Yes! Its Raining. No, Its Not Raining.

[rishi]

Perfect weather & views on the Samoeng Loop today.

You can all stop complaining now.

There is a difference between complaining and trying to do something ... I like the clean air as well!!

Yet another example of the widespread silliness on this board - you are doing NOTHING by complaining on this board except complaining on this board!

Edited April 4, 2008 by rishi

[Maejo Man]

No, it is not true that the earth "wobbles" on its axis. That is a widely circulated urban myth.

Well it wobbled for me tonight, but there again I had wobbly company

[Blinky Bill]

Yet another example of the widespread silliness on this board - you are doing NOTHING by complaining on this board except complaining on this board!

Some folks just aren't happy unless they're unhappy about something.

[Ulysses G.]

Perfect weather & views on the Samoeng Loop today.

You can all stop complaining now.

There is a difference between complaining and trying to do something ... I like the clean air as well!!

Yet another example of the widespread silliness on this board - you are doing NOTHING by complaining on this board except complaining on this board!

If only that were 100% true.

Someone has done a great job of scaring off tourists that usually come here at this time of year.

Last night, the Thai owner of Art Cafe told me that she doesn't understand why it is so slow right now, "There were only a few bad days this year" and usually high season lasts until after the Songkran holiday. The Wheezing Whingers are certainly doing their utmost to damage Chiang Mai's economy.

[Bananaman]

Perfect weather & views on the Samoeng Loop today.

You can all stop complaining now.

There is a difference between complaining and trying to do something ... I like the clean air as well!!

Yet another example of the widespread silliness on this board - you are doing NOTHING by complaining on this board except complaining on this board!

If only that were 100% true.

Someone has done a great job of scaring off tourists that usually come here at this time of year.

Last night, the Thai owner of Art Cafe told me that she doesn't understand why it is so slow right now, "There were only a few bad days this year" and usually high season lasts until after the Songkran holiday. The Wheezing Whingers are certainly doing their utmost to damage Chiang Mai's economy.

Well seeing as thaivisa doesn't come up in the first three pages of results on a Google search (sorry couldn't be bothered to look beyond that) I would think it highly unlikely that any significant proportion of tourists has bothered to sit and read page upon page of the obsessive dronings of tired old expatriates endlessly arguing the toss over whether the air is dangerous or not. The top hit on a Google search is the Citylife website and the only pollution related story they featured (http://www.chiangmainews.com/forumn/viewtopic.php?id=142) is in fact a factual one telling of how pollution did indeed exceed safety standards again at the beginning of March. Now if folk stayed away on account of that then they did so because they decided quite simply that they didn't wish to expose themselves to those dangers. Given the choice of the fresh sea air of Phuket or Samui against the smokey haze of CM, wouldn't you take the former?

[Ulysses G.]

Given the choice of the fresh sea air of Phuket or Samui against the smokey haze of CM, wouldn't you take the former?

I would if I were a tourist, but simply because I have always prefered the beach to the attractions of Chiang Mai. When I used to visit Thailand, I would go to both.

[Priceless]

If only that were 100% true.

Someone has done a great job of scaring off tourists that usually come here at this time of year.

Last night, the Thai owner of Art Cafe told me that she doesn't understand why it is so slow right now, "There were only a few bad days this year" and usually high season lasts until after the Songkran holiday. The Wheezing Whingers are certainly doing their utmost to damage Chiang Mai's economy.

Well seeing as thaivisa doesn't come up in the first three pages of results on a Google search (sorry couldn't be bothered to look beyond that) I would think it highly unlikely that any significant proportion of tourists has bothered to sit and read page upon page of the obsessive dronings of tired old expatriates endlessly arguing the toss over whether the air is dangerous or not. The top hit on a Google search is the Citylife website and the only pollution related story they featured (http://www.chiangmainews.com/forumn/viewtopic.php?id=142) is in fact a factual one telling of how pollution did indeed exceed safety standards again at the beginning of March. Now if folk stayed away on account of that then they did so because they decided quite simply that they didn't wish to expose themselves to those dangers. Given the choice of the fresh sea air of Phuket or Samui against the smokey haze of CM, wouldn't you take the former?

WARNING! If you don't like numbers, this post will bore you to death!

