Air pollution warnings spread to North

simoh1490 · February 16, 2018

6 hours ago, kaorop said:

How is it, that, most countries having poor air quality misleading? Its just a fact. Automobile and industrial polution is at unhealthy levels in most medium sized city around the world..its not hard to see, its not hard to find the causes, its not hard to see the poor helth outcomes

When people talk about the poor air quality in Thailand they like to report that Thailand's air quality doesn't meet or it exceeds the WHO standard which is pointless since hardly anyone does. If you want to say the air quality is poor, say it because it is, but don't try and add weight to your argument by citing deviation from WHO standards when virtually every other country in the world does exactly the same thing.

simoh1490 · February 16, 2018

6 hours ago, mommysboy said:

It wasn't an explanation. It isn't really about the math, is it? Given the choice of using the international standard or it's own raw data, the Thai authorities clearly deviated. And I think we can guess why imo?

But I apologize for calling you a Thai apologist. I should have waited for your interpretation and opinion.

The following from the WHO:

In 2014, 92% of the world population was living in places where the WHO air quality guidelines levels were not met.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

Secondly, the AQI result and the measurement of particulate matter are two very different things, the measurement of PM2.5 or PM10 determines what the AQI result is by using reference tables or similar. But to use the two sets of numbers in the same article as if they are interchangeable is pointless since they are not comparable numbers.

Finally, the WHO standards is very specific, they refer to the measurement of PM2.5 and PM10 over certain periods and these are -

PM_2.5
10 μg/m³ annual mean
25 μg/m³ 24-hour mean

PM₁₀
20 μg/m³ annual mean
50 μg/m³ 24-hour mean

So when a news article says for example,

"The highest recorded daily PM2.5 level, according to the PCD, was in Thonburi district at 73.37mg, followed by Pathumwan district at 62.79mg, Wang Thonglang district at 62.50mg and Bang Na district at 60.28mgThe World Health Organisation’s safety standard for PM2.5 is only 25mg". "The World Health Organisation’s safety standard for PM2.5 is only 25mg".

............that's two different topics being discussed, the first is Thailand's own standard and the second if the WHO's standard that hardly any country has been able to meet. The other part of that is Thailand's standard uses a daily average whereas the WHO standard is an annual or daily mean which is not the same thing. Thirdly, both the Thailand system of measurement and the WHO system of measurement allow for spikes in the readings, potentially very high spikes, all of which makes citing those headline-grabbing numbers, meaningless. There, there's nothing apologetic about any of that, it's just that when people read these articles they need to understand what is being said and in context.

garyk · February 16, 2018

It's hard for me to believe people what to come hang out here in these conditions?

I am amazed at the tourists that come here to endure this, wow

simoh1490 · February 16, 2018

1 hour ago, garyk said:

It's hard for me to believe people what to come hang out here in these conditions?

I am amazed at the tourists that come here to endure this, wow

Our Chinese friends tell us it's really no different in China at this time of the year and actually, London's AQI right now is 70 in places and there's not a rice field anywhere near :http://aqicn.org/map/london/#@g/51.5299/0.1411/11z

Edited February 16, 2018 by simoh1490

kaorop · February 17, 2018

5 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

When people talk about the poor air quality in Thailand they like to report that Thailand's air quality doesn't meet or it exceeds the WHO standard which is pointless since hardly anyone does. If you want to say the air quality is poor, say it because it is, but don't try and add weight to your argument by citing deviation from WHO standards when virtually every other country in the world does exactly the same thing.

Why are you repeating yourself? Try reading my reply and then try to understand it first..Trying to dissmiss WHOs scales and readings, who are you?

CGW · February 17, 2018

In Beijing the authorities refused to publish the correct AQ data, if you look on top of the American Embassy you will see a large digital display showing the correct PM 2.5 data, can we expect the American embassy to do the same here or would they be too scared of upsetting the hosts at the expense of telling the truth.

For those that are having to wear a face mask use a "N 90" they are the only ones that filter out the smaller particles, surgical masks etc are just about useless.

CGW · February 17, 2018

5 hours ago, garyk said:

It's hard for me to believe people what to come hang out here in these conditions?

