Bangkok Air Pollution 2020

[TerraplaneGuy]

13 hours ago, Pravda said:

 

I noticed the same thing and I think it's simply that people don't care. Lady year it was "new" news... Perhaps even a fashion statement ????

I suspect they've caught on to the fact that indoor air is mostly as bad as outdoor so the mask doesn't make much difference.  Yes there are exceptions but most locals work or study in unfiltered spaces and they cannot afford a home air purifier so they're breathing bad air 24/7 anyway.  

[edwardandtubs]

17 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

I suspect they've caught on to the fact that indoor air is mostly as bad as outdoor so the mask doesn't make much difference.  Yes there are exceptions but most locals work or study in unfiltered spaces and they cannot afford a home air purifier so they're breathing bad air 24/7 anyway.  

Most people are not that analytical. Health scares are driven by the media and it looks like for some reason the Thai media is not giving the pollution much attention this time around.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Misty said:

Was walking on Sukhumvit between 2-3pm this afternoon.  My handheld SNDWAY read 100+ PM2.5, which is an AQI of about 175.  But very few people were wearing masks. 

 

Last year at this time I remember my Thai friends following AQI on Line and all wearing masks. What's different this year?

 

Could be that the bad air season for BKK has really just started lately...and it takes some local folks a while to catch on... But if the air stays in the coming days/weeks like it has been today, I think you'll see more mask wearers outside.

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

12 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

Most people are not that analytical. Health scares are driven by the media and it looks like for some reason the Thai media is not giving the pollution much attention this time around.

Fair enough although some of the Thais I know have learned a lot in the last year or so about this.   As for the media, I suspect it's just not news anymore.  The Thai language media is likely bowing to pressure from the government which obviously wants to downplay it.  But even the BKK Post is giving it slim coverage.  I think mostly there just isn't anything new to report.  We can all see the smog and check the AQ sites and what is the media going to tell us that we don't already know?  I think many locals don't want to know more about it, they don't have any good options to avoid it.  

Edited January 10, 2020 by TerraplaneGuy

[bwpage3]

22 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Confusingly this comment about Bangkok air quality appears in the Issan local forum.

 

Well I'm happy to report that right now where we live in the north east of Issan the AQI is 55 and the air is sweet and clear. I can live with that thank you.

 

By the way @bwpage3, air cons do not suck in air from the outside.

Image if Thailand turns into the next Shang-Hai and the air is never clear anywhere.

 

From Richard Barrows photos, this is not an isolated incident what so ever.

 

No clean air and no water.

 

With the inability of the govt to solve environmental problems, this could keep getting worse and worse and worse

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

No relief into the night time....

 

[Thian]

We will move to Europe if it doesn't stop soon....

[Thainess]

On 1/9/2020 at 2:48 PM, Moonlover said:

Confusingly this comment about Bangkok air quality appears in the Issan local forum.

 

Well I'm happy to report that right now where we live in the north east of Issan the AQI is 55 and the air is sweet and clear. I can live with that thank you.

 

By the way @bwpage3, air cons do not suck in air from the outside.

 

You think an AQI of 55 is "sweet and clear"? Far from it, that's still very polluted. Central London usually has around 20. Other parts of the UK have 10-20 and Scandinavia often has an AQI of under 5. 

[saengd]

9 minutes ago, Thainess said:

 

You think an AQI of 55 is "sweet and clear"? Far from it, that's still very polluted. Central London usually has around 20. Other parts of the UK have 10-20 and Scandinavia often has an AQI of under 5. 

Not the Central London on planet earth doesn't:

 

"Don't inhale at Marble Arch! Levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are five times the EU norm – the highest in the city. Traffic permitting, quickly cross Cumberland Gate to Speakers' Corner and further into Hyde Park, where levels sink back to a 'permissible' 40 milligrams per cubic meter. Almost as bad: Tower Hill (4.6 times the EU norm) and Marylebone Road (4 times). Also quite bad: the Strand (3.9), Piccadilly Circus (3.8), and Hyde Park Corner (also 3.8), Victoria (3.7) and Knightsbridge (3.5), the dirty trio just south of Hyde Park".

