Dear General

[Priceless]

Can't you see ?! When we get angry at the sky, and call each other out, that's how the terrorists win. Anger and frustration give you cancer just as surely as gray skies and red sunsets at 4:30 pm. Focus energy where it is needed and do something with it, otherwise you only aid the terrorists. Let's not be silly and raise a ruckus amongst ourselves.

Say WHAAATTTTTT???!!!

Humour (also spelled humor) is the ability or quality of people, objects, or situations to evoke feelings of amusement in other people. The term encompasses a form of entertainment or human communication which evokes such feelings, or which makes people laugh or feel happy. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

/ Priceless

[FolkGuitar]

Monthly and Annual Report on Ambient Air Quality in Thailand can be obtain from www.aqnis.pcd.go.th

Dhaka, Shanghai, Bombay. Polluted. Wouldnt want to live there. Is Thailand a polluted country. Yes. Is Chiang mai one of the worst cities for pollution in Thailand; YES.

What was your argument again.

Many years ago my wife and I took a canoe trip into the La Verandraye Provincial Park in northern Ontario. After two weeks of paddling without seeing another human being, about as far north as you can get without running into ice bergs, we were camped on a small island in the middle of some lake in a long chain of lakes. It started to rain that night and wanting some fresh water I put out our cook pot to gather some overnight. The next morning I was gobsmacked to find a pot full of muddy water. I was expecting crystal clear, fresh sparkling rain water. What I got makes klong water look like Evian. And this was 30 years ago and hundreds of miles from nowhere and the rain was dirty. Whoda thunkit?

I have a sneaking suspicion that pollution didn't reduce since then.....

[Priceless]

Monthly and Annual Report on Ambient Air Quality in Thailand can be obtain from www.aqnis.pcd.go.th

Dhaka, Shanghai, Bombay. Polluted. Wouldnt want to live there. Is Thailand a polluted country. Yes. Is Chiang mai one of the worst cities for pollution in Thailand; YES.

What was your argument again.

Unfortunately the URL that you are referring to seems to be off-line at the moment. However, just to put your statement into perspective, the average PM>10 air pollution in Chiang Mai this millenium (excluding the year 2002, for which there is no data for the first five months) has been 48.2 ug/m3. This is roughly comparable to e.g. Vienna, São Paulo, Athens, Turin, Tokyo, Warsaw, Singapore and Ankara (according to http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTA.../table3_13.pdf).

However, pollution can be defined in many ways. One that is computed by the Thai Pollution Control Department (PCD) is the number of days with a PM>10 level above 120 ug/m3 (the recommended maximum). To analyse this a bit more, I created a table with the different measuring locations (26 with data for more than one year, of which eight are in Bangkok), the number of days with a level of PM>10 in excess of 120 ug/m3 and the number of observations. From this I computed the frequency of such days, which can be taken as one possible measure of pollution. Here's the table:

From the table you can see that Chiang Mai comes sixth of the present measuring points, which could definitely be better. To make the data somewhat easier to absorb (for the less numerically inclined), I have also produced a graph of the same data:

As you can see, Chiang Mai is sixth, but not really that much different from numbers 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. However, it is in a completely different class from numbers 3 and 4, not to mention numbers 1 and 2. In Samut Prakarn almost every second day is outside of the acceptable standard and in Sara Buri every third day is. In comparison, in Chiang Mai on average just over 20 days per year are outside that standard. Admittedly this varies over the years, last year we had 30 days over "the limit" but, on the other hand, in 2006 we had just 5. Admittedly the objective should of course be no such days, which however is improbable in a city like Chiang Mai, which is situated in a basin surrounded by mountains. (It is worth noting that the locations at the bottom of the list, i.e. with the least pollution, are on the coast.)

To sum up:

Yes, Thailand is a polluted country, though possibly among the better in the region.

Yes, Chiang Mai is among the more polluted cities in the country that have measuring stations.

Should we do everything we can to improve this situation? Yes, of course.

Should you consider leaving Chiang Mai for some other part of Thailand because of the pollution? Probably not, unless you have some special reason like asthma, being a heavy smoker etc.

Should we encourage tourists and others to stay away because of the pollution? No, not at all.

Just my two satangs worth.

/ Priceless

[Ulysses G.]

