Ferangled

If you read it all it also says the driver may have fallen asleep so stop speculating yourself

Sorry, I just read the OP back and can't find any mention of the driver falling asleep, if there is reference to this please quote it. I guess there's also reference to him being drunk & on drugs...

As for telling me to stop speculating... I'm sorry about what exactly? That TV members have a habit of distorting the facts to bash Thais, whatever the thread? That's not speculation, that's fact. Read any thread on here and you'll find evidence of it yourself.

the initial reports state the police suspect that the driver fell asleep, this is speculation just as a burst tyre is speculation

RT @191Thailand: Spring News reporting that it was a bus owned by The Transport Co., Ltd. Police think the drive fell asleep at the wheel

What source is that from? The OP or a different news story? Having googled it the only hit I get is your comment on TV, although looking at RB's site he gives sleeping driver as the initial police speculation.

<<Inflammatory comments removed>>

Thanks to the bravery of the Democrat Party and the resourcefulness of the People's Alliance for Democracy, the Thai people (and all us wise and loyal farang) now know the truth behind "NASA's" request for a so-called climate study center at U-Tapao: it's a facility to control the weather and cause natural disasters, granted to the US so that they can give Thaksin a US visa. It would be equivalent to surrendering Thai sovereignty to the US, and allowing them to use Thai soil to wage war against their enemies.

Source: http://prachatai.com/english/node/3275

The editors at Prachatai are red-shirt cowards who refused to show the full evidence that the PAD revealed: that prototype weather control facilities have already been used to cause untold harm to China and other allies of Thailand.

Source: http://www.manager.c...D=9550000075998

When the Democrat Party allowed the US to use U-Tapao for Operation Enduring Freedom, at least that was visible to the public. But who knows what nasty secret plans the US has for this scary new super-weapon?

Christ, Im not sure if this is &lt;deleted&gt; or not.

I guess that's the reaction that the PAD were hoping for... throw enough mud, some of it's bound to stick.

If you read it all it also says the driver may have fallen asleep so stop speculating yourself

Sorry, I just read the OP back and can't find any mention of the driver falling asleep, if there is reference to this please quote it. I guess there's also reference to him being drunk & on drugs...

As for telling me to stop speculating... I'm sorry about what exactly? That TV members have a habit of distorting the facts to bash Thais, whatever the thread? That's not speculation, that's fact. Read any thread on here and you'll find evidence of it yourself.

My experience with Transport Co. buses has generally been very good. Like Nakhon Chai Air they operate modern VIP buses, with the 24 seaters being the best of the best I believe. While it is too early to be sure, it is possible that it was just bad luck, something on the road, or perhaps a faulty tire.

Either way, let's hope that pending the results of an investigation, Transport Co. as a professional outfit, will implement whatever changes are necessary to reduce the chances of this happening again.

Or maybe the driver fell asleep.

Or, maybe the driver had a heart attack.

Or, maybe the driver was drunk.

Or, maybe the driver was high.

Or, maybe the driver blacked out.

Or maybe a small pink alien jumped out in front of him and thumbed a lift... we could go on all day...

The report however clearly states "According to the initial investigation, the front right tire burst, causing the driver to lose control and the bus hit the electric pole at full speed."

Why the need for the excessive speculation all the time? We might as well argue that it wasn't a bus it was a jetski &lt;deleted&gt;. I guess anything that would distort the facts and give more leeway for some baseless Thai bashing eh?

Phl I thought we had covered this already. It's basic maths. 400 baht (the fare in this case) divided by 10 (you claim that this represents 10x the going rate) equals 40 baht.... fairly obvious really, as is the fact that you are lying/ exaggerating.

Erggg, you said its 50 baht for 2 km right? yes

they wanted to travel 1 km, so it should be 25 baht right? yes

you stated that they put a sign in the car or on the car that its extra 10 baht for each person right? yes

putting a sign on the car makes it official and law in your opinion right? yes

so lets take your version, 25baht+100=125, he was charged 400 right? yes

if he was alone, he would have been charged 300 right? yes

the rate is 25 for 1 km right? yes

so what is 25 out of 300? how much is the over charging? 12 times right? yes

But for the argument sake lets assume driver was in a good mood and charged only 200, that would still make it 8 times the rate, right? YES

You are clearly clutching at straws now... you dismiss the actual rate divided by 10 why?!

2 km, minimum fare. Go back and read the tariff list, don't just make stuff up!

He wasn't alone was he? What is the point in you adjusting the number of passengers and fare to suit your story?! It's childish and pointless. Do you ever visit reality?

The innacurracies in your post are so numerous I have to break it up into bits.

