# Eastern Brown or Coastal Taipan



## RobEvans (May 8, 2011)

Sorry if this is a well-worn question but does anybody know whether this snake is an Eastern Brown or Coastal Taipan? Spotted today at the top of Mount Beerburrum in the Glasshouse Mountains on the Sunshine Coast. Not great photos but we weren't about to get any closer (spotted in the grass from the safety of the fire watch platform).

After living in Australia for three and a half years, we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be either the 2nd or 3rd most venomous in the world!

Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## ShaneBlack (May 8, 2011)

EB


----------



## junglelover01 (May 8, 2011)

yeah eastern brown i'd reckon.....taipan is much lighter in colour, has a skinnier neck and a coffin shaped head


----------



## jase75 (May 8, 2011)

Eastern Brown.


----------



## BARRAMUNDI (May 8, 2011)

ShaneBlack said:


> EB



on to that pretty quick shane, finally a thread you are interested in hey........


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (May 8, 2011)

yep what they said


----------



## ShaneBlack (May 8, 2011)

Haha....I was actually on here searching for a name my bearded dragon thread.


----------



## longqi (May 8, 2011)

junglelover01 said:


> yeah eastern brown i'd reckon.....taipan is much lighter in colour, has a skinnier neck and a coffin shaped head


 

Coffin shaped head is rather appropriate??


----------



## BARRAMUNDI (May 8, 2011)

ShaneBlack said:


> Haha....I was actually on here searching for a name my bearded dragon thread.


 
try the thread about threads, its a good read........


----------



## SnakeyTroy (May 8, 2011)

I'd say EB..


----------



## RobEvans (May 8, 2011)

Thanks guys - much appreciated. He was five to six feet long and minding his own business. Great to finally see one in the wild.


----------



## pythons73 (May 9, 2011)

BARRAMUNDI said:


> on to that pretty quick shane, finally a thread you are interested in hey........



Only because it was a Elapid story.lol..


----------



## mmafan555 (May 10, 2011)

RobEvans said:


> , we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be either the 2nd or 3rd most venomous in the world!



Or the 38th for all we know........I would say "we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be the 1st-50th most venomous snake in the world!"


----------



## snakelady-viper (May 10, 2011)

Eb


----------



## snakeluvver (May 10, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Or the 38th for all we know........I would say "we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be the 1st-50th most venomous snake in the world!"


 
lol You'll never let that go hey? :lol:


----------



## Waterrat (May 10, 2011)

junglelover01 said:


> yeah eastern brown i'd reckon.....taipan is much lighter in colour, has a skinnier neck and a coffin shaped head


 
For the life of me I can't see the coffin there. But it sounds pretty deadly. 

View attachment 199554


----------



## Cockney_Red (May 10, 2011)

Black Mamba has the coffin head..


----------



## JasonL (May 10, 2011)

ShaneBlack said:


> Haha....I was actually on here searching for a name my bearded dragon thread.


 
Yeah, I have been away far too long.... Shane Black is interested in name my Bearded Dragon threads....


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 11, 2011)

> we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be either the 2nd or 3rd most venomous in the world!



Evidence points to all 3 Taipan species being more deadly than any other tested snake. However one of those has not had testing done on mice.
Besides heaps of people put Red Belly Blacks on the top 10 list so obviously the list is a load of crap....


----------



## waruikazi (May 12, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Or the 38th for all we know........I would say "we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be the 1st-50th most venomous snake in the world!"



Do you have OCD? You really obsess over inconsequential things.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 13, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Besides heaps of people put Red Belly Blacks on the top 10 list so obviously the list is a load of crap....



Their no evidence for any snake being in the top ten for humans as their has never been a venom tested conducted on humans( for obvious reasons)... The whole "most venomous" distinction is a myth and a joke..Their is no such thing as "most venomous snake" just most venomous to a particular animal. Every animal would have a different top ten list and it would certainly not be the same for humans, mice, cats, dogs, cattle etc. 



GeckPhotographer said:


> Besides heaps of people put Red Belly Blacks on the top 10 list so obviously the list is a load of crap....



Anyone who does that is either A.) Absurdly biased towards Australian snakes and has no credibility on the subject... or B) a complete idiot who also has no credibility on the subject

The Red Belly doesn't not even approach the "top ten" for humans. Of course we don't know which snakes are in the top 10 for humans as it has never been tested on humans, but no way in hell would it be there and bite studies on humans clearly indicate this.

The truth is no one has any real definitive clue as to which are the most drop for drop toxic snakes to humans.. The Taipans are highly toxic to humans no doubt( maybe even # 1)...but we can't say for certainty how they would score and their is no proof to indicate where they would be.


----------



## Cockney_Red (May 13, 2011)

Its gone all Groundhog day...


----------



## moosenoose (May 13, 2011)

Harmless Australian snake


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (May 13, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Their no evidence for any snake being in the top ten for humans as their has never been a venom tested conducted on humans( for obvious reasons)... The whole "most venomous" distinction is a myth and a joke..Their is no such thing as "most venomous snake" just most venomous to a particular animal. Every animal would have a different top ten list and it would certainly not be the same for humans, mice, cats, dogs, cattle etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 



ohh your so special,your like a little ray of sunshine on APS 

im so dissapointed for you pumpkin :cry:

the worlds best toxicologists disagree with you there,and
your just going to have to deal with that


----------



## snakeluvver (May 13, 2011)

lol mmafan555 do you even keep any reptiles? Because pretty much all your posts are about proving that Australian snakes aren't as dangerous as Asian snakes and blah blah blah


----------



## Nodrog (May 14, 2011)

> The Taipans are highly toxic to humans no doubt( maybe even # 1)...but we can't say for certainty how they would score and their is no proof to indicate where they would be


We are happy for you to find out!!


----------



## tyler.beez (May 14, 2011)

haha i love these threads that go back and forth so entertaining!!!


----------



## mmafan555 (May 14, 2011)

$NaKe PiMp said:


> ohh your so special,your like a little ray of sunshine on APS
> 
> the worlds best toxicologists disagree with you there,and
> your just going to have to deal with that



You mad bro???? Hahah you mad!!

Who? Jamie Seymour lol.. No credible toxicologist gives those mice tests any credibility for anything that isn't a mouse...And even if we are using that ridiculous test Australia has 6 of the top 10 drop for drop...not 7,8,9,10 like many fanboys claim. Then you would have to factor in fang length and venom yield and also their are plenty of snakes that have never been tested/missing from the list...Their are plenty of snake species that are missing from the test and have never been given an ld50 menu.

I can provide evidence to support my claims. But be glad bro!! I am sure you can still exaggerate the danger of your native snakes to ignorant tourists and they will believe you without question!!! But me.... well I'm skeptical and rightfully so.



snakeluvver said:


> lol mmafan555 do you even keep any reptiles? Because pretty much all your posts are about proving that Australian snakes aren't as dangerous as Asian snakes and blah blah blah



More like their reputation( for some snakes) is overinflated compared to comparably "underrated" Asian snakes which are also extremely dangerous and venomous

'More dangerous" is not debatable...Australian snakes rarely kill people...Asian snakes kill tens of thousands of people...Asian snakes are clearly far more dangerous and have always been.

What is debatable between Aussie and Asian snakes is potential danger( how dangerous an animal is if all other factors are negated)and drop for drop venom toxicity. Many Aussie snakes are very potentially dangerous, but in reality don't pose much of a danger because they live far away from humans and if you do get bit their is a very good chance that you will receive top notch medical care.


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (May 14, 2011)

this discussion should carry over into every thread there is including bearded dragon threads,ive lost my snake threads,what willll i name my snake threads LOL


----------



## eipper (May 15, 2011)

MMafan,

Can you please provide any details you have the refute any of the the data published by Broad et al 1979....Secondly can you post YOUR BIO/EXPERIENCE in either toxicology, biochemistry or elapids.

Your claims are at best no better than the data you so called refute, certainly without any basis for your claims.

The basic concept of a scientific study is to devise a relevant test that can not only be replicated but also used to provide a datum point from which to base *educated assumptions* from. While mice are not the same as people the are certain similarities between both human/primate and murine anatomy which makes them good initial points of reference.

