Thailand bans sunscreen in its national parks

[elgenon]

They are serious!

 

They paid 2,005,000.10 baht for sunscreen detectors. : )

 

And they have sunscreen sniffing dogs at all entrances. Oh lord!  : )

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, retsdon said:

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.

Most civilized nations truly care about their environment, have policies that reflect that, and enforce them. Thailand has some policies that would indicate there is a minor amount of concern about environmental issues, but as is the case with everything Prayuth, nothing is ever followed up on, and new laws are forgotten within two weeks. And the land and air, in addition to the health of the masses means less than zero. This is the price of extreme self absorption.  

[Kanada]

On 8/4/2021 at 2:53 PM, Boomer6969 said:

Once more this will only affect white skinned tourists, those they try to eliminate from the "Land of the free" [AHs].

Wow…couldn’t even begin to explain how incorrect this is…did you even read what you wrote before you pressed SEND!

[Bluespunk]

19 hours ago, Thunglom said:

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

 

The follow up news article on page 2 mentions this

[Boomer6969]

2 hours ago, Kanada said:

Wow…couldn’t even begin to explain how incorrect this is…did you even read what you wrote before you pressed SEND!

The irony...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454668/

[greenmonkey]

the irony is that they will still allow boatloads of Thai tourists to visit protected marine parks, put lifevests on them and let them all jump into the sea and clamber all over the corals having a great time. I witnessed this last year as I was out snorkelling with my video camera. The boat came with music blaring - all the Thais jumping in and hppily standing on the coral. I was in total shock at what I was seeing. I spoke to an islander who told me it is a daily occurence. The Thais cannot swim and do not realize they are damaging the coral by standing on them, and the boat owners only care about the money and so do even bother to try to stop it from happening. Better they try and stop this from happening first surely...

[EdrigoSalvadore]

11 hours ago, Thunglom said:

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

I used this map to make my statement. National parks map. If what you are saying is true, then this map is outdated.

[EdrigoSalvadore]

13 hours ago, Sig said:

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]

 

I used this map to reach my conclusion: National parks map, is it outdated?

[Thunglom]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

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

Basically the fact you didn't shows you haven't thought it through and the second part confirms it.

[Bluespunk]

15 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

Basically the fact you didn't shows you haven't thought it through and the second part confirms it.

No. 
 

What it shows is I haven’t commented on enforcement and have no intention of doing as that is not the point I was making. . 
 

The two issues are separate. 
 

I’m sorry you find that difficult to process. 

[Thunglom]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The follow up news article on page 2 mentions this

That's not a quote from a primary or secondary source even. It looks like a journalist's assumption.

[Thunglom]

1 hour ago, EdrigoSalvadore said:

I used this map to make my statement. National parks map. If what you are saying is true, then this map is outdated.

You appear to be a one click wonder - you need to learn how to research a topic before commenting. I'd also look more carefully at sources - e.g. any map that has "Burma" written on it instead of "Myanmar".

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

That's not a quote from a primary or secondary source even. It looks like a journalist's assumption.

Just showing you that within the thread there is an article that said selected sunscreens were banned. 
 

The reason being, you asked where it says only some sunscreens are banned…

Edited August 6, 2021 by Bluespunk

[Thunglom]

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The two issues are separate. 

Seprate???? - we are talking about the banning of Sunscreens in National parts - how are they separate. You're just dumb;ing about to try and make your point of view less untenable.

[Thunglom]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Just showing you that within the thread there is an article that said that,
 

The reason being, you asked where it says only some sunscreens are banned…

the list on PBS is not inclusi=ve which seems to back up my argument that this is an ill-researched and untruth out dictum. It is unenforceable and people will NOT be working out if their s/cs are "reef friendly" and the labels have already been shown to be inaccurate or misleading. If this occurs elsewhere what on earth gives you the idea that Thailand alone has got it right? n previous experience this would seem to be an extremely unlikely conclusion.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

Seprate???? - we are talking about the banning of Sunscreens in National parts - how are they separate. You're just dumb;ing about to try and make your point of view less untenable.

