Considering Move To Chiang Mai

[chiang mai]

These discussions about poor air quality in Chiang Mai are so predictable yet so inconclusive - one group suggests they have bad experiences then the statisticians come along and present lies, I mean statistics, showing they must be mistaken. [...]

I couldn't agree more about the predictability. One group claims they have bad experiences and I would think that this is quite true. However, a group of 5, 10 or even 25 people is still so small that it completely lacks significance. Furthermore, there may be dozens, or hundreds, of explanations for each individual experience.

What surprises me is that these people claim that their individual, subjective, experiences are "true" whereas extensively documented research by the World Health Organisation, the Thai Pollution Control Department and others is "lies".

Well, there are still people who believe the Earth is flat, so...

/ Priceless

Woooo, now you've done it, you've gone and upset Mapguy you and UG are really gonna get it now.

[Priceless]

These discussions about poor air quality in Chiang Mai are so predictable yet so inconclusive - one group suggests they have bad experiences then the statisticians come along and present lies, I mean statistics, showing they must be mistaken. [...]

I couldn't agree more about the predictability. One group claims they have bad experiences and I would think that this is quite true. However, a group of 5, 10 or even 25 people is still so small that it completely lacks significance. Furthermore, there may be dozens, or hundreds, of explanations for each individual experience.

What surprises me is that these people claim that their individual, subjective, experiences are "true" whereas extensively documented research by the World Health Organisation, the Thai Pollution Control Department and others is "lies".

Well, there are still people who believe the Earth is flat, so...

/ Priceless

Priceless! Shame on you to have played so casually and misleadingly with numbers!! I can not believe that you meant to.

However, a group of 5, 10 or even 25 people is still so small that it completely lacks significance. Furthermore, there may be dozens, or hundreds, of explanations for each individual experience.

A group of 5, 10 or even 25 people where? On this forum, in the city of Chiang Mai, the province of Chiang Mai? I have posted public health statistics from time to time regarding the seasonal incidence of respiratory problems. Furthermore, continuing research is underway at CMU. Why do you suppose it is felt to be important in the public health community?

Dozens, or hundreds, of explanations. This is exceedingly glib for a guy who constantly complains about vague argument and overstatement.

Where did anyone claim that the WHO, PCD and "others" lie? Rather vague accusation!

I am, of course, concerned to find out that the earth is not flat. I shall fasten my seat belt!

OK, shame on me, I should have been clearer and more specific. I meant a group of 5, 10 or 25 people posting on ThaiVisa. The reason that I said "dozens, or hundreds of explanations" is simply that I am not a medical doctor, much less a qualified specialist in epidemiology. I consequently don't have the vaguest idea of the number or nature of possible explanations. To my defence, I can point out that science (i.e. the specialists) apparently don't yet know the causes behind e.g. asthma.

With the extreme seasonal variations in pollution level that we experience here in CM, it seems to me (medically illiterate that I am) quite obvious that we will experience extreme seasonal variations in the occurrence of respiratory problems.

I am however sorry that I must confess to believing a major reason behind CMU doing research on the effects of pollution here in Chiang Mai is that the university is located here If the university (reputed to be one of Thailand's finest) were located in Samut Prakarn, I suspect that is where they would do their research. This might also have been a good idea, since the yearly average pollution level in Samut Prakarn is >150% higher than in Chiang Mai (120.1 µg/m3 vs 47.5)!

In other words, Samut Prakarn has an average yearly pollution level that is way above the peak that we frequently experience in March (though not necessarily above the maximum daily value). This is also a major reason behind my not believing in some of the statements like "Chiang Mai has Thailand's highest incidence of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases and air pollution is the cause" (this is not a direct quote and I simply can't be bothered to search for the links). This statement simply can't be true, because there are several places in Thailand (Samut Prakarn, Sara Buri, central Bangkok....) with much higher levels of air pollution. If pollution were the cause, those places should also have much higher incidences of respiratory problems. Conversely, if Chiang Mai has Thailand's highest incidence of respiratory problems, then pollution cannot be the main, or even a major, cause of this.

Concerning the "lies", if you re-read posts #44 & #59 of this thread, you'll see what I was referring to. Incidentally, I was not referring to the WHO quoting the Pollution Control Department but to the WHO paper on "Air Quality Guidelines". The Pollution Control Department's published daily observations are what I base my own statistics on. All I can say about the credibility of those numbers (as concerns Chiang Mai) is that they tend to agree with the my own and other people's subjective observations, with known meteorological conditions (rain etc.), with observations from other places such as Lampang, and so on.