Tuk Tuks operate in Patong, tourist central. The rest of Phuket is served by Songthaew, Taxis, Motorbike Taxis and cheaper than Patong Tuk Tuks...

"Tuk Tuks operate in Patong, tourist central." False. Tuk tuks operate over the entire island and their extortionate prices are fairly uniform. And they do not offer a dual-pricing system for Thai's. Thai's simply don't use them anwhere on the island.

"The rest of Phuket is served by Songthaew," False. We have NO public songtaows here. Zero. We have baht buses that run from town to the beach until about 7pm. There are no baht buses connecting the beaches because the last time someone tried that, the tuk tuk mafia pulled the driver from his bus and beat him.

"The rest of Phuket is served by...Taxis," False. At least not by taxi's that are in any way affordable to the Thai's. There are un-metered airport taxi's which only deliver people from the airport to thier beach resort destination. The prices of these taxi's are 2 to 3 times the price of a Bangkok metered taxi, and they may ask for much, much more just in case you are stupid enough to pay it. Don't be surprised if the cost of your 20-30 minute taxi ride is more than your domestic flight. There are also metered taxi's at the airport but again they are only allowed to pick up customers at the airport. Thier prices are about 40% higher than Bangkok taxi's and thier aren't enough of them so customers are often required to wait several minutes for one to return. Both of these taxi's are not allowed to pick up customers outside the airport without risking violence from the tuktuk/taxi mafia, thus you are essentially paying for the round trip. The taxi's which are allowed to pickup outside the airport are members of the tuk tuk "co-op" (mafia) of the respective area they work. No meters, and prices are negotiated beforehand and priced same as the tuk tuks or more. These are not for Thai's either. If you don't know how far something is as most tourists don't, you will not know how much you should be paying. It's a system purely designed to be able to rip off tourists.

"The rest of Phuket is served by..."motorcycle taxi's" False. The tuk tuk mafia do not allow motosai taxis to operate in certain areas they control, all of Kata/Karon for example. They can only drop off customers from other areas. You will not find a single motosai taxi driver stationed anywhere in Kata/Karon, an area geographically much larger than Patong. And motosai taxi's don't come cheap either. A Thai friend of mine was charged 500B for a 25 minute motosai ride from Patong to Rawai a couple weeks ago. To answer your question, I can think of a few things things that are "cheaper than that."

You should come to Phuket sometime to see for yourself. It's a beautiful place. You clearly have never been here. Just don't use the tuk tuks.

Your post really made me smile. All these "False"... err... well yes actually you are right but... comments! Hilarious stuff! As for the Thai's being forced to buy their own motorbikes etc... comical truly comical! Don't let reality stand in the way of your ranting!!!

"Tuk Tuks operate in Patong, tourist central." False. Err actually they do, and as I pointed out they operate the rest of the island too but at less charge to Patong. You go on to confirm what I said!

"The rest of Phuket is served by Songthaew," False. Err actually we do have them here! Perhaps you should talk to my staff that travel to our office from Phuket town and back daily on one!

"The rest of Phuket is served by...Taxis," False. Err then you go on to say that actually yes we do have taxis here!

"The rest of Phuket is served by..."motorcycle taxi's" False. Then again you go onto concede that yes actually we do also have motorbike taxis!

I treat Thais with respect, talk to them in their own language and find I get much more favourable rates than tourists with a bad attitude. Same goes pretty much everywhere I've lived and worked.

Way to rant! I live in Phuket, have down for years by the way, just not in Patong

Phl I thought we had covered this already. It's basic maths. 400 baht (the fare in this case) divided by 10 (you claim that this represents 10x the going rate) equals 40 baht.... fairly obvious really, as is the fact that you are lying/ exaggerating.

Yes, there are 7 Thai people in this tuk tuk with plenty of room to spare, and there is room for 2 more in the cab. 6 in the back is absolutely not a squeeze. 8 normal sized adults can fit on the benches comfortably. It gets crowded after that for sure, and sometimes people even ride standing on the back. Weight will start being an issue, but that's 11 people total. You can fit more than that if there are kids or small adults. That's taking it to the extreme, but it very clearly can be done. This guy was with his family so it's very possible some of the 10 were children. If you read comment I was replying to, it was "A tuk tuk is a 3 wheeler and accommodates 3 to 4 passengers max." Clearly many people posting here that have never been to Phuket don't know what a Phuket Tuk Tuk is.

Here are some more pictures to help you with your spacial acuity problems.

Every photo you have posted shows quite clearly that 10 passengers can't fit safely into the back of a tuk tuk! The most in any of the posted photos show 7...and these are blatantly crammed in!

