Priceless

If you don't think it was that bad during April 2007 you are delusional, sorry. It was that bad, and then some. I am not worrying, just stating the obvious. Walking down the street, you could hear coughing from all directions. We moved the family to Bangkok for a while during that time - suburbian BKK air felt amazingly clean after northern Thailand.

I suggest you take a look at the graph from post #18 of this thread. Then have a good, long think about who's delusional, the Pollution Control Department or your good self.

/ Priceless

Today, Miguel's, yes serving Mexican food, is one of the few places in town where one might have to wait in a line to get a table in middle of the week at dinner time.

Last night, Miguels was PACKED. He ran out of large tortillas, so I got a taco instead of a burrito.

Excellent as usual!

Relentless, cunning advertising. As usual.

It's quite impressive that a member of six weeks' standing and with seven posts to his name already knows it all

/ Priceless

Power Buy in Robinsons at Airport Plaza had them as late as a month ago, various models of the Braun Oral-B plus some other makes (Philips?).

/ Priceless

Health warning for North Thailand

The Public Health Ministry has issue a warning to people who live in the northern part of Thailand to beware of respiratory trouble from small dust particles, said the Department of Health's director-general Dr Narongsak Ungkhasuwapala.

Particles smaller than 10 micron (PM10) from burning dried leaves and grass could harm the respiratory system and lungs.

Children and the elderly are advised to wear masks to protect themselves from dust particles. Those who suffer from heart problems, respiratory trouble and asthma should not go outside without a mask.

Narongsak said the Health Ministry had not yet reported any cases of respiratory problems from small dust. However, the ministry has ordered healthcare units throughout the northern area to keep a close watch on any patients who suffer from respiratory problems, he said.

--The Nation 2008-01-22

Thanks for the warning, but I cannot recall a more beautiful day in Chiang Mai than today.

Agreed, hasn't it been absolutely MARVELLOUS? Life is a joy!

/ Priceless

Is this true about passports from all countries of the world, or did you just forget to mention which country?

/ Priceless

I think some of the posters subconsciously limited themselves to what you could legally do. There are of course always illegal things that work out all right, as long as you're not caught

/ Priceless

Aren't you (at least in theory) supposed to be able to present your passport to the police whenever asked to, i.e. you have to carry your PP at all times? I know that you can get around this most of the time by presenting a photo copy of the PP or a driver's license or something, but still makes it sound very dodgy to send the PP abroad

/ Priceless

Very factual post Priceless! Thank You! Do you have access to rain data? It would be fun to see if this was the first January for rain. My Thai friends are also scratching their heads trying to recall if it ever has rained in January.

No rain data unfortunately The data I'm working with (out of personal interest only) come from the Pollution Control Department website, and they obviously are not that interested in rain. There is an amateur weather station that reports (with infrequent updates) on http://www.hs0zee.com/Information/Weather%...r%20Station.htm and his graphs actually show some precipitation in January of both 2004 and 2006.

/ Priceless

Suggest you read more thoroughly and carefully some substantive posts re air pollution in Chiang Mai, which is extreme at some times. To do so, you have to access a few different threads. The topic recurs often in different forms. If you search using key word terms like "air quality" and "pollution" you'll find a lot to read.

I'm glad you feel fine after more than a year in Chiang Mai with nary a bad throat or a cough. I am not certain where you were in March 2007 when the pullition level was two to three times the "acceptable rate" on some days. The government --- even in the face of serious economic consequences --- was responsible enough to declare Chiang Mai Province --- as well as other northern provinces --- "disaster areas." Why? Check more than anecdotal evidence!

Anecdotal evidence unfortunately isn't really very useful. You didn't have a cough, but some people could barely breathe! Laughable examples of anecdotal evidence and opinion are also posted on this site. One example was a "straw poll" the results of which smelled like the smoke burning rice straw creates.