 

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/london-air-quality-pollution-health

Edited January 10, 2020 by saengd

[Thainess]

9 minutes ago, saengd said:

Not the Central London on planet earth doesn't:

 

"Don't inhale at Marble Arch! Levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are five times the EU norm – the highest in the city. Traffic permitting, quickly cross Cumberland Gate to Speakers' Corner and further into Hyde Park, where levels sink back to a 'permissible' 40 milligrams per cubic meter. Almost as bad: Tower Hill (4.6 times the EU norm) and Marylebone Road (4 times). Also quite bad: the Strand (3.9), Piccadilly Circus (3.8), and Hyde Park Corner (also 3.8), Victoria (3.7) and Knightsbridge (3.5), the dirty trio just south of Hyde Park".

 

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/london-air-quality-pollution-health

 

As you well know, those are only certain notorious high traffic areas, in most cases junctions right in the centre of London. Of course, there are always a few outliers but for the most part, the majority of London is ALWAYS a lot better than almost anywhere in Thailand in terms of air quality.

[saengd]

2 minutes ago, Thainess said:

 

As you well know, those are only certain notorious high traffic areas, in most cases junctions right in the centre of London. Of course, there are always a few outliers but for the most part, the majority of London is ALWAYS a lot better than almost anywhere in Thailand in terms of air quality.

You need to do some research on this and look at the facts, start with the map in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/27/pollution-map-reveals-unsafe-air-quality-at-almost-2000-uk-sites

[thedemon]

What a difference a day makes!

 

Yesterday (Friday 10th) at 0650

 

 

Today (Saturday 11th) at 0650

 

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, Thainess said:

 

You think an AQI of 55 is "sweet and clear"? Far from it, that's still very polluted. Central London usually has around 20. Other parts of the UK have 10-20 and Scandinavia often has an AQI of under 5. 

Oh really, come off it!

 

https://www.ft.com/content/9c2b9d92-a45b-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b

[brewsterbudgen]

Seems pointless to have another air quality thread.  This is the peak time of year for "very unhealthy" air in Bangkok.  It will improve (to just "unhealthy") soon, and then another area of Thailand will be affected.  Try finding any city in Asia that doesn't have bad air quality.  You either accept it and deal with it (masks, air purifiers) or move.  There are plenty of other unhealthy things to worry about.

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Try finding any city in Asia that doesn't have bad air quality.  You either accept it and deal with it (masks, air purifiers) or move.  There are plenty of other unhealthy things to worry about.

Quite agree. And I wonder how many of those folks who are complaining about the air quality, drink alcohol, smoke and eat a crappy diet.

[Ron jeremy]

Danang Vietnam has the cleanest air. Quite good. Any other questions?

Edited January 11, 2020 by Ron jeremy

[mstevens]

2 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Seems pointless to have another air quality thread.  This is the peak time of year for "very unhealthy" air in Bangkok.  It will improve (to just "unhealthy") soon

 

Yeah, May is quite soon....

[TerraplaneGuy]

3 hours ago, thedemon said:

What a difference a day makes!

 

Yesterday (Friday 10th) at 0650

 

 

Today (Saturday 11th) at 0650

 

Yes it’s a relief but let’s not get excited ????  It’s already worse again than it was early this morning.  I’m about ready to leave BKK.  After 8 years, it’s only getting worse.  I’m not going to spend the rest of my life cowering behind a mask and darting from home to safe haven to home again lol   You’ve got to have a very good reason to stay here long-term. 

[Thian]

2 hours ago, mstevens said:

 

Yeah, May is quite soon....

Only 4 months with a daily headache from the smog....sounds awesome, no?

[MaxYakov]

4 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Yes it’s a relief but let’s not get excited ????  It’s already worse again than it was early this morning.  I’m about ready to leave BKK.  After 8 years, it’s only getting worse.  I’m not going to spend the rest of my life cowering behind a mask and darting from home to safe haven to home again lol   You’ve got to have a very good reason to stay here long-term. 

Yep. To paraphrase a common quote: Living in Thailand is like being in prison with the possibility of getting laid. Add to that: "with the added possibility of having a chronic disorder brought on by the air pollution".

 

An interesting range of particulate infestation. Where is that might I ask?