Photo 1 - 6 tiny Thai girls and a Thai man, clearly using up both benches... we could possibly squeeze another girl and a dog in there at best!

Photo 2 - 6 possibly 7 very slim young farang! Clearly no more people are fitting in this tuk tuk and these are not average sized farang!

Photo 3 - Appears to be 6 more average sized farang, again no way 10 will fit in... another 4 people in the back of this one, really?!

Photo 4 - Appears to have 2 passengers in the back and a drunk farang showing off on back... not sure what this proves, farang trully can act stupidly on holiday? Certainly not that 10 people can fit into a tuk tuk...

Photo 5 - Again 2 or 3 passengers in the back with a guy hanging off the back...

Surely if you are trying to prove that 10 passengers fit comfortably into the back of a tuk tuk you would post photos showing this common feat of ... I suggest you can't because it isn't normal, it's taking the p!$$! I

'm quite sure you could fit 10 people in if you really tried but it would be unsafe, uncomfortable and certainly not a normal occurrence. I think an extra 100 baht is quite reasonable for attempting some sort of Guiness World record number of Egyptians in a tuk tuk experiment...

During the high season I sit in front of a tuk tuk station in Karon while having a cold beverage with mates. It's really not uncommon to see 3 couples and their kids (4-6) get in a tuk tuk, including buggies quite often. So I'm not sure what you're on about, but I witness this first hand on a daily basis during high season.

Are these couples pygmies? Would love to see a photo of 6 adults + 6 children + buggies in a normal tuk tuk.

While I don't sit in front of the tuk tuk station in Karon regularly I have been living here a long time and don't commonly see 10 people riding in the back of tuk tuks. I'm sure it's possible but wouldn't begrudge a driver an extra 10 baht per passenger for overloading his vehicle...

Yes, there are 7 Thai people in this tuk tuk with plenty of room to spare, and there is room for 2 more in the cab. 6 in the back is absolutely not a squeeze. 8 normal sized adults can fit on the benches comfortably. It gets crowded after that for sure, and sometimes people even ride standing on the back. Weight will start being an issue, but that's 11 people total. You can fit more than that if there are kids or small adults. That's taking it to the extreme, but it very clearly can be done. This guy was with his family so it's very possible some of the 10 were children. If you read comment I was replying to, it was "A tuk tuk is a 3 wheeler and accommodates 3 to 4 passengers max." Clearly many people posting here that have never been to Phuket don't know what a Phuket Tuk Tuk is.

Here are some more pictures to help you with your spacial acuity problems.

Every photo you have posted shows quite clearly that 10 passengers can't fit safely into the back of a tuk tuk! The most in any of the posted photos show 7...and these are blatantly crammed in!

Photo 1 - 6 tiny Thai girls and a Thai man, clearly using up both benches... we could possibly squeeze another girl and a dog in there at best!

Photo 2 - 6 possibly 7 very slim young farang! Clearly no more people are fitting in this tuk tuk and these are not average sized farang!

Photo 3 - Appears to be 6 more average sized farang, again no way 10 will fit in... another 4 people in the back of this one, really?!

Photo 4 - Appears to have 2 passengers in the back and a drunk farang showing off on back... not sure what this proves, farang trully can act stupidly on holiday? Certainly not that 10 people can fit into a tuk tuk...

Photo 5 - Again 2 or 3 passengers in the back with a guy hanging off the back...

Surely if you are trying to prove that 10 passengers fit comfortably into the back of a tuk tuk you would post photos showing this common feat of ... I suggest you can't because it isn't normal, it's taking the p!$$! I

'm quite sure you could fit 10 people in if you really tried but it would be unsafe, uncomfortable and certainly not a normal occurrence. I think an extra 100 baht is quite reasonable for attempting some sort of Guiness World record number of Egyptians in a tuk tuk experiment...

This seems like a completely fair outcome. The Egyptian was being a jerk. He didn't deserve to be punched, but it does seem that he provoked the incident. I don't understand why so many people in this forum continue to stay in Thailand when they seem to hate everything about it.

I do not hate Thailand, but i do hate Phuket Tuk Tuks so i do not live in Phuket

And how do you arrive at conclusion that people hate Thailand when they do not agree with Tuk Tuk behavior in Phuket?

tuk tuks are obviously a pivotal part of your life... to the extent that you decide where you live based on where has the cheapest tuk tuks?!

Wow, I've been living in Phuket for years and must have used a tuk tuk about 10 times, never had an issue, always used as a convenience transport when pissed in Patong.. a rare occurrence given that I detest the place and the people it attracts.

I find if you actually live somewhere there's no alternative to buying yourself your own set of wheels... and outside of Patong, I rarely even see tuk tuks on Phuket!

what on earth is the point of using a TUK TUK anyway?