After all the discussions on this forum about pollution, and all the people "knowing" that Chiang Mai is the most polluted city in Thailand, if not the world, I decided to put some effort into finding some facts. I guess my idea was based on a quote from the late Chester Barnard (telecoms executive and organisational theorist): "It is what we think we know that keeps us from learning."

Basically, there are two definitions of pollution level: The highest single value during a given period of time (usually a year) or the average level during a given period (also usually a year). I hope somebody with a medical training (any doctors out there?) can confirm my impression that the first value is of the greatest importance to e.g. sufferers from asthma and other respiratory ailments. The second (average) value is in my impression the most important for e.g. causing lung cancer and other ailments that build up over time.

The high single values make for long queues out side doctors' clinics, with patients looking for some quick relief. The also make very good material for journalists, since they are easily experienced by the general public, through poor visibility etc. The average values are (I believe) more important for the long-term health of residents. The latest internationally published standards for air quality, the World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines (Global Update 2005 http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf ), gives a set of levels for both these kinds of measurements. Unfortunately I have found it impossible to find usable data for the "single values". Of course one can find individual dates with very high pollution, like the 144.6 ug/m3 measured at Yupparaj College on 6 March, as mentioned in the CityLife article quoted above. This is unfortunately not very useful in comparing two different locations (e.g. Chiang Mai vs Phuket) as you would need complete data series to be able to judge the frequency with which these "peaks" occur.

For the above reasons, I decided to compile statistics of average pollution levels for a number of locations in Thailand. (Reliable averages are easily computed using incomplete data series, provided you have a reasonable number of observations.) I decided, quite arbitrarily, on the following locations:

Chiang Mai - Because that's the subject of this forum.

Lampang - Our dear neighbours, who don't have a forum of their own. (The pollution level is also supposed to be higher than Chiang Mai's.)

Phuket - Because it supposedly has very little pollution, and bescause it is home to a lot of farangs.

Chon Buri - Same reasons as Phuket (Pattaya is in Chon Buri).

Din Daeng in BKK - It is quite a polluted area (traffic) but also home and/or workplace for many farang.

Samut Prakarn - Supposedly the most polluted area in Thailand.

Surat Thani - Supposedly the least polluted area in Thailand.

To somewhat limit my effort (I've had to manually enter all measurements into MS/Excel spreadsheets), and because of some dodgy-looking data from the end of the 1990's, I decided to only use data from 2000-2008.

The WHO Air Quality Guidelines has four levels, three interim targets and the actual Air Quality Guideline.There are very few cities in the world that today fulfil the AQG. The world bank has published a list of 111 cities ( http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf ) out of which only 19 fulfil the AQG, all (except Caracas) in the developed world and in temperate climate zones.

So, lots of words, where are all those numbers? Here:

Lots of "unnecessary" information in there, the most interesting line is the third from the bottom. Samut Prakarn is the most polluted and Surat Thani the least, just as I presumed before starting this exercise. However, the interesting part are the other locations, Here in order of descending average pollution levels: Din Daeng (BKK), Chon Buri, Lampang, Phuket and Chiang Mai. Chiang Mai is actually the least polluted! How come its reputation then? If you exclude Lampang, Chiang Mai has the highest average for a single month (no prizes for guessing March!). It may be easier to see what's up from a graph:

Chiang Mai has a giant peak in March but is actually comparable with the other locations during January, February and April and considerably better for the rest of the year. Somebody who wants to minimise his/her exposure to pollution, and still stay in one of these popular "farang areas", should probably live in Chiang Mai but leave for Phuket during March of each year. Moving to Phuket from Chiang Mai actually increases one's exposure to PM-10 pollution.

So what about the WHO Guidelines? Here:

As could be expected, Samut Prakarn is way off the map. Din Daeng, Chon Buri, Lampang and Phuket are all within Interim Target 1 but only Chiang Mai and Surat Thani are within the (lower) Interim Target 2.

Surprised? I was!

/ Priceless

Edited April 5, 2008 by Priceless

[Rasseru]

Even more Priceless stuff, and very welcome. But here's the thing -- how do I make the graphs big enough to read? (Or is my shortsightedness just worse than I thought?) I've tried clicking all over them, but nothing happens.

