Health Advisory

[cdnvic]

Was the airport still operating on the worst days?

[p1p]

Yes. I was under the flight path when a plane came in to land. Looked but damned if I could see it...

[Ricardo]

However some flights were diverted or cancelled, at the worst, and more were delayed.

Today in Mae-Jo, this is our 3rd successive day of improvement, I can see up to 2km, and have seen blue-sky and a few high clouds yesterday, for the first time in weeks. So things are improving.

This seems co-incidental (?) with not seeing wide-spread burning-off, here in our village, by the local farmers. I would conclude that, while some of the problem may have been down to forest-fires or neighbouring countries, a significant part of it was down to local people, and is therefore controllable, by the authorities.

[DragonQuest]

will we die sooner with the pollution in bangkok? just curious if it will effect us in the long term

[lannarebirth]

However some flights were diverted or cancelled, at the worst, and more were delayed.

Today in Mae-Jo, this is our 3rd successive day of improvement, I can see up to 2km, and have seen blue-sky and a few high clouds yesterday, for the first time in weeks. So things are improving.

This seems co-incidental (?) with not seeing wide-spread burning-off, here in our village, by the local farmers. I would conclude that, while some of the problem may have been down to forest-fires or neighbouring countries, a significant part of it was down to local people, and is therefore controllable, by the authorities.

This is what I have maintained all along, but I have yet to see even one official acknowledge same. My girlfriend spoke with our local Khumnan, and Puyai Ban today and suggested she was going to talk to her friends at the orbortor and in provincial government about witholding village funds from those villages that fail to comply with non burn orders. I thought they were going to stroke out. Masny "activist" types out our way. Maybe we'll see some improvemnet but I'm pretty sceptical.

[MyPenRye]

I agree a degree of protest is worthy, but Frang and environmentally concerned Thais have been running articles and studies on the situation for years. The BKK Post just had an article ont he improved BKK situation with regards to smog because of better vehicle regulations -very interesting if you google it.

As for Chiang Mai and vicinity which is in a huge river basin without the benefit of trade winds, the air is trapped with all of the vehicle smoke and the burning of trash and rice chaff, and empty fields. I think the best solution is to work with the Thais for education, and not to promote protests which = loss of face for somebody.

The tremendous amount of trash and vegetation burning could be reduced by educating the youth on the one hand, and then by working with government, CMU, or The Royal Project to fund better trash pickup systems, and to promote composting and even vermiculture - slow composting via worms. Both forms of composting improve soil while having no ill effects towards the air we breathe. I think there is alot of room to work toward this. You essentially need a lot to compost on a community scale, a tractor to trun it, and some water. From there, the compost must be monitored for composition with the right proportions of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur to keep it cooking at the most efficient rate. Perhaps this natural fertilizer can then be truned around and sold, thus supplementing the city's costs to promote the program.

That's how it's gonna need to be done. Other communities are doing it. Have heard of vermiculture being big in Mexico. They do community composting of green waste in LA county, where the fertilizer is for sale. Of course, we'd need to see a huge - and much welcomed - improvement on trash can disbursement, availability, pick up and maintainance. Then a little community awareness that this can work and benefits us all, and we're off to a great start. Believe me, I have already met some Royal Project people, and hope to speak with government people again soon. This kind of project could be a souce of pride for the community that goes for it and succeeds, not to mention the immiediate direct benefits of the composting.

I applaud you for tackling the problem diplomatically and rationally. I agree that this is the way to go. Maybe the empty Tuktuks could help out in transporting the trash. While I know that they are contributing to the problem, maybe if we provide them with some other means of making money, they might be willing to clean up their acts (pun intended) and buy cleaner vehicles (with government incentives maybe). Heck! Why stop there and urge them to drive new buses or vans that burn fuel cleaner? For those who talk about vehicles being a huge hazard, I would remind you that things were not too, too bad before the fires (local) started. But, I agree with you that all of those motorcycles and tuktuks do not help the situation. A cleaner public transportation system would go a long way in helping the situation.

What do you think?

Edited March 17, 2007 by MyPenRye

[Ta22]

Just a message - TUK TUK use LPG gas .. NOT petrol ..

[jackr]

Just a message - TUK TUK use LPG gas .. NOT petrol ..

... but the main problem is the oil being burned by their <deleted> two-stroke motors. They may be part 'n parcel of the city but it's high time these ######ers spent some of their winnings and had their engines swapped for four-stroke models, or face on-the-spot fines and vehicle confiscated until cleaned up. This, for me, is far worse than the periodic forest burning as it is year round and always in yer face... unless of course you're currently sunning yourself on Phuket's beaches .

[p1p]

Just a message - TUK TUK use LPG gas .. NOT petrol ..

