Health Advisory

[x-pat]

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos.

Oh yes. Being born in the 60s, I am one of the survivors. But Chiang Mai this March surely beats mommy's asbestos house. I just came back from a 14-day trip to Bangkok today which I and my family specifically made to escape the smog. Earlier this month, our two toddlers were coughing and rubbing their eyes like I never did in aforementioned asbestos house when I was their age. The irony is that 2 years ago, we moved away from Bangkok (where I lived for 12 years) to Chiang Mai for exactly the same reason, namely to escape the pollution. We put up with losses of earnings, moving expenses, adaptation to a new environment, etc. to live in a greener and nicer place. We bought land in Chiang Mai last year, and we planned to build on it this year.

I guess the smog event has changed that. It's funny that we now fly to BKK to breathe clean air. Believe me, the air felt smooth and refreshing even on Sathorn Road, compared to what we have been breathing previously in Sansai. It's perplexing. Since the problem appears to be recurring and aggravating, I am not so sure anymore whether we should stay at all. Sure, Chiang Mai is a lovely place. My wife has found new friends, I have found new work, and our kids love it too. But the prospect of opening our lungs to the annual PM10 fallout is a major damper. We have put the CNX house building plans on hold. In BKK, we looked at a lovely small house at a canal near Putthamonthon. Looks like we gotta make another difficult decision...

Cheers, X-Pat

[Austhaied]

yawn - mirror have two side , one that show others but one that show yourself ,

this is just a cry cycle , one cry wolf one cry fool .

haze or smog , live of die sooner shall we recognize , that life alone lead no where , crying slove no problem alike .

he say no more this and that , she say i am fine ok . why not we all just sit back , enjoy the day and relax .

A moment of imperfection

Ta22

[Rasseru]

OK, so the smog is a problem, to some extent or other, every year, basically for two or three months. Obviously, the best solution would be for there to be less burning of the various things that get burnt every year at this time, which is the main cause of the problem. But it ain't gonna happen, at least in a big way any time soon, so everyone seems to think, at least, and that makes sense to me.

I do wish now I had done a little more homework before I moved here last year, but you know what, I like Chiangmai and don't really want to move away either.

So, my own solution is going to be to plan to go somewhere else for all or a good part of late February, March and early April starting next year. Not a luxury available to all, for different reasons, I realize.

If that option weren't available to me, and especially if I had children (which I don't), I would look long and hard at how much I could reduce my exposure (and theirs) by wearing a good mask when out of doors and by using in the house or apartment a good air purification system with filters, and staying indoors as much as possible. Finding a way to breathe better air for, say, 12 or 18 hours out of the day, instead of bad air for 24, would presumably be a big help. Might even free my lungs up enough that I would join p1p in wanting all the time to smoke whatever it is other people are.

[chiang mai]

Would the scaremonger alarmist doomsday guys who keep complaining ..... SNURP.....

Come on guys, get a life.

David - nice post. That quoted piece somehow always puts me in mind of Kipling's "If" Many of the sentiments are similar.

However, as I sit here sneezing and coughing, I would like to plead for those of us who have made our lives in Chiang Mai and hope to remain here until the end, (likely to be sooner than wanted due to said smog). The smog is a legitimate concern, worthy of discussion on the forum.

Nobody expects anything to happen soon regarding any form of a cure for our problems. But it doesn't hurt to have a bit of a moan and discuss possibilites. Never know. Maybe some member of the powers that be might even get a lackey to read it for him and be persuaded to take some kind of action. (Won't happen, but we can dream.)

I have already stated my thoughts regarding possibly moving away from here. It won't happen becaude the roots are too deep, and the wife would not accept it. But I can dream about that too.

Most of us have lives, and we still enjoy debate and discussion, whether pointless or otherwise.

Nicely put.

[sabaijai]

The information is important, and worthy of discussion but we are getting an awful lot of the same kind of information. Search for 'pollution' in the Chiang Mai subforum here and I imagine the results will show dozens of threads, all basically saying the same thing.

