Tarantula toxicology

[BigJ999]

Its the same with black widows the very young and ill or older people. Are more at risk from the venom then a healthy person.

 

[ArachnoYak]

But! Even your source states that "most victims were young, ill or infirm." So, validation that a funnel-web has the capacity to kill a healthy adult has yet to be seen.

DRJ. you need to stop relying on Wikipedia for your worldly knowledge, it's hearsay at best. You need to read these two cases, both healthy adults that surely would have died without antivenin.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/animal/atrax.htm#SectionTitle:11.1 Case reports from the literature

 

[DrJ]

DRJ. you need to stop relying on Wikipedia for your worldly knowledge, it's hearsay at best. You need to read these two cases, both healthy adults that surely would have died without antivenin.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/animal/atrax.htm#SectionTitle:11.1 Case reports from the literature

I didn't use Wikipedia as a source. It was provided to me as a source. I think everybody is aware it lacks professional or academic credence.

I found the two victims you spoke of. Their reactions seem to go against the general rule and were rather severe. However, they lived and made it through. Whether we can blame that entirely on the use of any antivenin is somewhat assumptive, if you ask me. For an accurate validation on the venom being anything more than "potentially lethal", somebody would need to die as a result. Don't mean to be morbid, but it's the facts.

 

[Mark77]

That story has to be myth. It makes no sense.

For starters, just because there are many spiders, snakes, etc in one small space, doesn't mean they will bite anybody. Animals are NOT out to get you.

However, in regards to toxicology, no spider (tarantulas included) or scorpion has EVER killed a fully developed adult, healthy human being. Perhaps that is a good start to your question.

This may be true for spiders, but I would think there have been plenty of cases of scorpion related human deaths. A quick Google yielded this medical article stating 3200 deaths per year. I would assume this indicates they have the potential to kill, no? There isn't detail on well being of the victims, but out of that many I would assume some are healthy adults.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/168230-overview

 

[DrJ]

This may be true for spiders, but I would think there have been plenty of cases of scorpion related human deaths. A quick Google yielded this medical article stating 3200 deaths per year. I would assume this indicates they have the potential to kill, no? There isn't detail on well being of the victims, but out of that many I would assume some are healthy adults.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/168230-overview

I'm not going to do the research for you. Many things are "potentially lethal", but what has the capacity to kill a healthy adult is few and far between under normal circumstances. Keep in mind that most people that die from scorpions live in underdeveloped countries where many people have multiple diseases, AIDS, are malnourished, etc. Find me an article that mentions a perfectly healthy individual that dies, and I'll read it. Untill then, these specimens are simply "potentially lethal". Meaning, they have the capacity to kill a human. But, at what rate? If you are a healthy adult, chances are you have little to worry about. You should still seek medical treatment, but there is still no evidence to convince me (or most other people in the scientific community) that you are going to die. Please be aware that this only relates to healthy beings. Diabetes and heart disease do run rampant in this country and are big factors that decrease chances of a clean and full recovery.

 

[ArachnoYak]

For an accurate validation on the venom being anything more than "potentially lethal", somebody would need to die as a result.

People have died, that's a fact you can't deny. You want to assert that they were all children, elderly, or somehow immuno-compromised that's fine. But you will have to provide proof, because if you ask me, that's rather assumptive on your part.

 

[Bill S]

Ok, but still people have indeed died from spider bites.

People have died while sleeping in their beds too, but that doesn't mean that beds are especially dangerous. For me, the degree of danger has to reflect the probability of a harmful outcome. Not just the outside possibility of it. I stand by my original statement that this particular species of spider "are not that deadly". Meaning not as deadly as popular media suggests. Not as deadly as the uninformed gossip sources claim. Not as deadly as your claim that "A sydney funnel web can kill an adult within 15min" suggests.

Quoting a website that offers general information from an American museum is hardly convincing.

If you look a little closer at the source, you may have noticed that the source I quoted (Burke Museum of Natural History & Culture, University of Washington) provides a direct link to back up their specific information with a detailed report by Joe Alcock, MD, MS, Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center; Chief, Emergency Medicine Service, New Mexico Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and another link to "The Australian Museum" in Sydney, Australia, which does know something about Sydney Funnel Web spiders.

 

[ArachnoYak]

I stand by my original statement that this particular species of spider "are not that deadly".