[Priceless]

Even more Priceless stuff, and very welcome. But here's the thing -- how do I make the graphs big enough to read? (Or is my shortsightedness just worse than I thought?) I've tried clicking all over them, but nothing happens.

A single click on any of the miniatures should do, or do you have something (security software of some kind) blocking popups In that case you may need to disable it

/ Priceless

[Rasseru]

Even more Priceless stuff, and very welcome. But here's the thing -- how do I make the graphs big enough to read? (Or is my shortsightedness just worse than I thought?) I've tried clicking all over them, but nothing happens.

A single click on any of the miniatures should do, or do you have something (security software of some kind) blocking popups In that case you may need to disable it

/ Priceless

Got it, thanks. It appears I misspoke previously -- and as we ran from the runway, the snipers were shooting at us from all sides! -- incorrectly saying that I had clicked all over the graphs. In fact, my multiple and fruitless clicks were all in the frame around the graphs. Everything is cool now, and you have made me much happier about living in Chiangmai!

[Priceless]

Even more Priceless stuff, and very welcome. But here's the thing -- how do I make the graphs big enough to read? (Or is my shortsightedness just worse than I thought?) I've tried clicking all over them, but nothing happens.

A single click on any of the miniatures should do, or do you have something (security software of some kind) blocking popups In that case you may need to disable it

/ Priceless

Got it, thanks. It appears I misspoke previously -- and as we ran from the runway, the snipers were shooting at us from all sides! -- incorrectly saying that I had clicked all over the graphs. In fact, my multiple and fruitless clicks were all in the frame around the graphs. Everything is cool now, and you have made me much happier about living in Chiangmai!

Then I'm happy too

/ Priceless

[lannarebirth]

Very good and well presented study Priceless. Thank You. I wonder what a list of cities in Thailand ex March would look like?

[Priceless]

Very good and well presented study Priceless. Thank You. I wonder what a list of cities in Thailand ex March would look like?

Since you ask this is roughly it:

Samut Prakarn: 125,1

Din Daeng: 67,8

Chon Buri: 60,2

Lampang: 52,3

Phuket: 51,3

Chiang Mai: 42,6

Surat Thani: 30,3

I.e. the order remains the same, the WHO classification does too and the only really big changes would be for Chiang Mai and Lampang, where the average level would be significantly lower (because of their "peaks" in March).

BTW here's a graph showing CM and Lampang with the "high" Samut Prakarn and "low" Surat Thani:

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

If only that were 100% true.

Someone has done a great job of scaring off tourists that usually come here at this time of year.

Last night, the Thai owner of Art Cafe told me that she doesn't understand why it is so slow right now, "There were only a few bad days this year" and usually high season lasts until after the Songkran holiday. The Wheezing Whingers are certainly doing their utmost to damage Chiang Mai's economy.

Well seeing as thaivisa doesn't come up in the first three pages of results on a Google search (sorry couldn't be bothered to look beyond that) I would think it highly unlikely that any significant proportion of tourists has bothered to sit and read page upon page of the obsessive dronings of tired old expatriates endlessly arguing the toss over whether the air is dangerous or not. The top hit on a Google search is the Citylife website and the only pollution related story they featured (http://www.chiangmainews.com/forumn/viewtopic.php?id=142) is in fact a factual one telling of how pollution did indeed exceed safety standards again at the beginning of March. Now if folk stayed away on account of that then they did so because they decided quite simply that they didn't wish to expose themselves to those dangers. Given the choice of the fresh sea air of Phuket or Samui against the smokey haze of CM, wouldn't you take the former?

WARNING! If you don't like numbers, this post will bore you to death!

After all the discussions on this forum about pollution, and all the people "knowing" that Chiang Mai is the most polluted city in Thailand, if not the world, I decided to put some effort into finding some facts. I guess my idea was based on a quote from the late Chester Barnard (telecoms executive and organisational theorist): "It is what we think we know that keeps us from learning."

Basically, there are two definitions of pollution level: The highest single value during a given period of time (usually a year) or the average level during a given period (also usually a year). I hope somebody with a medical training (any doctors out there?) can confirm my impression that the first value is of the greatest importance to e.g. sufferers from asthma and other respiratory ailments. The second (average) value is in my impression the most important for e.g. causing lung cancer and other ailments that build up over time.

