Burning Continues And Air Quality Issues

[Priceless]

Two questions:

Firstly, I do not equate living in CM with suicide but I do associate living in CM with a much shorter life expectancy and a far poorer quality of life - thousands of CM residents are testimony to that fact. As for the current constructive debate regarding a solution: I have been a party to such debates over the years and yes they can be constructive from a theoretical standpoint. In practical terms however they are impotent well intentioned forums that achieve very little. But first, two questions:

1) do you believe that living in CM between January and May each year is seriously detrimental to a persons health?

2) do you honestly and realistically believe that the extent of the pollution in CM during the subject months will be reduced to safe levels within the next twenty years?

It is impossible to argue a case for a no answer to question number one because of the extent of medical evidence on the subject. As for question number two, if you argue in favor of a yes answer you must also set out a realistic "how". BTW, CM was my home for many years hence I am familiar wit the issues and have seen the arguments repeated annually.

Let me quote your earlier post: "Look, if you love CM that much, stay there and die." I'm very sorry if I have misunderstood you, but it sounds a lot like suicide, albeit possibly a slow one. If you meant something more like "If you love Chiang Mai that much, by all means continue living there for the rest of your lives", then I think you could have phrased your post better.

On to your two questions:

1/ Is really impossible to answer, because the word "seriously" is not translateable into quantifiable terms. I can however give some general views: May is usually one of the best months of the year in terms of pollution (average level 28.4 ug/m3) so that one we can leave out of the discussion. January, February and April normally come in with average pollution levels about half the Thai recommended maximum (120 ug/m3), which does not scare me to death even though I would certainly prefer them to be much lower. March is the really bad one, so far this year we have had three days above the recommended limit and an average level of about two-thirds of that limit (84.0 ug/m3 with two days to go). I would certainly not recommend staying in Chiang Mai during March to anyone with sensitive respiratory organs, Asthma or anything like that, but I do stay here myself.

BTW, would you please present the "medical evidence" that you are referring two. I have repeatedly asked for such evidence on this forum, and searched the internet, and all that has so far turned up is a graph from the early 90's that was obviously not correct. I am acutely aware of the huge difficulties in proving or disproving such claims, but what I've seen so far seems to to definitely belong in the realm of "urban myths".

2/ Well, according to the Pollution Control Department "safety limit", January, February and April mostly are, already. More important than that is that the statistics actually point to a possible improvement already going on. I think we all realize that March of last year was a special case with freak meteorological conditions, i.e. an extremely persistent inversion covering the area for more than a month. However, of the 35 months since 1 July 2005, 30 months have had average pollution levels below the average for the years 2000-2008, and only 5 (including February-April of last year) have been above those average levels. This is certainly not proof that things are already getting better, but I think it constitutes "circumstantial evidence". More importantly, it seems evident that the authorities, and to an extent the general public, are beginning to grasp the seriousness and extent of the problem. So to sum up I do "honestly and realistically believe that the extent of the pollution in CM during the subject months will be reduced to safe levels within the next twenty years". Another problem is of course that science at present (at least according to the World Health Organisation (http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf), cannot tell what levels really are safe!

/ Priceless

Edited March 29, 2008 by Priceless

[chiang mai]

Two questions:

Firstly, I do not equate living in CM with suicide but I do associate living in CM with a much shorter life expectancy and a far poorer quality of life - thousands of CM residents are testimony to that fact. As for the current constructive debate regarding a solution: I have been a party to such debates over the years and yes they can be constructive from a theoretical standpoint. In practical terms however they are impotent well intentioned forums that achieve very little. But first, two questions:

1) do you believe that living in CM between January and May each year is seriously detrimental to a persons health?

2) do you honestly and realistically believe that the extent of the pollution in CM during the subject months will be reduced to safe levels within the next twenty years?

It is impossible to argue a case for a no answer to question number one because of the extent of medical evidence on the subject. As for question number two, if you argue in favor of a yes answer you must also set out a realistic "how". BTW, CM was my home for many years hence I am familiar wit the issues and have seen the arguments repeated annually.

Let me quote your earlier post: "Look, if you love CM that much, stay there and die." I'm very sorry if I have misunderstood you, but it sounds a lot like suicide, albeit possibly a slow one. If you meant something more like "If you love Chiang Mai that much, by all means continue living there for the rest of your lives", then I think you could have phrased your post better.

On to your two questions:

1/ Is really impossible to answer, because the word "seriously" is not translateable into quantifiable terms. I can however give some general views: May is usually one of the best months of the year in terms of pollution (average level 28.4 ug/m3) so that one we can leave out of the discussion. January, February and April normally come in with average pollution levels about half the Thai recommended maximum (120 ug/m3), which does not scare me to death even though I would certainly prefer them to be much lower. March is the really bad one, so far this year we have had three days above the recommended limit and an average level of about two-thirds of that limit (84.0 ug/m3 with two days to go). I would certainly not recommend staying in Chiang Mai during March to anyone with sensitive respiratory organs, Asthma or anything like that, but I do stay here myself.

