Mister Fixit 2,000 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Samuel Smith 1,646 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, Mister Fixit said: Why don't you try drinking some then? followed by a petroleum "chaser"? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
farmerjo 3,373 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Chazar 8,650 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 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 October 16, 2019 by Chazar Link to post Share on other sites
Chazar 8,650 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 16 minutes ago, Samuel Smith said: followed by a petroleum "chaser"? guess your middle name isnt "sensible" then? Link to post Share on other sites
Matzzon 13,663 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. Link to post Share on other sites
farmerjo 3,373 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 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 October 16, 2019 by farmerjo cost 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Matzzon 13,663 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Dumbastheycome 5,698 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Fred white 1,179 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 7 hours ago, Vacuum said: It's been banned in the EU since 2007. How much cassava do they grow in the EU 1 Link to post Share on other sites
kickstart 2,536 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 6 hours ago, farmerjo said: And how much cassava does the EU grow? In a nut shell non. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
farmerjo 3,373 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Dumbastheycome 5,698 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Matzzon 13,663 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. Link to post Share on other sites
farmerjo 3,373 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now