Robroy

May 4, 2008

Had pretty mch identical symptoms a decade or so ago, and life basically ground to a halt.

Went off all gluten grains & dairy - then eventually all grains period - and symptoms disappeared, and have stayed gone.

(Put a friend bed-bound with MS on a grain and dairy-free diet; within months she was shopping, walking on the beach, etc; and today the scans can't even find her brain lesions.)

We are not a grain-eating species. As pre-humans & then humans, we were adapted over a million years to a diet of meat, vegetables, nuts, tubers & roots, and low-sugar fruit. (And a bit of wild wheat or the like from time to time - but a bare fraction of today's consumption.) The introduction in the last evolutionary eye-blink (~10,000 years) of grains & dairy in large quantities is not something to which we have had the time to get very genetically adapted. (Our genome has changed only .02% since the Ice Age of 40,000 years ago.) That is why gluten grains & dairy are the world's no. 1 & 2 food allergens.

There is a spectrum of sensitivity: grains & dairy will kill some people (as they would likely have killed me by now), whilst others appear to have a high tolerance. But all will thrive better without eating them in any serious quantity.

May 4, 2008

No Thai banks there.
I don't know if out of country ATN cards work in the ATMs, maybe someone else does?

There is a bank here in Cambodia with a Thai bank's logo & colours - the purple one. Not sure of the connection.

Out of country cards work fine in Cambodian ATMs - $2 extra fee, on top of the others charged by the card company etc.

March 17, 2008

I often wonder what happens to the perpetrators of all these murders of farangs.

On the rare occasion there is publicity, the alleged perp is often arrested - then you generally hear nothing more.

For example the Welsh girl murdered on Samui maybe 3 years ago: Thaksin called for her killers to be executed...then I never read anything more. Were they even convicted?

There was an Englishman named Keith murdered in Chiang Mai by his wife's family about 4 years ago. The police announced they couldn't make any arrests because there were two suspects. (Sic.) I think that one just got forgotten.

And what about the very rich Englishman murdered a year or 2 ago (misdescribed an an aristocrat in early reports) - again apparently by the wife & her family. What happened to the murderers, anyone know?

January 2, 2008

Bringing excess baggage into Chiang Mai from overseas, most will be routed into CM via Thai Airways.

But be careful of this Thai Airways scam:

The luggage arrives & they phone your mobile number as they are meant to, let it ring for about 1 second, then hang up.

Thus they have "attempted to contact you".

Two or three weeks later you are wondering where your suitcase or box from Melbourne/London/LA has got to, & ring Thai.

They tell you it has been sitting there for 2-3 weeks collecting 100 baht a day "storage fee".

You go in and complain; they pull out the record of the "phone call" they made to you.

You complain further; they summon their in-house bureaucrat (an Indian) who pulls out an enormous book the size of two telephone books, called simply:

RULES

and spends a long time finding then reading to you the section & sub-section & sub-sub-section which says you are wrong & they are right.

You pony up.

December 16, 2007

Sihanoukville:

Thanks for the heads-up on the Finlandia - I was about to go there.

A few doors down, Pacos's has terrific Spanish food (big portions) @ okay prices.

Opposite that Ana's Internet has good basic cheap British food.

The above places are 2-300m downhill from Caltex station, which every moto guy knows. Just say 'Caltek!'

Phnom Penh (all these along the river):

Hope & Anchor a bit pricey, and a lunatic owner who (for example) screams at you if you ask the waitress if you can plug your laptop into the power. (And I was a regular customer. I wonder how he treats the new people.)

Riverside Restaurant: also a bit pricey and also a problem owner - a notorious German who paws his waitresses (who are very nice) and bowls up to you, points to a waitress (within her earshot) and asks, 'have you f____ed her yet?' I don't mind the ambience there, but I've decided I don't want to put money into the pocket of a chap like that.

FCC: best place in town (friendly service, good food, matchless view), but you pay for it.

Okay Guesthouse - basic Western grub, but quite a diverse menu & the cheapest feed in town. It is about 2 ks past the FCC (past the royal palace etc) on the right, up a soi. Most tuk tuks know it. Okay also has good rooms from $4. safe & well-run. The only downside is a TV which is on 18 hours a day, dominating the dining/social room.