/ Priceless

[PeaceBlondie]

I just got an email from my sister in Florida, entitled "Stay away." She is a very positive person usually, yet her letter begins, "you made a good choice to live in another country." Should I tell her about the warm corpses on every corner, the moats brimming with rotten carcasses, like a scene out of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? She has been trying to sell a beautiful home in suburban Orlando for two years now, but not all is well in Disney World. Her bank, Washington Mutual, just went...bankrupt. I spemd 200 baht for my 3-month checkup with a professor of neurology. My new bike gets 76 miles per gallon. My daily pool fee is 30 cents US. My sister says do not even get her started about the idiot Pailin being stupid enough to think that being governor of Alaska is foreign relations experience.

I guess Chiang Mai is healthier than Houston, where I once brought back home crop-burning smoke from a thousand miles away, in Mexico.

[chiang mai]

I didn't think it needed explaining but perhaps it does. My earlier reference to statistics and lies is not to suggest that the WHO is lying but is aimed more generally at the reliability of statistics in any argument. As Benjamen Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers and the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Quote:Wiki.

[Priceless]

I didn't think it needed explaining but perhaps it does. My earlier reference to statistics and lies is not to suggest that the WHO is lying but is aimed more generally at the reliability of statistics in any argument. As Benjamen Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers and the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Quote:Wiki.

Is this also what you were referring to in your other post (#59) where you said: "Well of course the individual points of view are all accurate and true, I have no difficulty at all believing that. Statistics on the other hand, hmmm! And to be honest if we were talking about the collection of pollution data in any other country than Thailand I might take a different view. As things stand however I have immense difficulty believing that the Thai Pollution Control Department conscientiously provided 100% accurate unadulterated pollution data to the WHO and that all parties believe that said data is 100% accurate and reliable. Those kind of things don't work well in mature and stable countries let alone here. Given a choice between suspect "facts" and statistics and my own personal experiences, the latter will win every time."?

I can't help but reading that post as insinuating that the Pollution Control Department is lying, or at least "improving" the data.

/ Priceless

[Blinky Bill]

If you can't afford to live in a less polluted environment stop your f**king whinging!!

All the "good old boys (and girls)" are here, happy and making little noise about a wheeze or a sneeze and a bit of dirty air.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Blinky Bill

[sylviex]

This is also a major reason behind my not believing in some of the statements like "Chiang Mai has Thailand's highest incidence of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases and air pollution is the cause" (this is not a direct quote and I simply can't be bothered to search for the links). This statement simply can't be true, because there are several places in Thailand (Samut Prakarn, Sara Buri, central Bangkok....) with much higher levels of air pollution. If pollution were the cause, those places should also have much higher incidences of respiratory problems. Conversely, if Chiang Mai has Thailand's highest incidence of respiratory problems, then pollution cannot be the main, or even a major, cause of this.

I have read several articles which claim that Northern Thailand has an unusually high incidence of female lung cancer (apparently unrelated to cigarette smoking). Some suggest that fungal conditions which occur in the tropics may be associated. That is, we may not be talking of a single cause.

If you or your kids are prone to respiratory problems, Chiang Mai is very possibly not a good place for you to live. The dangerous levels of irritants in the air at some times of the year may, indeed, kill you/them. Asthma & bronchitis are a particular concern for children and the old, as is pneumonia. Whether the pollution causes or triggers your asthma will be a moot point when you or your family member/s are gasping for breath. Asthma does kill, and can be severely debilitating.

[highonthai]

I would be interested in knowing where the people that have all the air pollution problems here live? (in the middle of town I guess)

As for myself, and my friends that don't live in the city, this topic never has never even come up in conversation.

I grew up in Los angeles in the 60's where the air was thick and your eyes and lungs burned!

Have not experianced it here in the last five years I have lived here.

[chiang mai]

I didn't think it needed explaining but perhaps it does. My earlier reference to statistics and lies is not to suggest that the WHO is lying but is aimed more generally at the reliability of statistics in any argument. As Benjamen Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers and the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Quote:Wiki.

Is this also what you were referring to in your other post (#59) where you said: "Well of course the individual points of view are all accurate and true, I have no difficulty at all believing that. Statistics on the other hand, hmmm! And to be honest if we were talking about the collection of pollution data in any other country than Thailand I might take a different view. As things stand however I have immense difficulty believing that the Thai Pollution Control Department conscientiously provided 100% accurate unadulterated pollution data to the WHO and that all parties believe that said data is 100% accurate and reliable. Those kind of things don't work well in mature and stable countries let alone here. Given a choice between suspect "facts" and statistics and my own personal experiences, the latter will win every time."?

I can't help but reading that post as insinuating that the Pollution Control Department is lying, or at least "improving" the data.

/ Priceless

Given the Thai penchant for saving face I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data that could adversely affect tourist numbers. I therefore suggest it is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate.

[chiang mai]

If you can't afford to live in a less polluted environment stop your f**king whinging!!

All the "good old boys (and girls)" are here, happy and making little noise about a wheeze or a sneeze and a bit of dirty air.