Oh well, here we go again... The highest level of air pollution (PM<10) recorded in Chiang Mai from 1 Jan 2002 until today was 303.5 on 14 Mar 2007. This level is 2½, not 3, times the maximum "acceptable rate". In total the level has been above twice the "acceptable rate" on five (5) occasions since 1 Jan 2002. I'm not one to deny that March of last year was very unpleasant (I am lucky enough not to suffer from any respiratory ailments) but let's avoid too much "anecdotal evidence". For anyone with a special interest, here is the pollution (PM>10) level for all of 2007:

In 2007 we experienced 30 days with PM<10 above the "acceptable rate", which was quite a contrast to 2006 when we had only five (5) such days.

On a more positive note (and on topic) I thought today's rain was a most pleasant experience, and hopefully it will have washed away some pollution and that way contributed to a better air quality in coming days/weeks

/ Priceless

The data on the PCD-website is delayed one day - (updated every morning with the average of the preceeding 24 hours) - so "todays" PM-10 measure of 83 is actually yesterdays average. Today it's possible to make out some smaller ridges up along the main slope facing the city. That wasn't possible yesterday. So, tomorrow I'll guess that the measure will be 60-70 (but one can get fooled by the fact that the measurement is taken throughout 24 hours and my eyes only "measure" about 1/2 of that period).

To be exact, the data presented on the PCD website as "26 Feb" is actually the average of the 24-hour period from 9 AM 25 Feb until 9 AM 26 Feb. Your observation is nevertheless quite valid and important to remember

/ Priceless

Yale University's ranking of 149 countries according to an environmental performance index (EPI)--a weighting ofcarbon and sulfur emissions, water purity and conservation practices.

1 Switzerland 95.5

2 Sweden 93.1

3 Norway 93.1

4 Finland 91.4

.

.

.

.

.

146 Mauritania 44.2

147 Sierra Leone 40.0

148 Angola 39.5

149 Niger 39.1

whahahah singapore must be 150 since is not in it . whahhaaha

here the offical link for keen reader -

http://www.yale.edu/epi/

I will point out the obvious. This index gives a lot of weight to carbon dioxide emissions which while significant to global climate are not a health issue in terms of localized air pollution and public health policy.

Also the most damaging particulate matter of < 2.5 microns are not even measured in Thailand.

Excerpt from methodology of study.

"Still, the lack of data leads limits the comprehensiveness of the EPI. In the air pollution context, pollutants such as lead, ultra-fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) do not have sufficient ground observations available and are not updated on a sufficiently frequent basis to permit robust performance metrics"

I will point out a couple more obvious things:

- Even in Sweden, at position 2 in the list, there are lots of locations where e.g. the PM-10 level is WAY above the European standard (one such location happens to be the part of Stockholm where I lived before moving to Chiang Mai).

- In the current European Air Quality Standard ( http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality.htm ) there is no mention of particulate matter <2.5 microns. I seem to remember having read somewhere that the realization that this is a particular danger is a very recent one, meaning that both standards and measurements are severely lacking at the moment.

/ Priceless

Interesting.

I haven't heard anyone in this area even mention the air lately (other than my buddy, who is obsessed with it).

During the famous inversion last year, everyone was wearing masks and talking about it non-stop.

UG, or should I rename you Thomas (as in the Biblical character of little faith), I'll gladly invite you to my place for dinner and we can dine outside so you can get a few hours worth of the filth that masquerades as air around here of an evening, if that's what it takes to convince you that there is a problem about which people are talking and aren't exaggerating.

Today, is the first time that I can remember anyone talking about any "Thapae Bubble" that has less pollution than other places. Posters always acted like ALL of Chiang Mai was having these same problems, so, of course, I trusted my own eyes to tell me what was right and my own eyes are usually fine.

Priceless, what do you think about the possibility of a protective zone that is somehow sparing the main tourist area?

The air quality now with an AQI of 77 or 85 on the PCD website is still quite good. There is decent humidity to weigh down the particles and the levels are still quite a ways to the AQI of >120 where the govt considers it bad. Wait until its over 150 or 200 for weeks on end to begin the complaining.