... but the main problem is the oil being burned by their <deleted> two-stroke motors. They may be part 'n parcel of the city but it's high time these ######ers spent some of their winnings and had their engines swapped for four-stroke models, or face on-the-spot fines and vehicle confiscated until cleaned up. This, for me, is far worse than the periodic forest burning as it is year round and always in yer face... unless of course you're currently sunning yourself on Phuket's beaches .

Interesting this discussion of LPG. I remember Delhi from the '80's when some winter smogs were so bad visibility was down to 10m or less. That was solved by the government insisting on moving all public vehicles to clean burning LPG. Most private vehicles had to comply too.

Since then, no smog. Although the winter fog can still get quite thick.

Today's particulates are up to 171 again. Less breeze today.

[KhunDennis]

The air still has not improved in the Lampang area. Still can not see the mountain outline most of the time. Smoke up to about sixty degrees from the horizon, with slight blue patch overhead.

And yet I see big fires in the eavening, adding more smoke to the mix.

[cloudhopper]

Vis has marginally improved over the last couple of days in Pai to about the same as a 3rd stage alert in Pasadena. The SGA flight has been arriving several hours late every day as the vis is normally worst in the am when it's still fairly cool.

[Robroy]

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.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

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.

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?

[Robroy]

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.

[marshbags]

Mon, March 19, 2007 : Last updated 18:22 pm (Thai local time)

From The Nation

Home > Headlines > Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son declared diaster zones

Quote :-

Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son declared diaster zones

Social Development and Human Securities on Monday declared Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son as disaster zone after air quality in the areas which were blanketed with thick smog was worse.

Minister Paiboon Wattanasiritham said that the decision was made in a meeting in which Pollution Control Department reported that the air quality in these two provinces was worsened by the smoke caused by fire.

The provinces have increasing number of people being sick after inhaling the air.

The ministry will ask cooperation from the army to use helicopter to survey locations where there were still fires in order to minimise the smoke.

"At present, number of people being treated after inhaling the smoke in Mae Hong Song climbed up from 416 to 3,541. In Chiang Mai number of patients caused by the poor quality of air increased from 1,370 to 4,514," the minister said.

Unquote.

marshbags

[KhunMarco]

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.

Well well, Ao Nang ugly is a bit drastic imho

The problem is, we want a nice uncontaminated place, with no tourists in sight but with good infrastructure ( internet, maybe a Movie theater, a mall) weeeell guess what, or you are ready to burn a lot of cash or you are stuck to where normal people live (Samui, Puket, Ao nang) I gotta tell you I already tried the island life, man after 3 months of beach and sun I got so bored I wanted to cry..lol, 2-3 months a year is great though.

Chiang Mai without pollution wins hands down, even without the beach.

I'm even tempted to try Pattaya area for a change, but I'm so scared about the place (what a pussy)

This is the worst pix I was able to find... ugly is a bit stretched uh?

[meadish_sweetball]

If they engaged the local puu yai baans and kamnans, and put together a well-informed team with concrete, simple explanations of the effects of burning, they could wake up a lot of people.

A rally at each local wat with the local big shots involved (of course) to feel important, and legitimize the whole thing...

Coupled with better garbage collection services.

Not saying a lot of people would not just shrug the information off, but I am sure it would serve the purpose of making at least some people understand they are part of the problem, and can change things.

For maximum effect, it should be done as soon as possible, when people still physically can see the problem.

[Kaysfeld]

If they engaged the local puu yai baans and kamnans, and put together a well-informed team with concrete, simple explanations of the effects of burning, they could wake up a lot of people.

A rally at each local wat with the local big shots involved (of course) to feel important, and legitimize the whole thing...

Coupled with better garbage collection services.

Not saying a lot of people would not just shrug the information off, but I am sure it would serve the purpose of making at least some people understand they are part of the problem, and can change things.

For maximum effect, it should be done as soon as possible, when people still physically can see the problem.

Good idea.

But sadly something like this will probably not happen, and if it does happen, it will probably happen to late to have much effect.

[chuchok]

just thought that I would let you know that the air in Auckland is clear and nice.I'll have a few deep breaths for you all.....

[cdnvic]

just thought that I would let you know that the air in Auckland is clear and nice.I'll have a few deep breaths for you all.....

Have a Mac's Black or a Speights on my behalf would ya? I miss the stuff.

[meadish_sweetball]

just thought that I would let you know that the air in Auckland is clear and nice.I'll have a few deep breaths for you all.....

I do miss New Zealand air.