As for toxicity not being tested...when using animals in testing there are strict protcols set down from animal ethics committees to provide humane treatment of both the testee and the subject. Also to it comes down to cost.....by maintaing the robustness of the data you would need around 100-200 test subjects per trial, ideally you would use primates to best simulate people but there is huge cost involved. Especially when add that if you were to be comphensive you would be looking at around 120 tests just for Australia's elapids and hydrophiids. Throw in the rest of the worlds elapids, vipers and a selection of colubrids just for getting a reasonable answer you are looking at placing 120,000 primates through the testing process...not going to happen.

Scott Eipper


----------



## Waterrat (May 15, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> The truth is no one has any real definitive clue as to which are the most drop for drop toxic snakes to humans.



There is some evidence derived from recent studies at JCU (yet unpublished) where a human cardio-vascular tissues were used in the tests. The results differ from the LD50 scale.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 15, 2011)

Firstly,
I would question the assertion that “heaps of people put Red Bellied Blacks in the top ten”. I have yet to see a top ten list, including all-Australian lists, with a RBB in it.

The use of terminology is important – toxicity, venomousness and deadly do NOT all mean the same thing. Unfortunately there are a number of cowboys out there who put together such lists with little or no real understanding of what they are doing. Do not confuse those people with the reputable organisations and individuals that go about it the correct way.

Toxicity is the degree of poisonous effect that a venom has. It is measured using the LD50 using mice. There is no question about the accuracy of the ranking (comparative) and the absolute values. Such lists don’t profess to be anything more than as stated – how poisonous a particular venom is using mice to measure it. It is when other idiots get hold of it and misquote what it is that issues arise.

How venomous is a snake? The problem here is that this varies with an given individual snake within a species and is therefore not useful for drawing comparisons. It depends on how toxic the venom is to humans, how much venom is injected and where it is injected. The amount of venom injected can depend upon the activity level of the snake, its state of health, whether it has recently used its venom glands, how hard and long and many times it bites. We will presume there is no clothing in the way. There is the added complication that some people are sensitive to certain components of venom, so what can be a harmless bite for one becomes highly venomous for another.

Deadly refers to causing deaths. In Australia, the most deadly snake is the Eastern Brown Snake followed by the Tiger Snake. These snakes are common around the areas of high density human habitation. Taipans on the other hand are not so common around the highly populated areas and therefore much less often encountered. The world’s deadliest snakes are two small vipers, one in Sri Lanka and one in Africa. Both snakes are common in populated areas, being attracted to the rodents found there and readily making use of surface debris around houses as refuges. Neither are particularly fast moving and so tend to stand their ground and strike out when disturbed. It is estimated that each is responsible for around 10,000 deaths per year. 

Blue


----------



## waruikazi (May 15, 2011)

Scott, Michael and Blue

Do not feed mmafan, he's nothing more than a troll looking to get a rise. If he could say anything that we didn't already know or anything with a bit of intelligence he would be worth talking to. But he doesn't and he can't. 

I have a feeling he either has OCD or Asperger's syndrome.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 15, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Firstly,
> I would question the assertion that “heaps of people put Red Bellied Blacks in the top ten”. I have yet to see a top ten list, including all-Australian lists, with a RBB in it.
> 
> The use of terminology is important – toxicity, venomousness and deadly do NOT all mean the same thing. Unfortunately there are a number of cowboys out there who put together such lists with little or no real understanding of what they are doing. Do not confuse those people with the reputable organisations and individuals that go about it the correct way.
> ...


 

Nice post...The truth is we have no idea which are the most venomous snakes to humans and like you said their are so many different factors that play into toxicity( weather, individual reaction, regional differences in venom, etc) so its such a sketchy topic to event discuss...which is why it annoys me when people make bold claims about snakes and toxicity.



Bluetongue1 said:


> There is no question about the accuracy of the ranking (comparative) and the absolute values.



But even for this there is debate as their are numerous snakes that are missing from the ld50 list. How can you declare the inland taipan to have the drop for drop most toxic venom to mice when their are quite a few highly venomous snakes that haven't been tested and given a value..Then you also have to remember that venom composition varies regionally in the same species of snake..Meaning that an Eastern Brown in Queensland would not have the same value as an Eastern Brown from elsewhere and etc. Their is no one set ld50 value for a given snake species.


----------



## Waterrat (May 15, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> You mad bro???? Hahah you mad!!
> 
> Who? Jamie Seymour lol.. No credible toxicologist gives those mice tests any credibility for anything that isn't a mouse...



Yes, Gordo is right. It's one or the other.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 16, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Yes, Gordo is right. It's one or the other.


 

Baseless forum insults really do reflect better on the quality of a poster than actullay debating the issue....So in that case by all means continue to throw insults out while not actullay debating the issue. Like I said feel free to continue overrating the danger and toxicity of your native snakes and animals to ignorant tourists in an attempt to make Australia seem extra cool and unique.. I am sure they will believe you...but I don't. Your snakes( and Australia's venomous animals in general) are no more venomous and potentially dangerous than Asian venomous snakes (and venomous animals in general).

My comment on Jamie Seymour comes from his continual referral to the Box Jellyfish as the "worlds most venomous animal"...This is a ridiculous claim and he is clearly biased and has suspect credibility. It isn't even remotely close to the "worlds most venomous animal" and I will gladly debate that with anyone.


----------



## Waterrat (May 16, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> My comment on Jamie Seymour comes from his continual referral to the Box Jellyfish as the "worlds most venomous animal"...This is a ridiculous claim and he is clearly biased and has suspect credibility. It isn't even remotely close to the "worlds most venomous animal" and I will gladly debate that with anyone.



Since you are critical of A/Prof Jamie Seymour, senior lecturer in zoology, perhaps you would like to tell us who you are and what are your credentials.


----------



## Wally (May 16, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Since you are critical of A/Prof Jamie Seymour, senior lecturer in zoology, perhaps you would like to tell us who you are and what are your credentials.



Anonymous American. 

Bachelor of Google.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 17, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Since you are critical of A/Prof Jamie Seymour, senior lecturer in zoology, perhaps you would like to tell us who you are and what are your credentials.


 
Yes I am critical of that statement that he commonly makes about the Box Jellyfish..Do you want to see my evidence? Shall I post the studies? He is imo biased towards Australian animals and not very credible.



Wally76 said:


> Bachelor of Google.



Funny thing is...that's all you really need. Common sense tells you if someone is continuously claiming that a particular animal is the "worlds most venomous animal" and then you read studies on stings cause by said animal and they don't cause even half the severity of symptoms that many snakes do...well it is obvious that he is way off and wrong. He is purposely hyping up their reputation/ and deadliness of the Jelly... like some Australians do for their other venomous animals and snakes..Unfortunately, the studies don't match the exaggerated claims.


----------



## longqi (May 17, 2011)

Well mmafan
One day drop over there and play with a taipan while standing beside a top end river???
That way you can report on two things with a bit more insight than you obviously have at the moment??

I have been lucky enough to play with lots of vens through mainly stupidity and bravado
Exactly which Asian Land based snakes do you want to claim are more venomous than the Inland Taipan??
More dangerous yes; I will completely agree with that bit and so will anyone else


This is fair because I dont live in Australia either
I actually live in Asia and can even toss you a few conefish if all else fails


----------



## Waterrat (May 17, 2011)

mmafan, since you have chosen not to answer my question, we have to assume that Wally76 is right.
A PoohD candidate?


----------



## waruikazi (May 17, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Yes I am critical of that statement that he commonly makes about the Box Jellyfish..Do you want to see my evidence? Shall I post the studies? He is imo biased towards Australian animals and not very credible.
> 
> 
> 
> *Funny thing is...that's all you really need.* Common sense tells you if someone is continuously claiming that a particular animal is the "worlds most venomous animal" and then you read studies on stings cause by said animal and they don't cause even half the severity of symptoms that many snakes do...well it is obvious that he is way off and wrong. He is purposely hyping up their reputation/ and deadliness of the Jelly... like some Australians do for their other venomous animals and snakes..Unfortunately, the studies don't match the exaggerated claims.



Maybe in your head champ.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 17, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> mmafan, since you have chosen not to answer my question, we have to assume that Wally76 is right.
> A PoohD candidate?


 
And what will your excuse be when I post the studies on box jellyfish stings and compare them to studies on bites from snakes? As I have said in the past, I am currently in college now and am working on a bio degree. "A bachelor of Google' will easily be enough to win the debate if or when it actullay happens.

