JohnNThai

8 hours ago, ezzra said:

Charming if you don't care for the horrendous pollution that is going there for good number of months, the rest of the article is very generic one and cover the very basics, there are a lot more to retiring in Thailand than what the article panned out.

Same can be said for Bangkok as well.

12 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Internet AQI sites will disagree with you

AQI 79 ... 25.5µg/m³ / 5.1x healthy ... Hat Yai

AQI 72 ... 22.1 µg/m³ / 4.4x healthy ... NST

AQI 89 ... 32.2µg/m³ / 6x healthy ... Chumphon

AQI 69 ... 20.1µg/m³ / 4x healthy ... Phatthalung

AQI 66 ... 19.1µg/m³ / 3,8x healthy ... Trang

AQI 46 ... 11.1µg/m³ / 2.2x healthy ... Satun ????

Can you provide a link to your list? As I have found data that puts average pollution in I.e. Hat Yai at 16.8 μg/m3 annually. Update: I see you’ve taken real time peak data by IQAir. I’d recommend taking a look at this all time data page by IQAir, it shows annual pollution and monthly pollution: https://www.iqair.com/th-en/world-most-polluted-cities?continent=&country=&state=&page=1&perPage=50&cities= And the question remains, when let’s say 11 μg/m3 is still 2.2x the healthy limit, is there any civilized place on earth that achieves the healthy target? Because if the WHO target is what you go by, then of course no place in Thailand can offer that ????????

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Keep telling yourself that ...

South Thailand still is the part of Thailand that offers the most consistent air figures throughout the year, ranging between 10-15 μg/m3 on average. Now maybe I should’ve worded my sentence a little different, maybe using ‘comparatively’ would be better ???? 

2 minutes ago, Hanuman2547 said:

I don't know about that.  Today in Phuket on one website it said that the air quality was 135.  Another had it right now as 72 which is moderate.

https://www.iqair.com/us/thailand/phuket  

Correct, this year it has reached the south as well. But past data shows a significant lower average air pollution in the south compared to the rest of the country.

On 4/18/2023 at 8:04 AM, dinsdale said:

Not sure don't live there but it sure seems that going to the ATM to withdraw some of that retirement money is a danger to your health. Chiang Mai beautiful setting which can now be seen for 6 months of the year. Don't forget to pack one of these.

Dangerous air not only in Chiang Mai, but all of Thailand north of Hua Hin. Only the south of Thailand can offer clean air.

8 minutes ago, SoilSpoil said:

 

Because you claim Chiang Mai is not the most polluted city in the world at the moment.

 

It is not just a claim, I already guessed you would send me this ranking. Here is why: IQAir's ranking only list 100 cities out of over 1700, so roughly only 5.8% of all data is represented. I wrote about this exact problem in this report I link down below. Only Chiang Mai and Bangkok are represented in this particular list, leaving out all other major cities in Thailand and being very inconsistent with their parameters. When you look at live data for all of Thailand, Chiang Rai actually ranks higher than Chiang Mai right now. Furthermore the Chinese city of Hotan has a score nearly 200 AQI higher. These are just two examples why IQAir's ranking list isn't scientifically viable. In my report I also go over average pollution for major Thai cities, and compared with data by Thai authorities, and even with extreme peaks during burning season, Chiang Mai isn't the most polluted city in Thailand, therefore not in the world. Even Nan, although the most polluted on average, only ranks #364. #1 are Patna, India, #2 Wotan, China and #3 Lahore, Pakistan with over 100 micrometers/m3. This all is not to say that Chiang Mai has great air right now and that I am downplaying it, no, it is just extremely exaggerated in media and forums. 

5 minutes ago, SoilSpoil said:

Let me guess: 'you live in Chiang Mai and are in complete denial'?

Why should I be in denial? This is factual data.