Why thank you Blinky, that's a really useful contribution to the discussion.

[Blinky Bill]

If you can't afford to live in a less polluted environment stop your f**king whinging!!

All the "good old boys (and girls)" are here, happy and making little noise about a wheeze or a sneeze and a bit of dirty air.

Why thank you Blinky, that's a really useful contribution to the discussion.

What discussion?

This thread has deteriorated to yet another boring rant on the supposed polluted Chiang Mai.

[Ulysses G.]

I can see why some folks need to moan about it during the few days per year that it might actually be smoky, but whinging all year long about something that we can do very little about and that doesn't even last very long is not doing Chiang Mai any good at all.

[Ricardo]

Thanks God that the smoke doesn't come from piles of burning books, now that really would be a reason for moving away, just as the presence of several good 2nd-hand book-stores in Chiang Mai was a major reason to choose to come & live here !

Also all the excellent places to get pizza, burgers, hot-dogs, som-tam, full-English breakfasts, etcetera ad infinitum.

[chiang mai]

Lest we not forget, the OP asked the question about the state of pollution in CM currently thus for this thread to have, "deteriorated to yet another boring rant on the supposed polluted Chiang Mai", is not really that surprising! Some folks responded to the pollution question in a positive light and others did so less positively. It may be upsetting to some CM residents to see their views challenged by those with a different opinion but hey, that's what debate is all about and to term it as year round whinging, well, that doesn't quite fit. As for the definitive answer to the debate, there doesn't seem to be one at this stage and doubtless the two camps will continue to disagree in this forum until such time as there is a consensus. Not all together an unhealthy situation really.

[Priceless]

Given the Thai penchant for saving face I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data that could adversely affect tourist numbers. I therefore suggest it is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate.

OK, so now you at least admit that you "think" (imagine, suppose, assume, fantasize, daydream) that the Pollution Control Departments is falsifying or "improving" their published data. This is based on your perception of the "Thai penchant for saving face", with absolutely no other factual input.

I, on the other hand, have spent some considerable time correlating the PCD observations from the "Chiang Mai" station with those from the "Uparaj" station in downtown Chiang Mai (correlation coefficient ρ=0.911) and the "Lampang" station (correlation coefficient ρ=0.768), with weather data from the Thailand Meteorological Department ( http://www.tmd.go.th/en/province.php?id=2 ) and my own subjective impressions. I have found that these different data sources correlate very well (for those without interest or training in statistics, a correlation coefficient of ρ=1 means a perfect correlation). It is also worth noting that in March of 2007, when the air quality was truly horrible, the PCD numbers showed exactly that, with a maximum value of 303.9 on 14 March. Alll this of course does not prove that the PCD data is correct, but it at least shows that if they are just trying to "save face", they work very, very hard and skillfully at it. In actual fact, there is absolutely no evidence, circumstantial or hard, that the pollution numbers are tampered with.

For your own sake, I think you should sit down, take a deep breath, and start thinking seriously about the difference between impression and reality and that you may be confusing the two. Maybe you have the same problem in other areas of your life, possibly areas of greater importance to yourself than pollution levels in faraway Chiang Mai.

/ Priceless

[Priceless]

Lest we not forget, the OP asked the question about the state of pollution in CM currently thus for this thread to have, "deteriorated to yet another boring rant on the supposed polluted Chiang Mai", is not really that surprising! Some folks responded to the pollution question in a positive light and others did so less positively. It may be upsetting to some CM residents to see their views challenged by those with a different opinion but hey, that's what debate is all about and to term it as year round whinging, well, that doesn't quite fit. As for the definitive answer to the debate, there doesn't seem to be one at this stage and doubtless the two camps will continue to disagree in this forum until such time as there is a consensus. Not all together an unhealthy situation really.

Since the OP did not ask "about the state of pollution in CM" but rather wrote "I should be appreciative of any opinions from people who live in CM re the pollution issue" I think that your postings have been on topic, apart from the fact that you do not live in Chiang Mai.

On the other hand, I personally think that debate should be about differences of opinion, rather than one side accepting reality and the other side denying it, but that is not unique to this thread or forum. One might just consider the debate over "creationism" in the US for another example of what I think a debate ought not to be.

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

Given the Thai penchant for saving face I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data that could adversely affect tourist numbers. I therefore suggest it is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate.

OK, so now you at least admit that you "think" (imagine, suppose, assume, fantasize, daydream) that the Pollution Control Departments is falsifying or "improving" their published data. This is based on your perception of the "Thai penchant for saving face", with absolutely no other factual input.

