Robroy

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

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?

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

I'm 55, but all the Thai women I meet tell me I look 30, and I'm sure they wouldn't be lying.

Hows it going in Ao Nang Robroy ? We lived there for a year back in 2003, nice vibe. Moved back north due to schooling for the rugrats, and the high prices they were charging for everything down there. Is the Last Fishermans Bar still there ? Cool place for a sundowner or two. I am 36 (on topic)..

Just flew back from Ao Nang yesterday to pack up the house in Chiang Mai and drive south again. Notice the air qulaity here is into the damgerous range again - good timing.

Ao Nang grew on me whilst there - great beach, and the tourists were of a better quality (mainly Nordic bourgesoisie - pretty inoffensive). But food and rent approximately double Chiang Mai's - a steak is 250 baht (I'd pay 120 here at say The Writers Club); and my new house is 16,000 (10,000 in CM).

Didn't see the bar you mention but I'm not really a drinker.

I'm still 55 today (on topic).

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

I'm 55, but all the Thai women I meet tell me I look 30, and I'm sure they wouldn't be lying.

Well I would qualify that if you want to be outside. I have been inside with the A/C and filters running for a few weeks and starting to feel pretty good. Definitely wise to watch the monitoring site to see when its safe to be out and breathing.

RR how is Krabi? Internet speeds? Quality of life? Is it a viable place to live and function?

You're right technically - but it's not much of a quality of life IMO, to be cooped up with air filters, and donning masks whenever you want to go out.

Not compared to living near a seabreeze.

I thought Krabi town was charming on the first pass thru, but rather a dump when you start looking at all the buildings individually (as we did all day Saturday, looking for somewhere to rent).

Ao Nang is also ugly, but because of the tourist shops everywhere. However it is redeemed by a beach.

Krabi prices comparable to CM; Ao Nang double. That applies to food and rent.

The eternal problem seems to be that if you want to escape CM and find a good beach or quiet unpolluted, non-ugly place, everyone else has thought of it too.

Number of days <PM10s above safe maxima per year in Chiang Mai. Includes the tail end of the previous year:

1999: 52

2000: 10

2001: 2

2002: 9

2003: 0 (no records?)

2004: 41

2005: 24

2006: 5

2007: 23 (to Mar 19)

Today (Mar 19) was the 17th straight day that <PM10s were above the safe maximums.

2004 had 22 straight days, and 1999 had 19, so we haven't broken that record yet.

However the 'good' news is that 2004 was the second-worst year on record (so far), and yet the dangerous days were over by April 1. (I was wrong to say earlier that 1999 is the only year we can compare with 2007: 2004 was also very bad.)

It now remains to be seen whether 2007 follows the 1999 model (where the air remained badly polluted till June) or the 2004 model, when the air became non-dangerous after April 1.

BTW, regardless of that outcome, I regard Chiang Mai as barely inhabitable by humans, based on the above figures - and also on the many days not shown where pollution levels were 'close to' dangerous.

I've just arrived in Ao Nang (escapee from northern smog) and want to rent a house for a few months (within 3 ks of beach) and also to find reasonable wi-fi cafes (the ones along the beach charge 60 to 120 baht an hour).

Can anyone help?

(Actually I have found one really nice house - 17,000 baht - but am wavering: would need an extra tenant to help with rent. Any takers?)

Doesn't do any harm to see photographic evidence for sure.

However the real evidence is in the data published daily by the Pollution Control Dept, which has shown that for 15 straight days Chiang Mai's air has contained above-safe-maximum levels of the most lethal pollutants, the <PM10s.

There is also the record numbers of reports of respiratory illness in CM hospitals.

And there are the foreign govts advising their citizens to stay away from northern Thailand.

And there are the many people who have fled the city, some for good.

I am presently sitting in a motel room in Krabi; my lovely cottage on the rural outskirts of Chiang Mai is empty. I can't go back there because my gf and I were so sick from breathing when we were there.

I'm now looking around for somewhere to live down south. I'll return to CM to pack and move out. This isn't what I wanted or planned to do. I love CM, but it ain't a safe place to live IMO, and I believe the data backs that up.

Attached are two photos we took as we fled Thursday morning - one at the airport on the ground, and the other from the plane.