The posters who don't care about the pollution, or who feel the severity is being exaggerated, obviously aren't going to do anything about it, whether it involves moving to another location or protesting at city hall.

Not so obviously, the members who post long descriptions filled with statistics don't appear to be doing much about it either, other than threatening to leave town.

Maybe it's time for those who care to get out from behind their computers and make a few visits to tambon, district and provincial offices to find out what our elected represenatives are doing about it, and to research and suggest ways of mitigating the pollution.

Like the old saw says, actions speak louder than words.

[p1p]

Chiang Mai this March surely beats mommy's asbestos house.

Sure, Chiang Mai is a lovely place. My wife has found new friends, I have found new work, and our kids love it too. But the prospect of opening our lungs to the annual PM10 fallout is a major damper. We have put the CNX house building plans on hold. In BKK, we looked at a lovely small house at a canal near Putthamonthon. Looks like we gotta make another difficult decision...

You should note that this year is the worst in 14 years or more, and it is caused in part by the El Nino phenomenon. As soon as the rains come, IMNSHO, CM will be back to being the best place to live in Thailand, By far....

Is Bangkok so much better that the year round pollution there is better than the, mostly avoidable, short period of pollution here?

I now have air filters at home and wear a mask if i need to go out, but I am not suffering severe efects as I have in lesser years before.. It is possible to take prophylactic action.

[KhunMarco]

It is possible to take prophylactic action.

Totally agree, yet I'm not very happy about the way people stare at me

[Rasseru]

Totally agree, yet I'm not very happy about the way people stare at me

Although I know it is wrong, I cannot help staring and laughing at you. Please forgive me.

[Austhaied]

It is possible to take prophylactic action.

Totally agree, yet I'm not very happy about the way people stare at me

Now that is a <deleted>...Can i say that ??

[KhunMarco]

heh, yup you are entitled to.

Ps. for the ladies lurking... rest assured that's not me, you can keep PMing me as usual

[p1p]

Maybe we should head back in the general direction of the topic subject soon?

[Bakuteh]

My wife is a landowner in Chiang Mai and we were thinking about a semi-retirement relocation to the area especially because of the international schools. But we'll stay where we are now or go where the government does recognize the health and economic issues related to excessive pollution as long as our kid's education is a concern.

The smog problem in Chiang Mai is only apparent for two or three months of the year. But I wouldn't want to rent or buy a place to live next to threats that are more visible like power plants or a refineries either. It's a risk that's not immediately apparent like the difference between the safety of riding in a car with a seat belt or a motorcycle until the odds catch up with you.

Third world is a good way to describe the problem and the attitudes allowing the problem to persist. Leave it to a first world country's forum to discuss alternatives like methanol production.

Yeah, wholeheartedly agree with you. Just needs some moralizing farang to start the ball rolling.......

Then you are back in the first world! Just take the rough with the smooth, friend.

[nikster]

It's nice to see a civilized discussion has set in - I believe that Thailand will tackle this problem just like it does other problems - nothing seems to happen for a really long time, then a sudden change is effected. There's no theoretical reason why Thailand couldn't enforce no-burn days so I am pretty sure that it will happen eventually. Given the negative impact on both tourism and population health, both of which cost a lot of money, I am optimistic.

You should note that this year is the worst in 14 years or more, and it is caused in part by the El Nino phenomenon. As soon as the rains come, IMNSHO, CM will be back to being the best place to live in Thailand, By far....

Is Bangkok so much better that the year round pollution there is better than the, mostly avoidable, short period of pollution here?

That would be a definite yes. There are statistics on lung diseases which were quoted in another thread on the topic, and Chiang Mai had a 6 times higher total number of cases than Bangkok. At maybe 1/10th or less the number of people living in CM, that's a very clear statement.

BKK air quality is a bit better than one would assume given the mad traffic and unregulated industrial developments - it benefits from getting that nice ocean breeze.

[rcjoop]

quote

That would be a definite yes. There are statistics on lung diseases which were quoted in another thread on the topic, and Chiang Mai had a 6 times higher total number of cases than Bangkok. At maybe 1/10th or less the number of people living in CM, that's a very clear statement.

unquote

It seems this statement is somewhat funny, do you really beleive that lungcancer figures in Chiang Mai are 60 times higher than Bangkok ??