I am amazed at the tourists that come here to endure this, wow

Most are from China, they are used to it and glad of a break from the high levels they are usually exposed too!

Reckon long term they may catch on?

simoh1490 · February 17, 2018

2 hours ago, kaorop said:

Why are you repeating yourself? Try reading my reply and then try to understand it first..Trying to dissmiss WHOs scales and readings, who are you?

I'm the guy who understands the realities rather than the wishful thinking, that's who!

wgdanson · February 17, 2018

On 2/16/2018 at 7:17 AM, Cadbury said:

Thailand - The Hub of Hazes perhaps?

Or a haze of hubs !

mommysboy · February 17, 2018

23 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm the guy who understands the realities rather than the wishful thinking, that's who!

The reality is what you see out of the Bangkok window, and the illness it causes. Stated simply Bangkok is currently one of the most polluted cities in the world. That is reality.

simoh1490 · February 17, 2018

30 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm the guy who understands the realities rather than the wishful thinking, and somebody who doesn't feel like being brow beaten by you, that's who!

1

simoh1490 · February 17, 2018

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The reality is what you see out of the Bangkok window, and the illness it causes. Stated simply Bangkok is currently one of the most polluted cities in the world. That is reality.

We don't disagree that BKK is polluted, whether or not it's one of the most polluted in the world I don't know, but those are not the things we were discussing and that's also the reality! I think it's great that the AQI numbers get more press and that the population puts pressure on governments to reduce pollution, but please don't feed us crap stats. that confuse one set of numbers with another and paint Thailand as solely unique in not meeting WHO standards - balance and context please, not sensational reporting of numbers that are out of context.

TallGuyJohninBKK · February 17, 2018

On 2/16/2018 at 4:53 AM, webfact said:

The highest recorded daily PM2.5 level, according to the PCD, was in Thonburi district at 73.37mg, followed by Pathumwan district at 62.79mg, Wang Thonglang district at 62.50mg and Bang Na district at 60.28mg.

It's confusing how the Thais report these PM2.5 numbers. I'm guessing the numbers for BKK like they report above here are 24 hour averages.... But the actual numbers vary widely depending on the time of day, with overnight and early morning numbers lower, and late morning into evening numbers higher, the latter being when most folks are outside.

If I look at the following chart for Chula Hospital in BKK, it seems to show that the PM2.5 readings for that location ranged from 102 to 157 during the 48 hours from 11 am Thursday to 11 am Saturday, and were specifically at 129 as of 11 am Saturday.

http://aqicn.org/city/thailand/bangkok/chulalongkorn-hospital/

mommysboy · February 17, 2018

13 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

We don't disagree that BKK is polluted, whether or not it's one of the most polluted in the world I don't know, but those are not the things we were discussing and that's also the reality! I think it's great that the AQI numbers get more press and that the population puts pressure on governments to reduce pollution, but please don't feed us crap stats. that confuse one set of numbers with another and paint Thailand as solely unique in not meeting WHO standards - balance and context please, not sensational reporting of numbers that are out of context.

I certainly agree there is no point hauling Thailand over the coals regarding the benchmark safety standard, since most fail.

But there are degrees of failure. My angle, though I simply dont know, is that the pm2.5 stands at 150 or so according to the international standard measurement. This may or may not be accurate, but I assume the same equation applies to all places throughout the world. It thus serves as a useful comparison.

And, as I say, arguing about stats. really is an abstraction, since it is plain to see that Bangkok has a significant problem.

chado · February 17, 2018

On 2/16/2018 at 5:53 AM, webfact said:

The Pollution Control Department (PCD) announced there had been an increase in air pollution in the North since the beginning of February, causing seasonal haze in the area, while the highest PM10 levels as of yesterday were in Tak’s Mae Sot district at 136 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

I figure that that'll bring even more tourists to Thailand.

Edited February 17, 2018 by chado

thaibeachlovers · February 17, 2018

LOL. People think they are so clever, then they live in huge cities with millions of cars and other vehicles, and wonder why they are poisoning themselves.

thaibeachlovers · February 17, 2018

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 4:53 AM, webfact said:

Chiang Mai at 58.6mg and Lampang’s Mae Moh district at 64.71mg, all of which exceeded Thailand’s safety standard of a daily overage of 50mg.

and yet, looking out the window in Chiang Mai, the air is clearer and the sky bluer than it's been for days.