To sum up:

Yes, Thailand is a polluted country, though possibly among the better in the region.

Yes, Chiang Mai is among the more polluted cities in the country that have measuring stations.

Should we do everything we can to improve this situation? Yes, of course.

Should you consider leaving Chiang Mai for some other part of Thailand because of the pollution? Probably not, unless you have some special reason like asthma, being a heavy smoker etc.

Should we encourage tourists and others to stay away because of the pollution? No, not at all.

Just my two satangs worth.

/ Priceless

Priceless information.

[DavidOxon]

My Dad, an average but oldish tourist needed hospital treatment in CM

twice in the last two months because he couldn't breathe due to the poor air quality.

I'm not sure what they did, but it was straight from the hospital to the pub

both times, with a bounce in his step!

David

PS he was also very impressed with Gekko books as they had

2 obscure titles that he was looking for on the shelves.

[sylviex]

More numbers :

PM10 – small but deadly particles

One of the measurements to look for is the PM10 (PM-10) level. This indicates the density of very small particulate matter in the air (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter in a cubic metre of air). These particles are too tiny to see – five particles would fit across a strand of human hair – but they can be deadly. As an illustration of how dangerous these particles can be, the number of people in a seemingly ‘clean’ country such as New Zealand who die early from pollution caused by traffic is similar to the number killed in road accidents each year.

These small particles of pollution in the air come from sources such as waste burning, wood burners, car exhausts and industry. They can cause serious health problems, such as making breathing problems like asthma and bronchitis worse. They can exacerbate heart problems, and are thought to be one of the catalysts for throat & lung cancer.

In London, the United States and the European Union as a whole it is considered a serious pollution ‘episode’ if the PM-10 level exceeds 50 - see the London Air Quality Network website.

For some reason, the Thai Pollution Control Department has set the ’safe level’ to be anything less than a PM-10 of 120. Just to illustrate how high the levels can get to in Chiang Mai, on 14th March 2007 PM-10 levels reached 303.9 - catastrophically high by any standards.

By way of a comparison, the World Health Organisation came up with weighted list of average PM10 concentrations in residential areas of cities larger than 100,000 throughout the world, and the averages were as follows:

A selection of these is as follows:

• China - 87
  
• Denmark - 23
  
• France - 15
  
• Germany - 22
  
• Greece - 47
  
• Indonesia - 102
  
• Iraq - 178
  
• Israel - 52
  
• Malaysia - 24
  
• Myanmar - 89
  
• New Zealand - 16
  
• Pakistan - 180
  
• Saudi Arabia - 106
  
• Spain - 40
  
• Sudan - 246
  
• Syria - 102
  

2.14.235.104/search?q=cache:wblBDXTTTiwJ:www.earthoria.com/feed/+chiang+mai+thailand+particualte+matter+blog+matter+10+1000+world&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1"]http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:wblBDX...t=clnk&cd=1[/url]

Edited March 15, 2008 by sylviex

[Blinky Bill]

My Dad, an average but oldish tourist needed hospital treatment in CM

twice in the last two months because he couldn't breathe due to the poor air quality.

I'm not sure what they did, but it was straight from the hospital to the pub

both times, with a bounce in his step!

David

PS he was also very impressed with Gekko books as they had

2 obscure titles that he was looking for on the shelves.

Could have been an intravenous shot of Glenfiddich with a few grams of the little blue V pill.

IMHO I think every reader should be impressed with Gecko books, George has done a brilliant job with his business. Great variety and great prices. Isn't that right UG?

[Ulysses G.]

IMHO I think every reader should be impressed with Gecko books, George has done a brilliant job with his business. Great variety and great prices. Isn't that right UG?

Thank you, welcome back and I must honestly confess that I concur.

[Priceless]

More numbers :

PM10 – small but deadly particles

One of the measurements to look for is the PM10 (PM-10) level. This indicates the density of very small particulate matter in the air (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter in a cubic metre of air). These particles are too tiny to see – five particles would fit across a strand of human hair – but they can be deadly. As an illustration of how dangerous these particles can be, the number of people in a seemingly ‘clean’ country such as New Zealand who die early from pollution caused by traffic is similar to the number killed in road accidents each year.

I would be very interested in knowing the source for this statement.