You should try to find more reliable sources of information than the chaing mai mail or similar.

Lungcancer in the insustrialized world is much higher than here in Thailand and even here in Chiang Mai.

Even if the data are about 10 years old it will not have changed too much, data from Thailand cancer institute.

[Loom]

quote

That would be a definite yes. There are statistics on lung diseases which were quoted in another thread on the topic, and Chiang Mai had a 6 times higher total number of cases than Bangkok. At maybe 1/10th or less the number of people living in CM, that's a very clear statement.

unquote

It seems this statement is somewhat funny, do you really beleive that lungcancer figures in Chiang Mai are 60 times higher than Bangkok ??

You should try to find more reliable sources of information than the chaing mai mail or similar.

Lungcancer in the insustrialized world is much higher than here in Thailand and even here in Chiang Mai.

Even if the data are about 10 years old it will not have changed too much, data from Thailand cancer institute.

What I would say about the Thai data is that the incidence seems to be higher up north than in Bangkok. But the chart doesn't indicate if the figures are percentages, total number of cases or cases per 1000. Still hard to say. The data for cases outside Thailand also looks highly selective. Black males in New Orleans would be more comparable on the basis of per capita income, but that's a tiny subset of the total population. I'd like to see the incidence of cancer for all males in New Orleans and for the US before saying that the industrialized world has higher cancer rates than Thailand.

People still smoke cigarettes even though there are health warnings on the packs and that's their choice. But what gets me about CM is that if you are there and there's smoke pollution, you don't have a choice.

I'm pretty sure the people watching my wife's land will start using the local garbage collection service since they reported earlier this month that the pollution was so bad they "couldn't breathe".

[Kaysfeld]

quote

That would be a definite yes. There are statistics on lung diseases which were quoted in another thread on the topic, and Chiang Mai had a 6 times higher total number of cases than Bangkok. At maybe 1/10th or less the number of people living in CM, that's a very clear statement.

unquote

It seems this statement is somewhat funny, do you really beleive that lungcancer figures in Chiang Mai are 60 times higher than Bangkok ??

You should try to find more reliable sources of information than the chaing mai mail or similar.

Lungcancer in the insustrialized world is much higher than here in Thailand and even here in Chiang Mai.

Even if the data are about 10 years old it will not have changed too much, data from Thailand cancer institute.

Lung cancer isn't the only disease that you can catch from this bad air pollution in Chiang Mai. In Fact these statistics doesn’t show much, because most lung cancer cases come from smoking, not air pollution. But a lot of other serious lung diseases do, and they do not show up in your statistics.

If you want to show the air pollutions affect on lung cancer, you must first remove all smokes from the statistics, as their lung cancer cases will far outweigh the cases from air pollution.

But I think nobody can be in doubt that it does raise the chance of getting lung cancer significantly, especially for none smokers. Just look at the effect of passive smoking. Nobody is in doubt that this has a serious effect. So what about polluted air that you have to breathe everyday for 3 month every year? That can only be very bad for your general health.

The statistics say it all. But they have to be used correctly.

[x-pat]

p1p: You should note that this year is the worst in 14 years or more, and it is caused in part by the El Nino phenomenon. As soon as the rains come, IMNSHO, CM will be back to being the best place to live in Thailand, By far....

Thank you, p1p, duly noted. Like most here, I have studied the data on the Thai PCD website, and it seems that there is a bit of a recurring problem with PM10. Unfortunately, this was unknown to me before I came to Chiang Mai. PM10 are quite difficult to dodge, especially here in Thailand, where houses are built open and unisolated. Aircon won't help a bit if it isn't filtering and recirculating at the same time and if the house isn't completely sealed. There will always be an exchange between interior/exterior. Of course, one could install residential air filters, or leave town for a while... After all the hard work of getting us settled in CNX, I won't give up easily, so we are pondering our options at the moment. School holidays seem to coincide with the peak period, so we could actually go on an annual smog vacation and visit relatives in Bangkok.

p1p: Is Bangkok so much better that the year round pollution there is better than the, mostly avoidable, short period of pollution here?