One of the riverside restaurants has an orphanage out the back, and the kids come out & do traditional dance 2 nights a week for diners. It's right next door to a corner - I forget the name, but any driver will know it.

Speaking of orphanages, you can stay at Futurelight Orphanage (out near the airport) for $40 a night, eat well, & get to know lots of gorgeous kids. Plus Phaly the women who runs it is highly cultured, and (as a Khmer Rouge survivor) has quite a story to tell.

December 9, 2007

Just avoid the Hope & Anchor - the owner's a nasty piece of work; very unpopular with the locals too.

November 28, 2007

I'm coming back to Chiang Mai for a visit, and would like a nice room for a month.

Previously I stayed in Boon Thavon near Thapae Gate (7500 baht p. month + extras), but they're full this time.

Wi-fi highly desirable, so I can work.

In town, or out Niemenhamin way - I'm not fussed.

Thanks all.

November 28, 2007

Another one to watch out for is The Siam Cafe in Loi Kroh Road.

The waitress/cashier there tried to charge me 500 baht (sic.) for electricity (I''d plugged in my laptop to their power, something I'd done several times before). I'd also brought others to spend there money there. There had never been mention of an electricity charge before.

In the middle of the 'discussion' she said I should go next door to the Internet shop - that was where her manager was. I did so. the guy in there didn't know what I was talking about. I came back and told her this; whereupon the manager/non-manager from next door came in and stood behind the counter with her. I was naturally bewildered by all this.

I took my 500 baht change off the cash register, and left. I think I left behind about 100 baht in change on top of the 500 - that wasn't worth fighting for.

The waitress's name was Wa.

November 25, 2007

Good to know girls can get steamed up about slow-witted, talentless, screwed-up (but sexy-looking) members of the opposite sex too. For us high-IQ guys who've sneaked a look at a Pamela Anderson poster, it kind of evens things up.

The MH lyrics you cite are rubbish; his acting was beyond bad; his voice about as tolerable as your average back-up singer; his film clips derivative (one entire clip was lifted from Dylan's memorable opening scene from Don't Look Back - where he holds up posters of the lyrics as the songs rolls by); his personality apparently regrettable (he introduced himself to Kylie Minogue for the first time by running into a party shouting, 'I want to f___ you!'); and he was apparently none too bright (strangling himself in the course of a 'manual sex act'.)

Hello?

November 13, 2007

Thanks a lot for all the above.

Anyone got any science on the various suggested detox modalities?

FYI: Here's my story in CM's air pollution from The Bangkok Post early in the year:

Is Chiang Mai Habitable by Humans?

Given its famed air pollution levels, is Chiang Mai habitable by humans? I'll let you read the below and answer the question for yourself.

All urban air is 'dangerous' to some degree: civilisation produces air pollutants, and these damage health. However for a significant portion of the year Chiang Mai's air is more polluted than that of most cities. This is because of the high level of burning around the city and beyond, and the northwestern Suthep Range, which blocks the northwesterly and southeasterly winds – winds which would otherwise wash out air pollution - during the cool and rainy seasons respectively. In addition, a drier dry season in the north means there is less rain to settle pollutants.

Thus, according to one study, in 6 of the 7 categories of air pollution measured in both cities, Chiang Mai had higher concentrations than Bangkok – in most cases far higher concentrations.

More specifically, Chiang Mai's level of particulates of less than 10 microns (<PM10s – the small particles from burning grass and leaves, and from cooking fires) is usually higher than most other cities in Thailand, including Bangkok.

Because of their size, the <PM10s more readily lodge in the lungs. They carry a potent carcinogen - polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons also cause more severe attacks in asthmatics and heart disease patients.

In 1999, 45% of Chiang Mai residents suffered from respiratory problems, according to Duangchan Charoenmuang, who has long studied Chiang Mai's air at the Urban Development Institute Foundation.

As for ultra-small particles – the <PM2.5s – an informal, one-day measurement taken by the Unit for Social and Environmental Research found them to be double the US EPA standard. "The effects of breathing air with a high <PM 2.5 concentration," says the Unit's Po Garden, "can include premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function particularly in children and individuals with asthma."

