Thai Police Water Cannon 'Not Chemical Weapon'

[Arkady]

Just because the Dr. Chantana, said it was not a chemical weapon does not make it so. Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp., which are the ones that develope chemical weapons. What would the world press do if they thought the Thai government used chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

A few people complaining of skin irritation make it not a chemical weapon. More likely someone who was pissed off that they got dye on themselves had the bright idea that they could stir things up by screaming about chemical weapons. "Skin injuries" indeed. But the press did not find the "injuries" to be worth detailing or photographing? <deleted>!

And your query "Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp..." What an absurd bit of logic. Do you actually believe that this is legitimate or are you just lousy at contriving invalid reasoning? One does not require military training on chemical weapons to possess reliable knowledge about harmful chemicals. Potassium permanganate is used as an antibacterial agent and sodium thiosulphate has medical uses that include an anti-fungal treatment and to counteract the effects of cyanide poisoning. Not much use as chemical weapons and all I had to do was sixty seconds of reference work to gain this knowledge- no chemical weapons training.

"Innocent civilians" is debatable in various instances and the covert use of chemical weapons that you intimate would be rather difficult. Oh yeah! Hey Doc, we tear gassed 'em all and nobody even noticed...

It is a chemical weapon if it is made from chemicals, even if not a WMD.

[OZEMADE]

Just because the Dr. Chantana, said it was not a chemical weapon does not make it so. Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp., which are the ones that develope chemical weapons. What would the world press do if they thought the Thai government used chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

A few people complaining of skin irritation make it not a chemical weapon. More likely someone who was pissed off that they got dye on themselves had the bright idea that they could stir things up by screaming about chemical weapons. "Skin injuries" indeed. But the press did not find the "injuries" to be worth detailing or photographing? <deleted>!

And your query "Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp..." What an absurd bit of logic. Do you actually believe that this is legitimate or are you just lousy at contriving invalid reasoning? One does not require military training on chemical weapons to possess reliable knowledge about harmful chemicals. Potassium permanganate is used as an antibacterial agent and sodium thiosulphate has medical uses that include an anti-fungal treatment and to counteract the effects of cyanide poisoning. Not much use as chemical weapons and all I had to do was sixty seconds of reference work to gain this knowledge- no chemical weapons training.

"Innocent civilians" is debatable in various instances and the covert use of chemical weapons that you intimate would be rather difficult. Oh yeah! Hey Doc, we tear gassed 'em all and nobody even noticed...

It is a chemical weapon if it is made from chemicals, even if not a WMD.

There is a difference between a chemical weapon and a chemical agent.

[newcomer71]

It is a chemical weapon if it is made from chemicals, even if not a WMD.

I think the point here is not about the definition about chemical weapons, that can be widely debated without having a definite one.

But: chemical used were only irritating and not definitely used to harm people. Or that would have been surely come to surface already.

Different from what happened back this year in Turkey.

[jaidam]

Just because the Dr. Chantana, said it was not a chemical weapon does not make it so. Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp., which are the ones that develope chemical weapons. What would the world press do if they thought the Thai government used chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

A few people complaining of skin irritation make it not a chemical weapon. More likely someone who was pissed off that they got dye on themselves had the bright idea that they could stir things up by screaming about chemical weapons. "Skin injuries" indeed. But the press did not find the "injuries" to be worth detailing or photographing? <deleted>!

And your query "Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp..." What an absurd bit of logic. Do you actually believe that this is legitimate or are you just lousy at contriving invalid reasoning? One does not require military training on chemical weapons to possess reliable knowledge about harmful chemicals. Potassium permanganate is used as an antibacterial agent and sodium thiosulphate has medical uses that include an anti-fungal treatment and to counteract the effects of cyanide poisoning. Not much use as chemical weapons and all I had to do was sixty seconds of reference work to gain this knowledge- no chemical weapons training.

"Innocent civilians" is debatable in various instances and the covert use of chemical weapons that you intimate would be rather difficult. Oh yeah! Hey Doc, we tear gassed 'em all and nobody even noticed...

So testing has revealed that the water did in fact contain tear gas. Note to self: believing anything the Thaksin propaganda machine spews out will make a fool out of me as it's all BS.