They have no meters, are over priced, are hardly faster than a taxi

&lt;deleted&gt; just stop using them and get a cab, or if 10 persons wanted to go 1km (x2 Cabs) it would still be less than 400 baht!!!

Welcome to Thailand, Phuket does not have have cabs, not does Pattaya.

Well, Pattaya does have a few, though they NEVER use a meter and ALWAYS charge crazy rates

Quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Roughly half of the posters on this thread seem to have absolutely no knowledge of Phuket whatsoever, why even post if you know you are talking BS?

Yes, Phuket does have cabs, motorbike taxis, songthaew and tuk tuks. Tuk Tuks are the most expensive way to travel out of these 4 options. Other methods of transport include driving yourself in whatever vehicle you fancy renting/buying, using your legs and my favourite, bicycle power...

A tuk tuk is a 3 wheeler and accomadates 3 to 4 passengers max. Amazingly, the driver accepted 6.

Even more amazing though is, that the Egyptians managed 10 people into it. Love to see a pic of that

The fare of 40 Baht/person is ridiculous of course.

No. A Phuket tuk tuk is a small truck. You can fit 10 people in it, especially if some are children as it appears may have been the case here, and one or two ride in the cab.

I was hoping someone was awake, Patong doesn't have 3 wheeled tuk tuks like the rest of the country.

Only these imported Japanese Daihatsu Hijets. They seat 6 adults at a squeeze but only have 600CC of grunt.

Everyone calls them Tuk Tuk anyway.....Great photo.

Wrong. Totally disagree. That's the 7 you see on the near side, there's 7 on the other side + 2 in the front if the driver chooses to kick his Mia noi out and make her wait, probably to hook a john for a cheap trick, until he gets back to the rank.

They have boosted the output up to 660 cc so they aint no slouch down a 1 in 2 slope. Around Patong, flat country, licence to print money.

That's why I believe the going rate to buy one of these shit boxes with yellow plate second-hand is around 1.2 million Baht

In reply to poster #61 Philip Cook

" Limit the number of passengers to the number of approved seatbelts with seats on the vehicle. "

Must be joking. You obviously dont live in Phuket. I defy you to find a seat belt in any public service passenger vehicle except for the driver and in exceptional cases, the front seat passenger.

" Ladies and gentleman, I hope you have enjoyed your journey with us today, survivors to the left, walking wounded to the right. Those in bodybags please remain prone until assisted by an attendant. "

You're a bit mixed up aren't you?

You start your post by claiming that the driver's out of order for not squeezing in 18 passengers, then finish by making a point that they are dangerous as they don't require all passengers to wear seatbelts?!!!

Which is it? Seatbelts or maximum passengers, with seatbelts there's no way you could have more than 3 each side, 6 passengers total... you strike me as someone that will moan either way.

A tuk tuk is a 3 wheeler and accomadates 3 to 4 passengers max. Amazingly, the driver accepted 6.

Even more amazing though is, that the Egyptians managed 10 people into it. Love to see a pic of that

The fare of 40 Baht/person is ridiculous of course.

No. A Phuket tuk tuk is a small truck. You can fit 10 people in it, especially if some are children as it appears may have been the case here, and one or two ride in the cab. Because tuk tuks are controlled by mafia, prices are set 3 to 10 times what they are elsewhere in Thailand. They are priced specifically for the tourists. Phuket is the only place in Thailand where this occurs. Local people have no affordable way to get around the island.

Way to prove a point; a picture of a tuk tuk crammed with 7 tiny Thai girls! Try fitting 10 normal size people in there... 6 is a squeeze.

In Phuket prices are generally higher than the rest of Thailand, why? Because the cost of living is much higher here. Any given Tul Tuk driver will be paying 2/3 times more rent than the equivalent driver in Bangkok, increased food prices etc.

They don't do the job for the love of driving drunken farang around Phuket's version of sin city, they do it to pay their bills and support their family.

As for local people not having an affordable way to get around the island, that's complete tosh. Most use motorbikes - what comes cheaper than that? Tuk Tuks operate in Patong, tourist central. The rest of Phuket is served by Songthaew, Taxis, Motorbike Taxis and cheaper than Patong Tuk Tuks...

10 more happy tourists. Keep up the good work.

Sorry, I don't agree. The deal was 6 tourists for 300bt. That's 50bt per tourist.

The tuk-tuk driver can count to 10, so can I.

He only wanted an extra 100bt for the other 4 tourists. That's a great discount. The Egyptian should have been ecstatic.

But no, the 10 rich tourists had to try and scam the tuk-tuk driver, didn't they!