The broader Air Quality Index (AQI) is a measure of most known air pollutants. The AQI is frequently elevated above dangerous levels in Chiang Mai, on and off, for several months of the year – usually the January-March 'burning season', but frequently longer. The city's AQI readings are more often than not higher than those of other Thai cities including Bangkok.

Some of Chiang Mai's smog is carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide from industrial and vehicle emissions and cooking fires; and dust from building projects. The levels vary across the municipality – e.g. they're much higher at Wararot Market and in Thapae Road.

But most of the 'smog' is smoke, and this comes from the deliberate burning of crops and other vegetation, and of forests (often by villagers to trigger the growth of wild 'throb' mushrooms, or by poachers to flush out game); and also from non-deliberate forest and grass fires. These smoke sources are local (Chiang Mai province), regional (northern Thailand) and international (Burma and Laos; but also the 'Asian Brown Cloud' stretching from eastern China through Southeast Asia to Pakistan). No-one knows proportionally how much smoke comes from each area.

(As lowland agriculturalists in the north allegedly only burn selectively, and because so many forest fires are raging in the highlands - many deliberately lit - the current theory is that these highland forest fires – coupled with an abnormal cold front from China that is trapping haze in the northern valleys - are the prime source of Chiang Mai's recent pall of smoke. However there is a certain capacity for denial and misattribution of blame in Thai officialdom, so this theory needs to be taken with a grain of salt for the moment.)

In the short term Chiang Mai's smoke gives residents coughs, headaches, sore throats, red, streaming eyes, sneezing fits and more serious bronchial illnesses. It caused dozens of heart attacks in 2007.

In 2003 there were 704,800 hospital cases of respiratory disease recorded in Chiang Mai province – roughly twice that of ten years earlier. Dr Duangchan Apawatcharut Jaroenmuang, head of the Chiang Mai-Lamphun Air Pollution Control Project, states that patients with general respiratory diseases in Chiang Mai outnumber those in Bangkok.

Over the three days to March 20, the number of respiratory patients in Mae Hong Son rose from 416 to 3,541; in Chiang Rai, from 1,780 to 11,148; and in Chiang Mai from 1,370 to 4,514.

In the longer term, Chiang Mai's smoke raises the rates of lung cancer and other chronic or fatal ailments. Chiang Mai has the second-highest lung cancer rates in the world, according to Prof Sumittra Thongprasert from the Medical Ecology Department of Chiang Mai University – and higher than any other region of Thailand. The city's 139 lung cancer cases per 100,000 population is almost 6 times the world average.

An academic study, and a separate news report citing an academic expert, both claim that Chiang Mai, despite its vastly smaller population, has a higher number of lung cancer patients than Bangkok.

[http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/02/national/national_30028253.php and http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?id=625 ]

Other studies have found Chiang Mai's 'total suspended particulate' (TSP) concentrations to be higher than those of Bangkok, Hong Kong and Ho Chi Minh City.

The Public Health Bill of 1992 prescribes that any person who violates the bill by burning their garbage "can be imprisoned for up to six months or fined up to 10,000 baht or both, and will be fined 5,000 baht each day if they continue polluting the environment".

But the failure of Chiang Mai's provincial government to attack the problem of air pollution – or even recognise it – has been close to absolute, recent sabre-rattling notwithstanding. Activists and academic experts have been hammering away at the government for nearly a decade, to little avail.

The above-cited Dr Charoenmuang, who has spent a number of years studying air pollution in Chiang Mai, and who has discussed the problem with the Mayor among other civic leaders, believes the city authorities have no intention of doing anything about the problem. Dr Charoenmuang believes politicians are afraid that publicly acting against air pollution might lose the city tourists; but more generally she adds:

"Frankly they are just not clever enough to combat such a vast problem."

Chiang Mai City Clerk Ken Santitham has commented: "I think that the academics exaggerate… Our air problems are not that severe." Regarding the action taken to date, Santitham states: "I think that our record has been impressive."

The City Clerk employs an environment department of one. This employee, Rongrong Duriyapunt, takes a different view: she believes her department's budget (400,000 baht) is far too small to achieve anything much.

The Thai media are on the case, but are credulous and prone to print wild inaccuracies. The Bangkok Post, at the height of the recent emergency, reported straight-faced a government claim that a major source of the smoke was Korean barbeque restaurants.