BTW, would you please present the "medical evidence" that you are referring two. I have repeatedly asked for such evidence on this forum, and searched the internet, and all that has so far turned up is a graph from the early 90's that was obviously not correct. I am acutely aware of the huge difficulties in proving or disproving such claims, but what I've seen so far seems to to definitely belong in the realm of "urban myths".

2/ Well, according to the Pollution Control Department "safety limit", January, February and April mostly are, already. More important than that is that the statistics actually point to a possible improvement already going on. I think we all realize that March of last year was a special case with freak meteorological conditions, i.e. an extremely persistent inversion covering the area for more than a month. However, of the 35 months since 1 July 2005, 30 months have had average pollution levels below the average for the years 2000-2008, and only 5 (including February-April of last year) have been above those average levels. This is certainly not proof that things are already getting better, but I think it constitutes "circumstantial evidence". More importantly, it seems evident that the authorities, and to an extent the general public, are beginning to grasp the seriousness and extent of the problem. So to sum up I do "honestly and realistically believe that the extent of the pollution in CM during the subject months will be reduced to safe levels within the next twenty years". Another problem is of course that science at present (at least according to the World Health Organisation (http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf), cannot tell what levels really are safe!

/ Priceless

I wouldn't wish to get into a discussion of whether continuing to live in CM with its known high pollution levels represents suicide or not since much of that discussion is pointless - call it what you wish but just don't say it's healthy or sensible.

As far as evidence is concerned: I certainly cannot point you at a single document or web site that will confirm or disprove the impact of airborne pollution on CM residents - you could try trawling the Bangkok Post or Nation websites for relevant articles and they may hold a clue, both sites have produced a myriad of them on this topic in recent years. What I can do however is point you to the Cardio and ENT units at CM Ram and invite you to have a discussion on this subject with Dr Pattarapong, head of Cardio. Both physicians will confirm the extreme increase in respiratory and cardiac related events during the burning season and the associated elevated death rates. I've had those discussions because every year in CM I suffered from Bronchitis and sinus infections and was a frequent visitor to CM Ram as a result. During an Angiogram at CM Ram eighteen months ago I was advised in very simple terms to move to a location that had cleaner air because of the detrimental effect pollution was having on my body.

[Ricardo]

What did the Ding-dong brigade do before Al Gore invented the Internet?

I believe they used to read 2nd-hand books, and drink iced Thai beer, while looking at life from the comfort of a bar.

But now we can have it all !

[Loom]

BTW, would you please present the "medical evidence" that you are referring two.

Eur J Public Health. 2006 May 9; : 16684784 (P,S,E,B)

Respiratory symptoms and lung function in Bangkok school children.

[My paper] Uma Langkulsen, Wanida Jinsart, Kanae Karita, Eiji Yano International Postgraduate Program in Environmental Management NRC-EHWM Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Previous epidemiological studies have shown acute effects of ambient air pollutants in children with respiratory disorders.

METHODS: The chronic effects of air pollution in Bangkok children were investigated. Children aged 10-15 years were examined for lung functions using spirometry tests and for respiratory symptoms by the American Thoracic Society's Division of Lung Diseases (ATS-DLD-78-C) questionnaire during May-August 2004. Effects of residential area were estimated by multiple logistic regression analysis. Of the 878 children, 722 (82%) had completed lung function test and ATS-DLD questionnaire.

RESULTS: In children, who live in roadside ® and general (G) areas with high (H) pollution, the prevalence of respiratory symptoms increased significantly [odds ratios (95% confidence interval) in HR and HG are 2.44 (1.21-4.93) and 2.60 (1.38-4.91), respectively]. Children with normal lung function were less observed in H- and M-polluted roadside and general area [hr, OR = 1.41 (95% CI 0.89-2.22); HG, 1.08 (0.71-1.64); and MR, 0.99 (0.63-1.57)]. Residential locations and family members were associated with the prevalence of respiratory symptoms, whereas factors such as the responder of ATS-DLD, gender, age, residential years, home size, parental smoking habits, use of air conditioners, and domestic pets were not associated. Age was associated with the impaired lung function, whereas others factors were not associated.

CONCLUSION: The prevalence of respiratory symptoms and impaired lung function were higher among children living in areas with high pollution than those in areas with low pollution.

[Priceless]

I wouldn't wish to get into a discussion of whether continuing to live in CM with its known high pollution levels represents suicide or not since much of that discussion is pointless - call it what you wish but just don't say it's healthy or sensible.

As far as evidence is concerned: I certainly cannot point you at a single document or web site that will confirm or disprove the impact of airborne pollution on CM residents - you could try trawling the Bangkok Post or Nation websites for relevant articles and they may hold a clue, both sites have produced a myriad of them on this topic in recent years. What I can do however is point you to the Cardio and ENT units at CM Ram and invite you to have a discussion on this subject with Dr Pattarapong, head of Cardio. Both physicians will confirm the extreme increase in respiratory and cardiac related events during the burning season and the associated elevated death rates. I've had those discussions because every year in CM I suffered from Bronchitis and sinus infections and was a frequent visitor to CM Ram as a result. During an Angiogram at CM Ram eighteen months ago I was advised in very simple terms to move to a location that had cleaner air because of the detrimental effect pollution was having on my body.