This isn't only a "Chiang Mai" problem, but very clearly a regional, southeast Asian problem. We are looking at pollution in Northern-, Northeastern-, Eastern- and Central Thailand throughout the year, with Chiang Mai not even the worst and the far south being the best. It is very important that we analyze which regions have what cause of pollution, how they affect the neighboring regions and how we can stop this madness. But change has to come from the local population and government officials. I, for one, will vote next month for a hopefully better future of Thailand, we have to start somewhere... 

On 4/3/2023 at 7:55 AM, jesimps said:

I'm so pleased that I chose to live in Pattaya. I went to Chiang Mai once, before I knew about its pollution problems and thought it would be a boring place to live. Now since I've been reading about the smog they have to contend with for long periods, I can't understand why any farang would want to live there.

Average monthly and yearly pollution in Pattaya compared to Chiang Mai is not that much lower. We’re looking at a yearly average of 18-20 μg/m3 in Pattaya (#10 in TH) and 25 μg/m3 in Chiang Mai (#6 in TH). Bangkok has 22 μg/m3 (#8), while Nan (34 μg/m3), Chiang Rai (30 μg/m3) and Khon Kaen (27.6 μg/m3) rank 1st-3rd. So unless you move to the south of Thailand, you’ll be affected by air pollution. 

On 4/3/2023 at 5:02 AM, Northstar1 said:

News headlines: Chang mai is the most polluted city in the world, being declared a disaster zone

Contrary to this belief, Chiang Mai isn’t actually the most polluted city in the world, nor in Thailand. It ranks #695 worldwide, with Nan, Chiang Rai and Khon Kaen ranking 1st-3rd in Thailand. Chiang Mai and Bangkok rank 6th and 8th respectively. IQAir’s ranking is scientifically highly inaccurate and by their own words not suitable for a good comparison. So unless anyone lives in the south, every region of Thailand gets hit by pollution every year. I wouldn’t fall for the clickbait articles.

2 hours ago, Tom H said:

According to the Geo-informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (GITSDA), 5,572 hotspots were detected in Thailand yesterday, which was a 5-year record high. In the meantime, there were 10,563 hotspots in Myanmar, 9,652 in Laos, 1,342 in Cambodia, 870 in Vietnam and 22 in Malaysia

This year is absolutely crazy again. Over 25,000 hotspots in Southeast Asia alone. I’m afraid we won’t see this matter resolved in our lifetime.

16 minutes ago, Tom H said:

Analysis in short:

 

A „star“ behind an IQAir station means: The figure is extrapolated and not based on a sensor. 

 

State providers i.e. in Bangkok „own up“ to 50 stations. These stations have a „sprinkler“ nearby and lower figures for whatever reason:). Not always but many times.

 

Sansiri stations have always lower figures due to their policy or whatever.

 

Some station are not outside located. Schools i.e. 

 

Therefore:

Average figures of a city do not reveal the real situation. 

 

By the way:

International limits for PM2.5 are significant lower (10-20) than the limit of 50 in Thailand.

 

AQI is based on a very complex algorithm of different particles.

NO2 sensors or CO2 sensors missing:). So also here: No detection, no effect.

Therefore AQI not realy exact:)????

 

That means when you have PM2.5 of lets say 100 you are up to 500%  (and higher) over international standards????

 

Pm2.5 blocks the arteries with time….

No matter how old you are.

 

Solution:

Airpurifier and mask outside

 

You cant change the temperature inversion cold-warm-cold from begin of the cold season until the start of the hot season.

 

 

 

 

There’s so much that still needs to be done. Standardized sensor placement, complete sensor array as you mentioned and more study into the topic as well. It cannot go on like this. KN95 mask wearing and air purifiers are a must, except for the Deep South I haven’t been anywhere in the rest of Thailand, where I didn’t feel an effect of pollution. What just lead me to this summary is the constant sensationalism and constant ranking of this and that. Who knows how many hundred cities around the world are just as bad or even worse. And if these inaccurate readings already signify something even worse, I really don’t want to know the real values. Instead of blaming and bashing one city or region, we should be working on monitoring all places and put it measures to mitigate as much as we can.