I was wrong... the tourists ARE gone!

[fhickson]

.

Edited December 29, 2019 by fhickson

[FolkGuitar]

47 minutes ago, lkn said:

I really don’t think how you are affected by fine or coarse particles pollution depends on how “healthy” your body is.

 

 

Then, and I'm sorry to hear it,  you are grossly uneducated about the body's immune system.

The fact is, a healthy body is even less likely to suffer a broken bone in an accident than an unhealthy body. We won't even get into pathogens. carcinogens,  or irritants. But no one is saying that a healthy body can never contract illnesses.

I won't bother to debate with you any further. It would be pointless.

 

[ukrules]

I know one thing - you breathe in a lot more air while exercising, if that air is poison (like Thailands air) then that means you're taking in much more poison.

[lkn]

25 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

Then, and I'm sorry to hear it,  you are grossly uneducated about the body's immune system.

You were initially implying that exercise and diet was a way to avoid being affected by fine particels pollution. My argument here was that you may not show symptoms immediately: People don’t die from lung cancer or develop asthma the first time they smoke a cigarrette, but if you smoke, you are 10-20 times more likely to develop lung cancer, and no amount of dieting or exercise will change that.

 

You shifted it to whether or not unhealthy people were more prone to symptoms, which of course they are, but it’s besides the point, and people don’t complain about air pollution because they are unhealthy.

 

Now you are shifting it to immune system, and yes, a strong immune system is better at dealing with pollutants, but strong immune system is not always equal to “exercise and diet”, and there are limits to how much a strong immune system can do for your body, and while I personally have a strong immune system, I would be a fool not to think that the pollution here affects my body. As you probably know, smoking is very bad for your immune system, and you yourself compared the air pollution to smoking 7 cigarettes per day.

 

39 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

I won't bother to debate with you any further. It would be pointless.

If you actually think that lung cancer is a symptom of a bad diet or lack of exercise you hold a rather controversial opinion and you could at least try to back it up with some references. I am very open to new information.

[Dante99]

11 hours ago, lkn said:

 

This is what I originally responded to:

@FolkGuitar has tried to make this about me then denying the benefits of exercise or what have you, where I just keep restating my original point, that claiming someone is delicate and/or obese, and just need to exercise more, to avoid being affected by fine particle pollution, is just ignorant!

 

My response was to the parts of your post that were quoted. Not something that was written earlier.  So your response to me was no response.  Just another troll.

 

 

[chingmai331]

Among financial followers a common thread is 'risk vs. reward'.  Folks want a guaranteed 6% return on their investments but no risk.  Currently that is not possible coz a high return walks hand in hand with risk of loss. 

 

Seems to me the same argument is happening here.  Folks want good, even excellent, air quality with no, or very low, cost to them.  Thailand is a cheap living, developing country with many domestic governance issues due to long standing cultural traditions. Aliens like it here for some of those issues, but some aliens object to the 'cost'.  One of the costs of Thai life is pollution control, including air pollution.

 

To those who object to the lack of pollution control, let them go elsewhere.  May i suggest Hawaii, which has excellent air quality today and most of the year.  Hawaii is a fine tropical spot with lots of good food, sun and surf: just like Thailand.

http://aqicn.org/map/hawaii/

 

I think however, that the cost of living in Hawaii will be greater than in Thailand.  So the reward of the fine air is coupled with the risk of immediate loss of capital.

 

Each of us must find our own balance between risk/reward. If you don't like cow manure underfoot, do not go to India coz you will never rid India of the cow.

 

 

 

[Ventenio]

8 hours ago, ukrules said:

I know one thing - you breathe in a lot more air while exercising, if that air is poison (like Thailands air) then that means you're taking in much more poison.

There has been studies that imply the benefit from exercise outweighs the pollution problem.  However, those studies are done by exercise companies and after years in Thailand I would say there is a net negative.   BUT, if you really focus on only exercising when the numbers are relatively lower, it might get closer to only a slight negative.  well, maybe more than slight.  

 

I won't know until I leave for a few years.  if problems, then i'm doomed.

 

and to have to look at an app to know when you can exercise because the air is toxic certainly can't be good for your mood.  I've had my lungs x-ray a few times and the Thai docs say they look fine.  maybe they are really black, who knows.   

 

and not all exercise is the same.  i would say cycling is worse than swimming.  running depends on where you are, i'm guessing.  don't run near a bunch of cars.  but with cycling, you are covering more distance faster so maybe more death air. 

[FolkGuitar]

22 minutes ago, Ventenio said:

and to have to look at an app to know when you can exercise because the air is toxic certainly can't be good for your mood.  I've had my lungs x-ray a few times and the Thai docs say they look fine.  maybe they are really black, who knows.  

 

Become a SCUBA diver and chart your SACs over time.

I've seen a steady improvement in my Surface Air Consumption since I quit smoking cigarettes 21 years ago... despite living in Chiang Mai for 19 of those those years. Perhaps it would even be better if I was living somewhere else, but I wouldn't have enjoyed those years as much. As long as I see steady improvement, or at least, no increase, I'm satisfied.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by FolkGuitar

[FolkGuitar]

37 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

 

Duplicate post

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by FolkGuitar

[FolkGuitar]

1 minute ago, FolkGuitar said:

 

Here's the formula one uses to measure Surface Air Consumption rates:

 

80 cubic feet x 2000 psi / 3000 psi = 53.3 cubic feet of air used. 53.3 cubic feet / 20 minutes = 2.6 cubic feet / minute at 66 feet depth. At 66 feet the air is 3 times denser than at the surface and so we divide by 3 to get a 0.89 cubic feet per minute Surface Air Consumption Rate.

[Rimmer]

As per the OP request topic is now

//CLOSED//