the matter is we have snakes that can potentially kill you, does anything after that really matter if youve been bitten?
> 
> 
> 
> Id take possble death personally, not interested in having my flesh necrotise, particularly if ive been bitten while answering the call of nature :lol: Each to their own....



Agreed on both counts. I could not bear to to have necrotised flesh on this perfect specimen of a body of mine. And don't get me started on my face!


----------



## Wild~Touch (Feb 1, 2011)

I could not bear to to have necrotised flesh on this perfect specimen of a body of mine. And don't get me started on my face! 

Aaron you will killl me yet..I can't breathe I am laughing so much


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 4, 2011)

hugsta said:


> Also, if you care to read my previous posts, you will read that I agree that venoms react differently to different people and also to different animals. I am not debating this fact. I am however saying that you cannot compare an LD50 test against tests that do not exist, therefore it is an inconclusive arguement. If an LD50 was carried out on primates, then the whole list of most venomous reptiles may change, but until this happens, we cannot argue the proven facts of an LD50 test on mice.


Of course we can... Didn't I just say about 20x that not all of the highly venomous snakes have been tested in the ld50?? In fact their are ALOT of snakes that dont have a rating... Doesn't that make the claim that the inland taipan is the most venomous not credible regardless of the mice part.

And also like I said venom composition and potency varies tremendously in the same species across its range... so that raised additional questions.





hugsta said:


> Really..!!! So what would be worse to get bitten, something that will cause severe necrosis or something that will kill you..?? I will have the necrosis thanks, would rather lose a hand or severely scarred than be dead any day. JMO



Nowadays, I would prefer to be bitten by an australian snake EASILY over a highly venomous foreign snake...Nothing to do with which is more toxic but antivenom will give you an extremely high chance of survival with usually no complications from an aussie bite. Even if you get antivenom from a viper or cobra bite... theirs still a decent chance that you will have swelling/pain/necrosis as antivenom is only moderately effective at stoping these effects.

Now if this was 1820 where their was no antivenom or mechanical respiration... and my goal was to survive than it would depend on the snake. Of course I would rather get bit by a puff adder/rattlesnake than a taipan.



hugsta said:


> Once again it is you mmafman that is consistantly bringing up Australia and they way 'we' are going on about having the most venomous snakes in the world, but you are the only one mentioning it....!!!



Lmfao!!



hugsta said:


> Maybe you just need to realise that we have the most venomous snakes in the world, the most venomous spiders in the world and the most venomous jellyfish in the world to go along with our deadly great whites. You should come over for a holiday and get away from your pansy asss snakes and spiders.



hahah look at the hypocrite... It is well known that the funnel web isnt toxic at all to mice let alone the worlds most toxic spider.. So if your going to say that its the worlds most toxic spider that means that you are refusing to accept the ld50 test as accurate as according to that test its not even really toxic. So you either say that Australia has 6 of the top 10 most venomous snakes and not the most venomous spider... or you deny the ld50 test... Cant have it both ways!

And at the worlds most dangerous jellyfish... Another exaggerated animal but that's a different story for a different time.

America doesnt have pansy snakes or spiders[ through aussie snakes are probably more impressive]....And we actullay have many dangerous large land animals unlike Aussie  Americas got more dangerous animals!!


----------



## Snowman (Feb 4, 2011)

Thats true america has some of the most dangerous animals in the world... Americans... (just kidding  dont shoot me!)

Their snakes are pussy's though... Even though every american talks them up....

And as for thier "dangerous land animals"... they've done a pretty good job of killing most of those. Historically conservation isn't one of Americas strong suits... Arizona jaguar?


----------



## ezekiel86 (Feb 4, 2011)

good read ...better laugh


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 24, 2011)

Best quote on the ld50 ever

"The idea of the LD50 (and many similar tests) is that we can accurately extrapolate from non-human species to the human species. But the fact is, we cannot even make crude extrapolations between similar species. We cannot even make reliable extrapolations between different strains of the same species."