For what? 100bt .... that's three freakin' dollars .... for heaven's sake!

Was it worth it for $3? They've probably spent $15,000 between the 10 of them for this holiday ... and they're making a fuss over $3.

I am THOROUGHLY SICK AND TIRED of this sort of attitude from foreigners towards Thai workers.

Wake up .... the lot of you!

I'm usually charged 70-100bt. I always tip a tuk-tuk driver a 20. I always tip a taxi driver a 50. For a buck or two, we both walk away with a smile.

We all tip in the US, UK, or Australia ... but when we get to Bangkok, rich tourists suddenly turn into misers, scrouges, and whingers.

Where is that tuk-tuk driver? I'll pay his fine - for the moral wrong - and shout him and his family dinner for standing up for himself!

3 cheers

There is no fare under 300 baht in Phuket. To move the tuktuk, it is 300baht. Thats 6 GBP, 7.3 Euro, 9 USD. If you are trying to tell me thats OK to move 500m up the road, well you need to come here and see how you feel after 2 weeks of these <unts. I am living in Patong 9 yrs and I have watched the fare go from 50-80 negotiable, to 300 non negotiable, and these <unts are becoming increasingly violent.

Futher, tourists have no options for transport. None, diddly squat, zero, except the one bus route that goes to Phuket town.

Apart from motorbike taxis, normal, taxis, rental bikes and rental cars... actually they have quite a few options! If however drunkenly frolicking around Patong is the sole aim of your holiday/ life, most choose the tuk tuks as they are the most convenient, and for most £6 doesn't constitute an excessive charge for 6 people... what does that equate to per passenger, the maths is quite taxing for this time in the morning, a princely sum of £1 per passenger. Wow, shock horror, extortionate!

It is probably a "SONGTHAEW" (สองแถว) (small van), not a tuk tuk, as that is what is normally is used in Phuket.

What .... it's a Tuk Tuk all over Phuket. NOT a Songthaew. Have you ever been to Phuket ???

To be fair there are Songthaew in Phuket, just not operating in Patong for the local in town fares... that's strictly the realm of the tuk tuks.

It is probably a "SONGTHAEW" (สองแถว) (small van), not a tuk tuk, as that is what is normally is used in Phuket.

Not in Patong they're not. They're regular small tuk-tuks in the town, Songthaew's operate the local bus routes etc.

The driver probably specifically asked how many and agreed on 6 in advance having clocked a large crowd of Egyptians. I don't think I've ever had to agree how many passengers prior to a journey, 6 would be a squeeze on the best of days.

While I'm sure the Tut Tut driver shouldn't have hit the guy, I don't think the Egyptian should have agreed a fare for 6 passengers and then tried to cram 10 people in. It's clearly taking the p*$$ in any country and most western taxis would have refused the fare altogether (minibus drivers aside). To then get into a heated argument because the driver asked for another 100 baht, to the point of violence, seems ridiculous.

300-400 baht? Yes it's a short distance but this is Patong, the crazy one way system will force the driver back around the town, taking him another 2-3 km before he gets back to gain a position for another fare, probably having to get in line with the 100s of other Tut Tut drivers in the area before he stands a chance of picking one up. I imagine the guy had already had a skin full of the not exactly "model" tourists that Patong attracts and this Egyptian guy just pushed him over the edge...

The sentence is in line with what you'd expect for a first time offence in the UK... ABH charge, minor injuries, 1 or 2 years suspended sentence and a small fine, maybe £250-500.

I don't know why there's so much negative response to this, the BiB/ Thai legal system seems to be damned if they do, damned if they don't on here!

"So what happens if it's not diluted and sprayed in concentrated form all over a hotel room prior to a guests arrival?

I'm not suggesting that this is the cause but I wouldn't dismiss it without evidence..."

The lethal concentration fifty, or LC50, is that concentration of a chemical in air or water that kills half of the experimental animals exposed to it for a set time period. The 4-hour inhalation LC50 for chlorpyrifos in rats is greater than 200 mg/m3

I personally think the older couple may be a red herring in the cases.

http://www.scotsman...._time_1_1988732

http://news.oneindia...1207814565.html

http://www.hutchnews...News/coupleeefm

http://www.thedailyb...le-suicide.html

http://www.wane.com/...es-2-days-apart

I was starting to follow your logic with the examples of coincidental multiple heart attacks but you lost me with the Beverly Hills double gunshot suicide...

If someone consumed enough to kill themselves they would surely know about it!

Exactly! The only cases of fatal chlorpyrifos poisoning, that I have been able to find, were from deliberate suicides.

Please see above. That's the first case of death that I've come across in my somewhat limited research of the subject over the last few hours...

