Doctors claim paraquat is safe for farm use

[Jonnapat]

Total and utter nonsense. What planet are these ""experts"" living on?

[wgdanson]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

and slower child development.

Is this possible ?    

[kevc]

Put that in he same file as asbestos another thing thats safe to use here.

Sent from my SM-P901 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[KiwiKiwi]

I think I'll take the word of western doctors if it's all the same to you, they have a better reputation and track record.

 

Nice comb-over though...

6 hours ago, bluesofa said:

Yes, very worrying. See below the number of countries where it's banned:

 

"Paraquat is an herbicide commonly used in suicide attempts, because it can kill a person in a single sip.

Increasing research suggests exposure to paraquat is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease.

More than 100 crops worldwide are sprayed with paraquat, including in the U.S., even though it’s been banned in 32 countries due to its high toxicity."

source: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/03/paraquat-banned-in-32-countries.aspx

 

Yep, one teaspoon full will do it. Nasty way to go though, and not very fast.

[anon4637435435]

Absolute dheads. These Frz should be put on trial for murder.

The scientific evidence is huge. What the f does a doctor know thats been paid up.

If its not harmless why do only the birds, fireflies and bees only exist on my property where we dont use it? Why are all my neighbours dying in huge numbers from strange cancers and kidney failure, brain dead children and the frogs which these people eat are gay! Yep GAY!! Also seems to be a real side ffect of the chemical. And you know you are what you eat. The damage to the soil from proponged us is unbelievable. Im a farmer and know first hand. Bring the doc out here for a look see.

I would like to put a bullet in everyone of these so called doctors heads. I wouldnt hesitate. This is a human rights abuse. My family are farmers and we have a right to be protected from this crap. Doctors in thailand are idiots. Theres no shame in killing farmers and destroying the enviroment so theres be out and out famine in the future i guess.

#1 Hub of idiots

[pedro01]

Thailand in a nutshell.

 

3 doctors willing to have their own food supply poisoned for a pay off....

[toybits]

4 hours ago, Swimman said:

Enough!  Please come back after you have used this stuff on your property and allowed children and pets to play with it.  The stuff is lethally toxic and banned by some 32 countries but you are arguing for its continued use? - Perhaps you also support the use of DDT another banned highly toxic chemical.

DDT was banned for an entirely different reason. One of its most popular uses was to control mosquitos and the spread of malaria. One problem was that DDT has a long half-life and was becoming a serious environmental pollutant - one that would have potentially wiped out entire populations of wildlife.  Birds that inadvertently consumed DDT produced very thin egg shells which broke easily - i.e. prematurely.

 

[sawadee1947]

a bunch of "quacks"

[bluesofa]

5 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Thai 'doctors'.

Now I know why the only doctor I listen to here is Doctor Feelgood

 

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, snowgard said:

youtube has a lot documentaions about dangerous weed killers. Just use a filter bigger as 20 minutes.

 

The problems with doing YouTube "Research" is that, as your post confirms, you end up with people like Jeffrey Smith (a self-taught yogic flyer) and Stephanie Seneff (a computer scientist), neither of whom have any sort of credentials in toxicology or medical training, and have no business saying, as Smith says, that pesticides make you more susceptible to getting HIV/AIDS.  Yes, he really said that.  Seneff is on record as saying that merely finding correlation is sufficient to prove risk, which is just flat-out wrong.

 

There are enough legitimate sites out there confirming the hazards of paraquat, so you don't need to do yourself a disservice by citing YouTube videos.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, robertthesculptor said:

Same exact "experts", who tell Thais that the blue light from your smart phone is dangerous but only from 30 minutes before bed time.... Where do they find these idiots. 

This will cause Thailand to be be banned from sales in the world market and only cause genetic and other problems here... But oh have more children....

Idiots

 

They were right about the light from a phone, or any other screen, it sends the wrong signals to the brain making it think it is day time and preventing you from sleeping well, and it was not a Thai discovery, the world agrees.

[Kieran00001]

16 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

The problems with doing YouTube "Research" is that, as your post confirms, you end up with people like Jeffrey Smith (a self-taught yogic flyer) and Stephanie Seneff (a computer scientist), neither of whom have any sort of credentials in toxicology or medical training, and have no business saying, as Smith says, that pesticides make you more susceptible to getting HIV/AIDS.  Yes, he really said that.  Seneff is on record as saying that merely finding correlation is sufficient to prove risk, which is just flat-out wrong.

 

There are enough legitimate sites out there confirming the hazards of paraquat, so you don't need to do yourself a disservice by citing YouTube videos.

