Jump to content

New House panel set up to study toxic weed killer paraquat


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Lungstib said:

Ahh, the wonders of Thai politics. They have agreed on something, but lets not get carried away, its only to set up a sub-committee that I assume reports to a committee that reports to ......, well who knows. And 39 good and true men are needed to discuss this subject which I'm sure they will gain material benefits from. Most countries would let the science-medical experts do the work and come up with an opinion of its dangers. Here I feel money, business and the inevitable corruption is the big issue.

"...but lets not get carried away, its only to set up a sub-committee ..."

 

"Science is hard.  Let's discuss it over lunch."

 

"... The 39-strong panel set up through a 339:0 approval vote ..."

 

They could cater lunch for 39 people.  Not too many restaurants could serve 339 people. (Except maybe a buffet for Chinese tourists that gives away free mango and sticky rice.)

Posted
9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The 39-strong panel set up through a 339:0 approval vote has 60 days to complete the study and provide a recommendation. The panel comprises MPs from both the coalition and Opposition.

2 months to come up with what's already known world-wide... do these people live in a bubble or what?

  • Like 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Paraquat causes direct damage when it comes into contact with the lining of the mouth, stomach, or intestines. After paraquat enters the body, it is distributed to all areas of the body. Paraquat causes toxic chemical reactions to occur throughout many parts of the body, primarily the lungs, liver, and kidneys. - US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

Sounds safe enough to me. All in favour say "Aye".

Aye.

Posted

Wait! The committee will have to travel to Europe to fact find, so l to do in person. Thailand, Hub of committees.

Ahh, the wonders of Thai politics. They have agreed on something, but lets not get carried away, its only to set up a sub-committee that I assume reports to a committee that reports to ......, well who knows. And 39 good and true men are needed to discuss this subject which I'm sure they will gain material benefits from. Most countries would let the science-medical experts do the work and come up with an opinion of its dangers. Here I feel money, business and the inevitable corruption is the big issue.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...