[blackcab]

16:39 Saturday 11 January

 

[bwpage3]

12 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Seems pointless to have another air quality thread.  This is the peak time of year for "very unhealthy" air in Bangkok.  It will improve (to just "unhealthy") soon, and then another area of Thailand will be affected.  Try finding any city in Asia that doesn't have bad air quality.  You either accept it and deal with it (masks, air purifiers) or move.  There are plenty of other unhealthy things to worry about.

They are still saying the air quality will improve in Shanghai and Beijing. LOL!

 

You are just kidding yourself.

 

The population is increasing, number of cars increasing, pollution increasing.

 

Sooner or later, you reach a point of no return as many cities in China already have.

 

When it monsoon, rains, the air may appear clean, but where exactly do you think the rain is washing all those toxins to?

 

When it gets to the point of wearing a mask everyday, what's the point?

 

Only some one that has trapped themselves in Thailand would think this way.

 

Air pollution was the fourth leading risk factor for deaths in China,

 

Now how much exactly did the Thai gov't budget for environmental issues?

 

They did budget for Submarines.

 

You think this pollution problem is going to fix itself?

 

Will only get worse and many other major cities have learned the hard way.

 

Whether pollution, floods or drought, Thailand has never solved any of these problems and does not have the knowledge or skill to solve these.

 

Let's add a couple more million cars in Bangkok and see how much the air quality improves because that is exactly what will happen in the near future

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by bwpage3

[TerraplaneGuy]

Here's something I just noticed.  The aqicn.org historicals use a different color scheme from the daily readings.  Take a look at July 2018 (underlined in the pic).  The left-hand summary shows 28 green and 3 yellow days.  Yet not a single day that month (see right hand detail) was really green (i. e. under 50 AQI).  In the historicals, unlike the daily real-time reports, they only count days that are 75 or more as yellow.    Anything less is green of some shade.   If the day is under 50 they give it "bright" green (see August 2018 which has 2 of those days).  So what they've done is applied a more nuanced color scheme for the historicals but it's misleading (especially if you focus on the the left-side summaries) because the basic colors actually include higher readings than the aqicn standard colors.  What this shows is that in 2018, there were only 7 days in the whole year that were truly "green" (i. e. under 50).  Those show as dark green.  Compare with New York, where the large majority of days in 2018 were dark green and many were very dark green (under 25).

Edited January 12, 2020 by TerraplaneGuy

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Here's something I just noticed.  The aqicn.org historicals use a different color scheme from the daily readings.  Take a look at July 2018 (underlined in the pic).  The left-hand summary shows 28 green and 3 yellow days.  Yet not a single day that month (see right hand detail) was really green (i. e. under 50 AQI).  In the historicals, unlike the daily real-time reports, they only count days that are 75 or more as yellow.    Anything less is green of some shade.   If the day is under 50 they give it "bright" green (see August 2018 which has 2 of those days).  So what they've done is applied a more nuanced color scheme for the historicals but it's misleading (especially if you focus on the the left-side summaries) because the basic colors actually include higher readings than the aqicn standard colors.  What this shows is that in 2018, there were only 7 days in the whole year that were truly "green" (i. e. under 50).  Those show as dark green.  Compare with New York, where the large majority of days in 2018 were dark green and many were very dark green (under 25).

 

I have noticed that as well when looking at their historical charts lately. And I actually like it. I think it DOES give a more nuanced and clear look at the pollution levels -- as long as you view the charts with a clear understanding of what the different color shadings mean...

 

As in yes, only the DARK green color shadings reflect the under 50 AQI "Good" air state, then "Moderate" air starts out as light green, and transitions to yellow and then light orange as the AQI numbers head toward the upper end of the 100 AQI top end of the "Moderate" air category, etc etc.

 

But I'll agree... I didn't catch the subtlety of the difference between the daily charts color codings and the historical charts color codings on initial viewing... It took a bit of looking and attention before I finally caught on to what they were doing.

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

39 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I have noticed that as well when looking at their historical charts lately. And I actually like it. I think it DOES give a more nuanced and clear look at the pollution levels -- as long as you view the charts with a clear understanding of what the different color shadings mean...