Air pollution in Bangkok varies dramatically with the micro-climate in different areas. It ranges between "lethal" at some Samut Prakarn factories or under some sky train station in the city to "harmless" in outlying areas. The Putthamonthon area is next to Nakhon Pathom, ca. 25 km away from downtown; there is very few pollution.

Cheers, X-Pat

Edited March 28, 2007 by x-pat

[x-pat]

BTW, if anyone has information on residential air filtering systems and their efficiency with regard to PM10 - that would be very interesting...

Cheers, X-Pat

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

BTW, if anyone has information on residential air filtering systems and their efficiency with regard to PM10 - that would be very interesting...

Cheers, X-Pat

I have found the way to go is to purchase the 3M Filtrete paper for under 300 baht and cut the sheets and insert over filters in AC unit. They filter down to 1 micron. Just change them about once a week. Keep the A/C fan running 24/7 and if you have large area then just make the bedroom etc your clean room. Really works and a fraction of the cost of expensive filtration systems.

[rcjoop]

QUOTE

What I would say about the Thai data is that the incidence seems to be higher up north than in Bangkok. But the chart doesn't indicate if the figures are percentages, total number of cases or cases per 1000. Still hard to say. The data for cases outside Thailand also looks highly selective. Black males in New Orleans would be more comparable on the basis of per capita income, but that's a tiny subset of the total population. I'd like to see the incidence of cancer for all males in New Orleans and for the US before saying that the industrialized world has higher cancer rates than Thailand.

UNQUOTE

Cancer is highly dependent of age, so if you compare "old"countries like in Europe with "young" countries serious differences will creep in, that's why all numbbers are calcaluted back to a standard population to make it possible to compare, ASR: Age Standarized Rate, aantallen per 100.000.

De figures voor New Orleans are the extremes.

Here some more general data for some european countries.

The european numbers are deaths and the Thailand are Incidence at a Mortality/Incidence rate of around 70% you would have to make some corrections.

Numbers for more agricultural societies are much better like Portugal or Greece.

[nikster]

quote

That would be a definite yes. There are statistics on lung diseases which were quoted in another thread on the topic, and Chiang Mai had a 6 times higher total number of cases than Bangkok. At maybe 1/10th or less the number of people living in CM, that's a very clear statement.

unquote

It seems this statement is somewhat funny, do you really beleive that lungcancer figures in Chiang Mai are 60 times higher than Bangkok ??

You should try to find more reliable sources of information than the chaing mai mail or similar.

First, this wasn't talking about lung cancer - as far as I remember - and I am not looking it up now - it was the number of people checking into hospitals for respiratory problems. Pneumonia is a lot more likely to be caused by this pollution, for example.

Second, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the air is bad in the sense of horribly, terribly bad, when people can't breathe as it has been here in the north. Everyone has a stuffy nose, headaches, coughs, etc - if you take a step back and look around you in our small village here in the north you can see nearly everyone is affected. It's better now than it has been but still.

So - since the problem is obvious for everyone up here, I don't think it makes sense to throw around more statistics and studies the details of which can be discussed 'till kingdom come and the interpretations of which are not going to convince doubters on either side. I apologize for even starting to go down that road. It's pointless. Use common sense and look around, that's much more informative than any study.

As for BKK air, which I had the pleasure to experience last week - it was great. But that's because I was in the in-laws' house which is in a nice suburbia of BKK far away from mad traffic and industrial pollution. The air there really is quite excellent. With mild traffic it's about 1 1/2 hours' drive from the city center

[rcjoop]

QUOTE

So - since the problem is obvious for everyone up here, I don't think it makes sense to throw around more statistics and studies the details of which can be discussed 'till kingdom come and the interpretations of which are not going to convince doubters on either side. I apologize for even starting to go down that road. It's pointless. Use common sense and look around, that's much more informative than any study.

UNQUOTE

I apologize, sorry to disturb your preset opinions with facts.