These small particles of pollution in the air come from sources such as waste burning, wood burners, car exhausts and industry. They can cause serious health problems, such as making breathing problems like asthma and bronchitis worse. They can exacerbate heart problems, and are thought to be one of the catalysts for throat & lung cancer.

This is undoubtedly true. However, the main cause of lung cancer (87%) is smoking, according to the American Lung Association, [http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427]. The main causes of throat cancer are smoking and drinking, according to the Mayo Clinic [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oral-and-throat-cancer/DS00349/DSECTION=3]. Is anybody reading this guilty of either smoking or drinking?

In London, the United States and the European Union as a whole it is considered a serious pollution ‘episode’ if the PM-10 level exceeds 50 - see the London Air Quality Network website.

This is simply not true! In London, as in the rest of the European Union, a PM-10 level in excess of 50 ug/m3 is accepted up to 35 times per year [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality.htm]. In London, a PM-10 level of 50-74 ug/m3 is considered "moderate" [http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/information.asp?view=howbad]. The US standard mandates that the PM-10 level should not exceed 150 ug/m3 more than once per year, averaged over a three-year period [http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html#3].

For some reason, the Thai Pollution Control Department has set the ’safe level’ to be anything less than a PM-10 of 120. Just to illustrate how high the levels can get to in Chiang Mai, on 14th March 2007 PM-10 levels reached 303.9 - catastrophically high by any standards.

I have no insight into why Thailand has chosen a level of 120 ug/m3. However, it should be noted that this is an "absolute" level, i.e. the target is that it should never be exceeded (though, as we know all too well, it sometimes is). The US level, as mentioned above, is 150 ug/m3 (i.e. higher than the Thai level) with acceptance for one occurrence per year in excess of this level [http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html#3].

By way of a comparison, the World Health Organisation came up with weighted list of average PM10 concentrations in residential areas of cities larger than 100,000 throughout the world, and the averages were as follows:

A selection of these is as follows:

• China - 87
  
• Denmark - 23
  
• France - 15
  
• Germany - 22
  
• Greece - 47
  
• Indonesia - 102
  
• Iraq - 178
  
• Israel - 52
  
• Malaysia - 24
  
• Myanmar - 89
  
• New Zealand - 16
  
• Pakistan - 180
  
• Saudi Arabia - 106
  
• Spain - 40
  
• Sudan - 246
  
• Syria - 102
  

This is interesting and, I think, shows something about the author and his/her objectives: Immediately after mentioning the infamous 14 March 2007 level of PM-10 at 303.9, he/she runs off a list of AVERAGE pollution levels from around the world. The corresponding AVERAGE level for Chiang Mai for the years 2000-2008 is 48.4, i.e. on a par with Greece and LESS THAN HALF the level of China, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria from the list above. As a matter of fact, the ONLY non-European countries on the list with a lower value than Chiang Mai are Malaysia and New Zealand, a peninsula and some islands. This manner of writing to me is either VERY incompetent or VERY biased or a combination of the two.

2.14.235.104/search?q=cache:wblBDXTTTiwJ:www.earthoria.com/feed/+chiang+mai+thailand+particualte+matter+blog+matter+10+1000+world&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1"]http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:wblBDX...t=clnk&cd=1[/url]

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to follow the link you gave to your source (probably because of my incompetence/ignorance). However, I would certainly NOT consider this article a journalistic masterpiece, but rather more of a tendentious, sloppy piece of writing. I'm afraid that published pieces of this quality may form a large part of the cause for the not uncommon impression that Chiang Mai is a dangerous place to live. We undoubtedly do have a pollution problem, but I don't think it is in any way helped by this kind of tendentious or downright untruthful "reporting".

/ Priceless

[Priceless]

To sum up:

Yes, Thailand is a polluted country, though possibly among the better in the region.

Yes, Chiang Mai is among the more polluted cities in the country that have measuring stations.

Should we do everything we can to improve this situation? Yes, of course.

Should you consider leaving Chiang Mai for some other part of Thailand because of the pollution? Probably not, unless you have some special reason like asthma, being a heavy smoker etc.

Should we encourage tourists and others to stay away because of the pollution? No, not at all.

Just my two satangs worth.

/ Priceless

Priceless information.

Not really. Poster refers to Particulate matter only. Not the AQI: air quality index. Have a look at the link.

