Horn, John wrote: >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> >> I definately agree, but suggest that spiders should be treated with >> caution in every case. Rattlesnakes tend to run from you also, but >> I >> wouldn't suggest to anyone that they are mostly harmless.<G> But >> that >> is the gist of Snopes BR article. > > No, definitely not mostly harmless. I'll have to double-check that > article on Snopes. Usually I swear by that site. > > I treat all spiders with caution until I can identify if they are a > recluse or not. Actually, I haven't seen a confirmed brown recluse > in our newest house. I'm sure they are there somewhere but we > haven't actually seen one. (We have black widows in Missouri but I > have yet to see one. I did see one a LONG time ago back in New > Jersey but that was it.) > http://www.snopes.com/photos/bugs/brownrecluse.asp
This is the portion I disagree with: (The article is basically OK til this point) "In fact, just about the greatest danger of a bite of this nature is not the direct effects of the venom, but rather the introduction of secondary bacterial infection due to the patient's continually scratching the site (spider bites can itch terribly!) or otherwise failing to keep the wound clean. If these photographs truly depict the effects of a brown recluse spider bite, they represent a very rare occurrence. Quite possibly they are genuine photographs of some completely different medical ailment (unrelated to spider bites) with similar physical symptoms (such as pyoderma gangrenosum or necrotizing fasciitis), and someone who came across the pictures outside of their original context mistakenly assumed them to depict the effects of a brown recluse spider bite. " Then compare that to this page elsewhere on the Snopes site: http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/longlegs.htm "In the pantheon of venomous animals, the box jellyfish is a particularly bad creature for humans to encounter. With the realm of venomous spiders, the funnel web spider or the brown recluse spider are among the most dangerous to people. " Now it very well could just be me, but I read the first article as downplaying the danger of a Brown Recluse bite and the second article playing it up. I see logical inconsistancies in the first article alone. If the spiders bite is not the cause of the shown necrosis (And in the specific pictures shown they may be correct, my problem is with the way the information is presented) then why do poison ivy, oak, and sumac rashes not become necrotic with the same frequency as BRS bites? After all....."just about the greatest danger of a bite of this nature is not the direct effects of the venom, but rather the introduction of secondary bacterial infection due to the patient's continually scratching the site "...the incidence of necrotism in BRS bites is due to scratching and people scratch rashes a lot more often than they scratch spider bites. Unless.......necrotizing bacteria only show their faces when someone has been bitten by a spider.......a Brown Recluse spider. Now the point of the page is that the source of the condition shown in the pictures is indeterminate, and I agree with that. But I find the information about Brown Recluse spiders in the article to be misleading and could potentially lead some unsuspecting person to greater harm than necessary. I too like the Snopes site and I like it a lot. But they are not infallible and they are very hardheaded over there. xponent Better Text Please Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
