User talk:Animalfan10

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Taipan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mokele (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Snakebite, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mokele (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mice vs humans and LD50

Look, first, I never did anything about any edits with regards to King Cobras biting elephants. You'd do well to check who you're replying to before making wild accusations.

Second, your understanding of LD50 is extremely poor. LD50 is only *one* aspect of what makes a species dangerous to humans or otherwise, and mice are the best model species available. No model is perfect, but mice are the only mammals which are available in suitably large numbers with high genetic homogeneity that don't cost a fortune. Think about it, would you rather have 100 LD50s based on mice, or insist on monkeys and have *none*. Yes, LD50 doesn't map perfectly to danger - plenty of rattlesnakes have piss-weak venom, but pump in so much of it that they're quite dangerous.

Show me a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that makes a strong case against LD50s, and I'll consider it. But random websites are not reliable sources. Mokele (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You have zero credibility on snakebites

"Second, your understanding of LD50 is extremely poor. LD50 is only *one* aspect of what makes a species dangerous to humans or otherwise, and mice are the best model species available. No model is perfect, but mice are the only mammals which are available in suitably large numbers with high genetic homogeneity that don't cost a fortune. Think about it, would you rather have 100 LD50s based on mice, or insist on monkeys and have *none*. Yes, LD50 doesn't map perfectly to danger - plenty of rattlesnakes have piss-weak venom, but pump in so much of it that they're quite dangerous.Show me a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that makes a strong case against LD50s, and I'll consider it. But random websites are not reliable sources. Mokele (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2010" (UTC)- Mokole

No the ld50 is not one "aspect" of rating danger to humans... it doesnt reflect danger to humans at all. The ONLY thing that it is good for is telling how toxic certain venom is to mice. I honestly cant believe that you became a mod..... An ld50 rating for a snake has absolutely nothing to do with how dangerous a snake and its venom will be to humans...

Testing it on monkeys would be the optimal thing to do but even then their is probably some degree of difference in reaction to snake venoms between humans and other primates. And yes I would much rather have no ld50 rating at all... because they are absolutely useless to humans and falsely mislead people into thinking that certain snakes are more toxic to humans than others just because they are more toxic to mice. Testing it on monkeys would be FAR more accurate then the inaccurate mice tests.

And no rattlesnakes do not have piss weak venom.... Once again your basing this on some species having so called "weakness" to mice and mice dont react in any way shape or form to venoms like humans do. The ONLY ways to know how toxic a snake is to humans would be to either test it on humans[ obviously impossible]or to read studies on snake bites of humans and estimate the severity of bites on humans that different snakes cause.

Oh and show me one "peer- reviewed scientific publications" that says that the ld50's are credible for judging toxicity in humans? You wont because they dont exist. Only dim-witted and quite frankly biased "Australian" herpetologists claim that these ld50 mouse tests mean anything with regards to toxicity to humans. Brian Bush is very credible and one of the few Australian herpetologists that I respect and consider to not be a biased joke and he has worked with Sir David Attenborough and for BBC on many documentary's on snakes and particular Australian Snakes.

Heres more info on Brian Bush and heres a great paragraph from him.

"I have been around reptiles all my life. One thing became obvious at a very early age: there is more myth associated with Australia's snakes than any other faunal group! The most widespread and ridiculous of these concerns Auselapid venom toxicities. No doubt, this is a result of our European ancestry. To date there are 131 described species (79 in WA) and several known but undescribed taxa of fixed front-fanged venomous snakes (elapids/hydrophids) here, yet our deadliest venomous animal, considering human fatalities, is the exotic honeybee. Check my link to Australian Venomous Snakes to learn more!"

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bush/

You really need to take a moment here. I'm not a mod, just someone who actually knows this stuff.

Are you *seriously* claiming that there is NO biochemical similarity between mice and humans? If so, I suggest you read evolution, paying particular attention to the fact that mice and humans are 95% genetically identical.

LD50 is a mechanism of assessing the toxicity of a substance, period. Yes, it fails to account for other aspects, but at the broadest scale, it does provide a measure.

Your entire position is based on some personal axe you have to grind about the australian fauna, and a false understanding of what is being claimed.

LD50 measures toxicity of a substance, whether that's snake venom or pesticides or mercury. Actual danger does involve more complex interaction of factors, including chance of exposure, dosage upon exposure, and availability of medical countermeasures.

Now, listen very carefully: The only claims being made are about venom toxicity, NOT DANGER OF THE ANIMALS, and LD50 is, while imperfect, the best measure of toxicity. Mokele (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)