No it is you who has avoided my questions. I already asked you if you wanted to debate the issue. Box Jellyfish are not even close to the most venomous animal in the world like Mr. Seymour claims. He could be a Harvard graduate for all I care...the studies do not match his claims that the box jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal..Once again I will gladly debate this with you or anyone else.



longqi said:


> Well mmafan
> One day drop over there and play with a taipan while standing beside a top end river???
> That way you can report on two things with a bit more insight than you obviously have at the moment??
> 
> ...



I don't recall ever mentioning that the Inland Taipan isn't the worlds most venomous snake to humans. All I said was that we don't have any real idea which are the most venomous snakes to humans...so the Taipan could be number 1..or it could be number 25. And their is no such thing as a broad "most venomous snake"...only most venomous for a particular animal.

I think I could argue that some types of Kraits are equal to the Taipans and more venomous than the Eastern Browns to humans, but this is very is hard as their aren't many studies on bites from taipans and almost none on bites from Inland Taipans as their have only been a handful of recorded bites. 

You also have to factor in that the care a person would receive in India is not even close to the care they would receive in Australia and all the other factors when comparing a 3rd world to a 1st world country. So looking at studies is also a pretty hard thing to do and by no means fully accurate at all. Which leads me back to my original point...in reality we don't know which are the most venomous snakes to humans and we never will until they are tested on humans( and since that is impossible...well I guess we will never know)


----------



## Waterrat (May 17, 2011)

Couldn't be bothered debating anything with you. Mr.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 17, 2011)

> Yes I am critical of that statement that he commonly makes about the Box Jellyfish..Do you want to see my evidence? Shall I post the studies? He is imo biased towards Australian animals and not very credible.



While I have no idea if he inflates his evidence or not. How would inflating the reputation of toxicity of the box jellyfish be bias toward Australian animals? The box jellyfish cannot be claimed as an 'Australian animal' in the respect of it not being endemic to Australia and thus leaving other nations open to the same claim of 'the worlds most toxic animal.' 

Another question I am curious, do you read every single thread hoping to find someone who has made a venom related comment so you can start this debate cause it sure seems like it?


----------



## eipper (May 17, 2011)

MMAFAN,

Did you read my post, I thought my question to was valid towards the tone of the thread?

Secondly, what is your name other than your alias, it seems that you have no problem in making claims against people that are unable to refute the claims, why not use your real name and tell the world who you are....or is it just that you would rather make claims and comments while hiding behind an alias.

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## hodges (May 17, 2011)

Keelback, i'm sure of it


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 18, 2011)

Mmafan555,

You quoted me as saying a couple of things I didn’t – but we will not quibble about that. Personally, who you are and what qualifications you do or don’t have are not important to me. What is important is what you have to say, its voracity and the logic behind any reasoning. 

I have a few points on toxicity to make…. 

Firstly, you mentioned that the toxicity of venom varies within a species. That is correct. There are a number of contributing factors which can alter venom toxicity. In snakes, however, they tend to be minimal. There is, however, a very few species that demonstrate variation in venom toxicity related geographical location, the most toxic of which is the Small Eyed Snake (_Cryptophis nigrescens_). The reason for this has yet to be investigated in Australia but overseas they found subtle variations in the chemical make up of the toxins between members of the same species. This may explain it – only time will tell. Unfortunately I cannot tell how that is taken into account in selecting the venom sample to be tested for the LD50. All I emphasise is that this is not a significant factor with nearly all the snake species evaluated.

Secondly, you are correct that a quite a number of venomous Asian, African and American snakes have not been assessed in terms of the LD 50. However, quite a large number have been assessed, including all those known or suspected to be responsible for fatal bites. These include the Indian Cobra, King Cobra, Eastern and Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes, Common Krait, Russel’s Pit Viper, Saw-scaled Viper, Egyptian Cobra, Puff adder, Beaked Sea Snake, Golden Lance head, Fer-de-Lance, Black Mamba, Bushmaster, Forest Cobra, South American Rattlesnake, Mexican West Coast Rattlesnake and many more. The only real hole in this is the sea snakes. They have yet to assess a lot of the species which many consider are probably highly toxic. This is a long-winded way of saying that there are none longer those gaps. All known highly venomous snakes have been assessed thanks to places like Instituto Butantan, a huge venom-research facility in Sao Paulo, South America. 

Thirdly, I believe the LD50 is of some use in drawing conclusions about relative toxicities of venoms on humans. Researchers have investigated the clinical signs and intensity developed in severely envenomated individuals bitten by an identified species. This has been compared with other species, including the LD50. While it leaves a lot to be desired as an accurate predictor, there is a rough correlation. Certainly enough to predict that the venom from an Inland Taipan would likely have catastrophic effects, beyond those of other species, on a severely envenomated individual.

Blue



Mmafan555,

The Box Jellyfish (_Chironex fleckeri_) has the capacity to kill in as little time as 3 minutes or less as a result of the toxins injected from the stinging cells (nematocysts) in the tentacles. Can you name another animal which has a faster acting set of toxins and can produce a fatal effect?

Blue


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Mmafan555,
> 
> 
> I have a few points on toxicity to make….
> ...



That is not true... Their can be a very large degree in variation in composition and potency over a geographic region. I can post numerous sources for both Australian and Asian/African/North American snakes that state that their can be a tremendous difference in venom composition across a snakes geographic range. It would have a big effect..Now granted a spectacled cobra( Naja Naja) from a particular population that was tested scored a .45 on the toxicity test( Brian Fry) and it probably at its most toxic location would not get under a .25-.30 and probably a 1+ in its lesser toxic locations but still it is a significant variation that makes you question any type of ld50 test.



Bluetongue1 said:


> Secondly, you are correct that a quite a number of venomous Asian, African and American snakes have not been assessed in terms of the LD 50. However, quite a large number have been assessed, including all those known or suspected to be responsible for fatal bites. These include the Indian Cobra, King Cobra, Eastern and Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes, Common Krait, Russel’s Pit Viper, Saw-scaled Viper, Egyptian Cobra, Puff adder, Beaked Sea Snake, Golden Lance head, Fer-de-Lance, Black Mamba, Bushmaster, Forest Cobra, South American Rattlesnake, Mexican West Coast Rattlesnake and many more. The only real hole in this is the sea snakes. They have yet to assess a lot of the species which many consider are probably highly toxic. This is a long-winded way of saying that there are none longer those gaps. All known highly venomous snakes have been assessed thanks to places like Instituto Butantan, a huge venom-research facility in Sao Paulo, South America.



That is once again...not true.. Here is the most comprehensive list we have.

For Subcutaneous bites( which are the only bites that would be applicable for any snake except a big viper with large fangs)
http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/ld50sc.html

I see only 3 types of Bungarus on the list. ( Many banded Krait, Common Krait and Banded Krait) and their are 12 species is and 5 sub species of Bungarus...and most species of Bungarus has large distributions where they would unquestionably have a large variation in their venom composition and potency.( Most Bungarus species live in multiple countries) 

And as you can see Bungarus Multicinctus is already number 4 ( right behind the coastal taipan) and only 3 of the 12 have been given a ld50 value...Bungarus also only on rare occassions eats mice( they usually eat frogs, small snakes, lizards and then mice) where as the Taipans are mice specialists. 

The Boomslang is also missing from the Subcutaneous list, through it is listed in the Intravenous list...and I am sure that if I took the time I could easily find many more than are missing... The Phillipine Cobra is missing from the ld50 list also and it is an extremely venomous snake and probably the most venomous cobra drop for drop.



Bluetongue1 said:


> Thirdly, I believe the LD50 is of some use in drawing conclusions about relative toxicities of venoms on humans. Researchers have investigated the clinical signs and intensity developed in severely envenomated individuals bitten by an identified species. This has been compared with other species, including the LD50.



I can't say one way or another how much use it has...but it has numerous MAJOR flaws..and like I have shown in the past all animals react differently to different venoms....and then you have the regional variation and the missing snakes.





Bluetongue1 said:


> While it leaves a lot to be desired as an accurate predictor, there is a rough correlation. Certainly enough to predict that the venom from an Inland Taipan would likely have catastrophic effects, beyond those of other species, on a severely envenomated individual.
> Blue



Nope don't buy that... Of course it could be right but it could be very wrong as well and we dont have any real way of knowing. It certaintly would have a very high untreated death rate and most likely one of the highest.. But the highest of all snakes? I have absolutely no idea and neither do you.