[mcgriffith]

I started this thread mentioning that unrestrained burning in the city limits might be contributing (possibly only to a minor degree) to the air quality problems we have all noticed in the last month or so. And I agree with davidgtr's posting re: there is not a tremendous lot we can do in the short term to correct the situation. My original posting was a spontaneous emotional reaction to seeing a forest fire, in the city limits, that seemed to be uncontrolled, with no municipal response.

So where do we go from here?

As David rightly noted, I don't think too many of us are going to give up our (largely satisfactory) lives here to move elsewhere, based on 2 months or so of haze and pollution, whatever the long term consequences healthwise.

I think the Thai response will change rapidly, as someone noted earlier in the thread, when tourism numbers start to drop off. How many of the first time visitors to CM, who visited in the last 2 months, will recommend this place as a destination to their friends?

[jackr]

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

Are you Thai by any chance?

He's a Singaporean and a nice bloke as well..

Hey, that's great... the city is 'under siege' from H3ll's ass but Ta22's a nice bloke. I feel so much better, thanks! :D

About all it's "under siege" from is A holes.

I agree. Do you think Alexander Downer is embarrassed?

How's the smog now? Anyone got any recent pics?

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

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

Are you Thai by any chance?

He's a Singaporean and a nice bloke as well..

Hey, that's great... the city is 'under siege' from H3ll's ass but Ta22's a nice bloke. I feel so much better, thanks! :D

About all it's "under siege" from is A holes.

I agree. Do you think Alexander Downer is embarrassed?

How's the smog now? Anyone got any recent pics?

its better now but not great. Seems to be varying and there has been a breeze. According to the measuring site its now below danger levels and to the eye visibility is better.

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

[Norman d'Plume]

Want to know how to clear the pollution? Have a strong word with Austhaied......

[Kaysfeld]

City on fire. Article from ChiangMaiNews.com

Driving home after work during the second week of March, the setting sun was spectacular: a molten, pink-red globe, its colours intensified by a thick shroud of smog. 'There is a price to pay for skies that look like this,' I couldn't help but think. I had seen a similar sunset over 10 years before, in South Africa, when a spate of brutal forest fires had ravaged the mountains encircling Cape Town. In that instance, payment was made in the form of a massive loss of plant and animal life, as well as a number of houses that met a fiery demise at the tongues of the inferno. This time, public health paid the price.

In a blissfully air-conditioned office at the Unit for Social and Environmental Research in Chiang Mai, researcher Po Garden pulls up the official NASA Earth Observatory site (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/), clicking on a aerial photograph of South East Asia taken by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on Nasa's Aqua satellite. With the image blown up to full size, I can see a myriad of tiny red dots marking the locations of agricultural and forest fires. Burma is ablaze: like flesh bleeding from a multiplicity of pin pricks, flames rage across the country, so concentrated in some areas that the crimson dots blur into violent smudges. The burn sites, known as 'hot spots', become less savagely dense outside the borders of the military-controlled state, though Laos and Northern Thailand are also generously smattered with red. While annual burning practices and forest fires have caused hot season smog in Northern Thailand for centuries, the situation has worsened significantly in recent years, compounded by toxic vehicle emissions and dust from industry and construction. Further exacerbated by unusual weather conditions, including the lack of rain and a cold air mass that prevented dust particles from dissipating into the atmsophere, this year's burning resulted in Thailand's worst airborne crisis to date.

During the first two weeks of March, air pollution levels in Chiang Mai and the surrounding regions rose steadily above the safety limit; produced an eye-stinging, throat-burning, yellow-tinged haze that cut visibility down to less than 1000 metres. A profusion of minute dust particles, measuring less than 10 microns in diameter and known as PM10, pervaded the atmosphere, reaching a peak on March 14th at 383 µg/m3 (microgrammes per cubic metre) - over three times the acceptable safety ceiling of 120 µg/m3 - eventually prompting authorities to issue warnings against outdoor exercise and to declare the worst affected Chiang Mai districts, Chai Prakan and Phrao, haze disaster areas.