If you look a little closer at the source, you may have noticed that the source I quoted (Burke Museum of Natural History & Culture, University of Washington) provides a direct link to back up their specific information with a detailed report by Joe Alcock, MD, MS, Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center; Chief, Emergency Medicine Service, New Mexico Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and another link to "The Australian Museum" in Sydney, Australia, which does know something about Sydney Funnel Web spiders.

I've read the report by Dr. Alcock. And I am left baffled as to why the Burke Museum "Spider Myths" website used that to provide support for their claim as it does nothing but bolster support for Atrax Robustus being the deadliest spider in the world. Here's a quote directly from that report:

"Mortality/Morbidity
•The mortality rate is difficult to determine from data from the era before antivenom. From 1927-1980, 13 deaths attributed to A robustus were reported in the medical literature and news media. No deaths have occurred since the introduction of antivenom.1

•Deaths occurred in children and adult females with bites. In all cases where the spider was identified, the culprit was the Sydney funnel-web spider, A robustus. Severe envenomation, but not death, has been reported following bites by Hadronyche species.

•Death occurs between 15 minutes and 3 days following the bite. In children, death is usually early and caused by pulmonary edema. In adults, death usually occurs later and is caused by persistent hypotension and cardiovascular collapse. In the late 1970s, 2 deaths occurred despite modern intensive care units. Death in these cases occurred from multisystem organ failure days after the bite."

If that's what you call a direct link backing up their "myths" then perhaps you should recant.

You were saying?

 

[Bill S]

•The mortality rate is difficult to determine from data from the era before antivenom. From 1927-1980, 13 deaths attributed to A robustus were reported in the medical literature and news media. No deaths have occurred since the introduction of antivenom.

That doesn't sound hard to understand. Some deaths occurred in the early years, might have been due to A. robustus, but the true mortality rate is hard to determine. No deaths since then.

Something isn't "extremely deadly" if harmful effects can easily be negated.

•Deaths occurred in children and adult females with bites. In all cases where the spider was identified, the culprit was the Sydney funnel-web spider, A robustus. Severe envenomation, but not death, has been reported following bites by Hadronyche species.

OK. Some deaths do occur. But again I'll stick with "level of danger" being strongly tied with probability. Or maybe frequecy. There's a big difference between rare, unusual deaths long ago and the probability of deaths in modern times.

•Death occurs between 15 minutes and 3 days following the bite. In children, death is usually early and caused by pulmonary edema. In adults, death usually occurs later and is caused by persistent hypotension and cardiovascular collapse. In the late 1970s, 2 deaths occurred despite modern intensive care units. Death in these cases occurred from multisystem organ failure days after the bite."

This is for those rare cases when death does occur. Or did occur. For the few people who did die, death happened in a time period between 15 minutes and 3 days. But the average person bitten does not need antivenom, and for decades now those few who were deemed to need antivenom recovered.

From personal experience, I can add that not all people who are deemed by a doctor to need antivenom really need it. Some doctors just prefer to err on the side of caution. So of those who were treated with antivenom, we have no way of knowing how many of them would have been just fine without it.

My experience with bites/antivenom/doctors saying antivenom is necessary is based on snakebite, not spider bite. But the concept is the same. Every snakebite I've discussed with doctors has been deemed by them to "need antivenom". I even had one doctor get rude and abusive about it. But I only accepted it once. As a biologist, I can assure you that I survived the untreated bites. My wife, as a medical professional, also agrees that I survived. (And yes, I think that rattlesnakes are not as deadly as some people would have us believe.)

If that's what you call a direct link backing up their "myths" then perhaps you should recant.

You were saying?

Nope. Nothing to recant.

 

[ArachnoYak]

Something isn't "extremely deadly" if harmful effects can easily be negated.

The term "extremely deadly" is hogwash. Something is either deadly or it isn't, it's that arbitrary.

That doesn't sound hard to understand. .

Apparently it is, as you still won't accept the fact that they are deadly.

OK. Some deaths do occur. .

Oh, so you have accepted the fact that they're deadly. You have negated your own stance.

I don't quite know where your other paragraph about antivenin and snakebites was going or what you having being bitten by a snake has to do with whether or not Atrax robustus is a deadly spider.

To answer the OP's question, I think if it were a pit full of Atrax robustus, it is definitely and unequivocally possible that he would die.

Although I think jeryst put it best:

I cant see a gangster spending a lot of money on a bunch of T's, then putting them in a room, then finding a way to agitate them, just to try and kill someone, only to maybe have it work.

Most gangsters are practical. A baseball bat is cheaper - lol.