And by the way when you get into the really toxic snakes...Their is little difference..If you take a full bite and dont get antivenom or treatment...you die. Doesn't matter if the snake is number 1 on the list to mice or number 10...the result is likely the same..If you get a full on bite from a taipan and a black mamba and don't go to the hospital...the result will be the same..Of course people have survived bites from these snakes with dry bites, or only a small amount of venom was injected, or the snake only got one fang in..But if you take a full on bite with a good amount of venom injected from a really toxic snake( and dont get help) their is little difference in the outcome.

As for "catastrophic" well we have different views on this. An inland taipan would surely have a very very high untreated mortality rate...but if you got antivenom you would be fine and have no long term damage.. That is not the case for many snakes around the world...particularly vipers and some types of cobras( some cobras can cause extreme local damage/necrosis like a viper bite).....So in that way I would consider an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake bite much more catastrophic just because even if you do get antivenom quickly their is a chance you will have some serious or long term damage. Obviously the taipan has more potent venom and a higher untreated mortality rate but it would not cause this local damage.


----------



## FlashBang (May 18, 2011)

EB


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

It was a great decision on my part not to debate this with you mmafan, you are an agrumentative creature aren't you? Now you are comparing a local damage with fatal impact .... how does LD50 figure in that? 
I am still watching this thread and looking for your answer to Blue's last question (the box-jelly one) you avoided to comment on.
By the way, species names are in lower case.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> It was a great decision on my part not to debate this with you mmafan, you are an agrumentative creature aren't you? Now you are comparing a local damage with fatal impact .... how does LD50 figure in that?
> I am still watching this thread and looking for your answer to Blue's last question (the box-jelly one) you avoided to comment on.
> By the way, species names are in lower case.



Way to quote something I never said... When did I ever compare the ld50 with local damage....Nice misquote bro...I never said anything of the sort and I clearly outlined that overal lethality/toxicity/ld50 inb mice and local damage have little/nothing to do with each other. Just like the ld50 in mice has little/nothing to do with the ld50 for any other animal.


And the Box Jellyfish isn't even close to being the most lethally venomous animal...Not even remotely close and it isn't even remotely close to causing the most local damage either. Their are a good 50 snakes that are more lethally venomus than the box jellyfish and many that also cause more local damage.

Seymours claims are absurd. 




Waterrat said:


> Now you are comparing a local damage with fatal impact .... how does LD50 figure in that?



No... I'm not silly! I said that their are many snakes that are much more devastating than a Taipan if you have access to treatment( ie long term damage even with prompt treatment). Obviously this doesn't have anything to do with untreated mortality rate or overall lethality/ fatal impact..And obviously your chances of dieing from a taipan bite( if you can't get treatment) are much higher than from a rattlesnake bite. Don't misconstrue my words. 

The ld50 shouldn't really factor much into anything to be honest.


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Way to quote something I never said... When did I ever compare the ld50 with local damage....Nice misquote bro...I never said anything of the sort and I clearly outlined that overal lethality/toxicity/ld50 inb mice and local damage have little/nothing to do with each other. Just like the ld50 in mice has little/nothing to do with the ld50 for any other animal.
> 
> 
> And the Box Jellyfish isn't even close to being the most lethally venomous animal...Not even remotely close and it isn't even remotely close to causing the most local damage either.* Their are a good 50 snakes that are more lethally venomus than the box jellyfish and many that also cause more local damage.
> ...



How do you know they are more venomous? What methods are you using/relying on to make that claim?


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> How do you know they are more venomous? What methods are you using/relying on to make that claim?


 

Well based on the studies that I have read..Most Chironex stings barely even require hospilization...and nearly all the deaths have been young children.... I can certainly think of many snakes that cause much more severe symptoms in bites than a typical Chironex sting.

50 may be an exaggeration but their are certainly quite a few snakes from many continents that cause more severe symptoms in a typical bite than a chironex sting.

I will post the studies soon... It will take a little bit of time to find them...Then you can judge for yourself.


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

Completely ignoring this troll now, here is something of interest for you Blue and Gordo: PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases: Preclinical Evaluation of Caprylic Acid-Fractionated IgG Antivenom for the Treatment of Taipan (Oxyuranus scutellatus) Envenoming in Papua New Guinea


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Completely ignoring this troll now, here is something of interest for you Blue and Gordo: PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases: Preclinical Evaluation of Caprylic Acid-Fractionated IgG Antivenom for the Treatment of Taipan (Oxyuranus scutellatus) Envenoming in Papua New Guinea


 

Aka im just butthurt that I can't win this debate so I will just give up now.

The Box Jelly is not even close to the "worlds most venomous animal" like seymour claims...He has poor credibility.

The Taipan is different...It is clearly extremely venomous and possibly even number 1 in drop for drop toxicity to humans...I just can't say for certain that it is number 1 for humans and neither can you or anyone else. So those type of claims are misleading.


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Aka im just butthurt that I can't win this debate so I will just give up now.
> 
> The Box Jelly is not even close to the "worlds most venomous animal" like seymour claims...He has poor credibility.
> 
> The Taipan is different...It is clearly extremely venomous and possibly even number 1 in drop for drop toxicity to humans...I just can't say for certain that it is number 1 for humans and neither can you or anyone else. So those type of claims are misleading.


 
Who are the people making these claims?



mmafan555 said:


> Well based on the studies that I have read..Most Chironex stings barely even require hospilization...and nearly all the deaths have been young children.... I can certainly think of many snakes that cause much more severe symptoms in bites than a typical Chironex sting.
> 
> 50 may be an exaggeration but their are certainly quite a few snakes from many continents that cause more severe symptoms in a typical bite than a chironex sting.
> 
> I will post the studies soon... It will take a little bit of time to find them...Then you can judge for yourself.



But that is not what you said. You claimed that xxx amount of snakes are more lethally venomous than a box jelly, you said nothign about a typical bites/stings. You are moving the goal posts to suit yourself. That is why no one is taking you seriously.

You seem to be getting yourself mixed up and confused with the terms you love to use for your own gains, venomous, dangerous and deadly.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Who are the people making these claims?



My God do you Aussies love to misquote... Seymour makes the quote routinely...Thats it. My comments refer to him and I didn't say he was stupid, he obviously isn't I said that his claim that the Box Jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal is incorrect and leads me to question his credibility on the issue of venom. I didn't say it's safe to pet a box jellyfish or that I would go swimming in an area where they are in the summer...I said it's not the most venomous animal in the world... Period.



waruikazi said:


> But that is not what you said. You claimed that xxx amount of snakes are more lethally venomous than a box jelly, you said nothign about a typical bites/stings. You are moving the goal posts to suit yourself. That is why no one is taking you seriously.



I was just giving a vague estimate... The box jellyfish causes stings about as severe as a typical pit viper bite. And then on extremely rare instances it can cause death in as little as 3 minutes( for a child)..but on average its about as severe as a pit viper and their are PLENTY of snakes more venomous than it.



waruikazi said:


> You seem to be getting yourself mixed up and confused with the terms you love to use for your own gains, venomous, dangerous and deadly.



No...I am saying that the studies that I have read on Chironex Stings indicate that it is in no way the most venomous animal and it is less venomous that a variety of different snakes. 

This is pointless...Let me just post the studies and then we can compare them. You know what I will make a seperate thread about studies from bites of venomous animals and then we/you can compare them with each other.


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> My God do you Aussies love to misquote... Seymour makes the quote routinely...Thats it. My comments refer to him and I didn't say he was stupid, he obviously isn't I said that his claim that the Box Jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal is incorrect and leads me to question his credibility on the issue of venom. I didn't say it's safe to pet a box jellyfish or that I would go swimming in an area where they are in the summer...I said it's not the most venomous animal in the world... Period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then i will ask you again. What *METHODS *are you using or relying on to make this claim?


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Scott, Michael and Blue
> 
> Do not feed mmafan, he's nothing more than a troll looking to get a rise. If he could say anything that we didn't already know or anything with a bit of intelligence he would be worth talking to. But he doesn't and he can't.
> 
> I have a feeling he either has OCD or Asperger's syndrome.




Play it again Sam ........


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Play it again Sam ........



I know i should take my own advice. But this boy's twisted head has me in right spin.

I want him to explain how he is able discount ALL of the available toxicology information and to make his own ranking of specific animals in order of most venomous to least venomous.


----------



## saximus (May 18, 2011)

I think it's unfair to label said individual as mentally unstable. I think this has just become more of a case of this:






On your previous post Michael, this may be a noob question but why are horses used to antivenom production? Is it because of their size or are they just inherently good at producing the necessary antibodies?


