Thailand bans sunscreen in its national parks

[Albert Zweistein]

11 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Not even a concern on any level. Why? How long have you lived here? How often have we seen declarations like this? This current administration is infamous for pledges, declarations, proclamations, silly laws, and promises. Few are even remembered, much less followed up upon two weeks later.
 
Feel free to cite some environmental promises that were followed up on, if you can. Otherwise, this is just a pedantic high school level attempt to appear as if they care about the environment, passed by men with a staggering level of incompetence and indifference toward their land, water and the common man. Means less than zero.

 

And what about the rest of the environment? The government should offer incentives, for the farmers to switch crops. This is 2021. Rice and sugar worked in previous centuries. Now, they do not make any sense. Too labor intensive, too much degradation of the land, water, air, and resources. Let's get with the times. Let us move forward. 

 

Then they can move on to tackle the sale of diesel vehicles, and the government's enthusiastic support of such. It is inane in this day and age. Most nations are moving away from diesel for good reasons. When they are not well maintained, they foul the air, with large, nasty particles. And who properly maintains their vehicle here? A while back they had a campaign similar where they had posters with phone numbers that you could call to report vehicles that were polluting. We were driving and we saw this truck that was pumping out huge black clouds of smoke and I copied down their license plate and I dialed the number, and handed my phone to my Thai wife and asked her speak to the department. She asked the person who answered the phone what can they do? He asked my wife why are you calling us and she said, well you have phone numbers posted to report polluting vehicles? The guy said well I don't know who I would report it to, or what they could do about it! She said well that's not really our issue is it? You're supposed to be monitoring polluting vehicles. He said OK, give me the license plate number and I'll see what I can do. My wife said are you going to do anything? He said, I don't know I need to look at the regulations first and see who I'm supposed to report it to, and then maybe somebody will do something.

Lastly they can convert all of the 10 remaining diesel and coal fired power plants. Thailand has already done a very admirable job with renewable power plants. There are over 50 powered by hydro, geothermal, wind, solar and biomass. That is impressive. 
 

Biomass is not the answer.

[drgoon]

15 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Don't tell the tourists about it, when ,if  they ever return,

You touched a starfish, while smoking on the beach, and

you have put sun screen on.... that will be 300,000 THB Please.

regards worgeordie

 

Lol.. the only starfish I have touched on the beach is a dead one or a 'chocolate starfish' 55

[Scouse123]

15 hours ago, thaitom said:

Showers will be installed at the Entrance of all parks

 

Showers? They can't even provide decent toilets!

[Boedog]

Another brainstorm, the fact that Thailand is number 6 in the World for mismanaged plastics in the ocean there time and resources can be better spent fixing the bigger problems rather than banning people from wearing sunscreen ridiculous.

Amazing Thailand 

[jacko45k]

13 hours ago, David T Pike said:

Do most SE Asians actually need sunscreen having a natural defense for the sun?  I guess they don't want the fair skinned Farangs $$$....

Very much so.... they go from a light olive to black quite easily.... and some are subject to scaring on the cheeks. 

[spidermike007]

7 hours ago, Albert Zweistein said:

Biomass is not the answer.

Progress is the answer. Forward movement is the answer. Any alternative to diesel would be a wise move. Anything. Just do something, not nothing. 

[Boomer6969]

3 hours ago, drgoon said:

Lol.. the only starfish I have touched on the beach is a dead one or a 'chocolate starfish' 55

The ones I have "touched" on the beach were mostly from Walking street.

[spidermike007]

10 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

And what are the Thais and other Asian countries supposed to eat? Cake?

 

You can't convert diesel and coal fired power plants to hydro, wind, solar and biomass, they are too big and too far from those sources. You can add flue gas de-sulphurisation units to them though, which is a requirement on new coal fired plants and makes them cleaner. Or you can add combined cycle units to them to increase the output without increasing the pollution.

Exactly. Doing something, is better than doing nothing. It would be far better for Thailand to import its sugar, and put the land to far better use. Sugar is not a top crop. And it is extremely toxic to the environment. The burning is atrocious, and the authorities have no interest in regulating it, no matter how bad the air gets. And few can argue that the air seems to be getting worse each year. So, how can you justify doing nothing to improve on that? 

 

Rice is a commodity that essentially ensures a life of poverty, for the farmer. Even the Thai government is attempting to get farmers to stop growing it. 