The high single values make for long queues out side doctors' clinics, with patients looking for some quick relief. The also make very good material for journalists, since they are easily experienced by the general public, through poor visibility etc. The average values are (I believe) more important for the long-term health of residents. The latest internationally published standards for air quality, the World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines (Global Update 2005 http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf ), gives a set of levels for both these kinds of measurements. Unfortunately I have found it impossible to find usable data for the "single values". Of course one can find individual dates with very high pollution, like the 144.6 ug/m3 measured at Yupparaj College on 6 March, as mentioned in the CityLife article quoted above. This is unfortunately not very useful in comparing two different locations (e.g. Chiang Mai vs Phuket) as you would need complete data series to be able to judge the frequency with which these "peaks" occur.

For the above reasons, I decided to compile statistics of average pollution levels for a number of locations in Thailand. (Reliable averages are easily computed using incomplete data series, provided you have a reasonable number of observations.) I decided, quite arbitrarily, on the following locations:

Chiang Mai - Because that's the subject of this forum.

Lampang - Our dear neighbours, who don't have a forum of their own. (The pollution level is also supposed to be higher than Chiang Mai's.)

Phuket - Because it supposedly has very little pollution, and bescause it is home to a lot of farangs.

Chon Buri - Same reasons as Phuket (Pattaya is in Chon Buri).

Din Daeng in BKK - It is quite a polluted area (traffic) but also home and/or workplace for many farang.

Samut Prakarn - Supposedly the most polluted area in Thailand.

Surat Thani - Supposedly the least polluted area in Thailand.

To somewhat limit my effort (I've had to manually enter all measurements into MS/Excel spreadsheets), and because of some dodgy-looking data from the end of the 1990's, I decided to only use data from 2000-2008.

The WHO Air Quality Guidelines has four levels, three interim targets and the actual Air Quality Guideline.There are very few cities in the world that today fulfil the AQG. The world bank has published a list of 111 cities ( http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf ) out of which only 19 fulfil the AQG, all (except Caracas) in the developed world and in temperate climate zones.

So, lots of words, where are all those numbers? Here:

Lots of "unnecessary" information in there, the most interesting line is the third from the bottom. Samut Prakarn is the most polluted and Surat Thani the least, just as I presumed before starting this exercise. However, the interesting part are the other locations, Here in order of descending average pollution levels: Din Daeng (BKK), Chon Buri, Lampang, Phuket and Chiang Mai. Chiang Mai is actually the least polluted! How come its reputation then? If you exclude Lampang, Chiang Mai has the highest average for a single month (no prizes for guessing March!). It may be easier to see what's up from a graph:

Chiang Mai has a giant peak in March but is actually comparable with the other locations during January, February and April and considerably better for the rest of the year. Somebody who wants to minimise his/her exposure to pollution, and still stay in one of these popular "farang areas", should probably live in Chiang Mai but leave for Phuket during March of each year. Moving to Phuket from Chiang Mai actually increases one's exposure to PM-10 pollution.

So what about the WHO Guidelines? Here:

As could be expected, Samut Prakarn is way off the map. Din Daeng, Chon Buri, Lampang and Phuket are all within Interim Target 1 but only Chiang Mai and Surat Thani are within the (lower) Interim Target 2.

Surprised? I was!

/ Priceless

Lots of good stuff here, especially the references.

Some observations:

Regional Variations

I'm all for chasing away the Chicken Littles and their ilk, but I'm not exactly sure what the purpose was in going to all that trouble in selecting various places in Thailand with which to compare Chiang Mai. Nonetheless, my casual interest in the same thing has led to a surprise.

My favorite place for informal comparison happens to be Khon Kaen, up on the Issan Plateau, an area of very little industry and lots of rice farming. It is remarkably clear up there as a rule. Of course, the topography is quite different --- no natural bowl between mountains to capture the bad air --- but I was still mystified since rice straw burning is supposed to be greatest cause of the nasty pollution experienced in the Central and Northern regions, and the Northeast is rice country, too. A little while ago, I asked someone from a farm on the NE Plateau about burning fields. The very surprising answer: We plow under the straw. Don't burn it! Well, I think that's definitely worth further research!