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

It's their size (amount of blood), ease and low cost to keep and handle.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Then i will ask you again. What *METHODS *are you using or relying on to make this claim?


 
Will pm you the studies.


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

Don't bother just post it.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

saximus said:


> I think it's unfair to label said individual as mentally unstable. I think this has just become more of a case of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Face it your animals are lame compared to elsewhere and Australia compared to other continents has some of the LEAST dangerous animals overall. No need to get upset about it...like I said all those tourists will easily believe your absurd exaggerations about how dangerous your animals are...But I wont.

Now before I get misquoted for the 1000101001010100101 time...I'm not saying that Australia does not have dangerous animals...that would be an extremely idiotic thing to say. What I am saying is that compared to other continents, Australia has much less dangerous animals and the hype about it being a continent filled with dangerous animals is absurd. Your animals are comparably lame and many of your dangerous animals are very overrated compared to animals elsewhere( with some notable exceptions)


Why I think Australians love to overrate the danger of their animals.

Probably it is an attempt to differentiate themselves from other western cultures. As their culture is very similar/influenced by USA/UK, they use their "dangerous" nature to make Australia seem unique.



waruikazi said:


> I know i should take my own advice. But this boy's twisted head has me in right spin.
> 
> I want him to explain how he is able discount ALL of the available toxicology information and to make his own ranking of specific animals in order of most venomous to least venomous.


 

Omg misquote times 50050505050x.

First off their is no known toxicology test that says the box jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal.... How it got this reputation...I have no idea. I have never came across any ld50 for a box jellyfish. 

Now their are of course the ld50 tests that say the taipans are the most toxic land snake....and I have already went over my numerous qualms with that test( I will do it again if you like.


I can give you a rough top 10 if you want... Of course it is a VERY rough estimate and in reality meaningless but I can give you my opinion if you want.

I will make an additional thread.


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

Now it's quite obvious who is lame here. Oh yes, there some cultural differences. Can you please stop insulting us?


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

So there it it. You have a problem with Australians, that is what this is all about. 



mmafan555 said:


> Face it your animals are lame compared to elsewhere and Australia compared to other continents has some of the LEAST dangerous animals overall. No need to get upset about it...like I said all those tourists will easily believe your absurd exaggerations about how dangerous your animals are...But I wont.
> 
> Now before I get misquoted for the 1000101001010100101 time...I'm not saying that Australia does not have dangerous animals...that would be an extremely idiotic thing to say. What I am saying is that compared to other continents, Australia has much less dangerous animals and the hype about it being a continent filled with dangerous animals is absurd. Your animals are comparably lame and many of your dangerous animals are very overrated compared to animals elsewhere( with some notable exceptions)
> 
> ...


----------



## saximus (May 18, 2011)

You guys need to just take your own advice. This thread could have been a really interesting read


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> So there it it. You have a problem with Australians, that is what this is all about.


 
Nope...I have a problem with Australians over-hyping their animals...thats it...Other than that I like Australians and hope to visit the country one day.

Thats what it is all about....It just as a person who is interested in snakes/venom/toxicology etc I am tired of some of the stuff that I hear...in particular comments such as the ones above....

I feel like Australians overrate/exaggerate about their animals.. That is all. Other than that I have no problem with them.

This is pretty much aligned with my opinion... It doesn't mean I dislike Australians... 



This guy here has a similar opinion to mine.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~bush/myth.html

But his ld50 list at the bottom is very incorrect. The Sutherland ld50 study is extremely outdated and wrong on many levels and only uses a few snakes. The Fry one that I will post below is much more accurate and includes many more snakes.

These are the Fry ld50 lists...The most comprehensive lists that we currently have.
*
Sub-cutaneous LD-50s*
LD50 - subcutaneous

*Intravenous LD-50s* 
LD50 - intravenous

Subcutaneous is by far the most applicable for typical bites...Only a select few viper species with huge fangs could maybe give an Intravenous bite. Of course like I said earlier in this thread...many highly venomous snakes are still missing from the Fry list..including the Phillipine Cobra, the Boomslang ( from the subcutaneous list) and 9 species of land Kraits ( Bungarus).


----------



## snakehandler (May 18, 2011)

Ok so I also have an issue with people misquoting LD50 values, a great discussion and subsequent very extensive look at snakes LD50 values is published here, it looks not only at subcutaneous, but intramuscular and intravenous injection as this will also have an impact on results.....read the discussion before reading the tables
www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

Snakehandler

I actually made a thread 2 years ago and posted that article, or a similar one, the discussion/arguments we had in that thread were rather enjoyable for me. Most of the discussion revolved around the definitions of deadly, dangerous and venomous. Once we had worked out what the three terms meant there was little arguing... except when mmafan fan decided to revive the thread 2 years later.



mmafan555 said:


> Nope...I have a problem with Australians over-hyping their animals...thats it...Other than that I like Australians and hope to visit the country one day.
> 
> Thats what it is all about....It just as a person who is interested in snakes/venom/toxicology etc I am tired of some of the stuff that I hear...in particular comments such as the ones above....
> 
> ...



Those LD50's, no matter who's they are, kind of fly in the face of what you were saying earlier in this thread.



mmafan555 said:


> Or the 38th for all we know........I would say "we finally get to see a snake and it turns out to be the 1st-50th most venomous snake in the world!"



Even if some aussies are mislead about the relative toxicity of some of our animals, what does it matter? It isn't a competition you know.


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Snakehandler
> 
> I actually made a thread 2 years ago and posted that article, or a similar one, the discussion/arguments we had in that thread were rather enjoyable for me. Most of the discussion revolved around the definitions of deadly, dangerous and venomous. Once we had worked out what the three terms meant there was little arguing... except when mmafan fan decided to revive the thread 2 years later.



Actually most people in the thread failed to work out what most venomous meant...hence why I bumped the thread. Their was also tons of wrong info/ comments even if the ld50 is very credible. According to the ld50 test Australia has 6 of the top 10 drop for drop...not 7,8,9,10 like some Aussies were claiming in the thread...And once again that is to mice and their are missing species of highly venomous snakes...specifically the Phillipine cobra, the Boomslang and 9 species of Bungarus( kraits).

Yes I through their was a need to specify most venomous to mice and most venomous to humans...I found alot of "Australia easily has the most venomous snakes" comments and they are both wrong and annoying. Therefore I felt the need to post in that particular thread.






waruikazi said:


> Those LD50's, no matter who's they are, kind of fly in the face of what you were saying earlier in this thread.



How so? 



waruikazi said:


> Even if some aussies are mislead about the relative toxicity of some of our animals, what does it matter? It isn't a competition you know.




Well it does seem to be a competition to some Australians...It isn't for me and I am glad it isn't for you. In reality it doesn't matter...but I'm not going to pretend it isn't alittle annoying.


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

Have you even read the LD50's? Or your post that i quoted?


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (May 18, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Actually most people in the thread failed to work out what most venomous meant...hence why I bumped the thread. Their was also tons of wrong info/ comments even if the ld50 is very credible. According to the ld50 test Australia has 6 of the top 10 drop for drop...not 7,8,9,10 like some Aussies were claiming in the thread...And once again that is to mice and their are missing species of highly venomous snakes...specifically the Phillipine cobra, the Boomslang and 9 species of Bungarus( kraits).
> 
> Yes I through their was a need to specify most venomous to mice and most venomous to humans...I found alot of "Australia easily has the most venomous snakes" comments and they are both wrong and annoying. Therefore I felt the need to post in that particular thread.
> 
> ...


 

well as much as your annoyed,that is the way the world accepts the toxicity of snakes,and Australia has such an abundance of highly Neurotoxic snakes,which Neurotoxins being such a dangerous toxin to humans,as they can kill a human so swiftly,often before medical treatment is reached,and even then its not guaranteed of saving the patients life in the case of several Australian/Papauan species.

your just going to have to come up with a better coping strategy with your frustration over the scientific worlds acceptance of the lethality of Australian snakes,than hurling insults at something you clearly do not have a firm grasp on the concept of.
Its not something made up by Australians

time for a hug,and let you know everything is going to be Alright


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (May 18, 2011)

Hi 
I can fly! 
I can tell you I can fly 
I can quote myself and others who have seen me fly! 
No, I will not post evidence on anything or even half of what I have said!


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

$NaKe PiMp said:


> well as much as your annoyed,that is the way the world accepts the toxicity of snakes,



I will repeat for the handicapped amongst us..No credible toxicologist accepts those tests for anything that isn't a mouse. And even if we were all mice they would still have plenty of flaws...and since we are humans the ld50 is an irrelevant joke of a test. 