Actually the PM-10 (Particulate Matter) is at 83 microgrammes per cubic metre while the AQI (Air Quality Index) is at 77. The (Thai) recommended maximum levels are 120 and 100, respectively, which puts PM-10 at 69% of the max level and AQI at 83%. This means that trying to sound the alarm to the mayor or the governor is probably a futile exercise. These numbers however say very little about the pollution level in your particular area, which may be considerably better or worse. (There are considerably fewer measuring stations in all of Thailand than there are in London.)

Before anybody brings up the fact that the European Union has a limit for PM-10 of 50 microgrammes per cubic metre, it is important to point out that there is a structural difference between the Thai and European limits. The Thai is absolute, i.e. any 24-hour value above 120 microgrammes is considered a "failure", whereas the European standard says that if the level is above 50 microgrammes for more than 35 24-hour periods in a year it constitutes a "failure". The European standard says nothing about by how much the 50 microgramme level may be exceeded in a single measuring period. One should also remember that both the Thai and European levels are targets, which are (very) frequently exceeded in many locations. This structural difference between the standards definitions also means that it is at least very difficult, if not impossible, to compare pollution levels in different parts of the world, at least using publically available data. Thailand is somewhat unusual in publishing the actual measurements and not just outcome in relation to standards.

/ Priceless

Leaving all explicit or implicit personal attacks aside, the air pollution during the last few days has been the worst since April 11th last year. Without access to any meteorological data, I would imagine that we have an inversion at the moment. This situation is undoubtedly aggravated by the frequent burning that is going on.

Along with many of the other posters here, I would wish for some effective enforcement of already existing regulations. However, don't hold your breath even though the air is crap at the moment

/ Priceless

Noticed a field, about 5 to 6 rai near carrefour on Hang Dong road was tourched last night. Still smoldering this morning. Would not be hard to locate and fine owner if the Govt. was serious about burn ban. This was several piles of weeds, trees etc knocked down with tractor before hand and individually set on fire, so no claim for accidental burn. Govt. appears to be giving lip service to burn ban with no enforcement.

Where's the Carrefour on Hang Dong road? I must have missed that one.

/ Priceless

Perhaps in your research you will discover where are the spots in Chiang Mai where the readings are taken. Also I wonder if there is a measurable variation in the readings in the town and in the surrounding suburbs - towards Mae Rim, San Kamphaeng, Hang Dong etc

Unfortunately I can't give you a straight answer. There are two measuring stations in Chiang Mai, one is at Uparaj College which I am sure some other poster can tell you where it is located. I have been using the other station, mostly because it usually gives higher values and I don't want to be accused of minimizing the figures Sad to say, I don't know where this station is located, but I would guess somewhere fairly central (due to the higher pollution values).

In total there are only 18 measuring stations outside Bangkok and Chiang Mai is the only province with two of them.

/ Priceless

PS There is a measuring station in Lampang, which fairly consistently shows considerably higher values than Chiang Mai.

before you get too carried away air pollution has been conclusively shown to cause arteriosclerosis in the same way smoking does. You may not die from a pulmonary heart disease but your not going to get healthier with hardening of the arteries. Denial can only get you so far. Physics and cause and effect cut thru denial like the proverbial hot knife thru butter.

It's all good advice but quite few here have been trying to obfuscate the negative health consequences of CM's air pollution with spurious arguments that CM pollution is a not a direct cause of death like getting hit by a bus etc. My point since you asked is that CM's air pollution a significant negative health issue even if its not listed as the cause of death on someones death certificate.

Fair enough, but I think you did a rather poor job of getting that across. If you look at the highlighted quote above, I find it rather difficult understanding that you meant to point out that Chiang Mai's air quality is detrimental to one's health. Of course it is, just like everybody (almost) knows that smoking is. What I have tried to point out is:

1/ The air quality in Chiang Mai is not as bad as some people like to make it appear.

2/ Bad air quality is one of many causal factors in creating respiratory (and other) diseases.