Firstly, I don't think you will ever catch me saying that the pollution level in Chiang Mai is "healthy" or even "sensible", rather that it could do with a considerable reduction.

Secondly, I have no doubt that the very high pollution levels in CM during the worst months, in particular March, increase the frequency of "respiratory and cardiac related events". I would even venture to guess that the number of deaths from respiratory ailments increase measurably during those months. Unfortunately this is what happens pretty much whenever/wherever you have extreme conditions, one way or another. I know e.g. that the death rate in northern Europe rises considerably during the cold winter months. If you search this forum, I am sure that you will find any number of posts where I and others have advised people with respiratory ailments to stay away from CM during March, and possibly even to move away altogether. Avoiding conditions that one is extremely sensitive to is always a wise decision, whether it be pollution, extreme heat, extreme cold or whatever.

Thirdly, I am sorry to hear that you obviously have a rather serious respiratory and/or cardiac problem. I strongly sympathise with anyone suffering from such conditions. I sincerely hope that you neither smoke nor drink alcohol, since both those activities contribute very negatively to any respiratory/cardiac condition (I do not have any medical training, but can refer to e.g. the American Lung Association, http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427)

The kind of "medical evidence" that I am searching for would be something like a proper epidemiological study showing that Chiang Mai is somehow worse affected than other locations with similar air quality. That poor air quality is detrimental to health has been proven many times, in particular over the last 15 years or so (ref e.g. http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf which quotes a lot of this research). What keeps surprising me is that Chiang Mai seems to be very frequently singled out for its pollution, in spite of the fact that there are numerous areas of Thailand with much worse pollution.

/ Priceless

[Priceless]

BTW, would you please present the "medical evidence" that you are referring two.

Eur J Public Health. 2006 May 9; : 16684784 (P,S,E,B)

Respiratory symptoms and lung function in Bangkok school children.

[My paper] Uma Langkulsen, Wanida Jinsart, Kanae Karita, Eiji Yano International Postgraduate Program in Environmental Management NRC-EHWM Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Previous epidemiological studies have shown acute effects of ambient air pollutants in children with respiratory disorders.

METHODS: The chronic effects of air pollution in Bangkok children were investigated. Children aged 10-15 years were examined for lung functions using spirometry tests and for respiratory symptoms by the American Thoracic Society's Division of Lung Diseases (ATS-DLD-78-C) questionnaire during May-August 2004. Effects of residential area were estimated by multiple logistic regression analysis. Of the 878 children, 722 (82%) had completed lung function test and ATS-DLD questionnaire.

RESULTS: In children, who live in roadside ® and general (G) areas with high (H) pollution, the prevalence of respiratory symptoms increased significantly [odds ratios (95% confidence interval) in HR and HG are 2.44 (1.21-4.93) and 2.60 (1.38-4.91), respectively]. Children with normal lung function were less observed in H- and M-polluted roadside and general area [hr, OR = 1.41 (95% CI 0.89-2.22); HG, 1.08 (0.71-1.64); and MR, 0.99 (0.63-1.57)]. Residential locations and family members were associated with the prevalence of respiratory symptoms, whereas factors such as the responder of ATS-DLD, gender, age, residential years, home size, parental smoking habits, use of air conditioners, and domestic pets were not associated. Age was associated with the impaired lung function, whereas others factors were not associated.

CONCLUSION: The prevalence of respiratory symptoms and impaired lung function were higher among children living in areas with high pollution than those in areas with low pollution.

I am sorry that this was posted while I was composing my reply to "chiang mai". As you can see from that reply, I completely agree (based on my limited expertise) with what you post. The only thing that somewhat surprises me is that "parental smoking habits" did not have any influence, which I would have guessed they would. Could it be that these have a longer term influence, which does not show up in children of this age?

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

OK so where are we on all of this now? We agree that pollution causes respiratory and cardiac events and that during the period in question the number of those events in CM is high? It therefore follows that living in CM during the subject season is detrimental to a persons health and this will result statistically in death sooner than if a person lived in a less polluted environment. Perhaps if someone has access to PM10 statistics we can determine whether it is indeed "suicidal" to live in CM or not or at least the increased likelihood of premature death resulting from living there when compared to a low pollution environment such as say Phuket!

And before we get back into the discussion about suicide again let's put the issue of risk into perspective. Sensible and informed people who had a choice would not build a home within one hundred miles of a Chernobyl soon after it had melted down - two hundred and fifty miles, five hundred or seven hundred and fifty miles, each carries a risk. Without knowing the first thing about radiation I would guess that one hundred and two hundred and fifty miles would be suicidal, five hundred miles might be unnecessary risk. The risk is that prolonged exposure to the environment will produce premature death, substantially more so with radiation than an excess of PM10 but premature death nevertheless.

[Priceless]

OK so where are we on all of this now? We agree that pollution causes respiratory and cardiac events and that during the period in question the number of those events in CM is high? It therefore follows that living in CM during the subject season is detrimental to a persons health and this will result statistically in death sooner than if a person lived in a less polluted environment. Perhaps if someone has access to PM10 statistics we can determine whether it is indeed "suicidal" to live in CM or not or at least the increased likelihood of premature death resulting from living there when compared to a low pollution environment such as say Phuket!