I, on the other hand, have spent some considerable time correlating the PCD observations from the "Chiang Mai" station with those from the "Uparaj" station in downtown Chiang Mai (correlation coefficient ρ=0.911) and the "Lampang" station (correlation coefficient ρ=0.768), with weather data from the Thailand Meteorological Department ( http://www.tmd.go.th/en/province.php?id=2 ) and my own subjective impressions. I have found that these different data sources correlate very well (for those without interest or training in statistics, a correlation coefficient of ρ=1 means a perfect correlation). It is also worth noting that in March of 2007, when the air quality was truly horrible, the PCD numbers showed exactly that, with a maximum value of 303.9 on 14 March. Alll this of course does not prove that the PCD data is correct, but it at least shows that if they are just trying to "save face", they work very, very hard and skillfully at it. In actual fact, there is absolutely no evidence, circumstantial or hard, that the pollution numbers are tampered with.

For your own sake, I think you should sit down, take a deep breath, and start thinking seriously about the difference between impression and reality and that you may be confusing the two. Maybe you have the same problem in other areas of your life, possibly areas of greater importance to yourself than pollution levels in faraway Chiang Mai.

/ Priceless

You suggested that the numbers had been tampered with, I suggested that there, "is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate". And we'll do without the personal insults also - if you do not want to or cannot debate let's leave it here.

[chiang mai]

Lest we not forget, the OP asked the question about the state of pollution in CM currently thus for this thread to have, "deteriorated to yet another boring rant on the supposed polluted Chiang Mai", is not really that surprising! Some folks responded to the pollution question in a positive light and others did so less positively. It may be upsetting to some CM residents to see their views challenged by those with a different opinion but hey, that's what debate is all about and to term it as year round whinging, well, that doesn't quite fit. As for the definitive answer to the debate, there doesn't seem to be one at this stage and doubtless the two camps will continue to disagree in this forum until such time as there is a consensus. Not all together an unhealthy situation really.

Since the OP did not ask "about the state of pollution in CM" but rather wrote "I should be appreciative of any opinions from people who live in CM re the pollution issue" I think that your postings have been on topic, apart from the fact that you do not live in Chiang Mai.

On the other hand, I personally think that debate should be about differences of opinion, rather than one side accepting reality and the other side denying it, but that is not unique to this thread or forum. One might just consider the debate over "creationism" in the US for another example of what I think a debate ought not to be.

/ Priceless

Priceless you seem to be having a difficult time debating this subject and accepting that someone else might have a different point of view to your own and that's very sad. I'm sure that the rest of TV viewers that are following this thread are by this time getting fed up with the Priceless/CM/UG exchange and since there is no new direction in the debate nor useful views emerging, I suggest we agree to disagree and we'll no doubt revisit this loop again in a few months time - you can go play with your numbers and I'll go for a walk on the beach and get some fresh air.

[Priceless]

Given the Thai penchant for saving face I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data that could adversely affect tourist numbers. I therefore suggest it is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate.

You suggested that the numbers had been tampered with, I suggested that there, "is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate". And we'll do without the personal insults also - if you do not want to or cannot debate let's leave it here.

Well, now I think you are playing with words. You said "I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data[...]". If that is not suggesting that the data have been tampered with, then your and my understanding of English are very different.

Apart from that, I fully agree that this "discussion" has run its course. You have your opinion, I have my facts, let's leave it at that.

/ Priceless

[Rasseru]

. . . I fully agree that this "discussion" has run its course. You have your opinion, I have my facts, let's leave it at that.

/ Priceless

As there is now apparently a consensus that the discussion on this thread has run its course, I'm pretty sure won't nobody be reading this post-script post of mine, but I couldn't help but be reminded of what to me is, now in two senses, a priceless expression my mother sometimes uses: 'My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!'

[Ulysses G.]

Given the Thai penchant for saving face I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data that could adversely affect tourist numbers. I therefore suggest it is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate.

You suggested that the numbers had been tampered with, I suggested that there, "is highly probable that the numbers are not entirely accurate".

Well, now I think you are playing with words. You said "I think it hugely unlikely they would have allowed incriminating data[...]". If that is not suggesting that the data have been tampered with, then your and my understanding of English are very different.

I couldn't help but be reminded of what to me is, now in two senses, a priceless expression my mother sometimes uses: 'My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!'

Indeed!

Edited September 27, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[chiang mai]

UG, you're a class act and your selective editing is even classier - hats off to a true showman.

[Ulysses G.]

I could not resist!

[Rasseru]

UG, . . . your twisted lies are even classier - hats off to a true showman.

Yeah! He couldn't resist!

[ericjt]

Check around the Pong Yang area. To get there go north to Mae Rim and then turn left on Sameung Road. It's up in the mountains, cooler, and the air pollution at least seems a little better. You'll be almost 45 minutes by car from downtown CM, but if you want the climate to be more comfortable, it's a tradeoff. Good luck.

[Mapguy]

Check out this survey:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/011008_News/01Oct2008_news07.php