On a side note: My father smoked 4-5 packs of unfiltered cigarettes per day for 50 years, until he died aged 70 from causes completely unrelated to smoking. This in no way makes me deny the detrimental effects of smoking, but it made me realize that there are many contributing factors and it is virtually impossible to predict the outcome for an individual. As a matter of fact it is almost impossible to determine the causal factors in retrospect, even during an autopsy (my medical friends have told me).

/ Priceless

Ok, ok. We seem to be getting off topic and starting another " pollution thread/bad air/lots of complaining". I was asking for any facts or ideas on how I can use my resources to make the situation a bit better. Let's get back on track, as of now I really have not got much in line with what I was looking for.

And Ta22 before you start going off topic again and showing us your "google" skills, do me a favor and spare me the read.

I am unfortunately (but not so uncommonly a bit low on great and/or innovative ideas at the moment. But as I stated above, I think that aiming for a long-term change of attitude and ideas among our Thai hosts is the only way towards success. Do our teacher friends have any ideas of what could be done through the schools?

If anyone comes up with a good idea of some sort, I'd be glad if I can contribute some way

/ Priceless

not sure if this post is related . but i am just trying to point out that . info that is not fully digested is usually junk

Exactly!!!

/ Priceless

before you get too carried away air pollution has been conclusively shown to cause arteriosclerosis in the same way smoking does. You may not die from a pulmonary heart disease but your not going to get healthier with hardening of the arteries. Denial can only get you so far. Physics and cause and effect cut thru denial like the proverbial hot knife thru butter.

And your point is?

Nowhere have I denied the many negative aspects/effects of air pollution. What I have tried to point out is:

1/ There are many contributing factors in causing different respiratory diseases.

2/ The air quality in Chiang Mai can and should undoubtedly be improved, but it is in no way the worst in Thailand, much less in the world.

3/ Last year's pollution level was undoubtedly one of the worst ever (largely due to the unusually persistent inversion that we experienced). Still, if one accepts the Thai government's target level of maximum 120 microgrammes of PM<10 per cubic metre, this was exceeded during 30 of the year's 365 days, 23 of them during the month of March.

4/ If you are particularly susceptible to respiratory problems it is probably a good idea to settle somewhere on the coast (though avoid the area near to Bangkok like the plague).

5/ If you just generally don't like the idea of air pollution, and have the opportunity, it might be a good idea to take your yearly holiday away from Chiang Mai during the month of March.

6/ For the sake of your health, scrupulously avoid smoke-filled indoor establishments like bars and restaurants

I have heard of, and read postings from, several people that have left or are leaving Chiang Mai due to their perception that it is dangerous to live here. I feel a little bit sorry for those of them that have been mislead by misinformed scaremongers, just like I feel sorry for my asthmatic friend that actually had to leave due to last March's conditions.

Basically I think that everybody has a right to information, and an equal right to be spared desinformation. That way we can hopefully make reasonable decisions based on that information, our own particular situations and our preferences. Isn't that better than hasty decisions based on incorrect or exaggerated information?

/ Priceless

not sure if this post is related . but i am just trying to point out that . info that is not fully digested is usually junk

Exactly!!!

/ Priceless

Try googling "radon chiang mai lung cancer"

Over 1000 links listed...

Exactly, I just listed a few of the probably 100's of background variables (risk factors) that you would have to eliminate before you can put the lung cancer blame squarely at the air pollution. Radon is also in some ways a much nastier (i.e. more difficult) problem, since this is a naturally occurring risk factor. Does anybody know if the grey cement building blocks that are so commonly used here contain any radon? They used to in my old home country...

/ Priceless

It just blows me away that so many of you have personally attacked me and my post. I was looking for suggestions and a bit of facts so that I could implement my ideas.

No surprise to me. The business owners who post in this forum want to discredit any comments about air pollution that might discourage tourist visitors.

How about Priceless who has no local business and knows more about pollution that all of the Wheezing Wingers put together.

Actually I am not an expert on pollution, I just have a passion for fact as opposed to myth. I do not have a background in environmental science, nor in medicine. I do however have some insight into statistics, which makes me start wondering when somebody states e.g. that Chiang Mai has the highest incidence of lung cancer in all of Thailand and the second highest in the world, while implying that this is solely caused by the air pollution.