The organophosphate insecticides are cholinesterase inhibitors which may be absorbed through all routes of exposure. When toxic amounts are inhaled, the first effects are usually respiratory and may include bloody or runny nose, coughing, chest discomfort, difficult or short breath, and wheezing due to constriction or excess fluid in the bronchial tubes. Skin contact with organophosphates may cause localized sweating and involuntary muscle contractions. Eye contact may cause pain, bleeding, tears, pupil constriction, and blurred vision. Following exposure by any route, other systemic effects may begin within a few minutes or be delayed for up to 12 hours. These may include pallor, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, headache, dizziness, eye pain, blurred vision, constriction or dilation of the eye pupils, tears, salivation, sweating, and confusion. Severe poisoning will affect the central nervous system, producing incoordination, slurred speech, loss of reflexes, weakness, fatigue, involuntary muscle contractions, twitching, tremors of the tongue or eyelids, and eventually paralysis of the body extremities and the respiratory muscles. In severe cases there may also be involuntary defecation or urination, psychosis, irregular heart beats, unconsciousness, convulsions and coma. Death may be caused by respiratory failure or cardiac arrest.

Now I'm no Quincy but this seems like pretty nasty and potentially lethal stuff.

Did anyone say that the 7 people that died in the Down Town had been drinking pesticides? Because they would have needed to do that to get these symptoms. The guys spraying this stuff do it every day and don't die, its in a lot the fruit and veg in America and depending where you live it could be in up to 50% of peoples bodies.

Did they? I don't know, I certainly haven't. I think it's misleading to suggest that you'd have to drink pesticide to get those symptoms. From what I've read the most likely mode of exposure to chlorpyrifos is through the skin...

As for "the guys spraying this stuff do it everyday and don't die" I don't see how you can make that assertion given what I've been reading about the stuff...

All the studies I have read related to

have fairly inconclusive findings...

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17450220

What is clear is that whether ingested orally or inhaled or through contact with the skin, a high enough dosage can be lethal. In light of earlier posts regarding inaccuracy in preparation of chemical treatments, I thought this was quite relevant:

"Chlorpyrifos is normally supplied as a 23.5% or 50% liquid concentrate. The recommended concentration for direct-spray pin point application is 0.5% and for wide area application a 0.03 – 0.12% mix is recommended "

So what happens if it's not diluted and sprayed in concentrated form all over a hotel room prior to a guests arrival?

I'm not suggesting that this is the cause but I wouldn't dismiss it without evidence...

If someone consumed enough to kill themselves they would surely know about it!

Exactly! The only cases of fatal chlorpyrifos poisoning, that I have been able to find, were from deliberate suicides.

Please see above. That's the first case of death that I've come across in my somewhat limited research of the subject over the last few hours...

The organophosphate insecticides are cholinesterase inhibitors which may be absorbed through all routes of exposure. When toxic amounts are inhaled, the first effects are usually respiratory and may include bloody or runny nose, coughing, chest discomfort, difficult or short breath, and wheezing due to constriction or excess fluid in the bronchial tubes. Skin contact with organophosphates may cause localized sweating and involuntary muscle contractions. Eye contact may cause pain, bleeding, tears, pupil constriction, and blurred vision. Following exposure by any route, other systemic effects may begin within a few minutes or be delayed for up to 12 hours. These may include pallor, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, headache, dizziness, eye pain, blurred vision, constriction or dilation of the eye pupils, tears, salivation, sweating, and confusion. Severe poisoning will affect the central nervous system, producing incoordination, slurred speech, loss of reflexes, weakness, fatigue, involuntary muscle contractions, twitching, tremors of the tongue or eyelids, and eventually paralysis of the body extremities and the respiratory muscles. In severe cases there may also be involuntary defecation or urination, psychosis, irregular heart beats, unconsciousness, convulsions and coma. Death may be caused by respiratory failure or cardiac arrest.

Now I'm no Quincy but this seems like pretty nasty and potentially lethal stuff.

If a human were to ingest 0.25Kg of chlorpyrifos over a 2 year period they wouldn't get sick or get cancer.

Its dangerous effects are all due to long term exposure of workers using it or someone deliberately ingesting a high dose at one time.

http://pmep.cce.corn...yrifos-ext.html

In humans, chlorpyrifos and its principal metabolites are eliminated relatively rapidly following a single dose. It is readily absorbed into the bloodstream through the gastrointestinal tract if it is ingested, through the lungs if it is inhaled, or through the skin if there is dermal exposure.

After a single oral dose, its half-life in the blood appears to be about one day. Chlorpyrifos was found in its original form in the blood, brain and liver of a 61-year old man who lived only one day after accidentally eating this material.