The LD50 Test--A Failure of Extreme, but Measurable, Proportions


----------



## mmafan555 (Oct 2, 2011)

Hate to bump this thread...but I found this on MSN...and its just to much..As soon as I saw "The Top 10 Most Venomous Snakes in the World" in ridiculous bold print I new it was going to be horrible...and it was...Funny how they say toxicity is judged on ld50 values in mice but then they don't even use the damn test...What a bunch of morons...they explain the test but then they don't even use the results from the test...They just put 10 australian snakes in the top 10...The source is "Australian Venom Research Unit" so I guess I blame the Australians...but Christ can MSN actullay fact check once and a while? The media should be banned from talking about snakes/animals in general...they are to stupid

The cooperhead top 10 most venomous snake in the world:shock::shock: Are they even serious??

Here is the video...
10 Most Venomous Snakes - Bing Videos


Note to the Australian Venom Non Research Unit....This is the damn list...Stop trying to exaggerate your native snakes or whatever because you think it makes Australia seem uniquely special or dangerous...It doesn't and regardless of your "expertise on the issue" your bias restricts your credibility. 

Here is the list( for under the skin bites) and like I have said earlier their are quite a few snakes that are completely missing from the list that are from Africa and Asia...Particularly many types of Land Kraits, many types of Cobras,the Boomslang etc are missing from the list and have not been given ld50 mice values...So it is only a limited list and if you factor in all the missing types of cobras, kraits and others..Australia would definitely have less( and probably much less) snakes in the top 1-25...

LD50 - subcutaneous


----------



## -Peter (Oct 2, 2011)

Unlike yourself the AVRU is involved in venom research that saves lives. While you waffle they get results. Wonderful talk from David Williams presented this fact only the other evening. I guess lists for teenagers isn't a high priority for them.


----------



## darwin_freak (Oct 2, 2011)

''the worlds most venomous is the one that just bit you'' quote vk


----------



## DeadCricket (Oct 2, 2011)

darwin_freak said:


> ''the worlds most venomous is the one that just bit you'' quote vk


 
That VK is a very intelligent person


----------



## Snowman (Oct 2, 2011)

-Peter said:


> Unlike yourself the AVRU is involved in venom research that saves lives. While you waffle they get results. Wonderful talk from David Williams presented this fact only the other evening. I guess lists for teenagers isn't a high priority for them.


LOL BURN! mmafan555...


----------



## Australis (Oct 2, 2011)

(e__e)


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 2, 2011)




----------



## moosenoose (Oct 2, 2011)

I can't believe you're still trying to push this?? :lol: Jeez, id be really embarrassed by now if I was you. Thankfully I'm not


----------



## Bushman (Oct 2, 2011)

I just noticed that Gordo started this thread. What an epic!


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 2, 2011)

Three bloody years ago!!!



Bushman said:


> I just noticed that Gordo started this thread. What an epic!


----------



## Bushman (Oct 2, 2011)

Wow! This was one sleeping dog that should have been left to lie. 
Although some interesting discussion came of it, I reckon that we should let this one go.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 2, 2011)

Not only that, it's been 9 months since mmmafan first resurected it too!


----------



## Bushman (Oct 3, 2011)

Good grief! Let's not feed the troll people. 
It seems appropriate that you should have the last word Gordo 
...something like The End or Discussion Closed would be good.


----------



## Snowman (Oct 3, 2011)

He reminds me of Team America: world police. America **** yeah. 
Our rattle snakes will kill your wimpy taipans. Hehehe let it go mate.
Australian reptiles are way cooler 

America has nothing unique compared to Australia. We have mammals that lay eggs. Top that for unique


----------



## Colin (Oct 3, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Not only that, it's been 9 months since mmmafan first resurected it too!



lets give it a dignified burial.. 
R.I.P.


----------