There are two reasons why I have concentrated my (rather limited) efforts on Particulate Matter:

1/ As far as I have been able to find out, there are no international standards and very few observation series published for AQI.

2/ The Pollution Control Department (PCD) only started publishing values for AQI in Chiang Mai on a regular basis on 19 March 2004. To me, this means that e.g. the charts in my previous post would have been rather less interesting, since they would only have covered four years, rather than ten.

Since my interest largely involves the development over time of the situation in Chiang Mai (after all, I intend to live here the rest of my life) and, to a lesser extent, the situation in CM compared to other parts of the world, I have decided to concentrate on the PM-10 numbers. It may be noted that the PCD does not compute things like number of "bad days" in terms of AQI, whereas they do for PM-10. Because of this, I would have to manually register the AQI value for every measuring point in Thailand, for every day since measurements stated, into my Excel spreadsheet. This I am simply not going to do!

/ Priceless

[BlackArtemis]

Personally I don't know whats up. My asthma is in over drive and my whole respiratory system is flared up this year, last year... absolutely nothing, and I personally feel it was worse last year!

[Priceless]

Personally I don't know whats up. My asthma is in over drive and my whole respiratory system is flared up this year, last year... absolutely nothing, and I personally feel it was worse last year!

Have you seen your doctor? You are absolutely right, the average air pollution level so far in March of this year is only half of what it was last year, so pollution would not seem to be the cause of your suffering.

BTW, I am one of the lucky ones with a respiratory system that seems to be able to take a lot of punishment (so far...). I do however have several friends with asthma or similar ailments and I certainly do not envy them or you!

/ Priceless

[elephantkungfu]

We undoubtedly do have a pollution problem, but I don't think it is in any way helped by this kind of tendentious or downright untruthful "reporting".

/ Priceless

why? pollution in any case is bad. reducing pollution is ALWAYS welcome. the more noise people make about it, the more likely (hopefully) the government will be prompted to act. the smoking ban has so far been carried out surprisingly efficiently. if only they could do the same with burning/vehicule emissions.

we do have a pollution problem. it would be nice if it was address properly by the authorities. the more reporting about it the better!

[Priceless]

We undoubtedly do have a pollution problem, but I don't think it is in any way helped by this kind of tendentious or downright untruthful "reporting".

/ Priceless

why? pollution in any case is bad. reducing pollution is ALWAYS welcome. the more noise people make about it, the more likely (hopefully) the government will be prompted to act. the smoking ban has so far been carried out surprisingly efficiently. if only they could do the same with burning/vehicule emissions.

we do have a pollution problem. it would be nice if it was address properly by the authorities. the more reporting about it the better!

Are you familiar with the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf]?

I believe (though I may be wrong) that biased reports and downright lies about the pollution problem more likely will put people into a state of denial than make them try to tackle the real problem. I am a great believer in the power of real information over exaggerations, lies and propaganda. If I am proven wrong in this my belief, I will become a much sadder person

/ Priceless

[meadish_sweetball]

Fully agree with Priceless. Attempting to sway politicians and/or popular opinion by disingenious presentations of 'facts' is unwise and by association makes those trying to create awareness of pollution and cause change, seem like dishonest whingers.

The problem is there, it is real and needs to be solved - making noise about it is good, but it should be based on honesty and as relevant and proper statistics and facts as can be found.

Trying to paint doomsday scenarios may well drive people into resignation instead of making them take action, and more importantly, it contributes to the spreading of rumours and urban myths.

[Priceless]

Fully agree with Priceless. Attempting to sway politicians and/or popular opinion by disingenious presentations of 'facts' is unwise and by association makes those trying to create awareness of pollution and cause change, seem like dishonest whingers.

The problem is there, it is real and needs to be solved - making noise about it is good, but it should be based on honesty and as relevant and proper statistics and facts as can be found.

Trying to paint doomsday scenarios may well drive people into resignation instead of making them take action, and more importantly, it contributes to the spreading of rumours and urban myths.

Thank you, Mr Fellow-countryman Will you be at the TV BBQ? I'd like to meet you "IRL".

/ Priceless

[sylviex]

There's dispute about what the "safe" levels of various contaminants are. Some scientists dispute the "official" safety limits for Particulate Matter, and some of those say there is no safe level.