And before we get back into the discussion about suicide again let's put the issue of risk into perspective. Sensible and informed people who had a choice would not build a home within one hundred miles of a Chernobyl soon after it had melted down - two hundred and fifty miles, five hundred or seven hundred and fifty miles, each carries a risk. Without knowing the first thing about radiation I would guess that one hundred and two hundred and fifty miles would be suicidal, five hundred miles might be unnecessary risk. The risk is that prolonged exposure to the environment will produce premature death, substantially more so with radiation than an excess of PM10 but premature death nevertheless.

I think we are pretty much in agreement, but just to make things even clearer:

Life itself is dangerous, everybody knows how it ends... What is also self-evident is that you cannot eliminate all risks from your life. If you know that you are particularly susceptible to respiratory or cardiac ailments, it seems very wise to avoid heavily polluted areas. It is also obvious that if people really made informed and rational decisions in this field, there would not be a single smoker in the world.

On the other hand, life is dangerous in more ways than one. I have no statistics or other evidence to back up my claim, but on my many visits to Phuket I have certainly felt that the traffic and the roads there are considerably more lethal than in Chiang Mai. The risk of drowning is obviously also much higher What I'm trying to get at is that everybody should really make an informed decision about what risks one is willing to take, what risks are particularly high for oneself (like pollution, in your case) and what other factors one wants to weigh into one's decision on where to live. Personally, I can only stand "beach life" for a few weeks and my girl friend hardly that long, so Phuket is out of the question for us.

Finally, since you mention PM-10 statistics and it appears from your previous posts that you left Chiang Mai in 2006, I thought it might be a good idea to show the pollution levels for that year:

/ Priceless

Edited March 29, 2008 by Priceless

[chiang mai]

OK so where are we on all of this now? We agree that pollution causes respiratory and cardiac events and that during the period in question the number of those events in CM is high? It therefore follows that living in CM during the subject season is detrimental to a persons health and this will result statistically in death sooner than if a person lived in a less polluted environment. Perhaps if someone has access to PM10 statistics we can determine whether it is indeed "suicidal" to live in CM or not or at least the increased likelihood of premature death resulting from living there when compared to a low pollution environment such as say Phuket!

And before we get back into the discussion about suicide again let's put the issue of risk into perspective. Sensible and informed people who had a choice would not build a home within one hundred miles of a Chernobyl soon after it had melted down - two hundred and fifty miles, five hundred or seven hundred and fifty miles, each carries a risk. Without knowing the first thing about radiation I would guess that one hundred and two hundred and fifty miles would be suicidal, five hundred miles might be unnecessary risk. The risk is that prolonged exposure to the environment will produce premature death, substantially more so with radiation than an excess of PM10 but premature death nevertheless.

I think we are pretty much in agreement, but just to make things even clearer:

Life itself is dangerous, everybody knows how it ends... What is also self-evident is that you cannot eliminate all risks from your life. If you know that you are particularly susceptible to respiratory or cardiac ailments, it seems very wise to avoid heavily polluted areas. It is also obvious that if people really made informed and rational decisions in this field, there would not be a single smoker in the world.

On the other hand, life is dangerous in more ways than one. I have no statistics or other evidence to back up my claim, but on my many visits to Phuket I have certainly felt that the traffic and the roads there are considerably more lethal than in Chiang Mai. The risk of drowning is obviously also much higher What I'm trying to get at is that everybody should really make an informed decision about what risks one is willing to take, what risks are particularly high for oneself (like pollution, in your case) and what other factors one wants to weigh into one's decision on where to live. Personally, I can only stand "beach life" for a few weeks and my girl friend hardly that long, so Phuket is out of the question for us.

Finally, since you mention PM-10 statistics and it appears from your previous posts that you left Chiang Mai in 2006, I thought it might be a good idea to show the pollution levels for that year:

/ Priceless

Indeed I think we do agree and what you say about informed choices lays at the heart of all of this. My strongest sense is that large numbers of people in CM have a choice whether to stay or to move and I remain unconvinced that a majority of people remain unaware of the potential severity of this issue. In part it's the boiling frog syndrome whereby individuals are unaware of the increased risk year on year - in another part it is a lack of government focus in raising the awareness of the issue. Whilst I seriously hope that conditions do improve on a lasting basis I do not have confidence that they will. Finally, I left CM in June 2007 and have not had to see a doctor since.

[Priceless]

Indeed I think we do agree and what you say about informed choices lays at the heart of all of this. My strongest sense is that large numbers of people in CM have a choice whether to stay or to move and I remain unconvinced that a majority of people remain unaware of the potential severity of this issue. In part it's the boiling frog syndrome whereby individuals are unaware of the increased risk year on year - in another part it is a lack of government focus in raising the awareness of the issue. Whilst I seriously hope that conditions do improve on a lasting basis I do not have confidence that they will. Finally, I left CM in June 2007 and have not had to see a doctor since.

I am sorry, but I don't seem to understand what you mean by "I remain unconvinced that a majority of people remain unaware of the potential severity of this issue", possibly that you "remain convinced that a majority remain unaware"? If so, I think that you are (hopefully) wrong in this. The problem is a regular feature in both English and Thai language newspapers, His Majesty has recently expressed his concern, there is (at least among farang) a lot of discussion, in forums like this and in real life and so on. There are also a lot of activities going on to raise this awareness even further.