Maxnet had been so slow .

i wonder if we get a refund whahhah

I actually did demand (and eventually got) a refund from MaxNet for their appalling service.

It took months and many reminders to actually be credited - but it happened eventually: one month's free Internet.

I've just left Chiang Mai (permanently) in the interests of not dying young from its carcinogen-laden smog, but I lived off Huey Kaew up a soi kinda opposite CMU - about 3k. The service was terrible up there but we all complained so much for so long that eventually it came good. It's been good for a few months, tho I don't know about right now.

"The Air Quality Index had dropped to 114, a level considered to mildly affect the health of children and the elderly, from 247, a level at which the smoke affects everyone's health heavily, Apiwat said."

According to the Department's own figures Chiang Mai actually went from 152 to 171 for the worst pollutants (<PM10s) today.

Don't know where this 114 comes from. There hasn't been a 114 day in recent times. Indeed CM just clocked up its 15th straight day with the lethal <PM10s over the safe maximum level.

"Chiang Mai officials sent fire trucks to hose down streets and spray into the air in hopes of bringing rain and urged its residents to do the same."

"After a week of failure to provoke a deluge from the sky, rainmaking teams added water to their chemical mix of fertiliser and salt sprayed from planes to make rain in hopes that would be more effective, officials said."

I don't know anything about rainmaking, but this sounds closer to witchcraft than science.

Yes, studying the fire maps and satellite images and also the pollution tables by city - as linked from the main 'advisory' thread - would be an excellent way to work out where is clear and where in smoky.

I flew down to Krabi with the gf 2 days ago: the whole of northern Thailand has generalised haze. There would be no escape anywhere.

Bangkok seems to have about 40% of the haze density of CM, from looking out the airport windows and from the plane.

Krabi is fine. A strong seabreeze rocks in here every afternoon and clears the air of what little haze there is. Our <PM10 levels are below 40 - Chiang Mai's peaked at the lethal 304 level this week.

I don't believe Chiang Mai is habitable by humans any more. Even if you are one of the minority wo does not have immediate effects from the pollution, the long-term effects of having such large numbers of these microparticles breathed into your lungs 24/7 is most likely grave.

The city already has the world's second-highest lung cancer rate, according to one expert. That suggests there is a big problem. I love CM and grieve to leave it. I also owe it a lot. But the time has come. I'm now looking round down south for somewhere new to live, and will only return to CM to pack and exit.

Thanks for all that.

What beach is that a pic of?

Now we're here (had to leave Chiang Mai pretty rapidly due to pollution-induced illnesses) we've found a cheapish resort behind Ao Nang - and will look around from here.

I must say that there is very little garbage on the beaches - quite a contrast to last October, where every beach in the South seemed awash with plastic and glass. Suggests that the rains wash it down the rivers?

You said:

"broadband is in krabi town- its gotten mixed reviews. in krabi town you should have no problem."

Could you clarify? 'Mixed reviews' or 'should have no problem'?

Thanks again.

Greetings from Krabi. Been here 36 hours.

My eyes stopped hurting almost as soon as I got on the plane, my coughing stopped by about BKK airport, and my sneezing has just about stopped now.

Nice to get a sea breeze and to be able to see the scenery beyond the end of one's driveway.

From the plane, the haze appears to be over the whole of northern Thailand - tho glad to hear that CM levels have fallen today.

However I must repeat what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread: the only year comparable to this one in smog severity is 1999. And in 1999 pollution levels did not fall below "safe maximums" till early June, and not convincingly below them till late June.

Anything could happen - weather is a chaotic system, not a linear one. However I would be inclined to take 1999 as my model for 2007, not the "average year" of late (where pollutant levels fall below dangerous late March/early April).

This is nothing like an "average year" to date; and IMO is more likely to mimic 1999 than not.

That would mean another three months of on-off levels above safe maximums. I.e. another 3 months of what you're experiencing now. Chiang Mai-ers have already endured 14 straight days of <PM10 levels above the safe maximum of 120, so it may even be more 'on' than 'off'.

I'm not trying to be alarmist: this has happened before and there is a reasonable probability -tho not a certainty - that it will happen again.