So ingesting enough to kill quickly in a single dose is possible.

As far as getting cancer, either through a single or prolonged dosage, the report also states it's not carcinogenic although what relevance that has to this case I don't know...

I'm not suggesting this is the cause, just replying with relevant info to the above post.

If someone consumed enough to kill themselves they would surely know about it!

Well apparently that 61 year old man in the article ate it accidentally... not sure what he thought it was though, looks like the case is discussed in more detail in the book "Pesticides studied in man"...

What is apparent reading through the article, is that even the scientists don't seem to know the limitations of this substance...note the use of "may", "expected" etc They are very careful to not make any leading statements of fact.

Aquatic and general agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos may be extremely poisonous to wildlife and honeybees. Treated areas should not be used for grazing, nor should the chemical be used when bees are actively collecting pollen or nectar. Studies indicate that with continuous exposure over time, chlorpyrifos may accumulate to toxic levels in test animals.

While one study did not detect any negative effect to nontarget insects when chlorpyrifos was applied to rice fields at 0.01 to 0.02 kilogram per hectare (kg/ha), another study reported that practically all nontarget insects died after a similar application.

Blimey you've chanced your luck - long may it continue. I'm intrigued to know what your secret is. Do you A) Dress as Superman Are a Steven Seagal double or C) Carry a lucky rabbit's foot.

I would guess that none of those are his 'secret'. Thailand's just not that dangerous and the odds of anything really bad happening to you are just as low as anywhere else.

How can a person talk about odds without using numbers? That is incredible.

Nobody here KNOWS for certain if it is more or less dangerous in Thailand for a particular person than it is somewhere else for the same person. But, it would be great, at least, to have some (reasonably trustworthy) numbers on which to base our discussion.

Nobody anywhere knows if it is more or less dangerous in Thailand, as opposed to other countries, for a particular person. That information would be impossible to obtain.

We can see international trends by looking at national crime statistics for each country or related tourist specific statistics of different nationalities. I posted some earlier showing Thailand in the top ten for British tourist deaths annually... others since pointed out that due to the number of expats living here on tourist visas these are vastly inflated by natural deaths (lots of old Brits living in Thailand)...

The problem with all statistics is that they vary greatly from source to source and usually their is some agenda behind what the statistics are being compiled for in the first place. Generally whenever favourable statistics are shown in regard to Thailand, many will say they are inaccurate anyway...

What we can be sure of is that certain people/ attitudes are more likely to fall victim to others, no matter where they travel, and certain attitudes are more likely than others to cause confrontation in Thailand.

Given the circumstantial evidence, cholopryofos does seem a likely cause in the case of the Chiang Mai deaths, although fairly large amounts are usually required to be fatal, ....

The only thing pointing to chlorpyrifos was "doctor" McDowall. He went to the media with his "theory" and the news team ran with it. From that point on, even though New Zealand's top toxicologist said that fatal chlorpyrifos exposure was all but impossible, all other causes were all but ignored.

In the end, the Thai report, which is not the same thing as "the international findings", told everyone what they wanted to hear, without directly blaming anyone. As far as I know, the actual "international findings" were never released.

BTW, "doctor" McDowall is a PhD in engineering, not an MD, toxicologist, or pathologist.

Well said!. Actually he is an "eco warrior" waste dump disposal guy.

If a human were to ingest 0.25Kg of chlorpyrifos over a 2 year period they wouldn't get sick or get cancer.

Its dangerous effects are all due to long term exposure of workers using it or someone deliberately ingesting a high dose at one time.

http://pmep.cce.corn...yrifos-ext.html

In humans, chlorpyrifos and its principal metabolites are eliminated relatively rapidly following a single dose. It is readily absorbed into the bloodstream through the gastrointestinal tract if it is ingested, through the lungs if it is inhaled, or through the skin if there is dermal exposure.

After a single oral dose, its half-life in the blood appears to be about one day. Chlorpyrifos was found in its original form in the blood, brain and liver of a 61-year old man who lived only one day after accidentally eating this material.

So ingesting enough to kill quickly in a single dose is possible.

As far as getting cancer, either through a single or prolonged dosage, the report also states it's not carcinogenic although what relevance that has to this case I don't know...

I'm not suggesting this is the cause, just replying with relevant info to the above post.

My ideal solution ( from a strictly personal perspective of course) for me to sit in immi and just say "yes" or "no" to the officer in charge as the applicants file past me based on a completely arbitrary system that only I know. The only reason I'd give would be " I don't like the look of him"

no under 25s unless accompanied by an over 40 would be my solution , ....cant see anything like this being introduced but im sure it would be benificial to LOS , so many of these younger guys think they are in ibiza or majorca , i wish they would stay there until they learn something from the "school of life" and show some respect , i know thailand is going down hill and the last thing this country needs is idiots like this making the place look more dangerous than it is , please .............just STAY AWAY !