No one person or organisation has the whole truth on this issue.

The scientific and medical community are not always encouraged to share their insights (see p1p's remarks above).

However, I believe most of us have no doubt that pollutants do play a role in occurrence of respiratory disease, heart disease, stroke and other illnesses as well as an array of environmental problems.

I think what is most important is for all of us to take responsible action in our daily lives and to encourage others to do the same, when possible. There are so many changes we can all make that can have significant effects, en masse.

Edited March 16, 2008 by sylviex

[Priceless]

There's dispute about what the "safe" levels of various contaminants are. Some scientists dispute the "official" safety limits for Particulate Matter, and some of those say there is no safe level.

No one person or organisation has the whole truth on this issue.

The scientific and medical community are not always encouraged to share their insights (see p1p's remarks above).

However, I believe most of us have no doubt that pollutants do play a role in occurrence of respiratory disease, heart disease, stroke and other illnesses and environmental problems.

I think what is most important is for all of us to take responsible action in our daily lives and to encourage others to do the same, when possible. There are so many changes we can all make that can have significant effects, en masse.

I couldn't agree more. I think (not being an expert) that there is no such thing as a "safe" level. However, there are certainly levels that are "unsafe"

Let's all contribute in whatever ways we can to the decrease of pollution, in Chiang Mai as in the rest of the world.

/ Priceless

[elephantkungfu]

The problem is there, it is real and needs to be solved - making noise about it is good, but it should be based on honesty and as relevant and proper statistics and facts as can be found.

fair enough... i do agree. i just don't see the point in picking apart articles that suggest there is a pollution problem. why would people write "biased reports and downright lies" about the pollution problem? it seems to me, if anyone has an agenda at all, it is those who refute the idea that there is a serious problem.

[Priceless]

The problem is there, it is real and needs to be solved - making noise about it is good, but it should be based on honesty and as relevant and proper statistics and facts as can be found.

fair enough... i do agree. i just don't see the point in picking apart articles that suggest there is a pollution problem. why would people write "biased reports and downright lies" about the pollution problem? it seems to me, if anyone has an agenda at all, it is those who refute the idea that there is a serious problem.

I am not a psychologist so I cannot venture to give you an answer to your question.

I hope, though, that you don't count me among those that "refute the idea that there is a serious problem". I also hope that nothing I have written has given this perception, since it is not in line with my thinking.

I do however have a cause: I am very much in favour of information, truth and knowledge over disinformation, lies/half-truths and ignorance. This is why I have spent some considerable time trying to find out the reality behind all the myths about pollution in Chiang Mai. I can in no way claim to know the full truth (nobody does) but I think that I am probably closer than I was before starting my "research"

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

Fully agree with Priceless. Attempting to sway politicians and/or popular opinion by disingenious presentations of 'facts' is unwise and by association makes those trying to create awareness of pollution and cause change, seem like dishonest whingers.

The problem is there, it is real and needs to be solved - making noise about it is good, but it should be based on honesty and as relevant and proper statistics and facts as can be found.

Trying to paint doomsday scenarios may well drive people into resignation instead of making them take action, and more importantly, it contributes to the spreading of rumours and urban myths.

All this is quite true, whether it is someone running around being silly about the sky falling or someone with calculated disingenuous presentation of facts. But the reality is there! There really is a problem. It is not Chiang Mai's alone, but it is a problem in Chiang Mai.

Historically, keeping to pollution issues, consider the acceptance, dismissal, or denial of pollution in London that reached disastrous proportions with the "London fog" of the 1950s. Or Love Canal in New York in America. Or Mercury poisoning in Japan. Or the asbestos problem affecting practically everyone worldwide. The list goes on.

I agree that outrageous hyperbole is not the least bit convincing. But should that be the argument? Or should there be unnecessary arguments about where to place a decimal point? SUch are basically useless. Or useless comparisons with less or more places except as a measure of how things could be better or a lot worse?

It is clearly difficult to effect change, especially when change involves economic change (or vested interests in the status quo) or changing traditional practices. But if the pressure isn't somehow kept up, then......?

[BlackArtemis]

Personally I don't know whats up. My asthma is in over drive and my whole respiratory system is flared up this year, last year... absolutely nothing, and I personally feel it was worse last year!