I have a few friends who are travelling Thailand right now and are wanting to travel to Chiang Mei at the end of this month.

Will the pollution pass by then? How long do these fires usually go for?

Someone has reposted my post on this, but left out the crucial part.

I can't find my original of this post right now (I've just fled Chiang Mai, for obvious reasons, and am still on the road) but in essence what I said was that, yes, the air does go back to normal on average late March/early April.

HOWEVER in the only other disastrously high-pollution year - 1999 - it stayed at dangerous levels till late June.

This year is the first year since then that pollutants have been at 1999 levels. Therefore it is entirely possible that levels of the lethal <PM10s and the general air pollutants may stay at dangerous levels for another three months.

No-one knows what will happen. The levels may fall to tolerable levels in 1 to 3 weeks from now, in line with the "average year" scenario. However in my opinion because this is anything but an average year, that is not our model right now. Our model for what is happening now is 1999 - and in that year the pollutants stayed at "above safe maximum" levels till early June, and at very close to that level (~110 for the <PM10s) till late June.

Though no-one can predict the future, we can talk about probabilities - and that is more likely to be the 2007 scenario IMO.

I wish I had better news.

Today's reading for PM10s is 229.5, down from yesterday's 304, but still in the dangerous range.

The broader AQI is 148 - ditto (yesterday 180), but cold comfort given that yesterday's reading was an alltime record.

I noticed my breathing improved a bit after leaving CM an hour or so ago, tho am still sneezing and coughing a lot. That may take several days. (Am presently in BKK airport picking up the free wi-fi signal near the departures area.)

One thing that puzzles me a little, having flown into CM from Laos 6 days ago, and flying CM-BKK today, is that there are/were almost no fires visible from the plane. (One smallish one on each trip.) This is in sharp contradistinction to the fire map we've all been looking at. Perhaps they're too small to spot from that height - tho even on landing and take-off at CM there wasn't anything visible burning.

The generalised smoke of course is another matter. The haze around BKK looks to be about 40% as thick as CM's. You can see for some miles - something I haven't done up north for a while.

Shortly flying south, to find somewhere safe to live.

Nice graphic, Loom, thanks.

I should have made it slightly clearer (as you did) that 1999 and 2007 being 'bad' does not mean all the other years were 'good'. Pollution and all the accompanying carcinogens have been a problem nearly every year.

Given 1999's pattern, anyone planning a holiday here before July would be well advised to make cancellable bookings and keep an eye on the daily pollution tables.

Then cancel if the situation is unchanged as your ETA approaches. Chiang Mai is extremely unpleasant to be in in these conditions - you wouldn't want to visit, believe me.

Speaking of which, I'm leaving for a month or two's enforced holiday in Krabi in about 30 minutes.

The big question for those who are stuck in Chiang Mai is "When will it end?"

No-one can predict the future, but we can get an idea of the probabilities by looking at the past data.

If you go to the govt air pollution site at

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Q...fm?task=default

and click on QUERY

then enter CHIANG MAI in the 'QUERY BY PARTICULAR SITE' box, you will get the air pollution data for CM going back several years.

Looking at the most lethal pollutant - the <PM10s - you can see that the last day in 2006 these were over the safe maximum of 120 was March 25.

In 2005 it was April 7.

In 2004 it was April 1.

(2003 not recorded)

In 2002 it was April 4.

In 2001 there were no readings above 120.

In 2000 it was March 23.

In 1999 it was June 7. (A very bad year, with 110-ish days thru till late June.)

In 1998 it was July 18. (That was a one-off - the year wasn't at all bad otherwise.)

So if this were an 'average' kind of year you would expect the air to return to safe levels around 1 to 3 weeks from today (Mar 14).

However unfortunately 2007 is not an average kind of year - it is more comparable to 1999, the worst modern year, until now. And 1999 gave us lethal air till June - another three months past now.

There's no saying we won't revert to an 'average year' kind of pattern. But given the 1999-style precedent of the last several months, I would have to say my money was on more serious pollution for some months.

Probabilities are only probabilities, and I hope I'm wrong.

If you go to the govt air pollution site at

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Q...fm?task=default

click on QUERY

then enter CHIANG MAI in the 'QUERY BY PARTICULAR SITE' box, you will se the historical air pollution figures for CM.