 

Ms Prapatpon, 48, returned to school last month for a state-funded training programme designed to wean farmers off water-intensive rice and teach them how to grow other crops. With lessons spanning everything from accounting to chicken husbandry, the government is trying to reduce a record stockpile of the grain at a time when farmers are facing the worst drought in two decades.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/thai-rice-farmers-urged-to-grow-other-crops

[Jimbo2014]

A few more nails in the coffin of tourism wont really make a difference at this stage I guess ????

[spidermike007]

11 hours ago, EdrigoSalvadore said:

Thailand barely has any national parks.

It is all relative. Thailand actually has some rather nice National Parks, and many are very well maintained. It also has alot of relatively unknown wilderness areas, where nobody is allowed. Really gorgeous areas, with old growth timber, alot of monkey, huge stands of bamboo, and spectacular forests. 

 

I do not often praise the government here, but this is one area where they deserve praise. Granted Prayuth inherited the system. But at least he is not attempting a Trump type move, to sell off the national lands to the highest bidder. 

[Thunglom]

There needs to be clarification on this - DOES IT COVER ALL NATIONAL PARKS?

[Thunglom]

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It is all relative. Thailand actually has some rather nice National Parks, and many are very well maintained. It also has alot of relatively unknown wilderness areas, where nobody is allowed. Really gorgeous areas, with old growth timber, alot of monkey, huge stands of bamboo, and spectacular forests. 

 

I do not often praise the government here, but this is one area where they deserve praise. Granted Prayuth inherited the system. But at least he is not attempting a Trump type move, to sell off the national lands to the highest bidder. 

The Thai national parks are some of the worst managed I've ever seen. But more important they fly in the face of management techniques used around the world. the ministerial position in charge of the parks is a politic backwater - a job no-one wants as it doesn't do anything. the attitudes of successive governments is that wildlife and eco-management is a waste of time and money that requires the occasional soundbite to keep the international community happy.

International wildlife treaties are an irritation to the Thai authorities and internally the laws concerning conservation and wildlife are a joke - uncomprehensive and seldom enforced.

This decision by someone in DNP is basically symptomatic of their incompetence. Yes sunscreen is a serious blight on marine parks world wide, but the way this has been implemented is clearly without research, thought for the consequences and really shows no understanding of the reasons or benefits. It's a glaring example of the all-pervading culture of mismanagement that typifies the DNP.

[Thunglom]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:26 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

They can use sunscreen, just not the ones that contain the specifically-named, banned chemicals. There are other sunscreens that do not contain these chemicals and which are OK to use.

does the announcement say that???????

 

[Kanada]

On 8/4/2021 at 2:20 PM, Bluespunk said:

It’s the chemicals in some sunscreens that damage reefs. There are reef friendly sunscreens available that do not contain those chemicals. 

Finally someone posted something that make sense…..there’s one in every crowd????

[DrPhibes]

24 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

There needs to be clarification on this - DOES IT COVER ALL NATIONAL PARKS?

Excellent question, it is the marine parks.  The declaration was not well translated.

[Kanada]

 

 

20 hours ago, impulse said:

Or they can certify brands that meet the requirements with a simple sticker on the bottle.  Tourists will have to spend $10 additional to buy their certified, approved sunscreen in Thailand.  

 

Big, fat nuthin' burger...  Aside from a business opportunity for Thai people.

 

Damn those Thai people and their business opportunities….why don’t they all just go back where they belong!!

Oh….wait a minute

????????????

Edited August 5, 2021 by Kanada

[LittleBear57]

For what it's worth I just checked our sunscreen and neither the Boots Soltan or the Banana boat have those exact chemicals in them. Many similar but not the exact ones as written. Made me think of Sodium chloride and Sodium chlorate, they look similar but worlds apart.

[Thunglom]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:20 AM, Bluespunk said:

It’s the chemicals in some sunscreens that damage reefs. There are reef friendly sunscreens available that do not contain those chemicals. 

On the face of it yes - but apparently t present it is really difficult for consumers to find out which sunscreens are OK - some are also marketing themselves as "reef friendly", but this is not necessarily so..

Apparently thousands of tons of sunscreen are deposited on the great barrier reef and this is causing great concern.

Unfortunately I feel some in DNP has read a newspaper report on this and decided to ban everything everywhere - it is so unreasearched that it clearly hasn't been thought through.

 

https://www.consumerreports.org/sunscreens/the-truth-about-reef-safe-sunscreen/

 

There needs to be a ban in some circumstances and "safe" screens need to be clearly identified.