'As you can see from this satellite image, air pollution is usually a cross-country issue, not something that one small region can deal with in isolation,' says Garden. 'Sure, the air pollution is bad in Chiang Mai, but the scale of engagement has got to be a lot bigger than just Chiang Mai city or Chiang Mai province for things to get better. We don't know exactly how far pollution travels, how far dust is coming from, but from these images it seems that solving the problem needs to be a trans-boundary initiative.' Air pollution in Chiang Mai last exceeded 300 µg/m3 in the late 1990s, when forest fires blazed in Indonesia: a fact that seems to support Garden's statement. Another obstacle to resolving the issue, even within Thailand's perimeters alone, is the complexity of the problem, explains Garden. 'Many interacting factors are involved and most likely it is not a question of what has happened in the last 5 years, but what has happened over the last two or three decades to make this happen. And it may take just as long to resolve - this is not a short-term issue.'

So how do such severe levels of air pollution affect our health? The Public Health Ministry has estimated that up to 500,000 people were affected by the pollution crisis this year. Hospitals and clinics across the North reported a surge in the number of patients with respiratory problems during the month of March, an average increase of approximately 20 per cent from the same period in 2006.

Even more worrying is the potential for poor air quality to affect health in the long term. Particulate matter small enough to be breathed in is known as either PM10 or PM2.5, referring to dust particles smaller than 10 microns or 2.5 microns respectively. 'PM10 particles are small enough to be stored in the trachea, while PM2.5 matter is so minute that it can penetrate even deeper, into the alveoli, the air cells of the lungs," says Associate Professor Usanee Vinitketkumnuen of Chiang Mai University's Biochemistry Department. 'The PM10 dust causes irritation of the trachea that may lead to bronchitis or bronchial symptoms such as respiratory difficulties, a tight chest. This is particularly dangerous for asthma patients, children and elderly residents, who are at high risk when air pollution is above the maximum safety level. If we breathe in these dust particles over a long period of time, they can destroy the lung cells. And if this happens repeatedly, there is the potential for gene mutation that finally becomes lung cancer.' Research conducted by CMU found that the highest rate of lung cancer in Thailand was in Saraphee, an area known for a frequently high concentration of PM10 dust particles.

The response of the government to the air pollution crisis has been slow and lacklustre at best. Measures initiated by government departments include restricting the activity of barbeque vendors; keeping the moat fountains on 24 hours a day in an attempt to raise humidity and dispel dust; and a proposal to move the songkran celebrations forward - all superficial solutions to a deeply entrenched and complex problem. Despite media and public outcry for a national ban on burning, authorities failed to control fires in forests and agricultural areas across the North, while, on March 18th, the Royal Forestry Department finally issued a statement detailing several safety and precautionary measures to deal with wildfires in the province - weeks after the smog crisis began. Similarly, on March 21st, as pollution levels in Mae Hong Son remained above 300 µg/m3, Deputy Mayor Praphan Buranuprakorn eventually issued a statement to say that the municipality would crack down on outdoor burning and vehicle emissions with heavy fines, as well as initiate legal and public health measures to combat the problem.

However, the complexity of the air pollution issue is as integral to its proposed solutions as to its causes. 'Placing a sudden national or trans-country ban on burning is a tricky issue, considering the number of ethnic minorities that depend on slash and burn agriculture for their livelihood', says Po Garden. 'It would really impact most harshly on the poorest of the poor.' Rather than a short-term reaction to air pollution, what is needed to resolve the Northern disaster is a long-term programme of education and planning. Sadly, the focus of government, media and public attention on the air we breathe seems as transient as the haze itself. In June 2004, Thaksin waxed lyrical about tackling the pollution problem and a budget of 1.84 billion baht was approved for Chiang Mai province to finance alleviation of traffic congestion, waste water treatment of the Ping River, a circular electric train system, waste refuge treatment and the control of air pollution. One has to wonder where, exactly, it all went.

Local people are urged to inform officials of outdoor burning via the Environment Office's hotline number 053-890000.

"You would never drink fuel, so why because of someone else's laziness should you be forced to inhale fuel in an airborne form?"