Seasonal Variation in Chiang Mai

Priceless' numbers nail the "spikey" nature of pollution in Chiang Mai. Not a surprise. Just as he put it, no prizes for guessing right. But take a closer look at the numbers. The spike peaks in March, but there is an unfortunate "mountain" of pollution that really begins to get serious in February. If you look at WHO standards,

you'll notice that February, like March, is outside WHO PM10 target areas. And January isn't good either. So it really isn't just two-three weeks in March we are talking about here when there should be concern. We are talking --- depending on the year --- about a period of many more weeks according to WHO standards. So, what about standards?

A Brief Aside about Standards: There are serious differences of opinion about standards. "How bad is bad?" is a central question. "What is achievable to ameliorate or eliminate the problem?" is another. Thailand chooses 120 as a danger point. That is considerably outside eventhe highest WHO target of 70, which somewould argue is too liberal by far.

So where does that leave us?

There's a problem! It is interesting to know that it is better or worse from place to place, but that doesn't solve the problem. Ignoring the problem certainly doesn't help. Can we focus on improving the situation by addressing two central concerns: public health and tourism?

Public health should, I hope, be the most important concern. Bad episodes and cumulative impact of pollution are different. Both are dangerous. I think it is totally thoughtless to suggest that those with problems should just pack up and take a trip somewhere until the air improves. That might be great for the rich and idle! WHat about the rest of us?!

The natural beauty of the area is supposed to be one of its big draws, but it isn't so pretty much of the time, January - March. That is pretty easy to understand by simply checking out Doi Suthep every morning, as I do, or taking the Samoeng loop from time to time. Unfortunately, the air turns crappy much of the time when those who depend upon tourism are hopeful for a lot of business. Rather hard to sell Chinag Mai's natural beauty when you can't see it!

The solution to improving things is neither quick nor easy, but it is doable over time. If you experienced the serious pollution problems of Japan, for example, or of Europe and the USA years ago, you'll have been through this before.

I suggest that the tourism business crowd join the public health authorities and start putting the pressure on for solutions, not trying to hush things up. Everyone has everything to gain by doing so.

[swain]

So where does that leave us?

There's a problem! It is interesting to know that it is better or worse from place to place, but that doesn't solve the problem. Ignoring the problem certainly doesn't help. Can we focus on improving the situation by addressing two central concerns: public health and tourism?

Public health should, I hope, be the most important concern. Bad episodes and cumulative impact of pollution are different. Both are dangerous. I think it is totally thoughtless to suggest that those with problems should just pack up and take a trip somewhere until the air improves. That might be great for the rich and idle! WHat about the rest of us?!

The natural beauty of the area is supposed to be one of its big draws, but it isn't so pretty much of the time, January - March. That is pretty easy to understand by simply checking out Doi Suthep every morning, as I do, or taking the Samoeng loop from time to time. Unfortunately, the air turns crappy much of the time when those who depend upon tourism are hopeful for a lot of business. Rather hard to sell Chinag Mai's natural beauty when you can't see it!

The solution to improving things is neither quick nor easy, but it is doable over time. If you experienced the serious pollution problems of Japan, for example, or of Europe and the USA years ago, you'll have been through this before.

I suggest that the tourism business crowd join the public health authorities and start putting the pressure on for solutions, not trying to hush things up. Everyone has everything to gain by doing so.

Hear hear!! You nailed it. People that live in glass houses need to help keep the windows clean!

Edited April 5, 2008 by swain

[Priceless]

I was hoping that my previous (long) post was clear enough, but it obviously was not, at least for some of the members of the forum. Consequently I will try to clarify a few points:

- My purpose with my "research" was not to prove that nothing needs to be done about pollution in Chiang Mai. Of course it does, and this post along with a lot of my earlier ones hopefully show that I am fully aware of this fact.

- The purpose of my "research" was, among other things, to disprove the "urban myth" that Chiang Mai is (among) the most polluted cities in Thailand. It is not, it is (probably) among the least polluted.

- I also find it interesting to see that such a very large proportion of total annual pollution comes during the month of March. As can be seen from this (previously posted) graph, the months of January and February are high, but not higher than in some of the supposedly cleanest locations in Thailand. This leads to the (somewhat obvious) conclusion that, at least initially, the greatest effort should be directed at the causes of this March "peak". Quite possibly, they are the same as for January's and February's level, but in that case, so much for the better.