[mcgriffith]

Here we go again. Noticed it was a bit hazy today (after 2 glorious beautiful days). Went for my usual walk in the late afternoon to the reservoir on the grounds of CMU. Imagine my dismay, upon arrival at the dam, when I saw HUGE ROILING CLOUDS OF WHITE SMOKE boiling up from the EXACT same hillock where I witnessed similar smoke about 2 weeks ago, in the worst of the pollution. My 1st thought was "oh it's a hot spot that has flared up again". So I go back to my apt, now it's dusk/getting dark. As I was seated on my patio, enjoying a cold beverage, a large piece of ash, clearly discernable as a leaf from a forest tree, came floating down and landed on my lap. This did not blow in from Burma, or Laos, or even Mae Hong Son or Chiang Rai. This is major burning, happening within the city limits, with no response as near as I can tell. Not a rubbish fire, not someone burning off weeds on a vacant lot. I lived in forested areas all my life and I know what a forest fire looks and smells like. It's in the city limits, just behind CMU, to the south of CM Zoo; at the end of Suthep road to the north. My (paranoid) guess is it is deliberate burning, on private property, of someone you do not want to question as to their right to do so. If I spoke Thai, I would call the municipal hotline; not an option. Any comments/suggestions?

PS I am not some whingeing farang complainer, nor an asthma sufferer.

PPS Where I come from (Cali/USA) we used to have if not the worst, some of the worst air pollution in the world. It still is bad, mostly because every yahoo and his brother insists on buying a massive SUV for the missus to take the kids in to their soccer match. But GOD FORBID you attempt to burn even a 1 foot pile of leaves in your back yard. If you are reported, and they catch you, you will be evicerated and your entrails will be hung from nearby trees...still bad there, but a lot better. Chiang Mai- really bad, getting horribly bad, with absolutely nothing being done to correct the situation. My 2 cents worth...

Edited March 24, 2007 by mcgriffith

[wadsy]

Yeah I noticed that the pollution is bad again today as well!! Seems like that as soon as it clears then the Thai's attitude is thats its ok to start burning again. Work that out!! I really don't think that anything will change and we just have to wait for it to p*&s rain!!!

[Bananaman]

Here we go again. Noticed it was a bit hazy today (after 2 glorious beautiful days). Went for my usual walk in the late afternoon to the reservoir on the grounds of CMU. Imagine my dismay, upon arrival at the dam, when I saw HUGE ROILING CLOUDS OF WHITE SMOKE boiling up from the EXACT same hillock where I witnessed similar smoke about 2 weeks ago, in the worst of the pollution. My 1st thought was "oh it's a hot spot that has flared up again". So I go back to my apt, now it's dusk/getting dark. As I was seated on my patio, enjoying a cold beverage, a large piece of ash, clearly discernable as a leaf from a forest tree, came floating down and landed on my lap. This did not blow in from Burma, or Laos, or even Mae Hong Son or Chiang Rai. This is major burning, happening within the city limits, with no response as near as I can tell. Not a rubbish fire, not someone burning off weeds on a vacant lot. I lived in forested areas all my life and I know what a forest fire looks and smells like. It's in the city limits, just behind CMU, to the south of CM Zoo; at the end of Suthep road to the north. My (paranoid) guess is it is deliberate burning, on private property, of someone you do not want to question as to their right to do so. If I spoke Thai, I would call the municipal hotline; not an option. Any comments/suggestions?

PS I am not some whingeing farang complainer, nor an asthma sufferer.

PPS Where I come from (Cali/USA) we used to have if not the worst, some of the worst air pollution in the world. It still is bad, mostly because every yahoo and his brother insists on buying a massive SUV for the missus to take the kids in to their soccer match. But GOD FORBID you attempt to burn even a 1 foot pile of leaves in your back yard. If you are reported, and they catch you, you will be evicerated and your entrails will be hung from nearby trees...still bad there, but a lot better. Chiang Mai- really bad, getting horribly bad, with absolutely nothing being done to correct the situation. My 2 cents worth...

mcgriffith man, i'm with you wholeheartedly on this. I've spotted quite a few fire offenders in my area again, they just don't give two hoots about the air. It is utterly exasperating and aside from bailing out of the city, I'm at my wits end to know what to do. I noticed the PM-10 has doubled from what is was a couple of days ago...a sure sign that incendiary practices are on the rise again. Whatever else I find frustating about this city I can deal with but this is the one thing that just pushes your patience to the absolute limit. We are pretty ###### powerless as guests in the country but it astounds me that those who are in positions of authority aren't taking the problem seriously.

Ho hum, pollution mask out of the drawer again.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Bananaman

[jackr]

... and once a few start up they'll all be at it again. Stupid and uncivilized come to mind

[p1p]

Up to 140+ again now....................... Eyes are smarting again - Wheeze Cough Splutter.

[Robroy]

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

[Ta22]

sorry too long to read all , but human had been known or rather life had been known to live in extreme condition -

so this is so far just a hair on the cow

[Austhaied]

sorry too long to read all , but human had been known or rather life had been known to live in extreme condition -

so this is so far just a hair on the cow

You mean this cow ??

[Ta22]

is a chinese saying .

one hair on 9 cow . to mean is very far by comparing to inhuman condition