Since I happen to know from the website of the Pollution Control Department that Chiang Mai is not by a long shot the most polluted province in Thailand (e.g. Saraburi, Samut Prakarn and even Lampang are much worse), I start wondering about the "fact" of high frequency of lung cancer. As stated above I am not trained in medicine, but I know enough about epidemiology to know that one of the greatest problems in the field is eliminating all other causal relationships before you can study one in particular. Has the source of the factoid "the highest incidence of lung cancer in Thailand" eliminated all other explanations/influences, such as gender and age distribution, frequency of tobacco smoking, average income/living standard, access to and quality of medical care etc, etc?

It seems to me that, if the air pollution is the sole or main cause of respiratory diseases, people should be dying by the hundreds in the streets of Samut Prakarn and Saraburi, that have three to four times the frequency of extreme air pollution that Chiang Mai has. It is possible that Chiang Mai has the second highest frequency of lung cancer in the world, but I would venture to say that if so, the reasons must be much more complex than just the air pollution.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I'd like to state that I agree 100% with the OP and others that try to suggest different ways that we, the expat community in Chiang Mai, can help reducing the air and other kinds of pollution here. There is absolutely nothing positive about pollution and it is worthy of all the efforts we can make to reduce it. Personally I haven't found many ways to contribute much by e.g. tree planting on my 100 square wah leased land, but I do see to it that everything in the household that can be recycled actually is, I drive a modern car with a well tuned-up engine etc. If somebody has a good idea on how we expats can contribute in a constructive way (i.e. not by scaremongering or whining) please post here or send me a PM, I'd be glad to help in any small way that I can.

I do believe that education and increasing awareness are the long term solutions to much of this problem. The reason I posted the lyrics by Tom Lehrer earlier in this thread was that I thought it was very interesting that 40 years ago this was presented as a major local problem in San Francisco. Today California has to a very large extent cleaned up its act and is actually among the world leaders in combating global warming and other effects of pollution. There may be hope for Chiang Mai and the rest of Thailand as well, but there are certainly no quick fixes. Loose talk and scaremongering will however get us nowhere.

/ Priceless

The source of my graph is the Pollution Control Department website here:

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/G...?task=graphsite

Click on "Graph" and then you can select all sorts of goodies, though unfortunately not any long-term statistics (three weeks at the most). My apologies for not giving the source in my first post

/ Priceless

Priceless,

Go to the site you linked, click on ¨Query¨, then go to ¨Query by Particular Site¨, chose your site and click ¨Query¨ next to it. You will get all of the data for that site going back years, but it is table form, not a graph.

Higgy

Thanks a million, I had completely missed that one. Actually I didn't want a graph, would have preferred Excel format but the table will do nicely. I am looking forward to doing some statistical analysis on the material since there are so many "urban legends" flying around...

/ Priceless

The source of my graph is the Pollution Control Department website here:

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/G...?task=graphsite

Click on "Graph" and then you can select all sorts of goodies, though unfortunately not any long-term statistics (three weeks at the most). My apologies for not giving the source in my first post

/ Priceless

My sincere apologies to any and all moderators and an equally sincere Thank You to cmsally It appears that my brain got (temporarily?) disconnected and I confused the two current pollution threads.

/ Priceless

I have just realized that my two latest posts to this thread have been deleted by somebody. Though I know and accept that moderators are entrusted with the authority to delete whatever they please, I fail to understand what was offensive in these two posts. The first one basically just contained a graph from the Pollution Control Department showing the current level of small particle pollution. The second post was just an ackowledgement of George's comment to my post. I would appreciate if the person who deleted my posts sent me a PM explaining what was offensve in them, so that I can avoid such statements in the future.

On a more general note, I thought it was customary for a moderator to ackowledge when he/she has deleted posts. Doing it anonymously I think is not really in keeping with the generally friendly and open atmosphere of Thai Visa.

/ Priceless