Have you seen your doctor? You are absolutely right, the average air pollution level so far in March of this year is only half of what it was last year, so pollution would not seem to be the cause of your suffering.

BTW, I am one of the lucky ones with a respiratory system that seems to be able to take a lot of punishment (so far...). I do however have several friends with asthma or similar ailments and I certainly do not envy them or you!

/ Priceless

Yeah I got new meds and everything, but still I suffer a bit. The doctors commented on the high number of asthmatics coming in.

I have been here for 2.5years and Feb was the first attack I have had since being here and the first in about 4 years. I have obstructional asthma, so lucky me even coughing the wrong way can set me off YAY

[anonymouse]

Great info from priceless again and also glad to see Blinky Bill back.

[Norman d'Plume]

Strewth - I never expected this thread to take off so well. Thank you everybody, especially Priceless, for all the information posted.

Good to see Blinky back too!

I started the thread because I have suffered annually from the smog for the past several years, having never suffered breathing problems or even hay fever before. I found it annoying and upsetting that my good friend, the General, should constantly poo-pooh any idea that there might be a pollution problem that directly causes suffering to people here.

Last year I had a friend fly in from Hawaii. He had to be hospitallised after only 48 hours in the city, so it's not only long term residents and locals who are damaged by our smog.

Thank you again to everybody who have made this a most informative thread.

[Bananaman]

Wary of any thread which might target an individual TV member for criticism and also mindful of the fact that UG is a well respected member of the forum and the local expat community, I'd like to give my two bahts worth here.

I too have seen red every time the General has seen fit to dismiss the gravity of CM's pollution problem but after some thought and reading the contributions to this thread, I'm taking a less aggressive viewpoint. UG has stressed in many of his posts that he does not experience any negative effects from the air and does not notice any serious visible declines in its quality and I have no reason to doubt that that is what he both feels and sees - that's his experience and I acknowledge and respect that.

Our perceptions of the air quality and the pollution levels are based on our personal experiences. Some of us never see the filth that accumulates in the air out in the environs every evening and get no more than the odd sneeze, while others of us endure clouds of thick grey crap around our houses and suffer irritated eyes, constant phlegm and troubled breathing even though we never suffered anything similar before we came here. The experience of the guy who lives downwind of any number of neighbours who set alight to their garbage pile every day against that of UG in his bookshop or anyone else not in the immediate path of clouds of smoke is of course going to be different.

And as for facts and figures, well, let's bear in mind here that the PM10 count and the AQI give a general picture of the air quality in the city as a whole and don't take into account that there are many small neighbourhoods out in the burbs where burning persists unchecked and the immediate air quality in those areas is seriously compromised and harmful to those breathing it.

[davidgtr]

Let's all contribute in whatever ways we can to the decrease of pollution, in Chiang Mai as in the rest of the world.

/ Priceless

So what do you personally propose to do, other than keep alerting us to the fact that Chiang Mai (like many other North Thai cities in the hot season) has a pollution problem?

[Priceless]

Let's all contribute in whatever ways we can to the decrease of pollution, in Chiang Mai as in the rest of the world.

/ Priceless

So what do you personally propose to do, other than keep alerting us to the fact that Chiang Mai (like many other North Thai cities in the hot season) has a pollution problem?

There is not that much an individual can do, it is very much up to the relevant authorities to e.g. actually enforce the regulations that are already in place, inform the public etc. I would think there are ways to encourage them to actually do so, e.g. through business associations, "concerned residents" groups and other channels. It is however, in my opinion, important that this is done in factual, reasonable ways to achieve the best possible results.

Among the things I personally do are:

1/ Keep my car (engine) in the best possible running order to minimise its emissions.

2/ Compost all my garden waste (leaves, grass etc) instead of burning.

3/ Recycle everything that can be recycled (glass, plastic, metal...).

4/ Give any food leftovers to the night watchman's dogs instead of throwing it away.

5/ Etc.

This is not much of a contribution, but if everybody e.g. started composting instead of burning their garden/agricultural waste...