No media outlet has yet asked why no fire-starters have been charged, fined or gaoled; or whether there is any science behind the government-ordered practice of spraying water out of planes, or having fire trucks hose the streets to 'raise humidity and induce rain'. No Thai reporter has answered for us the $64,000 question: exactly where does the smoke come from?

In January-March - the same three-month period that firebugs were not arrested, fires were not systematically fought, and Korean restaurants were being ordered to douse their barbeques – www.thaivisa.com posters reported deliberately lit fires all over the north of Thailand. Satellite fire maps showed more than 4000 fires throughout the north in the first half of March.

More than half the time, Chiang Mai's dangerous levels of air pollution begin in January and end late March or early April. However they have begun as early as August and ended as late as late June.

It's not clear if the smoke problem is getting worse – 1999 had more 'dangerous' <PM10 days than the present year, at least so far - but Chiang Mai's mid-March 2007 AQI reading of 180 was the highest since records began.

These are the number of days per year <PM10s were above the safe maximum of 120, in Chiang Mai, 1999 to 2007:

1999: 52

2000: 10

2001: 2

2002: 9

[2003: records missing]

2004: 41

2005: 24

2006: 5

2007: 28 (to Mar 28)

(Includes the tail end of the previous year, to keep seasons together. Also, 2007 is not over and there will probably be worse to come.)

4 bad years out of 8 suggests a 2:1 probability of getting a bad year in any given year. But even if there were two or three 'good' years in a row, averages assert themselves in time: a Chiang Mai resident will inevitably end up with a higher bodily load of carcinogens and general pollutants than residents of other Thai cities, and of most other places in the world.

We don't need to guess about this, or extrapolate from the daily pollution readings: it is borne out by the city's extraordinary lung cancer and respiratory illness rates.

In a nutshell, the Chiang Mai resident faces:

• two of Thailand's most entrenched cultures - rural burning and government apathy

• no concrete proposal to change either (talk notwithstanding)

• on average, dangerously high pollution levels, on-off, through about 25% of every second year

• an elevated probability of lung cancer, respiratory ailments and other illnesses (children and the elderly being the most vulnerable)

• frequent media misinformation as to the causes and extent of the problem, and a failure to identify wrongdoers

In light of the above, does one keep one's self and one's family in northern Thailand, or does one move to somewhere like Surat Thani, which – from a quick scan of ten years of data – has never had a day where <PM10s were above the safe maximum?

That's up to you.

Notes:

1. The above information is taken from publicly accessible government data, academic studies, and media reports which quoted air pollution experts. (Various dates going back about 8 years.) Apart from the raw government pollution data I studied directly, which I'm fairly sure is accurate, I can only assume the rest is accurate. As no-one is paying me to do this, I haven't verified most of the claims and quotes with primary sources.

2. The above is written for the 'average' resident, who cannot afford to live in Chiang Mai part of the year (the non-burning part) and move elsewhere when the smog mounts.

3. The worst air pollution years previous to this one were 1999 and 2004. If 2007 follows the 2004 pattern, the serious pollution will finish in the next couple of weeks. If 2007 follows the 1999 pattern, we will have dangerous levels of air pollution through till late June.

4. A superb Thai government website where you can monitor air pollution anywhere in Thailand, view past data, bring up tables and graphs, etc, is:

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm

November 11, 2007

I had RA (spondylitis to be exact) 11 years ago - ESR (inflammation reading) of 43; agonising pain; couldn't even turn over in bed; toes & fingers swollen up like balloons.

Prognosis from the rheumatologist: crippledom.

I ignored the doctor - a good, lifelong habit - and set about researching diet.

Cut out hard drinking, smoking, dairy and gluten grains. Stopped eating any processed foods - anything in a packet or can (and thus sugars, hard fats, preservatives, colorants, and flavour enhancers).

Exercised more. Took nutrients including fish oil (MAX-EPA) and herb teas such as Devil's Claw & Sarsparilla.

Wasn't totally fanatical, but kept to most of the above most of the time.

Got therapy (via a book by Gillian Riley) on containing desires for 'bad' things.

Today:

Symptoms: zero (& I don't mean 1%)

ESR: 1 (lowest possible score)

Damage to spine & joints: minimal (I got it early)

November 9, 2007

I lived in Chiang Mai for 3 years (world's second-highest lung cancer rates) and now live in Bangkok - where the air is better tho far from clean.

