tropico

What is the basic salary?

According to several sources Chiang mai is one of the worst places in Thailand in terms of number of people affected. Several thousands recorded cases every year!

They should also ask Thais why they think that foreigners have that kind of perception! What make them think like that?

I think it is clear what many people feel about the red songtaews. it is not just a couple of people complaining. they are often offering a service that is not good enough! 

I definitely support Uber and I always try to pay more then what is the price just in appreciation of the service. 

I still would like to see a public transportation system that is reliable, modern and cheap enough for locals.

On 4/22/2017 at 8:24 AM, Chris Lawrence said:

Land of smiles but demented minds?

indeed!!!

30 minutes ago, JomtienEats said:

Songteaws reduce traffic congestion - a full songteaw carries maybe 14 or more people, if they were all in cars, that might be 7 to 10 extra cars on the road. If they were all on motorcycles, there would be a lot more deaths and injuries. They're pretty cheap and flexible too, they're a great transportation option.  I generally find the drivers are fair and honest, although there are some that quote exorbitant fares - be careful of the ones parked outside shopping centers.

 

The real menace are the tuk-tuks - those are what Uber and Grab will replace. They're dangerous, uncomfortable, overpriced and have held their monopoly too long, preventing any reasonable alternatives from emerging until now.

 

I have no doubt Uber and Grab will prevail and replace tuk-tuks, but I expect Songteaws to remain - once uber/grab scale back their promotional pricing, they won't be competing with songteaws anymore.

I seldom see more than 2-3 people inside red songtaews. And most the time they go around empty.  I still think that they make worse the traffic of Chiang Mai and I rather have an affordable, more modern and reliable public transportation system. The white and blue songtaews is another story and i think they might still be necessary for people that commute from the outside the city.

A delegation of songtaew drivers went to complain again against Uber and grab taxi because it seems that, since these services have started, songtaew drivers have seen less profits. I understand their issue since there is no law regulating such services but the law itself need a reform because it is outdated. 

Beside this, I think that these services have brought finally a choice and people can decide what to use instead than the usual songtaews. I personally like the service that Uber offer and I did use them instead of other services. I also think that somebody might still need songtaews but there a bit too many around and their service should be regulated as well. Instead of 2500 of them perhaps just 500 might be enough. However the way it works now I think there is no limit in the number of these "cars". Beside making the traffic worse, polluting and often requesting unreasonable fares, they are outdated and I feel hat the city needs a proper public transportation that works!

I'd like to start a petition myself for removing unnecessary songtaews and have them regulated as well. Got to improve and go farward for improving viability and reduce pollution.

Not saying this is the only problem on the road but should start from somewhere!!

6 hours ago, keo said:

The authorities have been doing their annual spray water into the air around Thapae Gate event...

 

Talk about locking the stable door once the horse has bolted. Absolutely pathetic.

Indeed!!

10 hours ago, canopy said:

Isn't exercise the worst thing to do this time of year? It results in inhaling acute amounts of soot deep into the lungs in a very short time. The government says people are to stay indoors with windows and doors sealed with no exercise to facilitate minimal shallow breathing and people are to wear face masks if having to venture outside. It's the same message every year.

 

It's interesting to read about the funding, but to be fair it's not a huge amount of money and they have numerous objectives it needs distributed to. It does however answer a curiosity. It's plainly obvious the thai government has been closely monitoring the air situation in recent years unlike the past. Now we know why--it's a system from this organization. That explains why they have all this monitoring going on yet seem to be doing nothing with the data coming out other than announcements. The strategy is as of yet incomplete. Monitoring is a good thing, but it's not solving anything on its own. There's got to be some red faces as the monitoring equipment reveals how awful the air quality actually is and just how long it goes on like this.

 

The initial funding of 200,000 usd was only for proposal writing. Millions came after that, but I am sure it is like you said that there is lots of distribution!. Still, I'd like to know how the money are spent in order to limit emission from forest loss or forest burning. 

“Thailand is an active participant in the global climate change dialogue and a champion for carbon emission reduction,” said Thanya Netithammakun, Director General from the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. “We are pleased that the FCPF has recognized our efforts and has granted us additional funding to finance specific activities that will help us further protect our forests and slow the pace of climate change.”

An initial grant of $200,000 was provided to Thailand in 2011 to develop a REDD+ proposal. With additional funding, the project will support the development of Thailand’s national REDD+ strategy that will aim to reduce forest loss through conservation, long lasting management and livelihoods for local communities. In addition, the project will assist Thailand in developing a monitoring system to measure greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental and social safeguards will also be monitored closely, and consultations will be held with ethnic groups, communities and other stakeholders to ensure their participation in the overall strategy development.

this was from a world bank website!!!

i'd really like to know how is the money spent!!

On Sat Mar 04 2017 at 3:12 PM, LolaS said:

it was joke, relax. follow the storyline

So what do you think now?

Still convinced that the air is great and that it is perfectly healthy?

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Pretty bad air today, could see it just driving into work.  AQI numbers confirm.  It's March and the crappy air season is upon us!