 

[Bill S]

The term "extremely deadly" is hogwash. Something is either deadly or it isn't, it's that arbitrary.

.....Oh, so you have accepted the fact that they're deadly. You have negated your own stance.

You are being amazingly dense. But the primary difference in our points of view is that you have an extremely black-and-white view that there are no degrees of deadliness - everything is either deadly or it isn't. And I see a long scale running from very low risk to extremely deadly. Some things have a slight potential to cause death, others present a much higher risk. In your world, everything out there must be deadly. There is very little out there that hasn't been implicated in causing a death in some time or manner. Is a mosquito deadly? In your world, yes. People have died from diseases transmitted by mosquito bite. "Something is either deadly or it isn't, it's that arbitrary." In my world, I do not consider a mosquito to be all that deadly.

 

[ArachnoYak]

You are being amazingly dense. But the primary difference in our points of view is that you have an extremely black-and-white view that there are no degrees of deadliness - everything is either deadly or it isn't. And I see a long scale running from very low risk to extremely deadly. Some things have a slight potential to cause death, others present a much higher risk. In your world, everything out there must be deadly. There is very little out there that hasn't been implicated in causing a death in some time or manner. Is a mosquito deadly? In your world, yes. People have died from diseases transmitted by mosquito bite. "Something is either deadly or it isn't, it's that arbitrary." In my world, I do not consider a mosquito to be all that deadly.

Now we're talking about mosquitoes????? You seem very apt to going off on a tangent if it'll possibly lend creedence to your ideas, which it doesn't. Let me bring you back full circle here. Your original stance is that Atrax robustus was "not that deadly". When talking about A. robustus, it is either deadly or not. If it has the capacity to kill a human that would make it deadly. That's not just in my world, that's fact.

IN your world, mosquitoes, even anopheles, aren't deadly. It is important to be specific when speaking of animals that are considered deadly, as I'm sure your local mosquitoes aren't deadly. Perhaps I'm misinformed, do you know of a cure for malaria that no one else knows of? I didn't think so.

 

[DrJ]

ArachnoYak, you're the only one here that appears to be wailing on about who knows what. Bill is right, there is a scale. For instance, look at LD-50 values. These aren't labeled on a yes/no basis. They are given scientific analysis and numbers. Just because immunocompromised individuals may be more susceptible to ill side-effects, does not mean that a healthy individual would be as well. You have to take that into consideration. The example Bill gave with sleeping illustrates it well. If one person suffocates on their pillow, does that make the bed a deadly assault weapon on the rest of humanity? That seems to be the way you wish to portray the funnel-web.

Malaria isn't curable, but it is treatable. Still, it's a life-long disease.

 

[Bill S]

IN your world, mosquitoes, even anopheles, aren't deadly. It is important to be specific when speaking of animals that are considered deadly, as I'm sure your local mosquitoes aren't deadly. Perhaps I'm misinformed, do you know of a cure for malaria that no one else knows of? I didn't think so.

I first contracted malaria about 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, I'm not dead yet. Are you trying to tell me that the mosquito bite I suffered in some long ago and far away tropical jungle was deadly? The results were certainly unpleasant at times, but to the best of my knowledge it didn't kill me.

ArachnoYak, you can live in your world of deadly extremes. I'll leave it to you. The rest of us can enjoy our more benevolent world that has a lot more grey area and a lot more flexibility and gradients.

 

[ArachnoYak]

Bill is right, there is a scale. For instance, look at LD-50 values. These aren't labeled on a yes/no basis.

We're not discussing LD-50 values here DrJ but thanks for your 2 cents. The question was simply whether or not Atrax robustus was deadly. And it is, case closed.

The example Bill gave with sleeping illustrates it well. If one person suffocates on their pillow, does that make the bed a deadly assault weapon on the rest of humanity?

Yeah and what is the sound of one hand clapping? You're not only comparing apples and oranges, but you're grabbing at straws. Once again the question at hand is about Atrax robustus, not philosophical ponderings.

Malaria isn't curable, but it is treatable. Still, it's a life-long disease.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not but upwards of a million people die annually from Malaria.



My apologies to the OP for the way this thread has turned out. That's what happens when you've got 2 people who believe the world is flat even when proven otherwise.

 

[ArachnoYak]

I first contracted malaria about 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, I'm not dead yet.

Like I just told your sidekick, malaria kills upwards of a million people annually, that fact is undisputable. Consider yourself one of the fortunate ones.