I've read similar comments from many an old perv on here, moaning that all the good looking BGs won't "go with" an elderly gent any more because they have so many younger and more attractive options. How age is at all relevant to this thread I don't know... clearly the young are not inherently stupid and the elderly are not inherently better behaved, in fact taking farang in Thailand the opposite seems to be true.

Personally I don't think the younger generations are the ones that have given farang a bad name here - most come here to party, go directly to party locations (Phang Ngan, Phi Phi, Samui etc) and leave their elder counterparts to support half of Isaan through prostitution while they pick up attractive young girls from across the globe and do so without making payments for the family water buffalo...

There has never been an old pervert complain on Thai Visa about anything except not enough time to handle all the available women in Thailand. I repeat you have never read anything written by an old man in Thailand on this forum complaining about the availability of Bar Girls.

Sorry KerryK, I realise I've hit a bit of a nerve here...

I was trying to find one of these posts I had read, I thought it was in the April Fool's thread, where the notion of over 50s not being able to marry Thais sent some of the more elderly members apoplectic with rage, when I came across the pages of posts you have on the subject in "Relation Problems And Fishing In The Wrong Pool!".

Age and bar-girls are obviously quite sensitive subjects for you!

It becomes obvious reading your comments that your relationships with women revolve around financial motivation and you see that as a positive thing. You even argue, in some depth, that your financial status is something that makes you more "attractive" to the opposite sex as opposed to a younger, physically more attractive man... I won't go into details, it all became a bit nauseating.

Unfortunately you seem to miss the whole point that women "attracted" by money are "working" to a different agenda than women who are looking for a bit of fun & sexual gratification with a physically attractive and able partner.

I'm not overly surprised that you don't appreciate my suggestion that rather than blaming the younger generations of farang coming to Thailand, I think the elderly "ATM" type farang have a lot to answer for the image of farang in this respect...

Given your stance on this there seems little point in us trying to debate it, we are at polar opposites here.

Given the circumstantial evidence, cholopryofos does seem a likely cause in the case of the Chiang Mai deaths, although fairly large amounts are usually required to be fatal, but do the symptoms of the Canadian girls point to this? I am not an expert but I am not sure that even large amounts of it would cause symptoms such as bleeding under the finger nails. There is quite a bit of literature on it from the US where Dow Chemicals used to market it for domestic use but was eventually forced to stop in most states. I think most of the deaths linked to it in the US were vulnerable people like children or the elderly who had an extreme sensitivity but then the Thai sprayers may use a more concentrated form and spray it more liberally than was done in the US where spraying on bedding was always contraindicated. I researched this after getting sick from exposure to the chemical myself. And, yes, the Thai workers who sprayed it wore only cheap masks like the ones Thai traffic police wear that just make them hot without keeping micro particles out of their lungs. The spraying company, an Australian franchise, didn't want to disclose what chemical they used at first to control ticks but with a little pressing they did. It was extremely effective in eradicating the ticks which had killed one of my dogs.

Back to the topic. Wouldn't the bleeding symptoms be more consistent with an ingested poison like arsenic?

In an effort to combat ticks, which were repeatedly preying on our poor mutt and seemed to have taken up residence in the cracks around our door/ window frames, we called in the sprayers.... big mistake. I don't know what chemicals they used but they managed to kill every living thing in the garden; frogs, birds, fish etc. Fortunately the family, dog and I left the house for a few days... They didn't even manage to get all the ticks but wiped out all my Koi and we didn't see so much as a Gecko in the garden for over a week!

It really wouldn't surprise me if these deaths were a result of either a "home chemical mix" pesticide or simply incorrect mixing and applying of some sort of pesticide/ treatement... I know many Thais that prefer to mix up their own secret recipe for pesticides to save money and confusion in following instructions are common place here...

I was prescribed liquid antibiotics for our son when very young, and contrary to the dilution mix described on the actual instructions (I believe it was 1:50 with water) the doctor scrawled 1:5 on the packet. Frequently advised of incorrect dosages, 3 a day, morning, noon and night and on further reading it's a one before bed recommended dosage etc

Talking to friends many have experienced similar cock ups here with prescribed medication; one who's son had to have his stomach pumped due to following the doctors instructions but it turned out he'd been given adult dosages for a 3 year old.

If trained doctors are capable of making these potentially fatal mistakes I find it highly believable that hotel housekeepers/ pesticide contractors could have made similar mistakes leading to these fatalities.