Researcher sounds alarm over herbicide in disease-ravaged Nong Bua Lamphu

[Russell17au]

4 hours ago, HerbalEd said:

It's so amazingly stupid to spread billions of gallons of toxic/poisonous agricultural chemicals on the earth for 70-plus decades -- and then wonder why the earth and it's animals and plants are dying off. Oh well.

If you are going to quote numbers then at least make them realistic and not exaggerate like a lot of greenie organizations do. 70-plus decades (700-plus years) what a pathetic exaggeration.

Sorry but your post is an absolute load of BS

[Russell17au]

13 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

To be fair, your understanding of the article is also highly suspect:
 

 

Yes, that's right "An exposure to Paraquat can cause burns, wounds and blisters. "

 

From your quote about how the disease gets started:

 

 

 

Parquat does not CAUSE the disease it only allows an access point for the bacteria to enter the body the same way that any wound will do. Any blister, any cut, any abrasion including recent surgery will allow the bacteria to enter the body, so do we ban anything that causes a cut, burn, blister, abrasion and surgery.

[Russell17au]

"Last year, at least 102 people in Nong Bua Lamphu came down with Necrotising fasciitis, a flesh-eating disease. Six of them died from the disease. 

“Although our findings cannot yet confirm the link between the disease and Paraquat, we have found this a cause for concern,” Puangrat said."

Firstly Necrotising fasciitis is a flesh eating bacteria

Maybe just maybe there is no link between Paraquat and Necrotising fasciitis. What is her cause of concern? Maybe there is no link except that Paraquat causes blisters, and open wounds that would allow the flesh eating bacteria to be able to enter the body.

She cannot even give the accurate figures for last year. "at least 102 people infected by the bacteria of which 6 died. Why did the others not die? How did they become infected with the bacteria? What were they doing at the time they got infected? Where were they when they got infected? How long did it take for the symptoms to show? What other chemicals were the "at least 102" using at the time of infection?

To me her research is questionable as she cannot produce any facts that Paraquat is linked to the bacteria. I believe that the bacteria is already in the ground and that even a trip and take some skin off your arm can allow the bacteria to enter the body.

It is possible that a combination of various herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers have created this bacteria by changing the chemical composition of the dirt on the farms.

Has she done any research into that?

This woman has lost a lot of her credibility by releasing anything to the media that she cannot supply the supporting documents and tests.

I am not a believer in using chemicals on foodstuff whether it be pesticide, herbicide or chemical fertilizers, I prefer good natural grown foods

[owl sees all]

7 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Roundup and paraquat/gramoxobe are two totally different chemicals and used in different applications. One kills plants on contact and the other stops chlorophyll production and the plant sure over time. I use roundup/glysophate quite often. 

Yes!! Me too on occasions. Not in recent years though.

 

I was just pointing out that the fore-runner  to 'round up', Agent Orange, was dumped big time around Udon Thani, And we are talking 100s thousands if not millions of litres.

 

Round up and Paraquat have been consistently refined down the decades. Both still poison.

[JungleBiker]

23 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

These morons must think it's like adding sugar to their Thai tea. If a tablespoon tastes good, then adding a whole cup-ful must be even better.

 

Just hope the veggies in your local supermarket aren't coming from these farmers. And hope is really all you can do, because the government sure as heck isn't doing anything to prevent this kind of pesticide misuse/abuse or anything about the tainted produce that is harvested.

 

Google Thailand Pesticide Alert Network 64% of veggies 'unsafe' due to pesticides

[Jonmarleesco]

On 3/3/2018 at 7:01 AM, rooster59 said:

She added that her team had found that farmers often used concentrations of the chemical that were four to eight times greater than what was recommended on labels. 

 

Puangrat said she hoped relevant agencies would act quickly to address the problem, because farmers generally started using chemicals at their farms beginning in April. 

Quickly? Address the problem? The only thing that will address the problem is consumers refusing to buy the stuff. And for that, they need to know what food items are paraquat-infected. And I doubt that will be forthcoming very quickly, if at all. After all, gotta protect the farmers from the consequences of their own ignorance, no matter what. Even where that ignorance is a danger to everyone else's health.

[Air Smiles]

1 minute ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Quickly? Address the problem? The only thing that will address the problem is consumers refusing to buy the stuff. And for that, they need to know what food items are paraquat-infected. And I doubt that will be forthcoming very quickly, if at all. After all, gotta protect the farmers from the consequences of their own ignorance, no matter what. Even where that ignorance is a danger to everyone else's health.

Who is really to blame, the low education, developing country, farmers or the agrochemical corporations that exploit them?

[sambum]

15 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

Who is really to blame, the low education, developing country, farmers or the agrochemical corporations that exploit them?

Yes!

[Air Smiles]

6 hours ago, Russell17au said:

Parquat does not CAUSE the disease it only allows an access point for the bacteria to enter the body the same way that any wound will do. Any blister, any cut, any abrasion including recent surgery will allow the bacteria to enter the body, so do we ban anything that causes a cut, burn, blister, abrasion and surgery.

 

Your logic is a bit like saying 'it's not the HIV that kills, its the viruses that are attacking the depleted immune system that kills' while this might be technically true, it's not very helpful or relevant, in fact it might lead some to think that HIV is harmless.  Just like your post which seems to say we don't have to worry about banning dangerous chemicals damaging our skin, because our skin can be damaged in other ways, and you even give the ridiculous suggestion that if we ban dangerous chemicals we must also ban surgery lol, are you really so dense as to not be able to make the distinction?

