Eastern Brown or Coastal Taipan

[mmafan555]

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.

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]

Its gone all Groundhog day...

 

[moosenoose]

Harmless Australian snake

 

[$NaKe PiMp]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[mmafan555]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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