[newcomer71]

Just because the Dr. Chantana, said it was not a chemical weapon does not make it so. Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp., which are the ones that develope chemical weapons. What would the world press do if they thought the Thai government used chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

A few people complaining of skin irritation make it not a chemical weapon. More likely someone who was pissed off that they got dye on themselves had the bright idea that they could stir things up by screaming about chemical weapons. "Skin injuries" indeed. But the press did not find the "injuries" to be worth detailing or photographing? <deleted>!

And your query "Were does it say she was trained in the military and part of the Chemical Corp..." What an absurd bit of logic. Do you actually believe that this is legitimate or are you just lousy at contriving invalid reasoning? One does not require military training on chemical weapons to possess reliable knowledge about harmful chemicals. Potassium permanganate is used as an antibacterial agent and sodium thiosulphate has medical uses that include an anti-fungal treatment and to counteract the effects of cyanide poisoning. Not much use as chemical weapons and all I had to do was sixty seconds of reference work to gain this knowledge- no chemical weapons training.

"Innocent civilians" is debatable in various instances and the covert use of chemical weapons that you intimate would be rather difficult. Oh yeah! Hey Doc, we tear gassed 'em all and nobody even noticed...

So testing has revealed that the water did in fact contain tear gas. Note to self: believing anything the Thaksin propaganda machine spews out will make a fool out of me as it's all BS.

To be completely fair and unbiased this is what he Dr. Winai Warangnukul said:

Professor Dr Winai Warangnukul, head of the Toxicology Centre of Ramathibodi hospital, said Wednesday that the centre had examined water samples and found traces of tear gas in the samples. However, he assured that the tear gas content was small and would not pose danger to the body.

Dr Winai noted that there was a misunderstanding that the tear gas was acidic and that the substance could be neutralized with water mixed with alkaline. He said that the best way to treat victims attacked by tear gas was to use clean water to wash their eyes or body exposed to the gas.

He also suggested the victims to dust off residue of tear gas from their bodies.

The water used against the protesters was not mixed with tear gas but the water caused the tear gas cloud to scatter covering wider areas.

[HuaHinHarold]

Years ago when I was working with natural sea sponges, we used Potassium permanganate to bleach the sponges. In this case, I would guess that it has the advantage of disinfecting the water. Sodium thiosulfate was used to neutralize the permanganate. Sodium thiosulfate is also used to neutralize chlorine in drinking water so that it does not kill fish. You can put some thiosulfate in tap water and add your fish straight-up. It is sold in pet store for this purpose. It seems to me that this thread is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Do any other country's police force utilize this chemical mixture?

What is the concentration of the chemicals utilized for the purposes you describe versus what was what mixed with the water cannons?

What is the difference in the effect to humans who use a small spoonful of sodium thiosulfate into a fish tank without ever coming into direct contact with the substance versus getting blasted with an unknown concentration with a high powered water hose causing the chemical to be internally ingested, saturated externally on the skin, and high probability of eye contact?

Lots of unanswered questions and irrelevant explanations of completely different scenarios regarding the use and effects of these chemicals on humans.

Edited December 4, 2013 by HuaHinHarold

[HuaHinHarold]

Ink, that dangerous chemical is called ink. And it's used by many other police forces in the world.

It was not ink. They was made that abundantly clear in the OP and the following multiple posts throughout the thread that address what exactly was used.

Suggest you read either or both.

It's also not been established that ANY other police force in the world uses the chemicals, not ink, that the Thai police used.

.

"Ms. Chantana Padungtos, MD, an official from Department of Disease Control which operates under Ministry of Public Health, said the water has been mixed with a colourful and hard-to-clean chemical in order to identify the aggressive protesters and arrest them later, if the police chose to do so."

You repeated your post of the article that I replied to without addressing any points.

Would, again, strongly encourage you to read the rest of the OP and the now dozens of posts addressing the issue of these chemicals, NOT ink.

.

[HuaHinHarold]

A lot of things may be harmful in large amounts, including water itself, so that's neither here nor there really.

Doesn't sound like something worth calling the UN about. How and why would they infuse it with the tear gas? Surely the cannisters are sealed?

So then, that's a no, you didn't find another situation where those two chemicals, as opposed to dye, were infused with the tear gas.

Did you find a material safety data sheet for your example of water, which you somehow bizarrely equate to these chemicals, then?

As for how and why they would mix these chemicals, and not dye, I don't know.