Smoke from forest fires is one of many types of air pollution. Just a few months ago, before the forest burning began, there were still songtaew and buses belching black smoke, tuk-tuk producing white and grey clouds and two-stroke motorbikes adding a nice blue tinge to the air . . . Around every corner a rainbow of toxicity for all to inhale.

Let's look deeper into the blacks, whites and blues of vehicle emissions. Every day you inhale some 10,000 litres of polluted air. Around Chiang Mai the streets offer a mix of the most consummate diesel, gasoline and natural gas pollutants any country can offer.

What is quite ironic is people complaining about natural wood smoke that you can see, but semi-visible poisonous petro-chemical fumes are dismissed as just part of life here in Thailand. That malodorous dose of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, continues to go un-checked and un-talked about.

Pollution pouring out of exhaust pipes from different vehicles is a result of incomplete burning of fuel that enters the engine. Out of tune engines do not burn all of the fuel entering them, un-burnt liquid fuel is changed to a vapour and sent out the exhaust pipe as multi-coloured smoke. In reality the black, white or blue smoke is vaporised gasoline, diesel and natural gas that you are breathing. You would never drink fuel, so why because of someone else's laziness should you be forced to inhale fuel in an airborne form? Vehicle emissions contain Al, Aluminum; As, Arsenic; Cd, Cadmium; Co, Cobalt; Cr, Chromium; Cu, Copper; Fe, Iron; Mn, Manganese; Mo, Molybdenum; Ni, Nickel; Pb, Lead; Ti, Titanium; V, Vanadium and Zn, Zinc which in airborne form are considered toxins. These metals can also enter your body through the skin, so a pollution mask only goes so far in protecting your health.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) states that diesel exhaust is around 40 times more carcinogenic (cancer causing) than cigarette smoke on a weight/volume basis. Add in a group of cancer causing compounds known as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which include formaldehyde, methane, benzene, phenol, 1-3-butadiene (base ingredient for synthetic rubber) and ammonia swirling around and you will understand why over the last six months so many travellers have complained about bad air around the city and subsequently decided to leave Chiang Mai days earlier than they had planned. Speaking in economic terms, it is a fact that 100,000 visitors come to Chiang Mai each week during the low season. If each of those 100,000 people decided to leave one day earlier than planned, how much lost revenue is that for hotels, restaurants and tour operators? Imagine they left two days earlier? What if they skipped Chiang Mai altogether?

When The Nation published an article stating that air pollution is more than twice the normal average in Chiang Mai, you would have thought local politicians would have started discussing the issue. Sorry, no. In Thailand it comes down to citizens in the community that want to help on a local level, not government.

Enter Dr. Anucha Promwungkwa, Assistant Professor for the Energy Management and Conversation Centre (EMAC) in Chiang Mai University (CMU), a visionary man who wants to improve air quality and reduce Thailand's energy dependence from foreign nations through the use of bio-diesel produced locally. Together with EMAC he has started a Used Vegetable Oil (UVO) collection programme that accepts donations of cooking oil or animal fat from factories, slaughter houses, restaurants, fresh markets and individual family households around Chiang Mai. Initially he was looking for solutions to reduce the amount of waste oil dumped into the sewers which clogged pipes and required cleaning by hand or the addition of chemical solvents to remove the sludge.

Dr. Anucha explained that in petrol stations throughout Thailand the blend is 5% biodiesel mixed with 95% petro-chemical diesel or (B5). If the percentage of biodiesel is increased to 20% (B20) there is a 20-50% reduction in vehicle emissions and a 16-28% reduction in carbon monoxide. Other benefits include 40-50% reduced engine wear due to increased lubrication, 3-10% fuel economy improvement and a 2-3 baht lower cost at the pump than straight diesel. Biodiesel is also sold in B50 and B100 forms, which reduce emissions 80-100%. I asked if laws could be passed to force drivers to tune up their engines or switch to (B20-50-100) to improve air quality, but it seems the only way to get others to change is willingly, by explaining and showing them the advantages first hand. Get them to co-operate because they want to, because it benefits us all. Forcing policies on a population has not worked throughout history, but education as to why cleaner air and a cleaner environment is beneficial traditionally has. Education, not laws, is the way forward for change.

http://www.chiangmainews.com/ecmn/viewfa.php?id=1796

[WaiWai]

Also glad to see this from Citylife, as well as a nicely-written editorial. Pim is a pretty talented writer, I think.