 

As in yes, only the DARK green color shadings reflect the under 50 AQI "Good" air state, then "Moderate" air starts out as light green, and transitions to yellow and then light orange as the AQI numbers head toward the upper end of the 100 AQI top end of the "Moderate" air category, etc etc.

 

But I'll agree... I didn't catch the subtlety of the difference between the daily charts color codings and the historical charts color codings on initial viewing... It took a bit of looking and attention before I finally caught on to what they were doing.

 

It does have advantages.  But the trouble is that since BKK gets so few dark green (under 50) days and no very dark green (under 25) days at all, it makes the light green days look better than they are and easy to mistake for clean.  The fact is our air is almost never better than “moderate”.  

[brewsterbudgen]

On 1/9/2020 at 9:40 AM, MaxYakov said:

If children are more susceptible to air pollution, then they should be in masks at all times during other-than-green pollution levels. The thing is I don't think I've seen child-size masks for sale anywhere. Would the children even wear them (or be made to wear them) if they were available?

It's very difficult.  I have a mask specifically made for kids (bought from the UK), but my kid (nearly 5 years old) hates wearing it and hardly ever does.  

[Number 6]

On 1/9/2020 at 8:41 PM, bwpage3 said:

Do you want to spend the rest of your life wearing a mask?

This is truly the question isn't it?

 

We will leave when I'm done working. I've no idea why retirees are here the air situation will only get worse. There will be better days and worse days but nothing will be done to clean the air, to the contrary.

 

Remember when the schools closed? I predicted that would be a one off situation. Now kids can go exercise in the horrible air, people running the country don't care.

 

Remember spraying water from rooftops? Absolute genius.

 

Let them eat cake.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

It's very difficult.  I have a mask specifically made for kids (bought from the UK), but my kid (nearly 5 years old) hates wearing it and hardly ever does.  

 

We shouldn't live in a country (or world) where it's necessary for children to wear such things. But unfortunately, we do. And the current government here seems to not care a whit about it.

 

They want to complain about the expense they incur in the medical field for uninsured farang hospital bills. How about the collective and long-term medical expense of much of the Thai population breathing in polluted air throughout their lives?

 

The uninsured farang part probably pales in comparison. But that's the issue they're all hot and bothered about -- not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people bit by bit.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[MaxYakov]

6 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

We shouldn't live in a country (or world) where it's necessary for children to wear such things. But unfortunately, we do. And the current government here seems to not care a whit about it.

 

They want to complain about the expense they incur in the medical field for uninsured farang hospital bills. How about the collective and long-term medical expense of much of the Thai population breathing in polluted air throughout their lives?

 

The uninsured farang part probably pales in comparison. But that's the issue they're all hot and bothered about -- not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people bit by bit.

 

 

"... --not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people bit by bit."

 

I agree with the vein of your post with one major exception. I would have worded the above sentence fragment as such:

 

... --not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people themselves bit by bit.

 

My position is that I'm going to resist letting them take me with them w/r their essentially suicidal lifestyle. Sure, some things are beyond the control of the Thai and farang individuals, but many things are not.

 

Discussion of this is, perhaps, beyond the scope of this thread, but the individual decisions not to wear effective anti-pollution masks and to be willfully ignorant of the high levels of pollution in Bangkok are, IMHO, not. 

 

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

4 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

"... --not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people bit by bit."

 

I agree with the vein of your post with one major exception. I would have worded the above sentence fragment as such:

 

... --not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people themselves bit by bit.

 

 

 

Well put, although I'd add this:  like so many things in this country, those who make the decisions can probably exempt themselves from the worst consequences.  For the elite, it's not suicide.  Locals who can afford proper air purifiers in their homes and offices (if they work for a living) and trips outside the city or country can - if they choose - avoid much of the health risk that the rest of the population has no choice but to bear.  It's somewhat similar to the risk of death and injury from road accidents.  As the NY Times wrote recently, a disproportionate part of the risk is borne by those who cannot afford cars and therefore are on motorbikes all the time, which are much more vulnerable.  When powerful and affluent locals scoff at the air problem, I don't think it's always due to ignorance.  Some don't care because they can insulate themselves better than others.  But here we touch on matters that are beyond our control or proper concern.  We should look out for our own and our families' health and leave the locals to their own devices (or lack thereof), bless them.