Nope. 
 

From the start all I have said is that not all sunscreens contain reef damaging chemicals. 
 

It is not too difficult to find which ones are reef friendly. 
 

Something you appear to have difficulty with. 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Bluespunk
An unnecessary ing

[Bluespunk]

Just now, Thunglom said:

the list on PBS is not inclusi=ve which seems to back up my argument that this is an ill-researched and untruth out dictum. It is unenforceable and people will NOT be working out if their s/cs are "reef friendly" and the labels have already been shown to be inaccurate or misleading. If this occurs elsewhere what on earth gives you the idea that Thailand alone has got it right? n previous experience this would seem to be an extremely unlikely conclusion.

If people want to find reef friendly sunscreens they can do so, quite easily. Whether they choose to do so or not is beyond my control. 

[Kanada]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

If people want to find reef friendly sunscreens they can do so, quite easily. Whether they choose to do so or not is beyond my control. 

Bluespunk….just add this guy to your Ignored list like I did. He’s a troll who uses inflammatory speech to get attention!

That type of individual is exactly what the “Ignored User” option is for!!

[2009]

 

With cat-like agility, they manage to blame us for their coral reef loss.

 

The mental gymnastics here to blame foreigners for their coral reef damage is absolutely sensational. Simone was like, "Dang, I can't believe they even invented that move!" 

 

If only there was an Olympic sport for this kind talent.

 

Speaking of which, how many gold medals were won for ping pong and Formula 1 driving? They must have taken a few golds for "drag" racing. 

 

 

[PremiumLane]

22 hours ago, 2009 said:

 

With cat-like agility, they manage to blame us for their coral reef loss.

 

The mental gymnastics here to blame foreigners for their coral reef damage is absolutely sensational. Simone was like, "Dang, I can't believe they even invented that move!" 

 

If only there was an Olympic sport for this kind talent.

 

Speaking of which, how many gold medals were won for ping pong and Formula 1 driving? They must have taken a few golds for "drag" racing. 

 

 

 

Where does it say they are blaming only foreigners for this? You think tourists in Thailand are only foreigners? 

[Sig]

On 8/6/2021 at 3:13 AM, Thunglom said:

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

Yes!
And that is comparing a country ruled by kings for ages and then subsequently by totalitarian types, both of which could take and designate various lands as national parks at will, as opposed to the US where the government isn't free to do so in such an easy manner, yet somehow they still have a very large percentage of their land as national public lands, with 14.7% as national and that doesn't even cover the 3,729 State parks.
It's a bit difficult to make international comparisons though because in fact the actual percentage of "National Park" land area in America is about 2.2%, which is still a difficult number to compare to other countries since each country designates "national parks" in different ways, some even have cities in them. The number of 14.7% is commonly attributed to "National Parks" in the US, but that actually includes massive amounts of nationally protected lands that are not specifically "parks" and may not even be accessible. But some countries name all of their protected lands as "parks" whether they actually meet that standard or not. So, often times, these comparisons are not apples to apples.
All that said, Thailand is definitely among the countries with a higher number of parks available to the people.

[Sig]

On 8/6/2021 at 4:02 PM, Thunglom said:

You appear to be a one click wonder - you need to learn how to research a topic before commenting. I'd also look more carefully at sources - e.g. any map that has "Burma" written on it instead of "Myanmar".

Making a decision to ignore a source because it says "Burma" rather than "Myanmar" is apparently ignorant of the fact that some countries still officially refer to the country as "Burma". And even some Burmese people and Burmese politicians do the same. The names are used interchangeably around the world by governments and media alike. Making such distinctions without considering the source and history better is not understanding the picture well at all. I guess one could say that you should look in the mirror and apply exactly what you said to that guy to yourself - "...you need to learn how to research a topic before commenting. I'd also look more carefully at sources..."

[Sig]

On 8/6/2021 at 2:25 PM, EdrigoSalvadore said:

I used this map to reach my conclusion: National parks map, is it outdated?