All we know is that she said they were with the tear gas.

That and people here cavalierly speculating, with no posted evidence, that there are no harmful effects involved with these chemicals, even thought there are scientific material safety data sheets for each of them pointing to the potential... for harmful effects.

.

I can't see where she says anything about these chemicals being mixed with tear gas. All I see is "And no tear gas was mixed into the water because tear gas cannot be used in water". I don't think anyone is actually claiming these chemicals were mixed with tear gas, are they? I think anti-govt protesters were claiming that the water contained tear gas or acid, not vice versa.

Yes, you're right. I mixed up the tear gas they used on the protesters with the water cannons they used on the protestors.

It doesn't really change all that much, in regards that chemicals were used against the protestors and that similar situations elsewhere where these chemicals, as opposed to dye, were mixed with the water has yet to be found.

Seems my inadvertent error in mixing up the water cannons with the tear gas actually turned out to be correct.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/686645-bangkok-protests-purple-substance-mixed-with-tear-gas-proven-not-dangerous/

Still, the delivery system for the chemicals is not as important as all the other unanswered questions regarding their use. Unfortunately, even with the new information, those questions remain unanswered.

.

[newcomer71]

Ink, that dangerous chemical is called ink. And it's used by many other police forces in the world.

It was not ink. They was made that abundantly clear in the OP and the following multiple posts throughout the thread that address what exactly was used.

Suggest you read either or both.

It's also not been established that ANY other police force in the world uses the chemicals, not ink, that the Thai police used.

.

"Ms. Chantana Padungtos, MD, an official from Department of Disease Control which operates under Ministry of Public Health, said the water has been mixed with a colourful and hard-to-clean chemical in order to identify the aggressive protesters and arrest them later, if the police chose to do so."

You repeated your post of the article that I replied to without addressing any points.

Would, again, strongly encourage you to read the rest of the OP and the now dozens of posts addressing the issue of these chemicals, NOT ink.

I read the post, thanks for your encouragement, and for a glitch, my message before the quoting was cut.

I reckon they did not use ink, I also reckon that in the article you quoted, they (not red shirts, not Jatuporn, not Yingluck) confirmed that chemical was not dangerous for health. That should be enough to avoid any chemical weapon talking or conspiracy theory.

[HuaHinHarold]

It was not ink. They was made that abundantly clear in the OP and the following multiple posts throughout the thread that address what exactly was used.

Suggest you read either or both.

It's also not been established that ANY other police force in the world uses the chemicals, not ink, that the Thai police used.

.

"Ms. Chantana Padungtos, MD, an official from Department of Disease Control which operates under Ministry of Public Health, said the water has been mixed with a colourful and hard-to-clean chemical in order to identify the aggressive protesters and arrest them later, if the police chose to do so."

You repeated your post of the article that I replied to without addressing any points.

Would, again, strongly encourage you to read the rest of the OP and the now dozens of posts addressing the issue of these chemicals, NOT ink.

I read the post, thanks for your encouragement, and for a glitch, my message before the quoting was cut.

I reckon they did not use ink, I also reckon that in the article you quoted, they (not red shirts, not Jatuporn, not Yingluck) confirmed that chemical was not dangerous for health. That should be enough to avoid any chemical weapon talking or conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately, many unanswered questions remain. First, the new article doesn't even identify the chemical. Two, there are, per this thread, two chemicals involved, not one. Third, no analysis of concentrations are mentioned.

In this huge vacuum of genuine and clear information, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to simply be asking relevant and fundamental questions.

.

[newcomer71]

I read the post, thanks for your encouragement, and for a glitch, my message before the quoting was cut.

I reckon they did not use ink, I also reckon that in the article you quoted, they (not red shirts, not Jatuporn, not Yingluck) confirmed that chemical was not dangerous for health. That should be enough to avoid any chemical weapon talking or conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately, many unanswered questions remain. First, the new article doesn't even identify the chemical. Two, there are, per this thread, two chemicals involved, not one. Third, no analysis of concentrations are mentioned.

In this huge vacuum of genuine and clear information, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to simply be asking relevant and fundamental questions.

I did not refer to you about the conspiracy theories... just to be clear again.

But I have a question for you: how many people have been confirmed hospitalized with serious burns or diseases applicable to chemical weapon attack?