 

[DrJ]

We're not discussing LD-50 values here DrJ but thanks for your 2 cents. The question was simply whether or not Atrax robustus was deadly. And it is, case closed.

If we aren't talking about the lethality of certain venoms, than I guess we aren't discussing LD-50 values. If we are, than it certainly has it's place in this conversation. To ignore the LD-50 values is a blatant lack of respect for scientific data. To say it has no place in determining the lethality of venom (which is what it is) is rather silly.

Bill and I are trying to show you that there is a scale here. Yes, people can die. But, that does not make it particularly deadly. Not everyone that is bitten dies, as you seem to claim. There is ample evidence to suggest this.

Yeah and what is the sound of one hand clapping? You're not only comparing apples and oranges, but you're grabbing at straws. Once again the question at hand is about Atrax robustus, not philosophical ponderings.

You don't get it. Perhaps you should explain your viewpoint more? So far, you have only portrayed that since Atrax robustus has killed a human being at some point in the past, that it is automatically "deadly". The illustration serves only to show you the error of this logic. People have died in their sleep. Does this make sleeping in your bed dangerous? No. But, according to your logic, it does.

By examining your logic, we ARE comparing apples to apples. Different forms of death, but each just as "risky" or "deadly".

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not but upwards of a million people die annually from Malaria.

Yes. But, the point is that there is treatment, and most do not die. Again, we were talking moquitoes. Compare bites around the world to those that contract malaria, and again to those that die as a result. Chances of dying from a mosquitoe bite are rather slim.

 

[ArachnoYak]

than I guess we aren't discussing LD-50 values.

We aren't, good to see you finally realized that.:clap: Btw it's "then".

Yes, people can die. But, that does not make it particularly deadly

Time to re-examine your logic.

So far, you have only portrayed that since Atrax robustus has killed a human being at some point in the past, that it is automatically "deadly". People have died in their sleep. Does this make sleeping in your bed dangerous? No. But, according to your logic, it does.

First off, it hasn't killed "a human", it's killed several, so yes, that would make it deadly.

Secondly, give up the killer bed analogy, it's not working for you, unless your trying to look foolish. If that was your aim, you've succeeded.

Not everyone that is bitten dies, as you seem to claim.

That's funny I don't remember claiming that at all, oh yeah, because I haven't. You're quite entertaining with your fiction.

Compare bites around the world to those that contract malaria, and again to those that die as a result. Chances of dying from a mosquitoe bite are rather slim.

Malaria was mentioned and thus the anopheles "mosquitoe" comes into play. And 1 million deaths annually would make it a deadly animal. But if we were to be technical here the credit for being deadly would go to the Plasmodium.





I'm not sure if it's you or Obi wan that's going to respond next Annikin and frankly I don't care, I'm quite finished with this thread. My point was that Atrax robustus is deadly, plain and simple, and I have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. It wasn't about LD-50 values, or killer beds, or Malaria.

Perhaps you can come up with more crazy anologies about killer pillows and killer tomatoes to justify your own way of thinking.

Once again my apologies to the OP for this rollercoaster ride.

 

[Bill S]

Bill and I are trying to show you that there is a scale here. Yes, people can die. But, that does not make it particularly deadly. Not everyone that is bitten dies, as you seem to claim. There is ample evidence to suggest this.

DrJ, there are a couple things that come to mind here. One is an old Zen story about a master filling the tea cup of a student who was too full of his own ideas to accept others. The master keeps pouring tea until the cup is overflowing all over the place, and finally the student realizes that as long as he is "full", his mind is closed to new thoughts and realizations.

The other proverb (I don't remember the exact words) is that it's pointless to wrestle with a pig - you'll only get covered in mud, and the pig will enjoy the attention.

ArachnoYak is either incredibly dense or is a troll trying to keep us going. I'm walking away from this because if he's that dense, I don't have the ability to activate his brain. If he's a troll, I don't feel inspired to entertain him any further.

 

[ZergFront]

I cant see a gangster spending a lot of money on a bunch of T's, then putting them in a room, then finding a way to agitate them, just to try and kill someone, only to maybe have it work.

Most gangsters are practical. A baseball bat is cheaper - lol.

I'd love to see how this same gangster is going to explain how the person's death was an unfortunate accident.

"Well I have a hundred pet tarantulas in the same cage. I wanted to show them feeding and he just tripped and fell in."

I think he'd more likely die from drowning in his own mucus from urticating hair irritation. If they were 100 Theraphosa...poor, poor fella...