That's a good question. I don't know about that website, but it looks like it is quite incomplete. Maybe they were only showing some of the major ones? That site doesn't look very technical, but quite basic. But I can see how you got your idea if that's the only thing you saw.

[Thunglom]

2 hours ago, Sig said:

Yes!
And that is comparing a country ruled by kings for ages and then subsequently by totalitarian types, both of which could take and designate various lands as national parks at will, as opposed to the US where the government isn't free to do so in such an easy manner, yet somehow they still have a very large percentage of their land as national public lands, with 14.7% as national and that doesn't even cover the 3,729 State parks.
It's a bit difficult to make international comparisons though because in fact the actual percentage of "National Park" land area in America is about 2.2%, which is still a difficult number to compare to other countries since each country designates "national parks" in different ways, some even have cities in them. The number of 14.7% is commonly attributed to "National Parks" in the US, but that actually includes massive amounts of nationally protected lands that are not specifically "parks" and may not even be accessible. But some countries name all of their protected lands as "parks" whether they actually meet that standard or not. So, often times, these comparisons are not apples to apples.
All that said, Thailand is definitely among the countries with a higher number of parks available to the people.

you've descended into gibberish.

[RJRS1301]

6 hours ago, Sig said:

Yes!
And that is comparing a country ruled by kings for ages and then subsequently by totalitarian types, both of which could take and designate various lands as national parks at will, as opposed to the US where the government isn't free to do so in such an easy manner, yet somehow they still have a very large percentage of their land as national public lands, with 14.7% as national and that doesn't even cover the 3,729 State parks.
It's a bit difficult to make international comparisons though because in fact the actual percentage of "National Park" land area in America is about 2.2%, which is still a difficult number to compare to other countries since each country designates "national parks" in different ways, some even have cities in them. The number of 14.7% is commonly attributed to "National Parks" in the US, but that actually includes massive amounts of nationally protected lands that are not specifically "parks" and may not even be accessible. But some countries name all of their protected lands as "parks" whether they actually meet that standard or not. So, often times, these comparisons are not apples to apples.
All that said, Thailand is definitely among the countries with a higher number of parks available to the people.

Why is that people continue to compare most things to what occurs in the USA?

There is a much larger world than the USA people, open your minds,

Many here left the USA for good reasons.

 

 

[FunkyDunky58]

"The ban affects all sunscreens which include the chemicals Oxybenzone, Octinoxate, 4-Methylbenzyl and Butylparaben."

 

So outlaw these products. Wait, they are made by companies owned by Rich HiSo's that have friends in government. 

 

Opportunity for greedy policemen to harass beachgoers. Can you imaging being a tourist being 'charged' with this offence and then facing the option of an on the spot "fine" or having to front up to court on a trumped up charge? What would you do?

[2009]

On 8/7/2021 at 9:57 PM, PremiumLane said:

Where does it say they are blaming only foreigners for this? You think tourists in Thailand are only foreigners? 

Wait for it.....

 

You should know they don't blame themselves for anything

[Sig]

On 8/8/2021 at 6:56 AM, RJRS1301 said:

Why is that people continue to compare most things to what occurs in the USA?

There is a much larger world than the USA people, open your minds,

Many here left the USA for good reasons.

 

 

I completely agree with you. It is ridiculous. Perhaps you didn't see the entire context. I was responding to somebody who had made a comparison to the U.S. I would have never brought it up otherwise.

[Sig]

On 8/8/2021 at 3:32 AM, Thunglom said:

you've descended into gibberish.

You devolved (or maybe it's just your natural state) into making personal insults over something that is apparently too difficult for you to grasp and you only seem able to lash out rather than just let it pass. People like you are exactly what the problem is with how social media is abused and ends up being destructive to society rather than uplifting. Get a life and learn how to respect other people. I know the site won't ban you, but I imagine there's a way that I can block toxic imbeciles... if there is, I'll definitely take advantage of being free from toxic egotistical fools here.

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Sig said:

if there is, I'll definitely take advantage of being free from toxic egotistical fools here.

Hover over name and select Ignore User.....