Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Cassava farmers protest Paraquat ban

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chazar said:

I dont believe it is its  only "highly dangerous" neat, when diluted with water its a  lot  less dangerous

Why don't you try drinking some then?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mister Fixit said:

Why don't you try drinking some then?

followed by a petroleum "chaser"?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think i've had a fair say on this subject😁

The thing is there so many bad things which we use daily that are not subject to this kind of harassment.

Everyone who comments on here does something,somewhere to contribute to their grave.

Being using a product from a mineral dug out of the ground or  gas emissions to using electricity.

Everybody has different priorities,for me i'd like to keep the chemicals,used in moderation and ban mobile phones.There a sickness on society far greater than paraquat will ever be.   

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mister Fixit said:

Why don't you try drinking some then?

how ridiculous  you  look

 

Pure paraquat, when ingested, is highly toxic to mammals, including humans, potentially leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although there are no specific antidotes, fuller's earth or activated charcoal is an effective treatment if taken in time. There have been some successful cases of using cyclophosphamide to treat paraquat poisoning.[28] Oxygen should not be administered unless SpO2 levels are below 92%, as high concentrations of oxygen intensify the toxic effects.[29][30] Death may occur up to 30 days after ingestion. Diluted paraquat used for spraying is less toxic; thus, the greatest risk of accidental poisoning is during mixing and loading paraquat for use.[10]

Edited by Chazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Samuel Smith said:

followed by a petroleum "chaser"?

guess  your  middle  name isnt "sensible"  then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chazar said:

do YOU have any idea how difficult it is to get ANYONE to actually work on the land?any idea at all?

Nope, but that can not stand as a reason or excuse to keep using chemicals in farming that kills people.
 

2 hours ago, farmerjo said:

So you could not come up with a figure then.

Nope, but that can not stand as a reason or excuse to keep using chemicals in farming that kills people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Nope, but that can not stand as a reason or excuse to keep using chemicals in farming that kills people.
 

Nope, but that can not stand as a reason or excuse to keep using chemicals in farming that kills people.

It can stand as reason,you clearly no nothing about agriculture.

When you can come back with a cost for affected farmers you may of learnt something.

Edited by farmerjo
cost
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

It can stand as reason,you clearly no nothing about agriculture.

When you can come back with a cost for affected farmers you may of learnt something.

Tell me how it has been possible in many other places but not in Thailand.

If there is a cost, then it has to be. Just because something gets a little bit higher price, is not a reason to endanger peoples health. After that you can talk economy as much as you wish. You can never be right if you chose money over health.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chazar said:

do YOU have any idea how difficult it is to get ANYONE to actually work on the land?any idea at all?

That is true to an increasing degree. Even  owner croppers would prefer the convenience of chemical application. The  majority  are not at all interested in even using the free soil testing services  available because they think they  already "understand" their land. Herbicides, insecticides  and   cheap and nasty "fertilizers" applied copiously and often  unnecessary. Productivity on Thai  soil  has decreased incrementally per rai in spite of. And probably in part because of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vacuum said:

It's been banned in the EU since 2007.

How much cassava do they grow in the EU

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, farmerjo said:

And how much cassava does the EU grow?

In a nut shell non.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Tell me how it has been possible in many other places but not in Thailand.

Well it doesn't snow in Thailand,soils are different etc,etc

Your missing the point with the cost,it could be the difference of being viable or not.

 How many people do you know that have had their health endangered from this terrible chemical. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Nope, but that can not stand as a reason or excuse to keep using chemicals in farming that kills people.
 

Nope, but that can not stand as a reason or excuse to keep using chemicals in farming that kills people.

It is not the use in farming that  kills. It is the misuse and  abuse that has  vilified  Paraquat .

If consumers were happy to bear the cost  of food  production by labour intensive  means then all  good!

Yet despite that  may increase  rural agricultural employment and rural economic  turnover it  would be unlikely to be of financial benefit to the farmer  employers. As it already is  the  middle man would  simply keep taking the easy profit  sitting behind a desk while the  farmer would see  more money  simply passed through their  hands.

Farmers  may indeed  have become lazier in practice  but  that is likely to be  because they have come to  recognize the fact that if they work their  butts off  it  gets them  no more significant reward.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Well it doesn't snow in Thailand,soils are different etc,etc

Your missing the point with the cost,it could be the difference of being viable or not.

 How many people do you know that have had their health endangered from this terrible chemical. 

 

Viable or not, can not be put in the same sentence as safety and health.

Since when odes it matter how many persons I personally know that have been affected?

Ask yourself why other countries already banned these chemicals many years ago? It was surely not because they had enough snow or other soils and definately not for the reason of etc. etc. It was purely because the danger they pose to human health and life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ironic part is Thailand hasn't even had a chance to practise modern farming technics in certain areas.

And they require chemicals which they look like banning before they even get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...