TallGuyJohninBKK · February 17, 2018

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I certainly agree there is no point hauling Thailand over the coals regarding the benchmark safety standard, since most fail.

But there are degrees of failure. My angle, though I simply dont know, is that the pm2.5 stands at 150 or so according to the international standard measurement. This may or may not be accurate, but I assume the same equation applies to all places throughout the world. It thus serves as a useful comparison.

And, as I say, arguing about stats. really is an abstraction, since it is plain to see that Bangkok has a significant problem.

I understand and agree with Simoh's point about not using misleading or apples to oranges statistics.

But at the same time, let's not lose sight of the forest thru the trees. Bangkok and other areas of Thailand have an air pollution problem especially with PM2.5, the air is not in compliance with the Thai government's own standards, and certainly not in compliance with the WHO's world guidelines.

That ought to be the focus of the discussion, and not letting valid debate over statistical misuse obscure what really matters.

simoh1490 · February 17, 2018

I'm thinking back to previous debates on TVF on this subject and thinking also of the progress that been has made. Do older members remember the Swedish man who was working quite hard to raise awareness of the issue, he was a retired wing commander or similar in the Swedish airforce as I recall, this was at least ten years ago? At that time posters were making the same noises that they are today, the same complaints were being aired but there was much more discussion about alternatives to burning, that seems to have died off of late. There was also a large scale debate between us regarding pollution being blown in or not and it took a couple of years before the evidence presented itself that blown in pollution is indeed a factor in Thailand's poor air quality. Looking back ten years ago and comparing against today, the biggest change I see is that today we now have the 50 days burning ban which is certainly observed where I live and we have acknowledgement of the pollution issue by government, ten years ago it was a subject that was largely swept under the carpet - perhaps other members can comment on what they have seen as progress or change on this issue.

garyk · February 18, 2018

On 2/17/2018 at 6:12 AM, simoh1490 said:

Our Chinese friends tell us it's really no different in China at this time of the year and actually, London's AQI right now is 70 in places and there's not a rice field anywhere near :http://aqicn.org/map/london/#@g/51.5299/0.1411/11z

Thanks for the link! That is very telling. Wow

simoh1490 · February 18, 2018

19 minutes ago, garyk said:

Thanks for the link! That is very telling. Wow

Indeed, but you'll not see a poster on Thaivisa telling us how the British government needs to get its act together and start to adhere to WHO standards, not when there's loads of Brits in the forum ready to defend everything British but very few Thai's if any to defend Thai bashing.

mommysboy · February 18, 2018

10 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Indeed, but you'll not see a poster on Thaivisa telling us how the British government needs to get its act together and start to adhere to WHO standards, not when there's loads of Brits in the forum ready to defend everything British but very few Thai's if any to defend Thai bashing.

That's not true. Nobody is defending the UK government or anywhere else. London has dangerous air pollution too as do most major capitals. And again most people want it sorted, though public authorities and people alike seem to be more wrapped up with smokers 50m from a bus stop, or similar.

But what is absolutely true is that Bangkok is currently 120-180 pm2.5 based on this site's scale for many hours a day whereas London is mostly around the 30-60 mark. To sum up, Bangkok's problem is currently of a different order altogether.

And as we know the Thai figures were not congruent with the generally accepted expression measure, resulting in the layman being left with quite a wrong under-estimation of the severity of the problem.

Edited February 18, 2018 by mommysboy

simoh1490 · February 18, 2018

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

That's not true. Nobody is defending the UK government or anywhere else. London has dangerous air pollution too as do most major capitals. And again most people want it sorted, though public authorities and people alike seem to be more wrapped up with smokers 50m from a bus stop, or similar.

But what is absolutely true is that Bangkok is currently 120-180 pm2.5 based on this site's scale for many hours a day whereas London is mostly around the 30-60 mark. To sum up, Bangkok's problem is currently of a different order altogether.

And as we know the Thai figures were not congruent with the generally accepted expression measure, resulting in the layman being left with quite a wrong under-estimation of the severity of the problem.