Remember that sunscreen damage is just PART of the threat to the marine environment caused by tourists - I can see huge problems arising with foreign visitors who will arrive unaware of this measure - it's just too daft and needs serious rethinking.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Thunglom

[Thunglom]

47 minutes ago, LittleBear57 said:

For what it's worth I just checked our sunscreen and neither the Boots Soltan or the Banana boat have those exact chemicals in them. Many similar but not the exact ones as written. Made me think of Sodium chloride and Sodium chlorate, they look similar but worlds apart.

I think looking at labels is not the answer - you need to get a list of ALL chemicals that are detrimental. Apparently the "4 hour waterproof" ones do less damage too, by not entering the water.

 

"In fact, says Craig A. Downs, Ph.D., executive director of the nonprofit Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, though oxybenzone and octinoxate are the most widely studied, there are several other chemicals used in sunscreens and other personal care products that research suggests might be an environmental threat. And even sunscreens labeled “reef safe” aren’t guaranteed to be harmless when they leach into underwater ecosystems"

Edited August 5, 2021 by Thunglom

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Thunglom said:

On the face of it yes - but apparently t present it is really difficult for consumers to find out which sunscreens are OK - some are also marketing themselves as "reef friendly", but this is not necessarily so..

Apparently thousands of tons of sunscreen are deposited on the great barrier reef and this is causing great concern.

Unfortunately I feel some in DNP has read a newspaper report on this and decided to ban everything everywhere - it is so unreasearched that it clearly hasn't been thought through.

 

https://www.consumerreports.org/sunscreens/the-truth-about-reef-safe-sunscreen/

 

There needs to be a ban in some circumstances and "safe" screens need to be clearly identified.

Remember that sunscreen damage is just PART of the threat to the marine environment caused by tourists - I can see huge problems arising with foreign visitors who will arrive unaware of this measure - it's just too daft and needs serious rethinking.

I know the dangers facing the planet due to human activity and the all too real dangers of human caused climate change. 
 

Tourists are part of the problem but by no means the only one. 
 

It is not too difficult to research which sunscreens are reef safe. 

[Albert Zweistein]

11 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Progress is the answer. Forward movement is the answer. Any alternative to diesel would be a wise move. Anything. Just do something, not nothing. 

Agree 100 % but biomass is certainly not the answer. Very polluting and huge forests are cut for the production of so called biomass.

[Thunglom]

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I know the dangers facing the planet due to human activity and the all too real dangers of human caused climate change. 
 

Tourists are part of the problem but by no means the only one. 
 

It is not too difficult to research which sunscreens are reef safe. 

It is very difficult as the chemicals goby difference names and the companies on't necessarily have to display info and often the info is misleading. Just read a little of the Australian and American write ups on this. someone has already claimed Boots Uk doesn't have the stuff.

 

check this....

"

How do I know if a sunscreen is "reef friendly"?

Unfortunately the term “reef friendly” is not regulated, so you can’t always trust products with this description. It's important to actually check the “active ingredients” label on the back of your sunscreen or personal care product to ensure that reef-harming chemicals are not included. The size of minerals can also have an impact. Be sure to use micro-sized (or non-nano) mineral sunscreens to avoid nanoparticles, as these smaller particles can be toxic in high concentrations. It’s also advised to stick with lotions and avoid spray or misting sunscreens, especially those that contain titanium dioxide as it can be harmful to your health if inhaled. Finally, it's always good to use products that cut back on single use plastic packaging, either by using containers that are reusable, have high recycled content or are made out of biodegradable plant-based materials like cardboard.

Check the label! Make sure your sunscreen does not contain the following harmful substances on the "HEL list:

• Oxybenzone
• Octinoxate
• Octocrylene
• Homosalate
• 4-methylbenzylidene camphor
• PABA
• Parabens
• Triclosan
• Any nanoparticles or “nano-sized” zinc or titanium (if it doesn’t explicitly say “micro-sized” or “non-nano” and it can rub in, it’s probably nano-sized)
• Any form of microplastic, such as “exfoliating beads”

 

https://savethereef.org/about-reef-save-sunscreen.html

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Thunglom

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

It is very difficult as the chemicals goby difference names and the companies on't necessarily have to display info and often the info is misleading. Just read a little of the Australian and American write ups on this. someone has already claimed Boots Uk doesn't have the stuff.

 

check this....

"

How do I know if a sunscreen is "reef friendly"?