They will tell you what the historical norms are for each month. Predicting the future is impossible, but you can infer probabilities from the past.

At a glance, the readings of <PM10s seem to fall away to (allegedly) safe levels from late March/early April - tho occasionally it's late April.

Boon Thavon apartments is Soi 1, Ratchdamnern is about 500 a night and 5000 a month and has free wi-fi in the rooms.

A nice place, perhaps the cleanest I've seen in LOS.

The girl on the desk downstairs with good English is Nook.

+66 053 226 700; 226 778

[email protected]

Soi 1 is the first one on your right off Ratchadamnern Rd heading west from Thapae Gate.

Gf has been sick for 10 days - throat infection, fever - and now I am coming down with it. Have sneezed maybe 40 times today, and coughed maybe 100 times.

Today is the third most polluted day in terms of <PM10s since records began, and *the* most polluted day (the broader air quality index) since records began - so that may explain why it's hit me badly now.

Today we booked two early morning tickets to Krabi. Will check into a resort there with wi-fi: I'll take my work with me. No point in staying here: we're both barely functional, and the authorities don't appear to be planning to crack down on the burning problem, appearances notwithstanding.

Will stay in Krabi/Au Nang for one month minimum; two if the air isn't better in CM in April. And whilst we're there we will look round for somewhere to settle permanently. Then we'll come back here in the rainy season, pack up, and leave.

If you look at the tables I linked to on the other thread, you can se that altho this is the worst year ever, bad years do come along fairly frequently, and every burning season has some "dangerous" days. Couple that with the denial the Thais are in, and I think the situation will only get worse. Maybe next year won't kill you, but the year after might - as it were.

I owe Chiang Mai a lot, but it is no longer liveable IMO.

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

Today's <PM10 figure is 304.

That's the highest in recent times going by the graph you can bring up:

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

In fact going thru the table at

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Q...m?task=findsite

it's the highest level since May 1999, and the third highest ever recorded.

The broader AQI (air quality index) figure is 180 - in the "unhealthful" range.

If you look thru the above table, it appears to be the highest reading since records began.

"The government will declare a state of environmental emergency in the northern provinces and impose harsher penalties on slash-and-burn violators if they don't stop within a week."

Glad they're not rushing into anything.

Personally I think they should give the burners another month. Wait and see if we actually have a problem. What about the burners' civil rights?

My wife and a group of friends are booking tickets now for down south until this clears up. I didn't think it would get any worse.

We're doing the same - leaving at the end of the week for a couple of months - but also using it as a reccy for a permanent move by the end of the year.

Where are you headed?

I don't like the overdeveloped spots much (Phuket, Samui), and rather fancied Krabi town or Songkla town might be nice. A work in progress. But beaches and clean air would be essential. Good Internet is the only other thing that's mandatory - need a good connection for work.

Am having to 'relocate' rapidly from Chiang Mai - the air pollution levels have just reached "critical" and are still rising - and am thinking that with Phuket & Samui overdeveloped and all the garbage on the beach at Lanta, Phi Phi, et al, maybe Songkla was worth a shot.

Am looking for a house or apartment walking distance to beach for maybe a couple of months for a start.

I'm not that fussy about the house/apartment (could pay to 15,000 baht), tho it would need to have Internet on: I am a trader and need a reliable connection 24/7 for work.

Any suggestions/leads appreciated - regarding living in/near Songkla town generally, or actual accommodation specifically.

Thanks a lot.

I recently saw this comment on CM forum

If you have a Mac (as I do) you are in the wrong town unhappily.

I was the person who made that statement and I stand by it.

The local Mac dealer here is incompetent and dishonest in my experience, has confessed to scamming customers to a Mac-owner friend of mine.

Every other Mac user I have encountered here tries to avoid them - tho I acknowledge that people's experience differs, and there is at least one person on this thread who finds them okay.

Most Mac-owners I know go the Singapore route, or buy/fix their Macs in their home country. I go to Brisbane rather than deal with the CM guy.

There was talk among the Mac users' group last year of organising a petition to Apple to complain about their local rep, and to ask for someone reliable to be appointed. I'm not sure if that happened or not.