- Another purpose was to show, to those who may be contemplating it, that moving to e.g. Phuket to "flee" the pollution might not be such a good idea, if the average yearly pollution is their primary concern. (To avoid the effects of the "peak" pollution levels on e.g. asthma it is probably still a good idea to get out of CM, at least during March of each year. There is however nothing in my post to prove or disprove this point as I don't discuss the short-term levels.)

- In spite of my efforts to the contrary, Mapguy insists on confusing short-term levels and standards with long-term. To (possibly) reduce this confusion a little bit, here's the WHO Air Quality Guideline (AQG) for short-term (24-hour mean) pollution leves:

As one can see when comparing this to the AQG for yearly mean levels, the different levels in ug/m3 are very different. I had a quick look at the observations for Chiang Mai so far this year (hopefully pollution has now left its peak for this year) and found the 4th most polluted day being 23 March with a level of 119.7 ug/m3. This is certainly not good, but it is, by a wide margin, within the AQG Interim Target 1. Comparing a single day's level (the year's worst at that) with the standard for a yearly mean is of course nonsense. In actual fact, comparing a month's mean level with a standard for yearly averages is also nonsense. To quote Mapguy: "We are talking --- depending on the year --- about a period of many more weeks according to WHO standards. So, what about standards?" Yes, what about standards? WHO does have a yearly standard and a daily standard but it does not, and I know of no other organisation or agency that does, have a weekly or monthly standard. I'll state it once again: Comparing a daily, weekly, monthly, six-montly or whatever value to a yearly standard is nonsense. Whoever does it must, provided (s)he has even a rudimentary understanding of statistics, have an agenda that for some reason necessitates misleading the readers.

- As concerns plowing under the straw, there is an interesting thread on that subject already going on in the Farming Forum: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...p;#entry1896457 The thread was actually started here in the Chiang Mai forum and both Mapguy and myself have contributed to it.

- Once again before I close: I am not interested in diverting attention or efforts from reducing the pollution levels here in Chiang Mai, or anywhere else. I am however convinced that one makes better decisions if they are based on facts, rather than beliefs, "urban myths" or whatever. Better decisions should ultimately lead to more effective reduction of the pollution that we all suffer from, and I think all sane people are in favour of that.

/ Priceless

[mcgriffith]

Ironically I have a good friend who has lived here for about 10 years, who suffers from asthma- who is moving to Phuket.

His wife (who is Lanna) and his 2 adorable young boys are moving to the beach.

Everything I read about Phuket's problems with waste disposal, water supply, etc. make me think that he is trading one set of issues, for a different set of unseen issues. And Priceless's statistics about yearly average air quality in Phuket....certainly food for thought for anyone contemplating a move....I mean, this is supposed to be a pristine island environment, right?

davidgtr's photo from the Samoeng road on this thread, and the brilliant beautiful clear days we enjoyed for months, up until the beginning of March or so, pretty much confirm it for me- I'm not going to be moving anywhere soon, based on one month of smoky hot weather....

[swain]

Ironically I have a good friend who has lived here for about 10 years, who suffers from asthma- who is moving to Phuket.

His wife (who is Lanna) and his 2 adorable young boys are moving to the beach.

Everything I read about Phuket's problems with waste disposal, water supply, etc. make me think that he is trading one set of issues, for a different set of unseen issues. And Priceless's statistics about yearly average air quality in Phuket....certainly food for thought for anyone contemplating a move....I mean, this is supposed to be a pristine island environment, right?

davidgtr's photo from the Samoeng road on this thread, and the brilliant beautiful clear days we enjoyed for months, up until the beginning of March or so, pretty much confirm it for me- I'm not going to be moving anywhere soon, based on one month of smoky hot weather....

I won't be moving either.. nor will I be going someplace other than Chiang Mai to get away from the smoke this year. Well, at least not yet. Seems that if we agreed that last year was totally unacceptable and that action is needed to keep this from happening in the future instead of saying don't look at the 600 pound pink elephant in the room many of the "complainers" would cease "complaining" Its when a group of people take the stand that they quite liked it because it kept away the mosquitoes, or that they didn't even notice, or that it wasn't even really that bad, that makes some people crazy. I mean really... it was bad.. the worst I have ever experienced. This year it seems no worse than when they burn leaves in New Jersey. I don't like that either but sometimes it is what it is.