I'm a little paranoid about the toxification I have experienced, breathing in bad air for most of the last 4 years.

I gather that chelation therapy may be the way to go. Does anyone know how to detox with supplements? I.e. what to take; and where to get them in BKK?

Thanking you.

November 9, 2007

From memory, from R&J:

She doth teach the torches to burn bright.

She hangs upon the cheek of night

Like some rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear:

Beauty too rich for use, for Earth too dear.

"hangs upon the cheek of night" does it for me.

November 9, 2007

I'm in the habit of watching a DVD movie at night, and find myself forced to choose the usual Hollywood output . Anything with explosions, gunfights and car chases seems to be popular here.

I'd really like some decent "art" or "alternative" movies - especially French (the world's best movies IMO), tho could be from anywhere - even the US, which has a good indy industry. Just not the usual commercial stuff.

Does anyone know a DVD hire shop with such movies - preferably lots of them, to broaden the choice?

Thanking you.

November 5, 2007

I think there are many ways to give up, tho willpower/cold turkey may be one of the less effective.

Smoking is a serious & life-threatening addiction, so needs to be treated as such.

I tried many things (hypnotherapy 3 times, Alan Carr, willpower, meditation, et al) and the one that finally worked - after 30 years - was Gillian Riley's book "How To Stop Smoking & Stay Stopped for Good".

Addiction seems to live in the frontal cortex, & the book allows you to retrain the FC to not be addicted.

You have to face your addiction (not be distracted from it) and choose not to smoke.

I had one night of cold sweats, a week of on/off pangs - then nothing for the 2 years since. Not bad for a 30-year on-off smoker.

June 22, 2007

That makes it all nice and clear.

Clearly I had the wrong end of the stick. (I was timing my departues as close to the 90 day mark as possible.)

Thank you all very much for the input.

June 21, 2007

I am an Australian citizen & have a one-year non-immigrant B multiple entry visa for Thailand. (No work permit.)

As I understand it, I have to leave the country minimum every 90 days to get a stamp.

I have asked this question to my Thai lawyer, but can't seem to get it across because of the language difficulties:

On this type of visa, can I leave and re-enter Thailand as many times as I like during my one year? (E.g. ten times.)

Or once I have left & re-entered four times, does that mean my four 90-day periods are used up and the visa is finished?

Thanking you!

May 20, 2007

The same thing happens on land.

My gf and I wanted to get a ride from Krabi town to Ao Nang the other day. We were besieged by taxi drivers, but we wanted to find the cheap white van that goes between the two towns. The taxi guys spun us all inds of stuff about how it wasn't in service that day.

Then one pulled around the corner. We walked toward it; the taxi drivers started yelling in the window at the driver, threatening him if he undercut their prices (!)

So the driver (who normally charges 20 baht) said the price was '100 baht'. The taxi drivers went away then, and we caught up with the driver and jumped in for 20 - he was fine about thast when not in danger.

Unless southern Thailand can get on top of some of these problems - the plastic and broken glass on the beach is another - a lot of people will continue to stay away.

April 30, 2007

Got a flea infestation, and neem & pennyroyal oils (with a bit of help from eucalyptus) always worked well in the West.

But I don't know where to buy in BKK.

Can anyone help?

April 9, 2007

Further to the above:

Yes, that warning was issued on March 15.

However the worst carcinogens (<PM10s) have been at dangerous levels on 12 of the days since then; close to dangerous levels on 6 days; and well below the "dangerous" threshold on only 7 days.

Today they are at 111.4 - 8.6 below the "dangerous" threshold of 120.

The CM governor recently claimed that tourists should come to CM for Songkran because he could "guarantee" that all the smoke would be gone by then. He can guarantee no such thing. In 1999, a year very similar to this one, dangerous levels of <PM10s persisted till June. They were well over 100 till late June.

In the interests of not dying of lung cancer, I moved permanently to Krabi province ten days ago. Both my gf and I noticed that the coughs, sneezing fits, stinging eyes and streaming noses that had plagued us for many months disappeared instantly.