 

I don't know exactly what they said, but perhaps you misunderstood, someone with HIV is more likely to develop AIDS if they are exposed to some pesticides, that is a fact.

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

I don't know exactly what they said,

 

Well then let's stop right there and get ourselves oriented. 

 

Smith was arguing against the adoption of genetically engineered Hawaiian papaya, saying that RNA from the papaya might disrupt genes in people and that proteins from the papaya might interfere with human immunity, leading to HIV and hepatitis. He also said the protein might cause cancer.

 

Might, might and might.  Duly noted.

 

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

but perhaps you misunderstood, someone with HIV is more likely to develop AIDS if they are exposed to some pesticides, that is a fact.

 

I don't accept it as a fact until properly cited, and a cursory search of the literature turns up nothing with the terms "HIV", "AIDS" and "Pesticide".  

 

Somebody with HIV has generally higher health exposure risks to many things.  That doesn't mean we should make a list of those things and start banning them.  Perhaps HIV+ people should not go meandering through freshly-sprayed fields.  I would have thought they already know that.  Smith is just looking for things to scare people with.

 

Let's not go down that rabbit hole.  The post was in reference to using YouTube "Citizen Scientists" as authoritative citations, not about whether pesticides can increase susceptibility to viral diseases.

[Lingba]

These people should expose themselves to it and prove to us that it is ok

[attrayant]

13 minutes ago, Lingba said:

These people should expose themselves to it and prove to us that it is ok

 

It helps to read more than the headline.

 

Quote

 

PARAQUAT IS safe enough for agricultural use and should not be banned, if safely managed and applied to unwanted plants, medical experts said.
 

A group of doctors said in a press conference arranged by Agricultural Science Foundation yesterday that paraquat [...] is not harmful to health, unless people directly drank it or bathed in it, and it should be allowed for use in farming.

 

 

Exposing yourself to it on purpose is not "safely managed".  The key to using any pesticide is safe handling and management, which is probably not going to happen in Thailand, and thus there are calls for it to be banned.  However if we follow that logic to its conclusion, I guess every pesticide should be banned and farmers will all be doomed to have 75% of their crops ravaged by pests.  Then, we can all look forward to a doubling of food prices at the supermarket.  The good news is that the bugs will be healthy as ever and grow to enormous sizes, which is fortunate because we'll probably need to start using them as a protein source in the near future.

 

I am being charitable in assuming that the doctors are referring to the infinitesimally small levels of paraquat residue on the crops at the point of sale being below hazardous thresholds, but the article really should have said this.  Since it didn't, we're all just left to run around in circles screaming about scary chemicals.

[Kieran00001]

30 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Well then let's stop right there and get ourselves oriented. 

 

Smith was arguing against the adoption of genetically engineered Hawaiian papaya, saying that RNA from the papaya might disrupt genes in people and that proteins from the papaya might interfere with human immunity, leading to HIV and hepatitis. He also said the protein might cause cancer.

 

Might, might and might.  Duly noted.

 

 

I don't accept it as a fact until properly cited, and a cursory search of the literature turns up nothing with the terms "HIV", "AIDS" and "Pesticide".  

 

Somebody with HIV has generally higher health exposure risks to many things.  That doesn't mean we should make a list of those things and start banning them.  Perhaps HIV+ people should not go meandering through freshly-sprayed fields.  I would have thought they already know that.  Smith is just looking for things to scare people with.

 

Let's not go down that rabbit hole.  The post was in reference to using YouTube "Citizen Scientists" as authoritative citations, not about whether pesticides can increase susceptibility to viral diseases.

 

I am confused, before you said pesticides, now you say papaya.

 

And some pesticides most certainly do increase susceptibility to viral and other types of disease.  The lowering of the immune system is an effect well documented for the past 20 years, it is indisputable. 

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

3 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Total and utter nonsense. What planet are these ""experts"" living on?

Planet Thainess

[Krungbin]

Paraquat is so toxic that it is banned in the European Union since 2007!

[digger70]

It's Safe If they say so,,,It doesn't matter that it is not a deadly  Poison ,,, It's still a Poison.

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, Krungbin said:

Paraquat is so toxic that it is banned in the European Union since 2007!

 

That a substance is banned in a certain country is not a valid indicator of its toxicity.

[IAMHERE]

Remember the US drug war agencies sprayed this Paraquat on Mexican fields growing marijuana. The marijuana that did grow and later smoked by Americans pretty much caused serious health problems as Paraquat is a pulmonary toxin. Means don't inhale if your marijuana has been sprayed with Paraquat.

So, now what happens when the farmers burn their fields? Wonder who gets to inhale that smoke?  Just my opinion but I don't think farming practices in Thailand are right for Paraquat use.

