I tend to believe at least the basic contention of the article, because heavy metal residues are generally a common component of PM2.5 pollution wherever it occurs.

 

However, it would have been more productive and compelling if The Nation's report had, somewhere in their long piece, actually given some examples of what exact levels of those several unsafe-level heavy metals were detected in air pollution testing, when and where, and how those levels relate to the applicable WHO standards.

 

Instead, we get a Greenpeace-related researcher making a claim. And pretty much zero specifics in the article to support the claim.  The public deserves better information than that.

 

They should measure toxicity here in Pattaya as well, can't be far off from the Bangkok numbers. 

 

Toxin/toxic.

Always keep thinking what one of the two we should use.

Maybe wrongly, I'm not sure, I've always thought that something toxic was chemically produced and a toxin was a naturally produced substance, let's say snake venom and similar.

As the 'stuff' in the air is probably 99.9% produced by 'us' burning fuel, burning rubbish etc all in essence being stupid things to do, other sensible methods do exist, and, stupidity is a natural state for most of the human race should we be using 'toxinous' to describe the air quality rather than toxic.

I'll probably have a clearer view when the caffeine kicks in. Should caffeine be classed as toxic or a toxin by the way??

Toxic banned pesticides in food and now toxic air pollution, Oh dam my routine holiday to Thailand this year might have to be cancelled, but I love Thailand, Thai women and sweet papaya. Oh decisions decisions.