- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,113
Hmmm, for some reason the "Can ciggeratte smoke kill Ts" thread pops into my head. 
Tarantula Venom Can Cause Death Yes or No
- Thread starter Sheri
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,100
You couldnt get me that stoned or drunk.... But I would like to see u try.BugToxin said:
Morbus ascendit
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 44
Hi!
I do think, as already mentioned before, it depends on the circumstances. The venom might (!) do more harm to a very young or very old person or to those who are sick beforehand.
In fact there is no reported case where anyone bitten by a T died. But I don't think this means it wouldn't be possible. So I'd like to vote Maybe (didn't vote, though). For I should find that article in my EndNote library I'm going to post it later on.
Regards,
Uwe
I do think, as already mentioned before, it depends on the circumstances. The venom might (!) do more harm to a very young or very old person or to those who are sick beforehand.
Well, not quite sure about that one. I remember a case that took place in Bavaria/Germany: A ~ 40 year old male, fine health, was bitten by a Poecilotheria fasciata and fell into coma in 2003. Systemic enough? ;P I think it was Martin Huber or Volker von Wirth that have been working on this article that was published via DeArGe [= German Tarantula Society].Crotalus said:
In fact there is no reported case where anyone bitten by a T died. But I don't think this means it wouldn't be possible. So I'd like to vote Maybe (didn't vote, though). For I should find that article in my EndNote library I'm going to post it later on.
Regards,
Uwe
Theres been cases of "coma" here aswell, but after checking the cases closely it was all rumors as far as I know. Your coma case might be all true but I prefer to read a article first before I comment further. If you have it please make a copy and send it to me.
/Lelle
/Lelle
Morbus ascendit
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 44
Would it be disturbing if that article was in German or would you like me to translate it? Going to do a search after the weekend - have to pick up some new Ts now :}
Regards,
Uwe
Regards,
Uwe
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 716
I would be intrested in reading it too.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,700
Windchaser:
"But when assessing the true risk of something it is important to also look at the likelihood of it occuring. If you remove the probabilty of the vent occuring from the discussion, then basically everything you could think of could be considered deadly. By your way of thinking, if you can think of one example of where something might result in a death, then that thing must be considered deadly.
With respect to tarantula venom and bites, there is no documented evidence of anyone dying after being bitten. Many of the scenarios that you suggest as being dangerous are highly unlikely to ever occur. Even in remote areas, if someone is in such poor health that a tarantula bite might result in a death, those individuals would most likely have an extremely low probability of ever being in a situation where they would get bitten. It is not like tarantulas seek out and bite people. The humans have to seek out the tarantula and invade its territory and home. Someone in extremely poor health is not going to be doing this.
Would a piano falling from the sky kill me if it landed on me? Yes. Is it very likely to happen? No. Should this be considered a risk to my well being? No. The reason being that it is not something that is likely to happen. The same can be said about your scenarios of tarantula bites causing death. Until there is hard evidience that a tarantula bite is deadly, I will consider them nonlethal."
I see what you are saying, but in this case that logic is a bit off. We are not talking about considering tarantulas as "deadly". I'm saying that certain people would be at an elevated risk from certain tarantulas. Legos aren't "deadly", but there are warning labels on them because for children lego is a choking hazard. Does that mean we should fear lego, or call it dangerous to everyone? NO. But we should acknowledge that it can be dangerous for some people, in this case children.
For most people a poec bite isn't life threatening, but for some people I think we should acknowledge that it could be.
"But when assessing the true risk of something it is important to also look at the likelihood of it occuring. If you remove the probabilty of the vent occuring from the discussion, then basically everything you could think of could be considered deadly. By your way of thinking, if you can think of one example of where something might result in a death, then that thing must be considered deadly.
