Or whatever they call you nowadays,
I wish to direct your attention to your recent temporary ban lift on paraquat (tag).
In an article by M. Krishnamoorthy in The Star on Tuesday, October 3 2006, you state the reason the ban is being lifted is to conduct a cost and benefit analysis on the usage of paraquat:
After reading the article, I'm a little dumbfounded. I'm neither a farmer nor a scientist that specializes in herbicide. Neither am I too sure if I've actually seen a bottle of paraquat. So pardon the state of mind I'm currently in. Nevertheless, I do know through my readings that paraquat is a very strong poison. It's potentially dangerous if safety guidelines aren't followed to the letter. Despite that, I'm not totally against the usage of paraquat. In fact, I'm not even sure if I'm actually objecting to the use of that herbicide. What disturbs me is the reasoning you offer. It doesn't make sense. Moreover, if that's your policy on how to conduct experiment, it's a bad practice.
If you want to commission a comprehensive study on the effects of paraquat usage, couldn't you just study it a laboratory instead of lifting the ban nationwide? With the lift of the ban for the sake of conducting a study, you're turning the country into a guinea pig. Worse, that descision potentially expose many plantation workers in harm's way. If you really need to test paraquat out in the open air, you could just find a farm or two and conduct experiments there. The country isn't a one big laboratory owned exclusively by you.
Perhaps, you have never heard a concept called "precautionary principle". I'm a green and so, I'm familiar with it. I embrace it though from time to time, I do take too much risk that I'm supposed too. But I'm digressing. The point I'm trying to convey here is that you should be familiar with the concept, given that you get to play with many dangerous species of chemicals that could potentially affect million if used widely unwisely.
I don't mind if you like to play around with chemicals. Hey, when I was a student at a high school (even as an undergraduate at Michigan), I love chemicals! At Michigan, there are a number of small chambers where I as a freshman handled hazardous fume; I didn't handle hazardous chemical outside of the chamber. It wouldn't be safe to me or anybody that might be around during that experiment.
Do you have the same chamber in your laboratory? I hope you do. If you don't, perhaps you could ask some cash from the Malaysian astronaut program and build that chamber for your use. In fact, you could do your experiment in that chamber!
With the chamber, if something bad accidentally happened, at least it would be limited in that chamber. The country isn't a guinea pig; please be responsible. Please limit your little science project to your laboratories.
With all this in mind, I suspect your intention to temporarily lift that ban has nothing to do with cost and benefit analysis. I suspect the lift is a little less than sincere. The basis of the suspicion is simple; with the temporary nationwide lift of the ban for the sake of conducting a cost and benefit analysis, entities that are calling for the legalization of paraquat usage get to use the chemical freely. On one hand, the study could be conducted at some confined place. That strikes as a bit odd, don't you think so, especially the analysis could easily be done in a lab, thus migitating lots of risk?
Sorry if I sound redundant but I'm not supporting the ban at the moment. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty much a free market kind of guy and most often than not, I'd support the use of paraquat and disagree with bans. Accounting full cost accounting practice, I might be okay with heavily regulated use, even. So, you could say, all I'm questioning is your sincerity of the lifting of the ban.
Regards.
I wish to direct your attention to your recent temporary ban lift on paraquat (tag).
In an article by M. Krishnamoorthy in The Star on Tuesday, October 3 2006, you state the reason the ban is being lifted is to conduct a cost and benefit analysis on the usage of paraquat:
KUALA LUMPUR: The ban on the herbicide paraquat will be temporarily lifted from Nov 1, to allow a comprehensive study on its many uses.
The Pesticide Control Division under the then Agriculture Ministry banned the weedkiller for its hazardous effect on health in August 2002.
The decision to temporarily lift the ban by the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry now was made following appeals from farmers and manufacturers to look at the greater uses of the herbicide.
"We want to do an extensive study on paraquat, its harmful effects and positive aspects, before the set date for its total ban in November next year," Pesticide Control Division director Nursiah Tajul Arus told The Star.
After reading the article, I'm a little dumbfounded. I'm neither a farmer nor a scientist that specializes in herbicide. Neither am I too sure if I've actually seen a bottle of paraquat. So pardon the state of mind I'm currently in. Nevertheless, I do know through my readings that paraquat is a very strong poison. It's potentially dangerous if safety guidelines aren't followed to the letter. Despite that, I'm not totally against the usage of paraquat. In fact, I'm not even sure if I'm actually objecting to the use of that herbicide. What disturbs me is the reasoning you offer. It doesn't make sense. Moreover, if that's your policy on how to conduct experiment, it's a bad practice.
If you want to commission a comprehensive study on the effects of paraquat usage, couldn't you just study it a laboratory instead of lifting the ban nationwide? With the lift of the ban for the sake of conducting a study, you're turning the country into a guinea pig. Worse, that descision potentially expose many plantation workers in harm's way. If you really need to test paraquat out in the open air, you could just find a farm or two and conduct experiments there. The country isn't a one big laboratory owned exclusively by you.
Perhaps, you have never heard a concept called "precautionary principle". I'm a green and so, I'm familiar with it. I embrace it though from time to time, I do take too much risk that I'm supposed too. But I'm digressing. The point I'm trying to convey here is that you should be familiar with the concept, given that you get to play with many dangerous species of chemicals that could potentially affect million if used widely unwisely.
I don't mind if you like to play around with chemicals. Hey, when I was a student at a high school (even as an undergraduate at Michigan), I love chemicals! At Michigan, there are a number of small chambers where I as a freshman handled hazardous fume; I didn't handle hazardous chemical outside of the chamber. It wouldn't be safe to me or anybody that might be around during that experiment.
Do you have the same chamber in your laboratory? I hope you do. If you don't, perhaps you could ask some cash from the Malaysian astronaut program and build that chamber for your use. In fact, you could do your experiment in that chamber!
With the chamber, if something bad accidentally happened, at least it would be limited in that chamber. The country isn't a guinea pig; please be responsible. Please limit your little science project to your laboratories.
With all this in mind, I suspect your intention to temporarily lift that ban has nothing to do with cost and benefit analysis. I suspect the lift is a little less than sincere. The basis of the suspicion is simple; with the temporary nationwide lift of the ban for the sake of conducting a cost and benefit analysis, entities that are calling for the legalization of paraquat usage get to use the chemical freely. On one hand, the study could be conducted at some confined place. That strikes as a bit odd, don't you think so, especially the analysis could easily be done in a lab, thus migitating lots of risk?
Sorry if I sound redundant but I'm not supporting the ban at the moment. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty much a free market kind of guy and most often than not, I'd support the use of paraquat and disagree with bans. Accounting full cost accounting practice, I might be okay with heavily regulated use, even. So, you could say, all I'm questioning is your sincerity of the lifting of the ban.
Regards.