[Dap]

5 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That a substance is banned in a certain country is not a valid indicator of its toxicity.

Education is a wonderful thing.

[Jonmarleesco]

19 hours ago, webfact said:

A group of doctors said in a press conference arranged by Agricultural Science Foundation

Now there's a coincidence, one these medical morons presumably trust won't be picked up Mr. and Mrs. Average.

 

Must make sure not to trust my or my family's health to any of these Richardheads. 

[Jonmarleesco]

1 hour ago, Dap said:

Education is a wonderful thing.

Something they could do with. Although it would probably be wasted.

[Jonmarleesco]

7 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That a substance is banned in a certain country is not a valid indicator of its toxicity.

Last I checked, the EU was not a country.

[Ron19]

12 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That a substance is banned in a certain country is not a valid indicator of its toxicity.

Are you prepared to say that Paraquat is not toxic so should not be banned in any country for that matter.

[Oziex1]

In the so called developed world we discover some commonly used materials are harmful to us, so we ban them or regulate the use. Great but does it stop there? No we bundle up the formulas and the plant equipment that produces the damn stuff and sell it to some poor developing nation so they can poison their people and environment!

Unbeleivable.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Ron19 said:

Are you prepared to say that Paraquat is not toxic...

 

You obviously have not read the whole discussion.  I've said several times now that it's hazardous, nasty stuff and should be restricted, but not banned.

 

2 hours ago, Ron19 said:

...so should not be banned in any country for that matter.

 

Okay let's do this one more time.  This time with feeling. 

 

Paraquat has its uses as an agricultural pesticide.  Not as an air freshener, not as a dessert topping, not as a hair conditioner and not as a shoe polish.  It should be available for use by professional, licensed applicators who understand the hazard and know how to mitigate their exposure risk during application.  That does not mean it should be available in garden shops for the average person to buy.

 

Reasons for a total ban might include broad environmental toxicity, such as damage to the soil, atmosphere or wildlife.  If it pollutes water and kills fish, then its use should be restricted to areas outside of the watershed.  I am not prepared to say whether it should be sprayed on crops because I have not done the research on residue toxicity.  However - Thailand has issued a statement to the US FDA on maximum pesticide residue levels (MRL) for crops that may be imported into the USA, and as notice to US farmers who might be exporting to Thailand:

 

Thai FDA Revision on Pesticide Residue Standards and MRLs in Foods

 

 

 

[wavodavo]

A few years back a man died at a nursery near brisbane after some idiot put paraquat into a coke bottle and it ended up  in the lunchroom fridge and the poor victim drank it.

[Ron19]

You are wrong there, I have read the topic a number of times and have a

very personal interest in it.

I have noted that you have recognized that it is hazardous nasty stuff

and should be restricted but not banned. I'm surprised you say that.

If the above is the case, why is it still available for general sale in every

mother and father shop country wide in Thailand with no restrictions. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are excerpts from the main body of the opening post

 

A group of doctors said in a press conference arranged by Agricultural Science Foundation yesterday that paraquat, a widely used herbicide in Thailand, is not harmful to health, unless people directly drank it or bathed in it, and it should be allowed for use in farming.

 

“I still cannot see how paraquat can get into your body, as when spraying paraquat in the field, it will diffuse in the air in droplets that are far larger than those able to be inhaled into the lungs,” Somchai said.

 

He dismissed the claim that paraquat contamination in water contributes to necrosis. If paraquat actually contaminated the water, it would be too attenuated to cause any harm to health, he said.

 

Somchai said he suspected that patients with necrosis already had cuts or wounds and it was bacteria or parasites in the water that actually caused the infection.

 

Director of the Emergency Physicians College Dr Surajit Suntorntham said that in emergency medicine, the only sickness and death related to paraquat was in patients who intentionally or unintentionally consumed the herbicide, causing internal-organ failure.

 

 

“Paraquat is the same. It is no doubt poisonous, but only when someone is exposed to a very high volume of paraquat by eating or skin contact can it cause a health threat. So, we should find better ways to use it safely rather than ban it totally.”

 

He noted that the United States not only allows the use of paraquat, but has increased the amount of paraquat usage in its agricultural sector without jeopardising the health of it citizens.

 

Surajit said that the US avoids health risks from paraquat by imposing strict safety regulations. For instance, physical exposure to the substance is reduced by delivering paraquat to famers in ready-to-use packages, so they can spray it onto weeds without having to prepare and dilute the chemical themselves.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Don't you think there are enough points in the above to warrant action to at least ban it's availability in such an easy manner as it is now.