With respect to tarantula venom and bites, there is no documented evidence of anyone dying after being bitten. Many of the scenarios that you suggest as being dangerous are highly unlikely to ever occur. Even in remote areas, if someone is in such poor health that a tarantula bite might result in a death, those individuals would most likely have an extremely low probability of ever being in a situation where they would get bitten. It is not like tarantulas seek out and bite people. The humans have to seek out the tarantula and invade its territory and home. Someone in extremely poor health is not going to be doing this.
Would a piano falling from the sky kill me if it landed on me? Yes. Is it very likely to happen? No. Should this be considered a risk to my well being? No. The reason being that it is not something that is likely to happen. The same can be said about your scenarios of tarantula bites causing death. Until there is hard evidience that a tarantula bite is deadly, I will consider them nonlethal."
I see what you are saying, but in this case that logic is a bit off. We are not talking about considering tarantulas as "deadly". I'm saying that certain people would be at an elevated risk from certain tarantulas. Legos aren't "deadly", but there are warning labels on them because for children lego is a choking hazard. Does that mean we should fear lego, or call it dangerous to everyone? NO. But we should acknowledge that it can be dangerous for some people, in this case children.
For most people a poec bite isn't life threatening, but for some people I think we should acknowledge that it could be.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 2,996
The only reason those warning labels are there is to protect Lego from getting their butts sued after an irresponsible parent's child chokes on one. The dearth of warning labels on everything these days doesn't really have anything to do with informing the consumer, but with protecting the company from liability claims. Sorry, you touched on a sore subject.Venom said:
Life in general has risks. Some people are more susceptible to certain things than others. As I stated before, virtually everything on this planet under the right circumstances can result in the death of a human. Just because there is a 0.00001% chance a death can result from something, doesn't mean it should be labeled as a potential cause for death.
Given the total lack of evidence that tarantula venom is deadly, I will stand by my belief that it is not deadly. I will concede though, that it is possible under just the perfect conditions that it could kill someone, I still don't see this as enough of a claim to say that it is deadly.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 265
When there's somebody who claims T's are potentially dangeraous for humans and therefore should not be kept as pets I'm the first one who tells that this opinion is totally wrong.
Nevertheless I voted with YES on that poll since the question was only whether T venom can cause death or not. I think virtually everything can cause death it's just a matter of the circumstances. Like many allready said, there are lots of funny circumstances you could think of that may allow a human being to die because being bitten by a T. Furthermore there a lots of people around that have allergies on all kinds of stuff. I'm sure some folks might show an allergic reaction on one ore more ingredients of a T's venom and may die because of that.
In case the question would have been 'Can T venom cause death to a 100% healthy adult person under normal circumstances?' then I would have voted NO.
Nevertheless I voted with YES on that poll since the question was only whether T venom can cause death or not. I think virtually everything can cause death it's just a matter of the circumstances. Like many allready said, there are lots of funny circumstances you could think of that may allow a human being to die because being bitten by a T. Furthermore there a lots of people around that have allergies on all kinds of stuff. I'm sure some folks might show an allergic reaction on one ore more ingredients of a T's venom and may die because of that.
In case the question would have been 'Can T venom cause death to a 100% healthy adult person under normal circumstances?' then I would have voted NO.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,700
Quote Windchaser:
"The only reason those warning labels are there is to protect Lego from getting their butts sued after an irresponsible parent's child chokes on one. The dearth of warning labels on everything these days doesn't really have anything to do with informing the consumer, but with protecting the company from liability claims. Sorry, you touched on a sore subject.
Life in general has risks. Some people are more susceptible to certain things than others. As I stated before, virtually everything on this planet under the right circumstances can result in the death of a human. Just because there is a 0.00001% chance a death can result from something, doesn't mean it should be labeled as a potential cause for death.
Given the total lack of evidence that tarantula venom is deadly, I will stand by my belief that it is not deadly. I will concede though, that it is possible under just the perfect conditions that it could kill someone, I still don't see this as enough of a claim to say that it is deadly."