Edited April 5, 2008 by swain

[davidgtr]

And life goes on..... Anymore statistics to tell us something that we already know. The weather & envirnoment aint that great in the hot season when the fires are burning.... funny but they probably say that in the US & Oz & Europe when there's lot of bushfires around. Living's not good for you when it's like that.

Talk about preaching to the converted, still I guess some people like to amuse themselves somehow. Perhaps they've got nothing else to do?

Edited April 5, 2008 by davidgtr

[Ulysses G.]

Seems that if we agreed that last year was totally unacceptable and that action is needed to keep this from happening in the future instead of saying don't look at the 600 pound pink elephant in the room many of the "complainers" would cease "complaining" Its when a group of people take the stand that they quite liked it because it kept away the mosquitoes, or that they didn't even notice, or that it wasn't even really that bad, that makes some people crazy. I mean really... it was bad.. the worst I have ever experienced. This year it seems no worse than when they burn leaves in New Jersey. I don't like that either but sometimes it is what it is.

I don't recall ANYBODY saying that last year's weather inversion wasn't bad - everyone seems to agree that it was - however, it was also probably a one time thing caused by an unusual weather pattern.

The "complainers" who act like last year was perfectly normal and that this year was yet another catastrophe in a long line of them are the ones that get my goat. As you said, for healthy people, usually "burning season" here is not much worse than when we used to burn leaves back home in the Fall.

[sceadugenga]

This year is nowhere near as bad as last year which was very much a freak. I found the smoke started much later this year and seems to be finished already even though the Thais are still madly burning leaves and trash in their annual Songkran clean up.

[Priceless]

This year is nowhere near as bad as last year which was very much a freak. I found the smoke started much later this year and seems to be finished already even though the Thais are still madly burning leaves and trash in their annual Songkran clean up.

You're quite right. So far this year has been infinitely better than last year and on a par with 2006. That year was the best one this millennium, isn't it amazing how quickly we forget?

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

This year is nowhere near as bad as last year which was very much a freak. I found the smoke started much later this year and seems to be finished already even though the Thais are still madly burning leaves and trash in their annual Songkran clean up.

You're quite right. So far this year has been infinitely better than last year and on a par with 2006. That year was the best one this millennium, isn't it amazing how quickly we forget?

/ Priceless

Unfortunately the millennium is only eight or nine years old, depending on how you like to count. There's a long way to go!

Just so people don't forget:

Edited April 19, 2008 by Mapguy

[Ulysses G.]

IT IS RAINY AND COOL in my part of town.

[Austhaied]

And life goes on..... Anymore statistics to tell us something that we already know. The weather & envirnoment aint that great in the hot season when the fires are burning.... funny but they probably say that in the US & Oz & Europe when there's lot of bushfires around. Living's not good for you when it's like that.

Talk about preaching to the converted, still I guess some people like to amuse themselves somehow. Perhaps they've got nothing else to do?

Bingo...

[Rasseru]

And life goes on..... Anymore statistics to tell us something that we already know. The weather & envirnoment aint that great in the hot season when the fires are burning.... funny but they probably say that in the US & Oz & Europe when there's lot of bushfires around. Living's not good for you when it's like that.

Talk about preaching to the converted, still I guess some people like to amuse themselves somehow. Perhaps they've got nothing else to do?

Bingo...

Yes, and let us not forget it provides good fodder for those with even less to do.

[mcgriffith]

23:45 or so 28/4/08.....rain absolutely dumping on the west end of Huay Kaew Rd. by the mountain. Street completely flooded, small children swimming under cars, etc. (just kidding).

Perhaps we should substitute the myriad "Smoke" threads for "Mildew" threads.....

[Thaihog]

23:45 or so 28/4/08.....rain absolutely dumping on the west end of Huay Kaew Rd. by the mountain. Street completely flooded, small children swimming under cars, etc. (just kidding).

Perhaps we should substitute the myriad "Smoke" threads for "Mildew" threads.....

I hope you weren't caught out on the bike McG.....

[adjan jb]

(Saraphee) It's still raining and the flying termites are out

[mcgriffith]

adjan- there is a silver lining to every dark cloud! See this from the Chiang Rai forum....that's money out there...