No sir it's just a conspiracy...I think the air is great!! I feel good!!

12 hours ago, LolaS said:

we are all suffering in the hell of chiang mai. so many people left cnx that is almost empty.

You still did not provide any data supporting your theory!

How "you feel" cannot be considered research output material. 

Like I said before you are free to think whatever you want but I am sure there is a lot of people concerned with the air quality and they share the same worries as I do because they understand the possible dangers!

Then if you say that Los Angeles (just example) is way worse than here it might be true but I don't think that people in Chiang Mai are concerned with that. They are concerned about the air quality in here!!  

51 minutes ago, LolaS said:

again you pull data from different context ( in this sense annual for country) and compare it with densely populated city. good job,  in mixing frogs and horses. 

yes you are right this is not appropriate. But again if I chose one of the worst cities in Europe (Milan) and you look at the annual average pm2.5 it is still lower than here. And Milan has 1.5 million people. 

i think it's undeniable that the air quality at Chiang Mai is not good during burning season!

2 hours ago, LolaS said:

in europe is 500, what is your point? take a look by yourselff. exageration and faulse data from one day, comparing to rest of year.

of course there are other parameters to take into consideration beside pm2.5 therefore there is more to know before giving conclusions. However because of the data and the nature of the pollution I believe that CM air is not healthy. If you believe otherwise than good for you

1 hour ago, LolaS said:

in europe is 500, what is your point? take a look by yourselff. exageration and faulse data from one day, comparing to rest of year.

what is 500?

look at the table chart below. the worst country in Europe is Bulgaria with annual average concentrations of about 35 micrograms/m3. 

Chiang Mai averages 54 micrograms/m3

show me some data. first you accused me of making fake claims and i provided you with some references ....i haven't seen anything that proves your theory and that would suggest Chiang Mai air is healthy.

2 hours ago, LolaS said:

again, high exageration comapring to rest of world and comparing to whole year.

which rest of the world? China and india are definitely worse!

Any data for your claims? 

1 hour ago, LolaS said:

I am not debating, I am claiming what I feel and see with my eyes, and lungs.

I am glad that you agree that air is 100 times worst in western cities. 

why are you all spreading this senseless information out of context and reality?

The reality is that there is smoke in the air and people have been getting sick from it. There is plenty literature out there talking about the health hazards caused by smoke in Chiang Mai and some other northern provinces.

This year seems a bit better but I am not sure it would last!...I hope it will!

If you have hard facts about your own belief please do provide it. And i dont want to know how bad is the air in London or another western city because I don't live there!

attached here some more from: "The Asian correspondent" 2016,  which you can find online, and like this many more!

27 minutes ago, LolaS said:

And now compare with other coutries and you will see how they are far far from WHO guidlines. and truth will be in front of your eyes.

Dear Sir/Madame

I did not say that other countries are much better off in fact I did not make any comparison at all. But i just wanted to indicate the fact that the data might not tell all the truth and that the air might be worse than what you think and perhaps it is good to take precautions!

In asserting this, I included the Greenpeace report as a reference!

But again is up to you and your understanding. You make your own decision on how to deal with this issue (if it is an issue for you).

From what I read, I felt compelled to know a bit more and I thought that I should be cautious about the air quality. If it was not that bad I don't think there would be thousands and thousands of people hospitalized for breathing problems during the burning season, and also there would not be so much attention to the problem if there was no problem.

For me it is important to know what is the level of the problem and perhaps discuss with others that might have an even better understanding of this issue and perhaps contribute to this "debate".

Thank you

6 hours ago, LolaS said:

care to provide any reference for your fake claim?

On top of that, on the Greenpeace document I attached first, they stated what I thought I wrote about!

5 hours ago, LolaS said:

care to provide any reference for your fake claim?

here it is from WHO guidelines publication. 

15 hours ago, LolaS said:

iff you actually cared to read it you would see that average is in blue and safe level

Thailand made their own standards which are double and more than double of the one from WHO. Therefore even though it is green or blue on the Thai AQI tables, it is hazardous anywhere else WHO standards are followed.  Also, this is what is stated on the document: " The 2  current AQI is still based on PM10 and vastly under-reports air pollution levels and underestimates health risks". If you think that the air is good or is much better than many other places that is up to you but I think the air quality is not up to standards and it could pose a risk. And that is why I thought this document could have been interesting.

Thank you for your comment though!

1 hour ago, ogb said:

The burning season would bring the Chiang Mai averages up - what is more striking is how bad the air is elsewhere in Thailand!

sure but you would still breath a certain amount of particulate if you live here all through the year. The numbers say that the average air quality (pm 2.5) is worse than everywhere else in Thailand.

I just came across this Greenpeace document and I wanted to share it. there is a lot of people that think Chiang Mai air is actually not that bad outside burning season but these data say something else I believe. Just draw your own conclusions!

PM2.5CityRankingsREV.pdf

I think it is called "hed tap tao" and it is definitely from a boletus family. It is usually associated and grows where there is plants from the fagaceae family which includes oaks. In Italy we use it in sauces or we can deep fry even though it is a bit heavy to digest.