The editor fell down on

Assistant Professor for the Energy Management and Conversation Centre .

as well as the Q&A interview on p52 ("think outside the flame" - or is that what he said ? . ) Just amused; always enjoy the magazine.

Good to hear of something more we can do (get as many bulk oil users to use this collection service as you can.) Not sure I agree with the conclusion about the ineffectiveness of regulations (they'd need to be enforced, obviously) alongside education. Some interesting data in this article; somewhat scary - good !

Edited April 3, 2007 by WaiWai

[WaiWai]

NEXT Informal Northern Thai Group MEETING (287th)

Tuesday, April 10th 2007

At the Alliance Française - Chiang Mai - 7:30 pm

The Impact of Air Quality on Chiang Mai Residents

A talk and presentation by

Dr. Duongchan Apaavaatjrut Charoenmuang

An addition to discussing the environmental disaster that Chiang Mai and

the North of Thailand are currently suffering, Dr. Duongchan will also talk

about the increased in the amount of fine particulate matter (PM10) in the

air, which is much more than the allowable amount; statistics for the

number of people suffering from respiratory problem, and identifying the

causes of pollution and taking steps to initiate remedial action. Dr.

Duongchan is campaigning for better air quality for a better quality of

life in Chiang Mai.

"I am a researcher at the Social Research Institute (SRI), Chiang Mai

University, also the secretary general of the Urban Development Institute

Foundation (UDIF). I got a B. Arch. with Honours from Chulalongkorn

University, Master of City Planning from the University of Pennsylvania,

sponsored by the Fulbright Scholarship, and Ph.D. in Urban Conservation

from the University of Tokyo, sponsored by the JSPS Ronpaku Scholarship. I

worked as city planner at the Department of City Planning, Ministry of

Interior in Bangkok for 9 years, then worked as a city planner at the City

of Chicago for 3 years. Since returning to Chiang Mai I have been active in

urban issues."

[WaiWai]

Article from Chiang Mai Mail :

Polluted skies still around-tourist numbers down

Saksit Meeesubkwang

The air pollution in Chiang Mai continues to affect hotel businesses, as well as the entire local travel industry.

Mr. Narong, President of Chiang Mai Chamber of Commerce explaining the facts.

Tourists fearing the hazardous effects of the poor air quality have stayed away as the number of visitors who have cancelled their bookings is running as high as 20 to 30%.

Ms. Watcharaporn Chongpowpan, Marketing Director of Chiang Mai Orchids Hotel, revealed that many tourist groups who had booked their rooms for 5 days had now asked to shorten their stays to only 2 days.

Business convention and meeting groups have also cancelled their programs, and even long-term visitors are down by 30% compared to their numbers before the crisis. Most have opted to travel to Phuket and Pattaya.

In addition, tourists fear that the pollution may linger through the Songkran water festival as hotel bookings citywide are already much lower for the Thai New Year celebrations.

Narong Thananuwat, President of Chiang Mai Chamber of Commerce, admitted that hotels, condotels, and businesses in Chiang Mai have been affected by the polluted air covering Chiang Mai for the past 20 days.

Long-term foreign businessmen have explained that they usually like the weather and atmosphere in Chiang Mai, but the pollution has forced them to change their plans until the problem is reversed.

When tourists cancel hotel rooms it affects the airline industry, restaurants, entertainment venues and shopping outlets. All have seen a slowdown in sales since the skies over Chiang Mai became a health hazard.

Narong said that the problem must be alleviated as soon as possible in order to restore confidence in the tourist industry. The government should seriously explore the problem and plan a long-term solution. Moreover, creating understanding by giving the real facts and information to tourists and visitors is also important. If the situation is not resolved quickly, Chiang Mai tourism will worsen to a critical level.