Once again, let me say that I am NOT contending that tarantulas are a life-threatening hazard to all people. I am not saying they are "deadly". Cobras are deadly--they can kill anyone regardless of age, health etc. I am also NOT saying that there is slight chance of death for people in general. I am saying there is a more than slight chance of death for some people with serious health problems.
Saying a tarantula is deadly:
"WARNING: Do not keep this tarantula, as its bite is very dangerous and could kill you."
Saying a tarantula is dangerous to certain people:
"CAUTION: This species has been known to cause cardiac, and/or respiratory distress. Other serious symptoms may also apply*. Do not keep if you have, or suspect you may have a condition which attenuates you in these areas. Envenomation by this species may aggravate/ contribute to your condition, and may lead to serious illness or death.
*These may include localized decrease of circulation, severe neuromuscular interference, and loss of consciousness."
See the difference? The second example is what I am saying here.
"The only reason those warning labels are there is to protect Lego from getting their butts sued after an irresponsible parent's child chokes on one. The dearth of warning labels on everything these days doesn't really have anything to do with informing the consumer, but with protecting the company from liability claims. Sorry, you touched on a sore subject.
Life in general has risks. Some people are more susceptible to certain things than others. As I stated before, virtually everything on this planet under the right circumstances can result in the death of a human. Just because there is a 0.00001% chance a death can result from something, doesn't mean it should be labeled as a potential cause for death.
Given the total lack of evidence that tarantula venom is deadly, I will stand by my belief that it is not deadly. I will concede though, that it is possible under just the perfect conditions that it could kill someone, I still don't see this as enough of a claim to say that it is deadly."
Once again, let me say that I am NOT contending that tarantulas are a life-threatening hazard to all people. I am not saying they are "deadly". Cobras are deadly--they can kill anyone regardless of age, health etc. I am also NOT saying that there is slight chance of death for people in general. I am saying there is a more than slight chance of death for some people with serious health problems.
Saying a tarantula is deadly:
"WARNING: Do not keep this tarantula, as its bite is very dangerous and could kill you."
Saying a tarantula is dangerous to certain people:
"CAUTION: This species has been known to cause cardiac, and/or respiratory distress. Other serious symptoms may also apply*. Do not keep if you have, or suspect you may have a condition which attenuates you in these areas. Envenomation by this species may aggravate/ contribute to your condition, and may lead to serious illness or death.
*These may include localized decrease of circulation, severe neuromuscular interference, and loss of consciousness."
See the difference? The second example is what I am saying here.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 2,996
Based on what evidence? Bite reports. If so, these are purely anecdotal and need to be taken with a grain of salt. Were the individual's vital signs monitored? The increased heart rate that some have stated they experienced after a bite could just have likely been caused by an adrenaline rush. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that tarantula venom is harmful.Venom said:
In the end, I think we have to simply agree to disagree.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,700
I know that the bite reports are not scientific documents and that ( in most cases ) the opinion of a physician is not included. However, I still feel that they can, and should, be taken seriously. Two of the bite reports I cited detailed that the persons bitten had experienced a sensation that their heart was about to burst. Now, this is probably not the exact case--their hearts probably were not on the verge of bursting, but it does show that the bitten persons suffered a disturbance of their hearts, and that these effects were strong enough to have caused them concern. That in itself is evidence that these species can cause serious symptoms.
Basically it comes down to whether or not hobbyists can believe each other's bite reports. If an experienced and reputable hobbyist wrote a bite report in which they said they had passed out for 3 hours, had heart palpitations, and difficulty breathing--would you just write the person off as not knowing what they were talking about, and say that the symptoms were probably imaginary palpitations, adrenaline effects, and otherwise not nearly as serious as what the hobbyist said they experienced? If that is the case why do we even have bite report forums? If you wrote a bite report, would you like the people her to to believe you and take you seriously?
If we're going to write each other off and say we don't know anything and that our bite reports don't really mean anything, then why should we bother to write them? I give credit to the people posting the bite reports that they are telling the truth and relating their experiences as best they can explain.