There are of course to this day people that don't know or understand e.g. that smoking is detrimental to your health, just like there are people who think that marxism/communism is a good idea or that the world was created through "intelligent design" or that the Earth is flat, but you can't win them all, can you?

Another thing: "the increased risk year on year " - Are you implying that the pollution is getting gradually worse here in Chiang Mai? I must admit that I have seen nothing that supports that belief. As I stated in an earlier post, there is "circumstantial evidence" to the contrary, though this may as of yet be a statistically random effect. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the adverse effects of pollution accumulating in an individual, you are of course right.

Since you left in 2007, here is a graph of the pollution level that year (which was the worst so far this century):

/ Priceless

[Ulysses G.]

What did the Ding-dong brigade do before Al Gore invented the Internet?

I believe they used to read 2nd-hand books, and drink iced Thai beer, while looking at life from the comfort of a bar.

Stuff like "The Coming Collapse of Civilization and the Rest of the Planet" , no doubt?

[chiang mai]

Indeed I think we do agree and what you say about informed choices lays at the heart of all of this. My strongest sense is that large numbers of people in CM have a choice whether to stay or to move and I remain unconvinced that a majority of people remain unaware of the potential severity of this issue. In part it's the boiling frog syndrome whereby individuals are unaware of the increased risk year on year - in another part it is a lack of government focus in raising the awareness of the issue. Whilst I seriously hope that conditions do improve on a lasting basis I do not have confidence that they will. Finally, I left CM in June 2007 and have not had to see a doctor since.

I am sorry, but I don't seem to understand what you mean by "I remain unconvinced that a majority of people remain unaware of the potential severity of this issue", possibly that you "remain convinced that a majority remain unaware"? If so, I think that you are (hopefully) wrong in this. The problem is a regular feature in both English and Thai language newspapers, His Majesty has recently expressed his concern, there is (at least among farang) a lot of discussion, in forums like this and in real life and so on. There are also a lot of activities going on to raise this awareness even further.

There are of course to this day people that don't know or understand e.g. that smoking is detrimental to your health, just like there are people who think that marxism/communism is a good idea or that the world was created through "intelligent design" or that the Earth is flat, but you can't win them all, can you?

Another thing: "the increased risk year on year " - Are you implying that the pollution is getting gradually worse here in Chiang Mai? I must admit that I have seen nothing that supports that belief. As I stated in an earlier post, there is "circumstantial evidence" to the contrary, though this may as of yet be a statistically random effect. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the adverse effects of pollution accumulating in an individual, you are of course right.

Since you left in 2007, here is a graph of the pollution level that year (which was the worst so far this century):

/ Priceless

The differences between your 2006 and 2007 graphs support the fact that the risk is increasing year on year, in addition to the cumulative effect.

As for a majority of people... Certainly most folks that live in CM are aware of the issue, tourists and would be residents are, in every example I have experienced, definitely not aware because the problem is not widely publicized for obvious reasons. Talk to the tourists in the airports and ask them about the issue, I do. Most would be residents and tourists buy into the idea that CM is in the mountains and look no further than that statement and the associations that forms in their minds.

[Ulysses G.]

The differences between your 2006 and 2007 graphs support the fact that the risk is increasing year on year, in addition to the cumulative effect.

Maybe, if you forget about the fact that 2007 was the worst year on record and was mostly caused by a very unusual weather pattern.

[Ajarn]

As for a majority of people... Certainly most folks that live in CM are aware of the issue, tourists and would be residents are, in every example I have experienced, definitely not aware because the problem is not widely publicized for obvious reasons. Talk to the tourists in the airports and ask them about the issue, I do. Most would be residents and tourists buy into the idea that CM is in the mountains and look no further than that statement and the associations that forms in their minds.

[chiang mai]

As for a majority of people... Certainly most folks that live in CM are aware of the issue, tourists and would be residents are, in every example I have experienced, definitely not aware because the problem is not widely publicized for obvious reasons. Talk to the tourists in the airports and ask them about the issue, I do. Most would be residents and tourists buy into the idea that CM is in the mountains and look no further than that statement and the associations that forms in their minds.

The problem has not been widely publicized because it hasn't been as bad as it was... Fairly new to me at least, a person who has lived here more than 20 years...

I'm certain there must be a dichotomy here since you emphasize the word "was". Given that last year was allegedly the worst on record.... ! But there again, given that most reasonable and sensibly residents would at a minimum accept there was at least some sort of problem - a big OW methinks.

[Mapguy]

What did the Ding-dong brigade do before Al Gore invented the Internet?

I believe they used to read 2nd-hand books, and drink iced Thai beer, while looking at life from the comfort of a bar.

But now we can have it all !

Thank you, both, for such thoughtful posts!

[Mapguy]

I wouldn't wish to get into a discussion of whether continuing to live in CM with its known high pollution levels represents suicide or not since much of that discussion is pointless - call it what you wish but just don't say it's healthy or sensible.