$NaKe PiMp said:


> and Australia has such an abundance of highly Neurotoxic snakes,which Neurotoxins being such a dangerous toxin to humans,



Whipdee do!!! And what are Cobras, Mambas, Kraits silly? I could have sworn they were neurotoxic aswell? Virtually every other continent has highly neurotoxic snakes to and unlike in Australia they actullay kill people and pose a threat.( 1 a year for "dangerous" Australia)

Neurotoxins are usually more lethal than hemotoxins( through not always and it depends on the snake) but neurotoxic bites are also easier to treat. In many instances all you need a ventilator to survive a neurotoxic bite.. Good luck finding a similiar machine to save you if you have a bad hemotoxic bite.

Many so venomous aussie elapids aren't even primarily neurotoxic anyway.



$NaKe PiMp said:


> as they can kill a human so swiftly,often before medical treatment is reached



Their is nothing "often" about dieing from an Australian snakebite.. More people die of snakebite in Spain than in Australia.......Of course the excellent medical treatment in Australia and easy access to plentiful antivenom plays a big role in that..but still



$NaKe PiMp said:


> your just going to have to come up with a better coping strategy with your frustration over the scientific worlds acceptance of the lethality of Australian snakes,than hurling insults at something you clearly do not have a firm grasp on the concept of.



Nope... Like I said if the scientific community actullay accepted those tests than I would just agree with them..unfortunately they do not and its usually just butt hurt aussies who want to brag to the world about their "deadly animals" when in reality their animals are relatively lame...But like I said feel free to keep exaggerating your animals to tourists.



$NaKe PiMp said:


> Its not something made up by Australians



Yes it kind of is...Just like the "Box Jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal claim"

Of course as I have stated 500 times already.. The taipan very well could be the number 1 drop for drop snake to humans in potency but it also could be number 25 for all we know...And the true answer is that we haven't got anything more than a slight clue which snakes have the most drop for drop toxic venom to humans..and we probably never will.

The made up part is the "this is the 4th most venomous in the world" where as it should read " it is a very venomous snake that can cause death....describing the symptoms of a bite etc etc) 

And if your ignorantly enough to take the ld50 for gospel...for God's sake atleast quote it accurately. Australia has 6 of the top 10 drop for drop ( of the snakes that were tested and some werent)...Not 7,8,9,10.... At-least get the damn test right if your going to use it.



$NaKe PiMp said:


> time for a hug,and let you know everything is going to be Alright


 

Should I fly to Australia for that hug.?But oh wait..no I can't!!!! To many dangerous animals that kill 1 person every 10 years over in Australia..Omg .it's to dangerous! Maybe if you fly to America you can give me that hug, but I'm not going to Australia! To many deadly animals omg!!


----------



## Cockney_Red (May 18, 2011)

Gotta take my hat off to your persistence mmafan, and for what its worth I agree with you, until we start testing venoms on the boat people, we will never know...


----------



## mmafan555 (May 18, 2011)

Jannico said:


> Hi
> I can fly!
> I can tell you I can fly
> I can quote myself and others who have seen me fly!
> No, I will not post evidence on anything or even half of what I have said!



I can fly...In fact I am flying next Thursday to South Carolina...But I cant fly to Australia because I will certainly get killed by an animal the instant I step off the plane!1 .As soon as my feet touch the group I will be killed by those horribly dangerous Australian animals.



Jannico said:


> No, I will not post evidence on anything or even half of what I have said!



What claim would you like me to provide evidence for? The Jellyfish claim? Sure that's should be fine... For the Taipan one...their obviously is no evidence for it being a particularly toxicity to humans( other than interrupting studies of bites) but I can post evidence that shows that different animals can react drastically different to a particular venom...and that thinking that an Inland Taipan is the most venomous to mice...automatically makes it the most venomous to other animals is wrong...

My claims about the Taipan were pretty mild in reality. All I said was it could be the number 1 drop for drop or it could be number 25 to humans.... I personally would bet it is definitely top 10( by looking at studies etc) but how it ranks in the top ten I haven't got a clue and neither do you or anyone else.



Cockney_Red said:


> Gotta take my hat off to your persistence mmafan, and for what its worth I agree with you, until we start testing venoms on the boat people, we will never know...


 

Thats all I was ever arguing about the taipan or any other snake... People misconstrue words alot on here and its annoying... They were making it seem like I said the Taipan wasn't an unusually toxic snake and that it wasn't dangerous... Obviously it is a very very toxic snake to humans and is dangerous...I just said we can't be sure that it is number 1 like it probably is for mice. Thats it....How this is such a radical claim...I have no idea.

So to summarize my opinions on it.

Yes the Taipan is an unusually venomous and extremely venomous/dangerous snake to humans....With one of the highest untreated mortality rates in the world. It is highly likely that it is somewhere in the 1-10 range( both the coastal/papuan and the inland) but where it fits in that range excactly...I have no clue... It could very well be number 1,2,3 etc but I have no idea.


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

mmafan, you are simply unbelievable. I don't think in the history of APS have we seen such cynical knocker. We have a word for people like you but I would get infraction if I said it. Please don't ever come to Australia, stay where you are, take your medication and stay calm. There are other reptile forums, why don't you try them for a change?


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (May 18, 2011)

Mate several people have asked you to post
data, evidence and your creditials on several things 
Those people being Waterrat, who I know has been in Zoology for 40 years, Eipper, who is a genius on and off the field and Gordo who is asking intelligent questions rather than posting BC.

All your doing is nit picking several points that you can half explain and leaving out several key points. 
You also tend to make your answer ambiguous so that you can go back on them later like you have now and do a full circle whilst sounding "correct". 

You would make a horrible scientist as you can't prove anything, reference anything, or back anything up with claims other than I know a bloke from a pub who said this. 
Get your head out of your **** and stop annoying people


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (May 18, 2011)

i realize now ,
you where abused as a child,
and the culprit was an Australian venomous snake

fortunantly Brown snakes,tiger snakes and death adders are incapable of hurting anyone cause google said so.

only Asian,African or the one American elapid do


have you thought about debating with Bryan fry on venom doc about your in depth understanding or David williams.
Or if they disagree with you will declare them not credible??

just a thought for you sunshine


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> I will repeat for the handicapped amongst us..No credible toxicologist accepts those tests for anything that isn't a mouse. And even if we were all mice they would still have plenty of flaws...and since we are humans the ld50 is an irrelevant joke of a test.
> *Who is claiming it to be anything different?*
> 
> 
> ...


 
You are an ignoramous. You come into these threads and pretend someone has made a statment you can argue with. Then you make yourself look like an arrogant twat telling us things we already know with a smug 'look how smart i am' attitude. 

Then when that isn't good enough you start making bold claims that animals can't be this or that and start ranking them in your own most toxic, deadly, dangerous blah blah but can't back your statments up with anything other than 'The LD50 test is only on mice and you're butthurt.' 

In other threads where we are talking about solving some of our animal problems you decide to tell us that we shouldn't bother because Africa has worse animals!

Dead is dead, Lethal dose is lethal dose. Get over yourself and your Uni of Google BSc. You have some serious hang ups buddy. 

Go and get some real life experience with these animals and then tell us how much your crap matters.


----------



## snakeluvver (May 18, 2011)

Good point, snake pimp. Leading venom experts from around the world talk about how dangerous australian animals are... but of course some american troll on a computer knows better. Obviously.


----------



## snakehandler (May 18, 2011)

I think people are missing a few things, toxicity does not equal lethal, only the potential to be lethal, Australia has one of the lowest death rates due to snake bite in the world, we have more deaths from branches falling on people's heads. 

LD50 values are only given as a guide to the potential of a toxin, they are not designed as a ranking system as the fundamental flaw is that they are not tested on humans or any animal resembling a human.

As Dr. Fry states in his opening statement in this link www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html , dead is dead, who really cares about which is most toxic!


----------



## waruikazi (May 18, 2011)

We have been telling mmafan this for a long time now. I remember his first post on this forum, which was in response to a thread of mine that said exactly that.

