12-11-2006, 05:39 AM
Papa Spot Wrote:Okay, it's fixed. It no longer says that.
Remember that Wikipedia is written by readers. In other words, the person who wrote that article was probably the night clerk at the Git-N-Go who fancies himself a herpetologist. I only corrected a couple of the most stupid errors; I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. All you have to do is take a look at the glaring inconsistencies in the article to know that the writer doesn't have a clue. The writer claims (well, CLAIMED before I edited him or her) that rattlesnake bites usually result in death. Then he goes on to admit that, of the average 8,000 people bitten in the U.S. yearly, only about fifteen die. He claimed that the use of anti-venom reduces the number of deaths to about four percent. Do the math. Fifteen is less than 2/10 of 1 percent of 8,000. And 2/10 of 1 percent is a LONG WAY from being "usually fatal." (Two-tenths of one percent means that, for every 1,000 people bitten, two of them die. The FLU has a lot higher mortality rate than THAT.)
Now here's some more math. If a single bite from a Fierce snake (a.k.a. Inland Tiapan) is toxic enough to kill 100 human beings yet only two people out of every one thousand die from a rattlesnake bite, is it realistic to say that the rattlesnake is "one of the most deadly snakes in the world"? In my view, it doesn't even come close.
While I think Wikipedia can be fun it's value as a source is pretty limited. Like I said, ANYONE can write, edit or completely rewrite any article there.
I'll have to check out the article now
I'll have to find a snake book and see which snake is the most deadly!!!!!!
Rattlers probably aren't as deadly as a black widow spider, right?
~ FFW