As far as evidence is concerned: I certainly cannot point you at a single document or web site that will confirm or disprove the impact of airborne pollution on CM residents - you could try trawling the Bangkok Post or Nation websites for relevant articles and they may hold a clue, both sites have produced a myriad of them on this topic in recent years. What I can do however is point you to the Cardio and ENT units at CM Ram and invite you to have a discussion on this subject with Dr Pattarapong, head of Cardio. Both physicians will confirm the extreme increase in respiratory and cardiac related events during the burning season and the associated elevated death rates. I've had those discussions because every year in CM I suffered from Bronchitis and sinus infections and was a frequent visitor to CM Ram as a result. During an Angiogram at CM Ram eighteen months ago I was advised in very simple terms to move to a location that had cleaner air because of the detrimental effect pollution was having on my body.

Firstly, I don't think you will ever catch me saying that the pollution level in Chiang Mai is "healthy" or even "sensible", rather that it could do with a considerable reduction.

Secondly, I have no doubt that the very high pollution levels in CM during the worst months, in particular March, increase the frequency of "respiratory and cardiac related events". I would even venture to guess that the number of deaths from respiratory ailments increase measurably during those months. Unfortunately this is what happens pretty much whenever/wherever you have extreme conditions, one way or another. I know e.g. that the death rate in northern Europe rises considerably during the cold winter months. If you search this forum, I am sure that you will find any number of posts where I and others have advised people with respiratory ailments to stay away from CM during March, and possibly even to move away altogether. Avoiding conditions that one is extremely sensitive to is always a wise decision, whether it be pollution, extreme heat, extreme cold or whatever.

Thirdly, I am sorry to hear that you obviously have a rather serious respiratory and/or cardiac problem. I strongly sympathise with anyone suffering from such conditions. I sincerely hope that you neither smoke nor drink alcohol, since both those activities contribute very negatively to any respiratory/cardiac condition (I do not have any medical training, but can refer to e.g. the American Lung Association, http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427)

The kind of "medical evidence" that I am searching for would be something like a proper epidemiological study showing that Chiang Mai is somehow worse affected than other locations with similar air quality. That poor air quality is detrimental to health has been proven many times, in particular over the last 15 years or so (ref e.g. http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf which quotes a lot of this research). What keeps surprising me is that Chiang Mai seems to be very frequently singled out for its pollution, in spite of the fact that there are numerous areas of Thailand with much worse pollution.

/ Priceless

Priceless, I think you are going overboard. I agree heartily with your adhorrence for hyperbole and spurious statistics. Your assidulously researched contributions of "facts" are both well-meant and well-presented, but let me try to respond with an incomplete metaphor.

Guns kill. A small caliber bullet will leave a smaller hole than a larger caliber bullet, but both will kill you. Worrying too much about the size of the bullet, or whether the guy down the street has a larger gun or not, isn't very useful.

[Mapguy]

The differences between your 2006 and 2007 graphs support the fact that the risk is increasing year on year, in addition to the cumulative effect.

Maybe, if you forget about the fact that 2007 was the worst year on record and was mostly caused by a very unusual weather pattern.

This little guy who follows your message; is he your favorite climatologist?

[Mapguy]

What did the Ding-dong brigade do before Al Gore invented the Internet?

I believe they used to read 2nd-hand books, and drink iced Thai beer, while looking at life from the comfort of a bar.

Stuff like "The Coming Collapse of Civilization and the Rest of the Planet" , no doubt?

Again, thank you forthe thoughtful post!

[Mapguy]

From today's on-line edition of The Bangkok Post:

Burning issue plagues North

Chiang Mai townsfolk might complain next month when the full force of Songkran is unleashed on them, but they were quite happy to get wet this week. The unseasonable rain temporarily dissipated the haze cloaking the city and this helped ease dry throats, burning chests and restore visibility.

The unpleasant symptoms are a by-product of the annual practice of burning off fields, leaves, rice straw and garbage ahead of the next planting season, for which little water exists for irrigation anyway. This, coupled with the high temperatures at this time of year, causes forest fires which produce even more smoke and the provinces of Lampang, Lamphun, Chiang Rai, Mae Hong Son and Chiang Mai become shrouded in smoke. Among the haze-affected provinces, Mae Hong Son has been hardest hit due to wildfires and low visibility levels at the airport.

A year ago the situation was alarming as air quality fell to hazardous levels. This year, the blue-and-white striped monitoring vans of the Pollution Control Department that scuttle around Chiang Mai are recording an improvement. This is partly due to the unexpected rain. It is also due to campaigns by the Forestry Department to persuade farmers to reduce and then abandon burn-offs and use non-traditional and less harmful methods of land clearance. The Public Health Ministry also took action by sending 200,000 face masks to protect people from air pollution caused by dust particles smaller than 10 microns in diameter, also known as PM10, that come with the acrid smoke. It has also put local hospitals on alert as a precaution and will launch an education and awareness campaign.

But creating the most impact was His Majesty the King's expression of concern on Tuesday and his prompt despatch of artificial rain-making planes to reduce the particulate matter in the atmosphere which can penetrate lungs and cause respiratory diseases. His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn also assigned a medical unit to treat people made ill by the smoke in Mae Hong Son province and this team will be distributing 45,000 protective masks.