Mmafan is the one who is missing something, well no he's not actually missing something. He's making stuff up to argue with.



snakehandler said:


> I think people are missing a few things, toxicity does not equal lethal, only the potential to be lethal, Australia has one of the lowest death rates due to snake bite in the world, we have more deaths from branches falling on people's heads.
> 
> LD50 values are only given as a guide to the potential of a toxin, they are not designed as a ranking system as the fundamental flaw is that they are not tested on humans or any animal resembling a human.
> 
> As Dr. Fry states in his opening statement in this link www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html , dead is dead, who really cares about which is most toxic!


----------



## kawasakirider (May 18, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Nope...I have a problem with Australians over-hyping their animals...thats it...Other than that I like Australians and hope to visit the country one day.



Home-boiz wouldn't make it out here, mate. She's a rugged bit of bush that will sneak up on ya quicker than the dingo did Azaria. We don't have animals, we've got monsters.

I don't get how any snake is more dangerous than the other when you're talking about the big boys, not tree snakes and things (which can and have killed regardless of their "harmless" reputation).

You are more than likely gunna die no matter what bites you if you don't get any attention, and Australian snakes are bad ***. Nuff said.


----------



## moosenoose (May 18, 2011)

Oh not this again :lol:

The deadliest snakes are the ones found in countries with large populations and poor medical resources. As far as venomous goes, we've been through all this crap before :lol: As we have no other test available, the LD50 one is it.

We could test venoms on annoying yanks though  That's got my vote! 8)


----------



## eipper (May 18, 2011)

I still think that the most dangerous snake is the one that just gave you a nip


----------



## Waterrat (May 18, 2011)

Some say Bin Laden was bitten by a deadly American rattler-snake and then, some time later, he died of old age.
Personally, I don't believe it.


----------



## eipper (May 18, 2011)

nah MMAFAN baffled him with bull s ... until he committed suicide from frustration.....whats the old adage....don't argue with idiots...they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.....


----------



## Ozzie Python (May 18, 2011)

So from 7 pages all i get is:

-Australia in general do have basic snake bite first aid skills and anti venom on hand which in turn means our snakes aren't dangerous,
-Third world countries do not,
-You fail to understand that there are large portions of Australia that are not heavily, or at all, populated and therefore many of our venomous, and non-venomous, animals are not regularly encountered,
-We are not stupid enough for the best part to go play with snakes if we don't know what they are, or swim with jelly fish,
-You need to be bitten by some tai's, EB's and of course jelly fish to make your arguement valid,
-The fact that we advertise we have a number of highly venomous, or dangerous, animals some how creates some awareness with locals and tourists. this in turn probably helps the fact that we don't have huge amounts of data relating to snake/jelly fish/spider bites, and deaths in humans. This may be a good thing, perhaps other countries need to raise the same amount of awareness,
-you seem to be taking on the role of the arrogant American who refuses to reveal their identity (this happens usuaaly a short time after we get rid of one)- luckily we have a number of good and imformative o/s members that contribute (including US members) so we don't have to assume you are all the same.
-And most importantly, most of us really don''t really care if we have the most venomous or not:shock:

flame away champ, i'm not a science student so i'm sure you'll lose me with your insults about line 3


----------



## Wild~Touch (May 18, 2011)

eipper said:


> nah MMAFAN baffled him with bull s ... until he committed suicide from frustration.....whats the old adage....don't argue with idiots...they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.....


 
Yep...Never wrestle with a pig, you 'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.


----------



## Greenmad (May 18, 2011)

Mmafan,
Your not meant to drink the water in the bottom of the bong, once its black give it the splash.


----------



## Wally (May 18, 2011)

Nothing like the smell of a crusade in the morning. Apparently.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 18, 2011)

Mmafan555,

I do apologise. I should have qualified my comments about venom toxicity varying geographically. I was referring exclusively to Australian snakes. My mistake.

There are indeed some major holes still, so it would seem. On the basis of closely related species and their ranking on the LD50 I suspect the top end would remain unchanged but that may not be the case. None-the-less I have some homework to do and I thank you for correcting my error.

When determining LD50 of Cobras, for example, do you know whether they tend to use the least toxic result or the most or simply random chance? Also, do you know how the variation in venom toxicity for the one species has been determined? 



mmafan555 said:


> I can post numerous sources for both Australian and Asian/African/North American snakes that state that their can be a tremendous difference in venom composition across a snakes geographic range. I


 
Just the Australian sources would be very much appreciated.



mmafan555 said:


> ...and most species of Bungarus has large distributions where they would unquestionably have a large variation in their venom composition and potency.( Most Bungarus species live in multiple countries)


 
Given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity, and variation thereof, of a snake not even measured, using a “flawed” technique or otherwise?



mmafan555 said:


> The Phillipine Cobra is missing from the ld50 list also and it is an extremely venomous snake and probably the most venomous cobra drop for drop.


 
Again, given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity of a snake not even measured using even a “flawed” technique?



mmafan555 said:


> I can't say one way or another how much use it has...but it has numerous MAJOR flaws..and like I have shown in the past all animals react differently to different venoms....and then you have the regional variation and the missing snakes.


 
I agree with you that there are clearly limitations to the LD50 and how it can be used. But I remain to be convinced that it has “numerous MAJOR flaws. Other than the potential variation in venom strength, would care to elucidate me on what the other flaws are? The statement that “all animals react differently to different venoms” is a gross generalisation. You can show me cases where it holds and I can show you cases where it doesn’t hold. I be happy to accept the middle ground that not all animals react to the same venom in the same way.

That people automatically equate the LD50 and the danger level of a snake to humans is incorrect. That, to my mind, is a separate issue to what you have stated. It is about how people make use of the LD50 rather than the LD50 itself..



mmafan555 said:


> But the highest of all snakes? I have absolutely no idea and neither do you.





mmafan555 said:


> The Taipan is different...It is clearly extremely venomous and possibly even number 1 in drop for drop toxicity to humans...I just can't say for certain that it is number 1 for humans and neither can you or anyone else. So those type of claims are misleading.


 
These two statements are contradictory – that is not at all helpful in establishing the voracity of your claims.

I don’t recall mentioning antivenom in my statement on the effects of an Inland taipan envenomation. That aside, allow me to rephrase it to get around the generalised term “catastrophic effects”. The bite from an Inland Taipan would require only a small injection of venom to produce fatal result (untreated).

You will get no argument from me on the effects of a full bite from any highly venomous snake. Dead is dead, not matter which species caused it. However, I went to some lengths to distinguish between how toxic, how venomous and how deadly. I totally agree with you that venom toxicity is only one factor out of many in the likely outcome of an untreated bite. On the basis of the LD50 alone, if I had to a bite from a snake that I was allowed to fend off with my hands (with the strong possibility of sustaining a glancing blow) it sure as hell would NOT be an inland Taipan. You may choose differently…

*Well that will teach me not to compose my response off-site and then post without reading!*

And all this time I have been labouring under the misapprehension that Australia’s Tourism Industry has been trying to down-play the image created as a result of the ‘most toxic’ or ‘most dangerous’ lists that have been created. Those that I have seen have seen have emanated mostly from overseas sites. Usually Inland Taipans, Funnel Web Spiders, Sea Wasps and Salt-water Crocs crack a mention and occasionally Great White Sharks, all of which are highly avoidable. 

Bee stings are responsible for approximately five times the number of deaths due to snakebite in Australia and horse riding is nearly double that. If you really want to increase your chances of dying, go for a swim at the beach…

Blue


----------



## waruikazi (May 19, 2011)

The ammount of moderator intervention in this thread really shows the esteem mmafan holds on this site.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 19, 2011)

Looks like he's gone off to lick his wounds.


----------



## moosenoose (May 20, 2011)

I think he’s run off to patent his toxicity testing invention, the one that he uses to determine which creatures are more toxic than others, the invention that surpasses the current LD50 test. I think for now we could call it; The HypothesisYankfestTest555? Just in the interim mind you, until he comes up with his own patent label


----------



## Nodrog (May 20, 2011)

His week long pass from the asylum just ran out he will be back when he gets another one!!!


----------



## mmafan555 (May 20, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Mmafan555,
> 
> I do apologise. I should have qualified my comments about venom toxicity varying geographically. I was referring exclusively to Australian snakes. My mistake.



No problem....You seem to know alot about snakes and venoms and don't seem to be clouded by Australian native bias....But it still does vary geographically for Australian snakes.



Bluetongue1 said:


> There are indeed some major holes still, so it would seem. On the basis of closely related species and their ranking on the LD50 I suspect the top end would remain unchanged but that may not be the case.



Well like I said many snake species are missing from the list...so that in itself would likely cause changes....