 

Forgive me if I'm slightly doubtful of the fact that you have investigated(from your chair) this issue thoroughly to the point where you can make the claim "Parquat does not CAUSE the disease" with any degree of rational certainty.  For e.g. if it could be shown(meeting all relevant controls) that instances of the disease were at normal levels in areas where Parquat was not used then it could be scientifically concluded that Parquat does indeed cause the disease.

 

 

[OmarZaid]

On 3/3/2018 at 4:31 PM, Yann55 said:

 

Such is life ?

 

I'd say such is a world where corporations like Monsanto (biotechnologies) have a turnover that's bigger than countries such as Iceland, Guinea, Rwanda, Kirghiztan or Mongolia... And Monsanto, giant that it is,  is 'only' 1/3rd of Nestlé (agri-food industry) and 1/7th of BASF (chemicals, approx 100 billion dollars pr year).

 

I strongly recommend reading Noam Chomsky's book "Who Rules the World?" .... and the answer is not life.

 

 

Agreed ... understood and acknowledged ... still, that's life until governments, scientists, doctors and judicial branches all do their jobs without monetized mindsets and corporate bias eh?

[Yann55]

1 minute ago, OmarZaid said:

Agreed ... understood and acknowledged ... still, that's life until governments, scientists, doctors and judicial branches all do their jobs without monetized mindsets and corporate bias eh?

 

I understand what you mean. Well, here's a quote from a book I just read, by Peter Carey (the title is Amnesia) :

 

"(...) she was born into the Anthropocene age and easily saw that the enemy was not one nation state but a cloud of companies, corporations, contractors, statutory bodies whose survival meant the degradation of water, soil, life itself."

 

Chilling and very well summarized, wouldn't you say ?

[OmarZaid]

1 hour ago, Yann55 said:

 

I understand what you mean. Well, here's a quote from a book I just read, by Peter Carey (the title is Amnesia) :

 

"(...) she was born into the Anthropocene age and easily saw that the enemy was not one nation state but a cloud of companies, corporations, contractors, statutory bodies whose survival meant the degradation of water, soil, life itself."

 

Chilling and very well summarized, wouldn't you say ?

Yes .... I wrote a paper focused on the misplaced trust --- can download here

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2720216

 

[HerbalEd]

23 hours ago, Russell17au said:

If you are going to quote numbers then at least make them realistic and not exaggerate like a lot of greenie organizations do. 70-plus decades (700-plus years) what a pathetic exaggeration.

Sorry but your post is an absolute load of BS

And you're very rude -- but I think you do a lot of this and probably even get excited when you "catch" an error.

 

Anyway, 70 decades was a typo. I meant 7 decades. And the billions-of-gallons is not an exaggeration.

 

After WWII (about 70 years ago) many chemical-wepons factories were converted into pesticide factories, and munitions plants were converted to make nitrogen fertilizers. This helped create the so-called "green revolution." And indeed these ag chemicals did increase crop yields. However, over time there was/is a very steep price to pay (e.g., neurological disorders, cancer, leukemia, sub-functional health, etc.)

 

 

[sambum]

50 minutes ago, HerbalEd said:

And you're very rude -- but I think you do a lot of this and probably even get excited when you "catch" an error.

 

Anyway, 70 decades was a typo. I meant 7 decades. And the billions-of-gallons is not an exaggeration.

 

After WWII (about 70 years ago) many chemical-wepons factories were converted into pesticide factories, and munitions plants were converted to make nitrogen fertilizers. This helped create the so-called "green revolution." And indeed these ag chemicals did increase crop yields. However, over time there was/is a very steep price to pay (e.g., neurological disorders, cancer, leukemia, sub-functional health, etc.)

 

 

Quite agree with your first sentence! I am guilty of quite often picking up on errors by other posters, but try to point them out in a jocular or humorous way. But obviously some posters take great delight in pointing out errors in an insulting way  - "Sorry but your post is an absolute load of BS" etc.

 

Similarly some people do not like their mistakes pointed out, and can become quite upset and aggressive in their replies - thankfully there are just a few of them, and they seem intent on turning the thread into a "oneupmanship" contest. One trait of these types of posters that is particularly annoying is that they always have to have the last word, so be prepared for a marathon!

[HerbalEd]

On 3/4/2018 at 12:11 AM, tryasimight said:

700 years?  Where do you get that number from? 

Do you know how the chemicals break down after use?  Didn't think so. 

Well, you "think so" incorrectly.

 

First: The 700 years was a typo. I meant to write 7 decades, not 70.

 

As to how the chemicals break down: As a certified organic farmer and active environmentalist during the past forty years, I've read prolifically on the subject and know more than most. Plus the details are readily available on Google Scholar, and many environmental websites. This information is readily available for those who actually want to know the truth, instead of making up "facts" that support their already-established opinions. 

[plachon]

On 3/3/2018 at 7:30 AM, klauskunkel said:

the Thai government bans stuff on a near daily basis - it's just that no agency checks or enforces them, except for political bans that is.

Exactly. Just like the requirement to use motorbike helmets, unless police or authorities enforce it 24 hours a day without grace or favour, then a ban on a given pesticide is meaningless. Thailand is known to have a thriving pesticide industry with connections in high places. It needs enforcement from top to bottom of a corrupt chain. Even when some pesticides have been banned in Thailand, they are still produced here, for sale to neighbouring countries where regulations are even laxer than Thailand. And then there's a good chance, if a certain pesticide is deemed to be effective by poorly-educated farmers, that it easily finds its way back across the Mekong or Cambodian border through informal markets. Thus, the control of dangerous pesticides is a societal-wide problem that needs to be tackled by all agencies in a coordinated manner, alongside lots more public education and awareness raising across the board, to cause a shift in behaviour and attitudes towards the easy route of spraying everything which has now become the norm.