Fortunately the situation is nothing like as bad as last year. Even so, there have been somewhat predictable consequences. The Association of Chiang Mai Tourism and Hotel Businesses says advance bookings for hotels in the northern capital for this and next month are down by 20%, due to concern by tourists over health and environmental conditions.

It is encouraging that health and forestry authorities have promised a campaign to urge villagers not to burn forests, rubbish or grasses but this is easier said than done because it involves changing a traditional way of life. An additional problem is that national borders get in the way, with man-made burn-offs also occurring in Burma's Shan State and in Laos. Thus, the only real solution has to be one which involves the authorities of all three countries and tackles the root cause. Government representatives must meet at a high level to work together on this problem.

The alternative is a long-term deterioration in the environment which could destroy some of our country's great natural beauty. That would be an unthinkable price to pay. The Bangkok Post

[Ulysses G.]

What did the Ding-dong brigade do before Al Gore invented the Internet?

I believe they used to read 2nd-hand books, and drink iced Thai beer, while looking at life from the comfort of a bar.

Stuff like "The Coming Collapse of Civilization and the Rest of the Planet" , no doubt?

Again, thank you forthe thoughtful post!

Taking it personally?

[Ulysses G.]

given that most reasonable and sensibly residents would at a minimum accept there was at least some sort of problem

Could you point out a poster who hasn't said that there is no problem at all? I don't remember any.

The complaint is that the Looney-tunes folks are exaggerating the problem to absurd proportions by comparing living in Chiang Mai to commiting suicide and other such silliness.

It is almost like you are purposely trying to ruin the place for the great majority of people who don't have asthma or lung conditions just because you are not comfortable here.

[Ricardo]

What did the Ding-dong brigade do before Al Gore invented the Internet?

I believe they used to read 2nd-hand books, and drink iced Thai beer, while looking at life from the comfort of a bar.

Stuff like "The Coming Collapse of Civilization and the Rest of the Planet" , no doubt?

Again, thank you for the thoughtful post!

They would also have been watching pirate-DVDs, on the TV behind the bar, 'The Last Wave' or 'The Day After Tomorrow' perhaps, but these days can scarcely see the TV from across the room, due to the all-pervasive smog, or failing eyesight (delete as applicable).

[Ulysses G.]

The hallucinations, broadcasts from the CIA and voices speaking in their ear probably lessen the DVD experience as well.

[sabaijai]

The differences between your 2006 and 2007 graphs support the fact that the risk is increasing year on year, in addition to the cumulative effect.

Maybe, if you forget about the fact that 2007 was the worst year on record and was mostly caused by a very unusual weather pattern.

That's true, in 2007 the haze was affected by a number of external factors, number one being a steady weather front from China that lasted nearly a month and contributed to the unusual severity of the haze that year.

Stats from two years is insufficient for any reasonable conclusion anyway.

[sabaijai]

Haze eases in northern provinces; artificial rainmaking continues

CHIANG MAI, March 26 (TNA) – Air quality has improved in the northern provinces as artificial rain making continues to ensure clean air, but the haze in Mae Hong Son remained critical.

Dust particles in the northern province of Chiang Rai had reduced to 56 microgrammes per cubic metre (mg/cm) after haze which covered the province for several days, alleviated.

The safety standard level of the air quality is below 120 mg/cm.

Two planes from the rain making operations centre in the northern region flew Wednesday to seed cloud cover over Chiang Mai's Samoeng district and Mae Hong Son's Khun Yuam district.

Phuchong Insamaphan, a local official of the natural resources and environment ministry said, that forest burning was discovered at more than 10 locations in Chiang Mai's Mae Chaem and Omkoi districts. Forest fire fighters were sent to put out the blazes.

In Chiang Mai, air quality had improved and airborne particulate matter had dropped below danger level.

Dust particle levels at City Hall were measured at 67 mg/cm.

The level of dust particles in Mae Hong Son was measured at 'dangerous level'.

Meanwhile, Royal Thai Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pukbhasuk said the service branch stood ready to help the Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry in carrying out the artificial rain-making project.

Outdoor burning for farming by local villagers is prevalent in thai season, but it was not a good farming method as grass burned by farmers becomes ash and can't be used as fertilizer for growing plants, he said.

The best way to solve the problem is to prevent forest fires and to stop outdoor burnings, he added. (TNA)-E004

[Priceless]

The differences between your 2006 and 2007 graphs support the fact that the risk is increasing year on year, in addition to the cumulative effect.

As for a majority of people... Certainly most folks that live in CM are aware of the issue, tourists and would be residents are, in every example I have experienced, definitely not aware because the problem is not widely publicized for obvious reasons. Talk to the tourists in the airports and ask them about the issue, I do. Most would be residents and tourists buy into the idea that CM is in the mountains and look no further than that statement and the associations that forms in their minds.

If you think that any conclusions about a long term trend can be drawn from graphs of two consecutive years, you have obviously never been in the vicinity of a statistics textbook

The extreme pollution levels of, in particular, March of last year were mainly caused by two factors:

- An unusual number of forest fires in the greater area around Chiang Mai, including parts of Burma (Myanmar) and Laos.

