Fact or Fiction

[NCHERPS]

It all depends on what your definition of dangerous is!
Is it the most commonly occuring in a populated area where people are going to come in contact with it most and get bitten and commonly die, or is it a snake that is quite isolated from the majority of people , but has the most toxic venom on land, I personally choose the first, so go with Dicco, the 'Russell's viper and 'Cobra' kill and come to contact a bite more people than any other venomous snakes.

Neil

 

[obee]

there is a definite difference between venom toxicity and dangerous.i would say a dangerous snake is one that statistically kills a lot of ppl, it only has to be toxic enough to kill one person, it can only bite one at a time.if it was toxic enough to kill 40 ppl with one bite means nothing, can still only bite one person at a time.UNTREATED, both bites are going to kill you.tourists ask me all the time about our[oz] 10 most dangerous snakes in the world.they are amazed to find out there is not a dangerous snake hidden behind every bush and how many ppl actually die each year from snakebite in oz.


obee

 

[bigguy]

I have seen this debate many times before. Deadly versus dangerous. People often think these two are the same, but they are not. A Brown Snake's venom is deadly. whereas a Crocodile is dangerous.

Now for the confused people when talking about snakes they must be divided into 3 groups.

1) The deadliest snakes in the world. In other words the most toxic drop for drop. Easy answer. Fierce Snake or Inland Taipan

2) The snakes that kill more humans in a year than any others. This is because they occur in great numbers around great numbers of humans. Answer. Russels pit Vipers, Saw Scaled Vipers and Asian Cobras

3) The most dangerous snake. In other words the snake that is more likely to kill you without antivenom. Answer Taipan with nearly a 100% death rate without antivenom.

To explain it a bit better, what is more dangerous?? A Atomic bomb or a plain old 500lb bomb. The anser is simple. The Atomic bomb, there is no comparison. Yet the old 500lb bombs have killed millions more people than the Atomic version. Its not the amount that dies that defines dangerous, its the chances of survival that does. Hope this helps.

 

[Fuscus]

I would rate dangerous by toxicity (T) by encounter frequency (EF) by the inverse of standard of availible medical care (IMC) availible to the victims. ( T x EF x -IMC).
For the fiercey I would formulate highest x very low x minus very good. (yes I know that to be bitten by a wild fiercey you would have to be in the middle of nowhere, but chances are you would have radio communication and other people will make an effort to reach you).
Brown snake fomula would have Very high x low to medium x minus very good.
Russells would be High x High x minus very poor (through a lot of its range).

This is, of course, very simplistic. Heaps of other factors such as education, cultural factors (including factors like bozos on the turps catching mulgas with one hand while holding a stubby with another) and even things like the normal footwear should be taken into account.

 

[bigguy]

Fuscus, then by your formula, a 500lb bomb is by far more dangerous than an Atomic bomb. I know which one I would rather take my chances with.

 

[Fuscus]

Fuscus, then by your formula, a 500lb bomb is by far more dangerous than an Atomic bomb. I know which one I would rather take my chances with.

500lb bombs tend to travel in packs and are often found in urban areas so their encounter frequency would be very high. . A pack attack (eg Dresden) can have the same effect as a A-bomb. They have also been documented as ambush predators, often lying in wait for years before a prey item comes in range
Abombs do, however, have a much larger strike range, and even mild envemonation ( which may go un-noticed at the time of the strike) can cause serious health problems further down the track.

 

[hugsta]

I heard there was a lot of these released over in Iraq recently. :lol:
Apparently the death rate was quite high as they were introduced in a densely populated area. :twisted:

 

[obee]

either bomb landing next to you is going to kill you,doesn't matter which is the worse one,but i understand what you are saying bob.
fuscus i think you are spot on.the deadliest snake in the world is the fiercey.deadly to what,any prey animal it comes across.most certainly not to ppl cause it's never killed anyone as far as i know in the wild.frequency of human contact is the factor.so definately not dangerous unless you are bitten which is highly unlikely.i think there is many ways of interpeting information and a lot of circumstances and controls which aren't often considered.non the less an interesting topic.


obee

 

[Guest]

I would sya the coastal taipan is the most dangerous snake in the world(well for keepers anyway) because of its high yeild. Its aggressiveness, long fangs, intelligence
, speed, it is unpredictable And its venom toxicity....its the one snake any keeper does not want to get bitten by

 

[Dicco]

I would sya the coastal taipan is the most dangerous snake in the world(well for keepers anyway) because of its high yeild. Its aggressiveness, long fangs, intelligence
, speed, it is unpredictable And its venom toxicity....its the one snake any keeper does not want to get bitten by

Good point.