A good English language website on the CM air and general environment, for those interested, is:

http://www.udif.or.th/indexE.htm

April 9, 2007

from http://www.udif.or.th/290350.htm

The American Citizen Services Section of the U.S. Embassy has issued a warden message alerting American citizens living in or visiting northern Thailand to the need to take appropriate health-related precautions due to the unhealthful air quality northern Thailand is currently experiencing. ( Warden Message)

Warden Message

March 15, 2007

This message alerts American citizens living in or visiting northern Thailand to the need to take appropriate health-related precautions due to the unhealthful air quality northern Thailand is currently experiencing. Air quality experts report that excessive trash burning, brush clearing, forest fires and other factors have resulted in severe air contamination in the areas surrounding Chiang Mai. According to the Pollution Control Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, air pollution levels in Chiang Mai have exceeded the maximum acceptable level since the beginning of March. On March 14, the level of particulate matter in the air exceeded the “emergency” level. Measurements at or near the “emergency” level are expected for at least the next several days.

Health professionals warn that during periods of unhealthful air quality, people with respiratory or heart disease, smokers, elderly persons, and children should avoid prolonged exertion and stay indoors when possible. In addition, everyone should limit activity and prolonged exertion, both indoors and out. This includes exercising in air conditioned fitness centers, since any additional strain on the respiratory system during periods of unhealthful air quality should be avoided.

Medical professionals also note that cloth masks or bandannas are generally ineffective in reducing smoke inhalation. In order for a mask to work, it must filter fine particles. More functional masks are available at pharmacies, such as the N95 respirator mask available for about 50-55 baht per mask. One size does not fit all. Please choose a correct fit and follow all instructions to ensure proper effectiveness. The recommended maximum use time for most respirators is 7-8 hours.

Day-by-day particulate matter (PM 10) and air quality statistics are available in English on the Pollution Control Department website at http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm and at the consulate’s website, http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/consulcm/index.htm.

April 4, 2007

Embassies only exist in capital cities. In other cities you need a consulate.

However the Australian Consulate closed down just before I arrived in CM May 04 (I'm Oz too).

Nevetheless I walked into the Bangkok Bank on Thapae Road with my passport and a tourist visa, spoke to the very helpful ladies immediately on the left as you go in, and had an account open within half an hour.

April 4, 2007

I've left CM and my teak house at Suan Pailom (aka the Farang Farm) is available to let.

It's not far from CMU about 15-20 mins from town, in a quiet country environment:

2 bedrooms (we used the lounge to make 3)

lots of deck space

basic outdoor kitchen

indoor bathroom

huge storage space + second toilet downstairs

carport

cleaner air than town

Your own bamboo-fringed lake and gazebo

Silence (except for bird noises)

Nice neighbours - mainly farang (NGO workers, teachers, retired, etc)

The best of both worlds - rural peace & quiet plus closeness to town. The house is a slightly 'rustic' gem IMO

I paid 10,000 a month + power/water - not sure if will stay same

Email me at johnmac11 at fastmail.us is interested & I'll put you in touch with the owner.

March 26, 2007

I wrote this for the Chiang Mai forum, but it applies equally to Chiang Rai:

Given its famed air pollution levels, is Chiang Mai habitable by humans? I’ll let you read the below and answer the question for yourself.

All urban air is ‘dangerous’ to some degree: civilisation produces air pollutants, and these damage health. However for a significant portion of the year Chiang Mai’s air is more polluted than that of most cities. This is because of the high level of burning around the city and beyond, and the northwestern Suthep Range, which blocks the northwesterly and southeasterly winds – winds which would otherwise wash out air pollution - during the cool and rainy seasons respectively. In addition, a drier dry season in the north means there is less rain to settle pollutants.

Thus, according to one study, in 6 of the 7 categories of air pollution measured in both cities, Chiang Mai had higher concentrations than Bangkok – in most cases far higher concentrations.

More specifically, Chiang Mai’s level of particulates of less than 10 microns (<PM10s – the small particles from burning grass and leaves, and from cooking fires) is usually higher than most other cities in Thailand, including Bangkok.

Because of their size, the <PM10s more readily lodge in the lungs. They carry a potent carcinogen - polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons also cause more severe attacks in asthmatics and heart disease patients.