If you took a cats, dogs, humans and mice...the top ten lists would be different.... maybe vastly different or maybe just slightly different...but they would not be the same.. Their is no "most venomous snake"...That is dopey talk for idiots who want to feel proud that their country has the top snake...Only most venomous for a particular animal....and right now we only know that for mice( and that is of the snakes that were tested)




Bluetongue1 said:


> When determining LD50 of Cobras, for example, do you know whether they tend to use the least toxic result or the most or simply random chance? Also, do you know how the variation in venom toxicity for the one species has been determined?



Nope...I haven't got a clue...Most likely they just used the spectacled cobra from one region and gave it a value and then assumed all the spectacled cobras would have that same value...Of course this is 100 percent incorrect and wrong...Whether the cobra tested was from an area with higher/lower than average toxic cobras? I have no idea..




Bluetongue1 said:


> Just the Australian sources would be very much appreciated.



Sure here is the Eastern Brown snake
Comparison of active venom components between Eastern brown snakes collected from South Australia and Queensland - UQ eSpace

Unfortunately I used to have the full text...But now it makes you pay for it... So now only the abstract.

Tiger snake: The abstract only says that the venoms were made up of different proteins and composition...but this would obviously have an impact on potency

ScienceDirect - Toxicon : Venom constituents of Notechis scutatus scutatus (Australian tiger snake) from differing geographic regions

If you want to see similar info for Asian snakes just ask and I will post them 







Bluetongue1 said:


> Given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity, and variation thereof, of a snake not even measured, using a “flawed” technique or otherwise?



Not quite sure what you mean... If you asking how I am sure that Bungarus are extremely toxic to humans...Well you will find out in about 15 minutes when I make a thread on them. They are very very venomous to humans...a hell of alot more venomous than the overrated Box Jellyfish



Bluetongue1 said:


> Again, given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity of a snake not even measured using even a “flawed” technique?



Because I will post studies on bites from humans later on. They are also very very venomous to humans.




Bluetongue1 said:


> I agree with you that there are clearly limitations to the LD50 and how it can be used.



That is a kind of an understatement imo but I respect your opinion. 




Bluetongue1 said:


> But I remain to be convinced that it has “numerous MAJOR flaws. Other than the potential variation in venom strength, would care to elucidate me on what the other flaws are?



Animals react differently to a particular venom...It is tested on mice and therefore their is no evidence to suggest that it would be the same for any other animal. It also leaves out snakes and also gives people a false impression of how severe a bite is...It is very safe to say that an Eastern Brown has way more toxic venom than an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake to humans, but since it only has tiny fangs and venom yield( as opposed to huge fangs and a huge venom yield for the Eastern Diamondback) the untreated fatality rates are pretty similar. Of course this last statement has nothing to do with drop for drop potency( in case anyone wants to twist my words again for the 50th time) but it does have to do with untreated fatality rates and overall danger of a bite.



Bluetongue1 said:


> The statement that “all animals react differently to different venoms” is a gross generalisation. You can show me cases where it holds and I can show you cases where it doesn’t hold.



Yes it is a generalization...but I am pretty sure you knew what point I was trying to make. It was just easier to say it that way( even through it is a generalization)




Bluetongue1 said:


> I be happy to accept the middle ground that not all animals react to the same venom in the same way.



They don't....I will pm you the studies



Bluetongue1 said:


> That people automatically equate the LD50 and the danger level of a snake to humans is incorrect. That, to my mind, is a separate issue to what you have stated. It is about how people make use of the LD50 rather than the LD50 itself..



Its both... Both the ld50 and the way people make use of it is flawed. 




Bluetongue1 said:


> These two statements are contradictory – that is not at all helpful in establishing the voracity of your claims.



No their not...I am basing that comment on the studies of Taipan bites  on humans that I have read...It is clearly highly venomous to humans...I just can't be sure where exactly it places...It could be number 1 drop for drop or 20...we just don't know, but it is obviously very very toxic.

The studies reveal that Chironex is not that toxic to humans...and certainly not the "most venomous animal in the world" 



Bluetongue1 said:


> I don’t recall mentioning antivenom in my statement on the effects of an Inland taipan envenomation. That aside, allow me to rephrase it to get around the generalised term “catastrophic effects”. The bite from an Inland Taipan would require only a small injection of venom to produce fatal result (untreated).



Yea I agree... A MUCH smaller amount of Taipan would be needed to cause death than Rattlesnake venom. I was just being picky and talking about your term devastating.. But most people usually don't have long term symptoms/damage from a Taipan bite after they survive and get antivenom...that is not always the case for Rattlesnakes and some types of Cobras, Vipers etc. Of course that has nothing to do with drop for drop potency.

Basically if it is 1850 and their is no antivenom available I would take a rattlesnake bite over a taipan bite easily( as the taipan has a far higher untreated mortality rate)

However if it is 2010 and you know you will be able to get antivenom for both species quickly...I would take a Taipan bite over a Rattlesnake bite, because the Taipan does not have cytotoxins in its venom that cause severe local damage which can be long term and debilitating.

As for the taipan being the most drop for drop toxic to humans...Like I said studies show it clearly is HIGHLY venomous to humans...and I would not be surprised at all if it was number 1 for humans, but we just have no way of telling how it would score if tested on humans compared to the other ultra venomous snakes...It would not be a good bet to bet on any snake as we just have no idea.




Bluetongue1 said:


> And all this time I have been labouring under the misapprehension that Australia’s Tourism Industry has been trying to down-play the image created as a result of the ‘most toxic’ or ‘most dangerous’ lists that have been created. *Those that I have seen have seen have emanated mostly from overseas sites*. Usually Inland Taipans, Funnel Web Spiders, Sea Wasps and Salt-water Crocs crack a mention and occasionally Great White Sharks, all of which are highly avoidable.
> …




Yea most probably are...but still it seems to me that many Australians love to push that reputation for whatever reason..


----------



## Waterrat (May 20, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> Yea most probably are...but still it seems to me that many Australians love to push that reputation for whatever reason..



.... whilst one American loves to push his own reputation. Man, you don't give in, do you?


----------



## mmafan555 (May 20, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> ..Man, you don't give in, do you?



No but I probably should...You know what I don't even care really about this topic anymore because its such a pointless never ending topic...No point debating something we both can't really prove...You can't prove that the ld50 for mice would have the same results for humans and other animals and I can't prove that it would be different. I can prove that animals react differently to different venoms.. Here is an earlier post of mine from a different thread.


mmafan555 said:


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



So this proves that animals do react differently to different venoms and often drastically. It obviously does not prove that any snake is more or less toxic than another to humans... So in that sense this debate is pointless. I can't prove that Australian snakes should not be in their current places on the list( if it were for toxicity to humans) and you can't prove that they should be...So it is a pointless debate that goes nowhere...if you want to assume that the top 10 for mice would be the same for humans...go ahead I don't care anymore...


But what I do care about is that you atleast represent the ld50 list fairly... It is top 3( inland, eastern brown and coastal) and 6 of the top 10 for Australia and some snakes that are highly venomous to humans are missing. Only 3 of the 12 land kraits have a value( and already the Many Banded Krait is right behind the Coastal Taipan at # 4) and no Boomslang or Phillipine Cobra.


----------



## Waterrat (May 20, 2011)

This is by far the most intelligent view you posted so far. Who has done all the arguing here?
You could have done better without insulting people like Jamie Seymour, a prominent scientist (and a friend of mine) because you, my boy, don't stand up to his ankles.


----------



## waruikazi (May 20, 2011)

mmafan555

No one in this thread, or any other you have posted in has misrepresented the LD50 test or claimed it to be anything other than it is. You are arguing with yourself. Lucky, because i think no one else cares to listen to you. 

This is essentially you in every thread i've seen you post in.

MMAFAN: 'This snake is not the xxx most venmous snake to people in the world.' 

Everyone else: 'We never said it was.'

MMAFAN: 'You Australian's are butthurt, i heard one Australian on TV once say that they are the most dangerous in the world, he's butthurt and here are some studies.'

Everyone else: 'We don't care, go away.'

MMAFAN: 'You can't prove it's the most venomous in the word! Shutup you're butthurt! And i have a study.'


----------



## eipper (May 21, 2011)

I know of a few bites from Taipans that have left people with some pretty nasty permanent? effects....don't just assume because a venom is not primarlily haemotoxic or cytotoxic that there cannot be devistating permanent effects.

Cheers,
Scott


----------