- A very unusual and persistent inversion that functioned as a "lid" over the basin where Chiang Mai is located. (Definition from the National Safety Council, http://www.nsc.org/ehc/glossar1.htm inversion: An atmospheric condition caused by increasing temperature with elevation, resulting in a layer of warm air preventing the rise of cooler air trapped beneath. This condition prevents the rise of pollutants that might otherwise be dispersed.)

It is definitely not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions about a trend from the pollution figures of last year.

Personally, I don't think that one can be sure of any trend as regards pollution in Chiang Mai, as the available time series only cover slightly less than ten years, with somewhat dubious data quality for the first few years. However, if there is a trend it is certainly towards better quality. Two pieces of "circumstantial evidence" (already posted earlier in this thread):

- The frequency of "bad days" (i.e. with a PM-10 level in excess of 120 ug/m3) has gone down from 10.1% in 1998-1999 to 5.1% in 2000-2008.

- Of the last 33 months, i.e. since 1 July 2005, 28 months have had a lower average PM-10 pollution level than the average for 2000-2008, while only five months have been above the average.

As to your statement that tourists are unaware of the problem, let me re-qoute from Bangkok Post of 27 March (already quoted in a post on that day):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haze keeps visitors away from Chiang Mai

(BangkokPost.com) – The tourist industry has felt the impact of the haze, especially in Chiang Mai province.

Hotel occupancy just two weeks ahead of the Songkran holiday has yet to reach 50 per cent, when it is normally at between 85-90 per cent during this time of the year, officials claim.

Boonlert Burnaporn, an official from the tourist industry, said the haze is estimated to have caused a loss of hundreds of millions of baht in income.

“We already had the bad economy to deal with before this. Now we have to deal with another problem so it’s a great burden,” he complained.

“The government really needs to address this problem because it’s the second year now that the haze has had an impact on the tourist industry,” he added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't get my point: For the tourists to stay away because of the haze (about 40% of them, if the hotel occupancy rates are to be believed), they actually have to be aware of it.

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

given that most reasonable and sensibly residents would at a minimum accept there was at least some sort of problem

Could you point out a poster who hasn't said that there is no problem at all? I don't remember any.

The complaint is that the Looney-tunes folks are exaggerating the problem to absurd proportions by comparing living in Chiang Mai to commiting suicide and other such silliness.

It is almost like you are purposely trying to ruin the place for the great majority of people who don't have asthma or lung conditions just because you are not comfortable here.

No UG, that's not my intent here - that would be pointless and senseless. I think, as was pointed out earlier, that awareness is the key issue. If people can make informed choices I'm 100% for that and if on that basis folks decide to accept the risk, more power to them, if that's what they want to do. The problem of course is of course the quantification of the problem. I see fragmented and partial stats showing that one year and one location was such and such and another year was something different hence trying to put the problem into perspective is difficult. Because of this I have to fall back on my own personal experiences and say, yes, the pollution in CM is bad, for me it's very bad and the risk is unacceptable. Others that I meet, tourists and would be new residents are most often unaware of the scale of the problem which I think you will agree is not insignificant. Ajarn in his post suggests the problem is something new to him, this despite twenty years residency and I fail to understand that. So whilst I am not an eco radical I am all in favor of balance in this issue and in everyone seeing the facts, whatever they may be and deciding accordingly.

[Priceless]

Priceless, I think you are going overboard. I agree heartily with your adhorrence for hyperbole and spurious statistics. Your assidulously researched contributions of "facts" are both well-meant and well-presented, but let me try to respond with an incomplete metaphor.

Guns kill. A small caliber bullet will leave a smaller hole than a larger caliber bullet, but both will kill you. Worrying too much about the size of the bullet, or whether the guy down the street has a larger gun or not, isn't very useful.

I must admit that I have a problem with your somewhat less than intelligible metaphor, but I guess that you mean something like "pollution kills, the level is just a question of degrees"?

If my interpretation of your metaphor is correct, I am sorry but you are wrong. According to the World Health Organisation (http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf) no effects on "total, cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality" have been shown with PM-10 pollution levels below an annual mean of 20 ug/m3, which is also the lowest of the four levels discussed in the WHO report. (Incidentally, the mean for Chiang Mai during the years 2000-2008 has been 48.6 ug/m3, which is within the "WHO interim target 2" (at 50 ug/m3) but outside the "WHO interim target 3" (at 30 ug/m3).)

Apart from that, what message are you trying to get across to our fellow residents of Chiang Mai: "Hold your breath, because you'll die if you breathe"?

/ Priceless

[scotbeve]

To all you concerned folks,

It's come to my attention as of late that this thread has turned into a huff & puff match. All of your arguements are valid, some data MAY be incorrect / misquoted, and in general, has given quite a few readers more info to the pollution problems of CM. This is all well and good and everyone is entitled to free speech. But, don't you all think it would be more constructive to take on a more proactive position and actually DO something about the problem instead of quibbling. For example, each one of us could get together (not for a piss up!) and say, collect signatures on a petition or how about actually helping the fire fighters in some way or donations or fire watches or (anybody have any more ideas???)