/ Priceless

[Sao Jiang Mai]

I must say that I always find it intriguing why so many posters on this forum so often blame journalists and reporters for unclear or downright false information. It is like they accuse writers of deliberately distorting facts and sensationalising them. I don't get it. Writers have a hard enough time here in Thailand with such little pay, and a writer's integrity and ethics is so crucial to his/her livelyhood, I don't understand why they would risk it all for a few fibbies. Like the Pai shooting case where the journalists got attacked so much one thinks that they made up the entire murder. Maybe witnesses and people involved gave false reports...maybe they didn't remember...or were drunk. Ironically the journos turned out to be pretty right all along. Same with pollution, it is a fact that Chiang Mai has a problem, some stats are hard to come by, especially when the Citylife peice was written a good four years ago, when pollution was hardly mentioned here yet and info was very hard to come by. Experts are consulted, even a scientist with a mobile air pollution measuring machine was recruited to trawl the streets to read the pollution metre. There was no ulterior motive or reason to sensationalise, I simply don't understand this paranoia. O well, now I sound like I am whinging, I am not meaning to, sorry! Everyone has an opinion and I respect that, it is just an oddity that journos seem to be so mistrusted here as that bloke Priceless was accusing us of. Why would journos write lies and half truths? It simply doesn't make sense.

Admittedly the peice in wrote four odd years ago could be MUCH better written today, but information was much harder to come by in those days. OK, I will stop making excuses now as it is not my point.

Lovely rainfall today, eh?

[Priceless]

I must say that I always find it intriguing why so many posters on this forum so often blame journalists and reporters for unclear or downright false information. It is like they accuse writers of deliberately distorting facts and sensationalising them. I don't get it. Writers have a hard enough time here in Thailand with such little pay, and a writer's integrity and ethics is so crucial to his/her livelyhood, I don't understand why they would risk it all for a few fibbies. Like the Pai shooting case where the journalists got attacked so much one thinks that they made up the entire murder. Maybe witnesses and people involved gave false reports...maybe they didn't remember...or were drunk. Ironically the journos turned out to be pretty right all along. Same with pollution, it is a fact that Chiang Mai has a problem, some stats are hard to come by, especially when the Citylife peice was written a good four years ago, when pollution was hardly mentioned here yet and info was very hard to come by. Experts are consulted, even a scientist with a mobile air pollution measuring machine was recruited to trawl the streets to read the pollution metre. There was no ulterior motive or reason to sensationalise, I simply don't understand this paranoia. O well, now I sound like I am whinging, I am not meaning to, sorry! Everyone has an opinion and I respect that, it is just an oddity that journos seem to be so mistrusted here as that bloke Priceless was accusing us of. Why would journos write lies and half truths? It simply doesn't make sense.

Admittedly the peice in wrote four odd years ago could be MUCH better written today, but information was much harder to come by in those days. OK, I will stop making excuses now as it is not my point.

Lovely rainfall today, eh?

I wish we had gotten som rainfall out here Hang Dong Ways as well, we could surely use it to clean up the air!

As for the article, I must confess that I had not noted (had not checked, mea culpa) that it was four years old. Furthermore, I am fully aware that a journalist can not possibly be an expert, or even reasonably knowledgeable, in all subjects he/she has to write about. This applies to an even higher degree to a local publication addressing a limited audience (English speakers) in a comparatively small city like Chiang Mai. A journalist must be able to write about almost any subject and to a large extent rely on his/her sources to give reasonable accounts of the subject at hand.

My comments to the article were written from the point of view of somebody with statistical training and 30-odd years of experience in that field and with access to the latest data from the Pollution Control Department. My purpose was not really to criticize the article (or the journalist), though on rereading it I must admit that my post can be read that way. That said, I must reiterate that the article draws some very far-reaching conclusions on a very shaky factual base. On reading your post, it appears to me that the points I criticized were much more the fault of your source than any of yours. Dr Duangchan must obviously have scientific training and should have realized the rather obvious shortcomings of the statistical material and some of the conclusions drawn. Not making this clear to the journalist (you) reflects solely on her.

A further problem, that is in no way of your making, is that parts of this information has in some way come to be a foundation for some "urban legends" that are popping up on this forum, among other places. Somehow your four year old article seems to have taken the upper hand over up to date information from e.g. the Pollution Control Department.

To finish off, I must however confess that I resent being referred to as "that bloke Priceless"

/ Priceless

[sylviex]

We need to get a panel of experts for an online Q & A session from Thaivisa members.

Nominate the experts of your choice ...