If we can believe the hobbyists' bite reports, then they did actually experience serious symptoms. If they did experience serious symptoms, then they would be even more serious for people who are already weak in the systems the bites affected.
Basically it comes down to whether or not hobbyists can believe each other's bite reports. If an experienced and reputable hobbyist wrote a bite report in which they said they had passed out for 3 hours, had heart palpitations, and difficulty breathing--would you just write the person off as not knowing what they were talking about, and say that the symptoms were probably imaginary palpitations, adrenaline effects, and otherwise not nearly as serious as what the hobbyist said they experienced? If that is the case why do we even have bite report forums? If you wrote a bite report, would you like the people her to to believe you and take you seriously?
If we're going to write each other off and say we don't know anything and that our bite reports don't really mean anything, then why should we bother to write them? I give credit to the people posting the bite reports that they are telling the truth and relating their experiences as best they can explain.
If we can believe the hobbyists' bite reports, then they did actually experience serious symptoms. If they did experience serious symptoms, then they would be even more serious for people who are already weak in the systems the bites affected.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Messages
- 1,079
a bee sting can cause death, so why not a spider bite? hmmm?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,700
The word is that tarantula venom is not of a chemical composition that can cause an allergic reaction, which, except perhaps for Africanized "killer" bees, is the usual cause of death for bee stings.
Whytedragon, there ARE spiderbites that are dangerous and might kill you. But tarantulas isnt one of them.
Venom, to read a report and think they experienced symptoms which are dangerous and might even be fatal is another thing then read them for what they are. In the end, have you ever read a report where the victim is hospitalized and close to dying? No. They are on their feet in a day or two. That is the facts, not "mights" and "maybes".
/Lelle
Venom, to read a report and think they experienced symptoms which are dangerous and might even be fatal is another thing then read them for what they are. In the end, have you ever read a report where the victim is hospitalized and close to dying? No. They are on their feet in a day or two. That is the facts, not "mights" and "maybes".
/Lelle
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 603
as far as i heard nobody ever died of a tarantula bite. and i don't think they leave scars either. while way back they accused the big hairy spiders in europe (i think they were wolfspiders or cousins of theirs) of causing death, it got found out it was actually a much smaller spider that was the cause - a black widow.
black widows and brown recluses are way more dangerous than any tarantula. bigger does not mean more venom or more danger. and a recluse bite can leave a nasty scar - my cousin has one.
dianne
black widows and brown recluses are way more dangerous than any tarantula. bigger does not mean more venom or more danger. and a recluse bite can leave a nasty scar - my cousin has one.
dianne
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 208
People die from bee stings because of anaphylaxis. Their body couldn't handle the make up of the bee venom. European or africanised doesn't make a difference. African bees just send half the entire hive for over a mile insted of about 30 bees for 200-300 feet.WhyTeDraGon said:
The same would be for tarantulas. I you're that 1 in 1 million that will go into anaphylaxis be aware. How many deaths are publicized for T bites??? None that I've ever heard. You may wish you were dead but that's 99.99999999999.....%. Some true spiders, yes. Not T's.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 2,996
From what I have read, the make up of tarantula venom is significantly different than bee venom. The composition is one that would be likely to cause anaphylaxis. Crotalus (Lelle) could probably provide some links detailing this. I don't have them readily available.hjlantern said:
Morbus ascendit
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 44
Hi!
Back again ... Though I was unable to find the article in the mentioned paper til now I was able to find some posts that were done by M. Huber. I tried to translate one of them and maybe you're able to understand them in spite of the bad english ;P The original post is situated here.
Still trying to find the paper. If I do, I'll be posting that reference as well.
Regards,
Uwe
Back again ... Though I was unable to find the article in the mentioned paper til now I was able to find some posts that were done by M. Huber. I tried to translate one of them and maybe you're able to understand them in spite of the bad english ;P The original post is situated here.
Still trying to find the paper. If I do, I'll be posting that reference as well.
Regards,
Uwe