Unfortunately the term “reef friendly” is not regulated, so you can’t always trust products with this description. It's important to actually check the “active ingredients” label on the back of your sunscreen or personal care product to ensure that reef-harming chemicals are not included. The size of minerals can also have an impact. Be sure to use micro-sized (or non-nano) mineral sunscreens to avoid nanoparticles, as these smaller particles can be toxic in high concentrations. It’s also advised to stick with lotions and avoid spray or misting sunscreens, especially those that contain titanium dioxide as it can be harmful to your health if inhaled. Finally, it's always good to use products that cut back on single use plastic packaging, either by using containers that are reusable, have high recycled content or are made out of biodegradable plant-based materials like cardboard.

Check the label! Make sure your sunscreen does not contain the following harmful substances on the "HEL list:

• Oxybenzone
• Octinoxate
• Octocrylene
• Homosalate
• 4-methylbenzylidene camphor
• PABA
• Parabens
• Triclosan
• Any nanoparticles or “nano-sized” zinc or titanium (if it doesn’t explicitly say “micro-sized” or “non-nano” and it can rub in, it’s probably nano-sized)
• Any form of microplastic, such as “exfoliating beads”

 

https://savethereef.org/about-reef-save-sunscreen.html

 

All one needs do is their research, prepare in advance and not just buy the first product they see on the shelves. 
 

It might be time consuming and mean waiting if things have to be ordered but it’s better than, even in the smallest way, contributing to the destruction of the coral reefs. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Bluespunk

[Scott]

Post reported and removed.

[Sig]

On 8/4/2021 at 9:30 PM, EdrigoSalvadore said:

Thailand barely has any national parks.

Are you serious???  Just how many national parks should a country like Thailand have!? I can't even fathom how you came up with that idea.
Thailand has around 150 national parks! To me, that is a LOT of national parks, hardly in the realm of "barely" having any.
Guess how many national parks Spain has. It is a similar size as Thailand. According to Wikipedia, it has a grand total of 15 national parks. Turkmenistan is another country similar in size, supporting 35 national parks. France (somewhere around 20% larger than Thailand), has a massive number of 11 national parks. Mexico, about 250% larger than Thailand has 67.
I think you get the idea.
National parks in Thailand cover somewhere around 20% of the area of the country! That is incredible to me! It boggles my mind to think how anyone could think of that as barely having any national parks....
[Some of my numbers may be a bit off. It was a quick Wikipedia search and percentage estimations]

 

[Thunglom]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

All one needs do is their research, prepare in advance and not just buy the first product they see on the shelves. 
 

It might be time consuming and mean waiting if things have to be ordered but it’s better than, even in the smallest way, contributing to the destruction of the coral reefs. 

you are overlooking t reality - hardly anyone is going to do sufficient research, and as I said it isn't even clear which products are harmful or not.

 

How do you think a park ranger is going to enforce this - when he smells a sunscreen on your arm, will he be able to tell?

 

[Thunglom]

On 8/4/2021 at 3:30 PM, EdrigoSalvadore said:

Thailand barely has any national parks.

whaaaat??? = have you been living under a rock?

"As of 2019 Thailand's protected areas included 157 national parks, 58 wildlife sanctuaries, 67 non-hunting areas, and 120 forest parks. They cover almost 20 percent of the kingdom's territory." - wiki = as opposed to 14% of the USA

Edited August 5, 2021 by Thunglom

[JackGats]

On 8/4/2021 at 9:20 AM, Bluespunk said:

It’s the chemicals in some sunscreens that damage reefs. There are reef friendly sunscreens available that do not contain those chemicals. 

From my understanding the chemical that screen the UVs from your skin also screen them from the coral, ie the coral doesn't get its normal dose of UVs. Snorkelers should wear protective garments that will protect them not only from the sun but also from stinging creatures.

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, Thunglom said:

you are overlooking t reality - hardly anyone is going to do sufficient research, and as I said it isn't even clear which products are harmful or not.

 

How do you think a park ranger is going to enforce this - when he smells a sunscreen on your arm, will he be able to tell?

 

I never mentioned or discussed enforcement, just that the reality is that it is possible to find reef friendly sunscreens.
 

It isn’t difficult, a simple google search is all that is required. 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Bluespunk

[retsdon]

On 8/4/2021 at 3:17 AM, spidermike007 said:

And what about the rest of the environment? The government should offer incentives, for the farmers to switch crops. This is 2021. Rice and sugar worked in previous centuries.

Not to mention making it mandatory to fit straw choppers to rice combines. If you fly the length of the country in the burning season you're over a continuous brown cloud the whole way, and Thailand's air quality index never drops below hazardous anywhere north of Bangkok for several months on end. Chop the rice straw fine enough, and plough it back in. It's not rocket science  - it's what every advanced country in the world mandates.