In 1999, 45% of Chiang Mai residents suffered from respiratory problems, according to Duangchan Charoenmuang, who has long studied Chiang Mai’s air at the Urban Development Institute Foundation.

As for ultra-small particles – the <PM2.5s – an informal, one-day measurement taken by the Unit for Social and Environmental Research found them to be double the US EPA standard. “The effects of breathing air with a high <PM 2.5 concentration,” says the Unit’s Po Garden, “can include premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function particularly in children and individuals with asthma.”

The broader Air Quality Index (AQI) is a measure of most known air pollutants. The AQI is frequently elevated above dangerous levels in Chiang Mai, on and off, for several months of the year – usually the January-March ‘burning season’, but frequently longer. The city’s AQI readings are more often than not higher than those of other Thai cities including Bangkok.

Some of Chiang Mai’s smog is carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide from industrial and vehicle emissions and cooking fires; and dust from building projects. The levels vary across the municipality – e.g. they’re much higher at Wararot Market and in Thapae Road.

But most of the ‘smog’ is smoke, and this comes from the deliberate burning of crops and other vegetation, and of forests (often by villagers to trigger the growth of wild ‘throb’ mushrooms, or by poachers to flush out game); and also from non-deliberate forest and grass fires. These smoke sources are local (Chiang Mai province), regional (northern Thailand) and international (Burma and Laos; but also the ‘Asian Brown Cloud’ stretching from eastern China through Southeast Asia to Pakistan). No-one knows proportionally how much smoke comes from each area.

(As lowland agriculturalists in the north allegedly only burn selectively, and because so many forest fires are raging in the highlands - many deliberately lit - the current theory is that these highland forest fires – coupled with an abnormal cold front from China that is trapping haze in the northern valleys - are the prime source of Chiang Mai’s recent pall of smoke. However there is a certain capacity for denial and misattribution of blame in Thai officialdom, so this theory needs to be taken with a grain of salt for the moment.)

In the short term Chiang Mai’s smoke gives residents coughs, headaches, sore throats, red, streaming eyes, sneezing fits and more serious bronchial illnesses. It caused dozens of heart attacks in 2007.

In 2003 there were 704,800 hospital cases of respiratory disease recorded in Chiang Mai province – roughly twice that of ten years earlier. Dr Duangchan Apawatcharut Jaroenmuang, head of the Chiang Mai-Lamphun Air Pollution Control Project, states that patients with general respiratory diseases in Chiang Mai outnumber those in Bangkok.

Over the three days to March 20, the number of respiratory patients in Mae Hong Son rose from 416 to 3,541; in Chiang Rai, from 1,780 to 11,148; and in Chiang Mai from 1,370 to 4,514.

In the longer term, Chiang Mai’s smoke raises the rates of lung cancer and other chronic or fatal ailments. Chiang Mai has the second-highest lung cancer rates in the world, according to Prof Sumittra Thongprasert from the Medical Ecology Department of Chiang Mai University – and higher than any other region of Thailand. The city’s 139 lung cancer cases per 100,000 population is almost 6 times the world average.

An academic study, and a separate news report citing an academic expert, both claim that Chiang Mai, despite its vastly smaller population, has a higher number of lung cancer patients than Bangkok.

[http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/02/national/national_30028253.php and http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?id=625 ]

Other studies have found Chiang Mai’s ‘total suspended particulate’ (TSP) concentrations to be higher than those of Bangkok, Hong Kong and Ho Chi Minh City.

The Public Health Bill of 1992 prescribes that any person who violates the bill by burning their garbage “can be imprisoned for up to six months or fined up to 10,000 baht or both, and will be fined 5,000 baht each day if they continue polluting the environment”.

But the failure of Chiang Mai’s provincial government to attack the problem of air pollution – or even recognise it – has been close to absolute, recent sabre-rattling notwithstanding. Activists and academic experts have been hammering away at the government for nearly a decade, to little avail.

The above-cited Dr Charoenmuang, who has spent a number of years studying air pollution in Chiang Mai, and who has discussed the problem with the Mayor among other civic leaders, believes the city authorities have no intention of doing anything about the problem. Dr Charoenmuang believes politicians are afraid that publicly acting against air pollution might lose the city tourists; but more generally she adds:

“Frankly they are just not clever enough to combat such a vast problem.”