I rest my case!

mommysboy · February 18, 2018

24 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I rest my case!

What case?

The 2 abundantly clear facts are:

1. All major capitals (London included) and some big cities have a pollution problem.

2. Bangkok has a problem of a magnitude that currently makes it one of the worst in the world.

It isn't one versus the other.

Also, as another poster pointed out the WHO scale simply points out that places above 25 pm2 may present a health threat to the public and in varying degrees the higher the reading. They just tell it the way it is. Thus, at 55 say (London levels) the air is defined as acceptable, though prolonged contact is not advised. At 150 and above (where Bangkok has frequently been lately) the air is described as unhealthy and everyone is at risk of health issues.

When I lived in London some time ago I would often suffer from a blocked nose and troublesome symptoms. In the seaside town where I come from I generally didn't suffer much. When I lived in Bangkok the problem become much, much worse, and then settled down again when I moved to Surat Thani.

Really just telling it straight- I don't understand your problem.

Edited February 18, 2018 by mommysboy

simoh1490 · February 18, 2018

39 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

What case?

The 2 abundantly clear facts are:

1. All major capitals (London included) and some big cities have a pollution problem.

2. Bangkok has a problem of a magnitude that currently makes it one of the worst in the world.

It isn't one versus the other.

Also, as another poster pointed out the WHO scale simply points out that places above 25 pm2 may present a health threat to the public and in varying degrees the higher the reading. They just tell it the way it is. Thus, at 55 say (London levels) the air is defined as acceptable, though prolonged contact is not advised. At 150 and above (where Bangkok has frequently been lately) the air is described as unhealthy and everyone is at risk of health issues.

Really just telling it straight- I don't understand your problem. What is it?

Looking at the AQI PM2.5 numbers for London for the past 48 hours and they're min. 34, max. 116 (not 30 - 60), Bangkok is 74 and 160 respectively (not 180). So yes, Bangkok is higher than London, no surprise there, after all Bangkok is a supposed third world capital whilst London with its uptodate government, green spaces, fines for polluting vehicles and its world-leading role in such matters is much more advanced, a fully developed economy etc etc. But to be honest, the two sets of numbers, whilst bad and different, aren't that massively different, they are not as you put it, "Bangkok's problem is currently of a different order altogether", especially given the difference in their development status, one fully developed, the other a developing country, the tendency therefore is to bash the latter and largely ignore the former.

http://aqicn.org/city/all/

Edited February 18, 2018 by simoh1490

mommysboy · February 18, 2018

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Looking at the AQI PM2.5 numbers for London for the past 48 hours and they're min. 34, max. 116 (not 30 - 60), Bangkok is 74 and 160 respectively (not 180). So yes, Bangkok is higher than London, no surprise there, after all Bangkok is a supposed third world capital whilst London with its uptodate government, green spaces, fines for polluting vehicles and its world-leading role in such matters is much more advanced, a fully developed economy etc etc. But to be honest, the two sets of numbers, whilst bad and different, aren't that massively different, they are not as you put it, "Bangkok's problem is currently of a different order altogether", especially given the difference in their development status, one fully developed, the other a developing country, the tendency therefore is to bash the latter and largely ignore the former.

The two sets of numbers are very different. And it becomes very noticable when standing outside. Also people start developing coughs, etc. In the long term people living in unhealthy areas develop chronic pulmonary diseases.

To clarify, nobody is criticising Bangkok for not reaching the WHO 'holy grail', nor expecting first world standards, it's simply a case that the air quality is so bad at the moment.

canopy · February 19, 2018

Remember Bangkok has done a number of things to curb pollution otherwise the air would be much worse. Things like all taxi's and buses run on LPG. But in the countryside of Thailand they do nothing about the bad air and burning. You'll see the air quality in what should be serene countryside soar to way worse levels than the metropolis of Bangkok which is absolutely ludicrous. And the smog blankets every single inch of northern Thailand for around half the year to one extent or another.

Meadowlark · February 19, 2018

The government here never gives the real AQ readings. Afraid they lose tourist.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Sign In

Air pollution warnings spread to North

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US