Chiang Mai City Clerk Ken Santitham has commented: “I think that the academics exaggerate… Our air problems are not that severe.” Regarding the action taken to date, Santitham states: “I think that our record has been impressive.”

The City Clerk employs an environment department of one. This employee, Rongrong Duriyapunt, takes a different view: she believes her department’s budget (400,000 baht) is far too small to achieve anything much.

The Thai media are on the case, but are credulous and prone to print wild inaccuracies. The Bangkok Post, at the height of the recent emergency, reported straight-faced a government claim that a major source of the smoke was Korean barbeque restaurants.

No media outlet has yet asked why no fire-starters have been charged, fined or gaoled; or whether there is any science behind the government-ordered practice of spraying water out of planes, or having fire trucks hose the streets to ‘raise humidity and induce rain’. No Thai reporter has answered for us the $64,000 question: exactly where does the smoke come from?

A Chiang Mai resident who relies on media reports to learn the truth about the air he is breathing and what it is doing to his health will only gain partial information, and some wrong information.

In January-March - the same three-month period that firebugs were not arrested, fires were not systematically fought, and Korean restaurants were being ordered to douse their barbeques – www.thaivisa.com posters reported deliberately lit fires all over the north of Thailand. Satellite fire maps showed more than 4000 fires throughout the north in the first half of March.

More than half the time, Chiang Mai’s dangerous levels of air pollution begin in January and end late March or early April. However they have begun as early as August and ended as late as late June.

It’s not clear if the smoke problem is getting worse – 1999 had more ‘dangerous’ <PM10 days than the present year, at least so far - but Chiang Mai’s mid-March 2007 AQI reading of 180 was the highest since records began.

These are the number of days per year <PM10s were above the safe maximum of 120, in Chiang Mai, 1999 to 2007:

1999: 52

2000: 10

2001: 2

2002: 9

[2003: records missing]

2004: 41

2005: 24

2006: 5

2007: 25 (to Mar 25)

(Includes the tail end of the previous year, to keep seasons together. Also, 2007 is not over and there will probably be worse to come.)

4 bad years out of 8 suggests a 2:1 probability of getting a bad year in any given year. But even if there were two or three ‘good’ years in a row, averages assert themselves in time: a Chiang Mai resident will inevitably end up with a higher bodily load of carcinogens and general pollutants than residents of other Thai cities, and of most other places in the world.

We don’t need to guess about this, or extrapolate from the daily pollution readings: it is borne out by the city’s extraordinary lung cancer and respiratory illness rates.

In a nutshell, the Chiang Mai resident faces:

• two of Thailand’s most entrenched cultures - rural burning and government apathy

• no concrete proposal to change either (talk notwithstanding)

• on average, dangerously high pollution levels, on-off, through about 25% of every second year

• an elevated probability of lung cancer, respiratory ailments and other illnesses (children and the elderly being the most vulnerable)

• frequent media misinformation as to the causes and extent of the problem, and a failure to identify wrongdoers

In light of the above, does one keep one’s self and one’s family in northern Thailand, or does one move to somewhere like Surat Thani, which – from a quick scan of ten years of data – has never had a day where <PM10s were above the safe maximum?

That’s up to you.

Notes:

1. The above information is taken from publicly accessible government data, academic studies, and media reports which quoted air pollution experts. (Various dates going back about 8 years.) Apart from the raw government pollution data I studied directly, which I’m fairly sure is accurate, I can only assume the rest is accurate. As no-one is paying me to do this, I haven’t verified most of the claims and quotes with primary sources.

2. The above is written for the ‘average’ resident, who cannot afford to live in Chiang Mai part of the year (the non-burning part) and move elsewhere when the smog mounts.

3. The worst air pollution years previous to this one were 1999 and 2004. If 2007 follows the 2004 pattern, the serious pollution will finish in the next couple of weeks. If 2007 follows the 1999 pattern, we will have dangerous levels of air pollution through till late June.

4. A superb Thai government website where you can monitor air pollution anywhere in Thailand, view past data, bring up tables and graphs, etc, is:

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm

March 26, 2007

I wrote this for the Chiang Mai forum, but it applies equally to anywhere in northern Thailand, northern Laos and eastern Burma right now: