Air Quality Getting Worse

[Ulysses G.]

This bull malarkey is certainly starting early this year!

[Pantip]

ive got a couple of sensors. my nose and my mouth. the AIR IS HORRENDOUS EVERYONE IS SICK> NO ONE CAN BREATHE>BUT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK THE AIR IS OK. IT IS NOT.

THE AIR AT THE MOMENT IS AWFUL BECAUSE YOU CANT BREATHE.

DO YOU FOR ONE MINUTE THINK THAT JUST MAYBE HERE IN THAILAND THAT ANY SORT OF POLLUTION MEASURING FACILITY MIGHT HAVE ITS FIGURES GERRyMANDERED, MANIPULATED, FIXED.

or should we just look at doi suthep and say its haze.

I take no pleasure in this air. My kids are sick, everyone nearly without exception i meet have a problem with breathing.

THE AIR IS terrible

Here we go again. I think 'precinct' would have trouble breathing anywhere in the world, he must have damaged lungs.

I think the air here is perfect and I know of no-one not being able to breath because of it.

[Ulysses G.]

Here we go again. I think 'precinct' would have trouble breathing anywhere in the world, he must have damaged lungs.

I think the air here is perfect and I know of no-one not being able to breath because of it.

Exactly - at least at the moment anyway.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[Jamesjimmy]

ive got a couple of sensors. my nose and my mouth. the AIR IS HORRENDOUS EVERYONE IS SICK> NO ONE CAN BREATHE>BUT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK THE AIR IS OK. IT IS NOT.

THE AIR AT THE MOMENT IS AWFUL BECAUSE YOU CANT BREATHE.

DO YOU FOR ONE MINUTE THINK THAT JUST MAYBE HERE IN THAILAND THAT ANY SORT OF POLLUTION MEASURING FACILITY MIGHT HAVE ITS FIGURES GERRyMANDERED, MANIPULATED, FIXED.

or should we just look at doi suthep and say its haze.

I take no pleasure in this air. My kids are sick, everyone nearly without exception i meet have a problem with breathing.

THE AIR IS terrible

I agree with you,,,,, the quality of air at the moment is HORRENDOUS and the FIGURES ARE MANIPULATED AND FIXED....

[Jamesjimmy]

The average (2000-2008) for December has been 49.9, i.e. the levels of 'recent days' were between 17% and 44% below the December average.

/ Priceless

I was right. I was right!

,,,,,, Perhaps you spend most IF NOT ALL your time in the city center? If so,,,, you should take a drive( with the windows open) around the entire city,,, .. THEN COME BACK HERE AND SAY,,,,, "I WAS WRONG" "I WAS WRONG",,,,,,

[Ulysses G.]

,,,,,, Perhaps you spend most IF NOT ALL your time in the city center? If so,,,, you should take a drive( with the windows open) around the entire city,,, .. THEN COME BACK HERE AND SAY,,,,, "I WAS WRONG" "I WAS WRONG",,,,,,

That might be true, but it seems like most Chiang Mai posters agree with me - at the moment - and I know that most of them don't live downtown.

[Drew Aitch]

The AIR IS HORRENDOUS EVERYONE IS SICK> NO ONE CAN BREATHE>BUT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK THE AIR IS OK. IT IS NOT.

THE AIR AT THE MOMENT IS AWFUL BECAUSE YOU CANT BREATHE.

or should we just look at doi suthep and say its haze.

I walk up the Doi Suthep a number of times a week (along the road), and the only issues I have with breathing is when a truck, old songthaew, or struggling coach passes me by spewing out black smoke from its poorly maintained engine.

Walking up a hill obviously has you breathing harder, deeper, than if you’re just sitting around outside a coffee shop, and I have to say that when there’s no ‘old’ traffic around, inhaling and exhaling couldn’t be easier at the moment, so I’m guessing my ease of breathing while exerting is a reasonable yard stick to measure the local air quality?

I’m certainly no expert, and know nothing at all about pollutants, safe levels, or even what the long term effects of exposure to such effluence can be, but as someone who’s out and about almost daily, totally exposed to it all, both up in the hills and down in the valley, I do know how I breathe, and right now, and out of the traffic, I would say living in Chiang Mai is a breath of fresh air.

Now moving around town on bicycle or motorbike is a different kettle of fish, but then being exposed in the middle of traffic anywhere in the world is not going to do your lungs any favours, which is why it’s not uncommon to see cyclists wearing face masks in western cities.

Aitch

[sbk]

Lets drop the posting in all caps, the aggressive tone and the flaming, thanks.

It is possible to have a debate in a rational and civilized manner.

[chiang mai]

I agree in respect of PM<10 and PM<2.5, my intention was not to suggest otherwise but to try and identify which other components of airborne pollution were not being measured and Priceless indicates that many if not most candidates are already being profiled and reported by the PCD.

I also agree that a key missing component of the pollution picture is public health data and I wonder if this can be obtained from some source?

In the absence of the public health data we seem to have a divide. On the one hand we have a large number of reports from individuals claiming that they suffer from what appears to be pollution related maladies ranging from stinging and watery eyes through to chest infections and bronchitis. On the other hand the results from PCD and indeed from Priceless's work indicate that by comparison there is nothing untoward in the Chiang Mai air that would likely cause such symptoms. An earlier statement that the airborne pollution problem in Phuket is worse than in CM seems to support the views of Priceless and the PCD that CM has relatively clean air.

So what is the answer, are TV readers all mistaken or hypochondriacs, are there problems with the way air quality data is captured and/or reported or is there something fundamental here that is being overlooked? I suspect the public medical records may hold a key although from my past discussions with Doctors at Chiang Mai Ram on this subject I doubt they will hold any surprises.

Firstly, yes there is a problem with the air quality capture and reporting, in that only PM<10 and not the more harmful PM<2.5 is measured. It should however be noted that the European Union only recently have included it in their new air quality directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm). The directive's PM<2.5 value is 25 µg/m3 (one year average), but this will enter into force as a "target value" on 1 January 2010 and not as a "limit value" until 1 January 2015. The measurement, and setting of standards for, this pollutant is consequently quite a recent thing even in the industrialized world (the US Environmental Protection Agency is of course lagging, as usual).

I do think, though, that there is a more urgent (and more difficult) problem that needs to be solved. This concerns the possible health effects of air pollution on the population of Chiang Mai. I have not seen any credible data in this field, and very much doubt that there is any. A proper epidemiological study of this kind would, I believe, entail among other things regular and recurring health controls of a large random sample of the total population of Chiang Mai. These results would then have to be analysed to eliminate all other possible causes for any unually high occurrences of respiratory disease, causes like e.g. smoking, working conditions, previous exposure to air pollution (many people have moved to Chiang Mai in latter years), genetic factors and so on. Altogether this would constitute a very major interdisciplinary research project. I am somewhat doubtful whether a project of this kind would be within the capabilities of the Thai scientific community, but I would be very glad if it is and actually will be carried out.

/ Priceless

Since PM<2.5 is apparently not yet tracked and reported anywhere in Thailand I wonder if discussion about it is really helpful in determining if there is a problem with air quality in CM currently. Agreed it is a nice to have that would be yet another test to confirm the quality of the air, just as detailed health profiling of the population would allow us an in depth understanding of the related health issues. But in the same way that current air quality tests provide an indication of the air quality in CM, individual and subjective views of the population plus the subjective views of the medical community combine to provide a strong indicator that is at odds with the measurement results. I for one find it difficult to reconcile the two camps and like many others I suspect, tend to lean towards the camp I know I can trust and that is my own senses and perception. That is not to say that my opinion cannot be swayed but to do that convincingly someone will need to account for why so many individuals suffer medical complaints at this time of year that appear to result from airborne pollution and invariably are confirmed as such by medical staff.

[Mapguy]

I agree in respect of PM<10 and PM<2.5, my intention was not to suggest otherwise but to try and identify which other components of airborne pollution were not being measured and Priceless indicates that many if not most candidates are already being profiled and reported by the PCD.

I also agree that a key missing component of the pollution picture is public health data and I wonder if this can be obtained from some source?

In the absence of the public health data we seem to have a divide. On the one hand we have a large number of reports from individuals claiming that they suffer from what appears to be pollution related maladies ranging from stinging and watery eyes through to chest infections and bronchitis. On the other hand the results from PCD and indeed from Priceless's work indicate that by comparison there is nothing untoward in the Chiang Mai air that would likely cause such symptoms. An earlier statement that the airborne pollution problem in Phuket is worse than in CM seems to support the views of Priceless and the PCD that CM has relatively clean air.

So what is the answer, are TV readers all mistaken or hypochondriacs, are there problems with the way air quality data is captured and/or reported or is there something fundamental here that is being overlooked? I suspect the public medical records may hold a key although from my past discussions with Doctors at Chiang Mai Ram on this subject I doubt they will hold any surprises.

Firstly, yes there is a problem with the air quality capture and reporting, in that only PM<10 and not the more harmful PM<2.5 is measured. It should however be noted that the European Union only recently have included it in their new air quality directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm). The directive's PM<2.5 value is 25 µg/m3 (one year average), but this will enter into force as a "target value" on 1 January 2010 and not as a "limit value" until 1 January 2015. The measurement, and setting of standards for, this pollutant is consequently quite a recent thing even in the industrialized world (the US Environmental Protection Agency is of course lagging, as usual).

I do think, though, that there is a more urgent (and more difficult) problem that needs to be solved. This concerns the possible health effects of air pollution on the population of Chiang Mai. I have not seen any credible data in this field, and very much doubt that there is any. A proper epidemiological study of this kind would, I believe, entail among other things regular and recurring health controls of a large random sample of the total population of Chiang Mai. These results would then have to be analysed to eliminate all other possible causes for any unually high occurrences of respiratory disease, causes like e.g. smoking, working conditions, previous exposure to air pollution (many people have moved to Chiang Mai in latter years), genetic factors and so on. Altogether this would constitute a very major interdisciplinary research project. I am somewhat doubtful whether a project of this kind would be within the capabilities of the Thai scientific community, but I would be very glad if it is and actually will be carried out.

/ Priceless

Since PM<2.5 is apparently not yet tracked and reported anywhere in Thailand I wonder if discussion about it is really helpful in determining if there is a problem with air quality in CM currently. Agreed it is a nice to have that would be yet another test to confirm the quality of the air, just as detailed health profiling of the population would allow us an in depth understanding of the related health issues. But in the same way that current air quality tests provide an indication of the air quality in CM, individual and subjective views of the population plus the subjective views of the medical community combine to provide a strong indicator that is at odds with the measurement results. I for one find it difficult to reconcile the two camps and like many others I suspect, tend to lean towards the camp I know I can trust and that is my own senses and perception. That is not to say that my opinion cannot be swayed but to do that convincingly someone will need to account for why so many individuals suffer medical complaints at this time of year that appear to result from airborne pollution and invariably are confirmed as such by medical staff.

After looking at a number of recent quotes, there are a number of things to say...

First, it is valid to say that the PM<10 index is the relevant measurement at present of "smoke" or "haze" in Chiang Mai, not to discard the daily/hourly impact of humidity depending on where and when during the day you check. You go with the best available data. At the same time, one should absolutely not overweight the "facts" provided by only two regular monitoring stations within the broad municipal area. And I am not talking about some imagined conspiracy from Green Peace scrubbing the data to make them look better; that is, to make it appear that air is less polluted than it is. Or maybe the equipment is not properly calibrated. If anything, manipulation of the numbers would perhaps most likely be toward making the place seem pristine. I look at the readings very often, usually comparing them with one another and sometimes historically, etc. I also go out, walk around and breathe the air, clean out my AC filters, check out how clean the walls around my place are, and so on.

Second, as I have often written on TV, different people have different personal reactions to air pollution. I had a 95-year-old grandmother who smoked a pack a day, and there are people who can't stand to be within 100M of a cigarette. So, okay, what about public health statistics? Well, Priceless gave an excellent textbook explanation of what is needed in a definitive research study. The problem is that he talks the same kind of talk as the lawyers for the tobacco industry talked successively for years and years that "there is no definitive scientific research....blah, blah, blah...that smoking is harmful to your health. Priceless absolutely does not do this out of malice or because he is paid. I do not mean that at all. But I do think that his idiosyncratic approach isn't always helpful because it is sometimes misunderstood or misinterpreted. Often, it seems, some of the most important things he has to say seem to be totally ignored. In the meantime, for better or worse locally, two --- occasionally three --- monitoring stations publicly reported sure ain't much in the way of facts, folks!

So, where are the public health data? Well, there is public health research. Most of it, unfortunately, is apparently in Thai, as I have been told. There isn't a lot to pick up on quickly or easily, and the amount of it is not overwhelming. I have provided the easiest references that I know to it in English (on this and oher similar threads) that are immediately relevant Anyone bothered to check?

Thirdly, some opinions and casual references are often misinterpreted. For example, take UG, who doesn't wish bad health for any other creature, never mind cats, of course!. He appears upset, I believe, because he fears that the specific (and his own personal) concern about seasonal (late February - early April) pollution is interpreted as concern about Chiang Mai year round. UG, for those who don't know him, runs a very fine, more than somewhat tourist-dependent used book business in town. Air pollution (and talk about it) is screwing with his business plan! And he doesn't seem to be bothered much by air pollution personally. He apparently has a nice set of iron lungs! (Sorry, couldn't help the pun for those old enough to recall what an "iron lung" was!)

Enough for now...

Cheers!

[KevinHunt]

ive got a couple of sensors. my nose and my mouth. the AIR IS HORRENDOUS EVERYONE IS SICK> NO ONE CAN BREATHE>BUT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK THE AIR IS OK. IT IS NOT.

THE AIR AT THE MOMENT IS AWFUL BECAUSE YOU CANT BREATHE.

DO YOU FOR ONE MINUTE THINK THAT JUST MAYBE HERE IN THAILAND THAT ANY SORT OF POLLUTION MEASURING FACILITY MIGHT HAVE ITS FIGURES GERRyMANDERED, MANIPULATED, FIXED.

or should we just look at doi suthep and say its haze.

I take no pleasure in this air. My kids are sick, everyone nearly without exception i meet have a problem with breathing.

THE AIR IS terrible

***flame removed**

If ALL CAPS is considered to be shouting, what does ALL CAPS and extra large font indicate, I wonder? A fit?

It isn't easy to breathe when you get all un-necessary, whatever the air quality.

so, take a nice glass of water ( )  and ... Calm down, calm down.

About this 'YOU CAN'T BREATHE', business.... not only can I breathe, I gather that you can too.

Your replying to this only proves my point.

Edited December 14, 2008 by PeaceBlondie
SIZE REDUCED. Bold removed. PB

[PeaceBlondie]

Sure, there is something called morning mist which can indeed be, well, just water vapor. But what does that mean? To do a test, just steam up your bathroom, then blow several large farts. Does the air clear? Or might you gasp and turn on the fan to clear the air?

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

[KevinHunt]

Sure, there is something called morning mist which can indeed be, well, just water vapor. But what does that mean? To do a test, just steam up your bathroom, then blow several large farts. Does the air clear? Or might you gasp and turn on the fan to clear the air?

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

I would love to test this theory but unfortunately I'm hampered by the fact that I can't fart at will. I know, I just tried.

Presumably, Mapguy can!!

Can anybody verify that, or is it just an idle boast?

[Rasseru]

I'm hampered by the fact that I can't fart at will.

You are unable, then, and few will I think be surprised by this, to learn from the air of your ways.

[SomNamNah]

couldnt get the graphs to work online so i did it myself for the biggest dataset. missing data rate is increasing.

(bored while i wait for my downloads) March? at a glance looks like the nasty one - but i know nothing...

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/G.../createaqi2.cfm

avg 49.1

looks like the PM-10 : particulate matter (dust) <10 microns (raw data) is trending DOWN!

could do the other data sets but they are way out of date... i wonder why?......

and here is Phuket..

avg 47.1

just found Uparaj Collage - has up to date data... oh well.. next time..

Edited December 14, 2008 by SomNamNah

[SomNamNah]

Uparaj College data. im very bored now. Off for beer.

[chiang mai]

couldnt get the graphs to work online so i did it myself for the biggest dataset. missing data rate is increasing.

(bored while i wait for my downloads) March? at a glance looks like the nasty one - but i know nothing...

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/G.../createaqi2.cfm

avg 49.1

looks like the PM-10 : particulate matter (dust) <10 microns (raw data) is trending DOWN!

could do the other data sets but they are way out of date... i wonder why?......

and here is Phuket..

avg 47.1

just found Uparaj Collage - has up to date data... oh well.. next time..

That's very interesting! Priceless, do you have a view on this?

[SomNamNah]

taken out null data, and stuck in trendline and moving average on log scale.

very very bored now. calling it quits! good luck weather boffins!

[Priceless]

That's very interesting! Priceless, do you have a view on this?

I have found that pre-2000 data look rather dodgy, so I decided to start my data series from 1 January 2000. Because people (at least 'chiang mai') obviously haven't read (or understood) my previous posts, I'll repost an earlier graph:

Since SomNamNah mentioned Uparaj (Yupparaj) College, I'll include the same type graph for that measuring station:

For those with an interest in doom and gloom, here's the corresponding graph for the Din Daeng area of Bangkok. This is a roadside measuring station, just like Uparaj College:

The reason for the graphs having different starting points is that there are a lot of missing data. E.g. for the 'Chiang Mai' measuring station, all of the first five months of 2003 are missing, except for a few days at the end of May. For a data series with very strong seasonal variations, this would have extremely adverse effects on a 12-month moving average.

/ Priceless

Edited December 14, 2008 by Priceless

[lannarebirth]

That's very interesting! Priceless, do you have a view on this?

I have found that pre-2000 data look rather dodgy, so I decided to start my data series from 1 January 2000. Because people (at least 'chiang mai') obviously haven't read (or understood) my previous posts, I'll repost an earlier graph:

Since SomNamNah mentioned Uparaj (Yupparaj) College, I'll include the same type graph for that measuring station:

For those with an interest in doom and gloom, here's the corresponding graph for the Din Daeng area of Bangkok. This is a roadside measuring station, just like Uparaj College:

The reason for the graphs having different starting points is that there are a lot of missing data. E.g. for the 'Chiang Mai' measuring station, all of the first five months of 2003 are missing, except for a few days at the end of May. For a data series with very strong seasonal variations, this would have extremely adverse effects on a 12-month moving average.

/ Priceless

My own observations agree with the graph concerning the general downward trend in pollution around Chiang Mai. there are a lot less vacant lots than just a few years agao, and much less burning. I am optimistic the trend will continue outside the Chiang Mai city central areas. My observations within the city however, indicate (my own ongoing perceptions) that vehicle pollutants have increased considerably. I do not know the dispersal characteristics of vehicle emission pollutants, but I have my doubts if the single monitoring station in the center of the inner city, located on a non main road is accurately measuring vehicle emissions. My recollection is that each day is recorded early in the day after a night of no traffic.

[Priceless]

My own observations agree with the graph concerning the general downward trend in pollution around Chiang Mai. there are a lot less vacant lots than just a few years agao, and much less burning. I am optimistic the trend will continue outside the Chiang Mai city central areas. My observations within the city however, indicate (my own ongoing perceptions) that vehicle pollutants have increased considerably. I do not know the dispersal characteristics of vehicle emission pollutants, but I have my doubts if the single monitoring station in the center of the inner city, located on a non main road is accurately measuring vehicle emissions. My recollection is that each day is recorded early in the day after a night of no traffic.

No, the data for each day is the daily average from 9 AM one day to 9 AM the following. Otherwise I agree, it would be very nice to have more detailed data, i.e. several more measuring stations spread over the city area. However, since even Bangkok has only seven stations (I think that I have previously mistakenly posted six), i.e. approximately one per million inhabitants, we should probably consider ourselves lucky having two stations in a city of less than ½ million people. (The third, mobile, station cannot be used for statistical analysis since observations are not comparable over time.)

/ Priceless

[lannarebirth]

My own observations agree with the graph concerning the general downward trend in pollution around Chiang Mai. there are a lot less vacant lots than just a few years agao, and much less burning. I am optimistic the trend will continue outside the Chiang Mai city central areas. My observations within the city however, indicate (my own ongoing perceptions) that vehicle pollutants have increased considerably. I do not know the dispersal characteristics of vehicle emission pollutants, but I have my doubts if the single monitoring station in the center of the inner city, located on a non main road is accurately measuring vehicle emissions. My recollection is that each day is recorded early in the day after a night of no traffic.

No, the data for each day is the daily average from 9 AM one day to 9 AM the following. Otherwise I agree, it would be very nice to have more detailed data, i.e. several more measuring stations spread over the city area. However, since even Bangkok has only seven stations (I think that I have previously mistakenly posted six), i.e. approximately one per million inhabitants, we should probably consider ourselves lucky having two stations in a city of less than ½ million people. (The third, mobile, station cannot be used for statistical analysis since observations are not comparable over time.)

/ Priceless

OK, thanks for the clarification Priceless. You know it might be illuminating if they ever decided to post the readings on an hourly basis. I'm sure they use some type of recording device. Hourly readings might give some insight into specific contributors to the pollution. My guess is, mostly vehicles.

[Priceless]

[...]

Second, as I have often written on TV, different people have different personal reactions to air pollution. I had a 95-year-old grandmother who smoked a pack a day, and there are people who can't stand to be within 100M of a cigarette. So, okay, what about public health statistics? Well, Priceless gave an excellent textbook explanation of what is needed in a definitive research study. The problem is that he talks the same kind of talk as the lawyers for the tobacco industry talked successively for years and years that "there is no definitive scientific research....blah, blah, blah...that smoking is harmful to your health. Priceless absolutely does not do this out of malice or because he is paid. I do not mean that at all. But I do think that his idiosyncratic approach isn't always helpful because it is sometimes misunderstood or misinterpreted. Often, it seems, some of the most important things he has to say seem to be totally ignored. In the meantime, for better or worse locally, two --- occasionally three --- monitoring stations publicly reported sure ain't much in the way of facts, folks!

[...]

Some light reading on the subject of Health Impact Assessment, in this case concerning Bangkok (quoted from WHO Air Quality Guidelines, Global Update 2005, pp 164-165 http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf):

"A simple example of the methodology

To demonstrate the methodology for estimating the effects of outdoor air pollution,

we use data from Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok, a warm and humid city,

is situated on a relatively flat plain and has a population of approximately six

million (with up to ten million in the metropolitan area). Because of the relatively

low proportion of roads to surface area, the city has difficulty supporting

the large number of cars (approximately four million) and motorcycles used in

the city, many of which have little or no pollution control. The ubiquitous traffic

jams contribute a large share of the PM10 coming from incomplete combustion

of fossil fuels used by the transportation sector. In this example, we calculate the

expected number of premature deaths due to short-term exposure to PM10. Additional

details regarding the methodology can be found in Ostro (18).

To calculate the expected number of deaths due to air pollution (E), we take

the product of:

E = beta × B × P × C

where:

E = expected number of premature deaths due to short-term exposure

beta = percentage change in mortality per 10-μg/m3 change in PM10

B = incidence of the given health effect (deaths per 1000 people)

P = relevant exposed population for the health effect

C = change in PM10 concentration (μg/m3 × 0.1).

Our estimates for the annual average PM10 were derived from continuous measurements

taken between 1996 and 2001 from seven monitors throughout the

metropolitan area. The annual average for PM10 for the six years of data was

70.28 μg/m3. As a reference concentration, we use an assumed background concentration

of 10 μg/m3 PM10. We also examined a reference concentration equal

to the new air quality guideline level of 20 μg/m3 PM10 (see Chapter 10). Mortality

data from the Thai Ministry of Health for 1998−2001 were used to determine

the existing baseline mortality rate of 0.00558. We assumed a total population of

six million, based on data from the Ministry. As discussed above, a reasonable

range for beta is approximately 0.6%, with a range of 0.4–1.6%. Thus, we expect

a daily increase in mortality of 0.6% for each 10-μg/m3 change in PM10. As an

alternative, we could use the beta derived from a mortality study in Bangkok of

1.7% (95% CI = 1.1–2.3) (43) or some combination of the Bangkok and global

estimates. Thus, we obtain:

E = (0.006) (0.00558) (6 000 000) (70.28–10)(0.1) = 1211.

Therefore, the impact of the current ambient level of PM10 (70.28 μg/m3), relative

to a background concentration of 10 μg/m3, is approximately 1200 premature

deaths per year with a 95% CI of 807–3229. If we assume a reference concentration

of 20 μg/m3 PM10, the mean estimate becomes 1010 premature deaths.

The estimation presented above does not consider the impact of long-term

exposure or any morbidity impacts, and therefore presents only a part of the total

impact of pollution on health in Bangkok. Assuming that the mortality for

those aged >30 years increases by a rate of about 0.6% per μg/m3 of long-term

PM2.5 concentration (39) and assuming that PM2.5 = 0.6 PM10 in Bangkok, the

current PM levels in Bangkok (0.6 × 70 μg/m3 = 42 μg/m3 PM2.5) are associated

with increase of mortality risk when compared with the air quality guideline level

(10 μg/m3 PM2.5) by a factor of:

(42–10) × 0.6% = 19.2%.

For the population of Bangkok (approximately three million adults), the annual

number of adult deaths is 49 560. Thus the annual number of deaths attributable

to long-term exposure to PM2.5 is 49 560 × 0.192, or 9416. Even compared to the

interim target 2 (IT2) of the PM air quality guidelines (25 μg/m3 PM2.5), the mortality

is increased by:

(42–25) × 0.6% = 10.2%.

This means that long-term PM2.5 in excess of IT2 can be linked to an increase of

5055 in the annual number of deaths in Bangkok. Achieving IT2 would, in the

long term, halve the mortality toll caused by PM exceeding the guideline level.

These estimates assume that the results of Pope et al. (39) can be linearly extrapolated

to the higher exposures in Bangkok. However, at some pollution level, the

CR function may become less than linear. A discussion of the application of nonlinear

functions can be found in Ostro (18)."

Have fun reading

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

taken out null data, and stuck in trendline and moving average on log scale.

very very bored now. calling it quits! good luck weather boffins!

Well, I hope you don't get too bored, come back and plot the Uparaj data as well, as well as continuing in the discussion.

In any case, the graphs do reveal the seasonal nature of PM<10 pollution. You get a decent sense of the evolving scene. What is most notable, perhaps, is the striking similarity year to year with the exceptions of some few very, very nasty seasons in some years. If matters are getting better, they don't seem to be getting much better. Indeed, the most serious spikes were in 2007, just nasty pollution season before last.

As Priceless has pointed out, there are indeed problems having to do with data collection; very significantly, there are only two regular reporting stations in the broad metro area. Nonetheless, without pishing about, the air quality situation is fundamentally clear --- or should I say "hazy" --- at least for a sizable part of the year, and you don't need monitoring stations to notice that.

When does haze become serious in terms of public health? Well, that's an open and, in very large degree, subjective question --- even with the best science. There is research on the impact of pollution on public health in Chiang Mai, but, as I have pointed out earlier (giving reference generally to fairly easily obtainable information in English), it is limited. Somewhat analogous to the problem of only having only a couple of monitoring stations to gather "objective" data on the air that represents the whole area.

That leads me to suggest that the anecdotal experience that crops up over and over again in the various threads does indeed have value. I happen to be one of those people whose health isn't seriously bothered when the air gets nasty around Chiang Mai, but I know people who are bothered in various degrees, from mild discomfort to serious complications that require medical attention. In my own family, it amounts to seasonal increases in respiratory complaints, but no one is ever prostrate gasping for air.

Sometimes on these various threads it has been suggested that if you can't put up with the pollution in Chiang Mai, move elsewhere. That attitude troubles me. Perhaps that is fine for retired and relatively wealthy people, but it certainly is not at all sympathetic to those who can not move elsewhere as readily as they, summering here and wintering there!

Personal standards may indeed be more useful than standards and limits determined to measure the severity of air (or any sort of) pollution that are currently used. There are very serious compromises made in establishing standards that reflect the economic realities of dealing with pollution and the correlative political stakes involved. Sometimes, very unfortunately (depending upon your economic interests and politics), things can be pretty outrageous. Consider George W. Bush and his administration's policies regarding the environment over the past eight years.

Not often mentioned is the effect of pollution on enjoying the scenic beauty of Chiang Mai. After all, that's supposed to be a big (and very saleable) part of the charm of Chiang Mai. Even in the last couple of weeks (since the rain that "washes" the air has let up), it is worse. Simple observation toward or from Doi Suthep, or from a high elevation to the east of town looking west, shows that. If you compare such observations to the available "facts," that is the reported numbers on PM<10, the haze becomes really noticeable when the PM<10 count gets into the 30s. Now, understand, that that is considerably lower than the standardized danger level for public health established by Thailand (that is shared by many countries, so I am not Thai-bashing). Nonetheless, it is "funky" for tourism. Sorry, I have neither standards nor measuring devices for "funkiness," but I think you get my gist. The one noteable exception of this is if you are a bar fly or here as a sex tourist, but I gather elsewhere on TV that the options available aren't what they used to be.

Finally --- still with me! Sorry, I see some hands raised. Need to pee? Go ahead; we'll wait! --- a word about conspiracies! Recently, I read a post (by UG, I think, but I might be wrong; if so, apologies) speculating that there is some sort of ulterior motive of those who post concerns about pollution; that is that there are farang settled here that don't want any more farang to come so the former falsely bad mouth the place. I think that's a big stretch, but points for being creative! Much earlier on --- on other threads similar to this one --- it has been speculated often that people with economic interests in tourism deny a pollution problem and want to suppress any talk of it. I think it is fair to say that this is a valid concern --- and not just about people who happen to post here. Let's just say that there is some very, very big money that has been invested in Chiang Mai in recent years and that those people better have very, very deep pockets because the return on the investment is going to be slow in coming. Pollution is only part of the problem, of course; and that concern has been overshadowed by other more, shall we say, newsworthy events in Bangkok, principally. But I do believe that UG and others who are in businesses that rely on a healthy tourist trade are justifiably concerned about a "spillover" effect; that is, that given the seasonal (late February - early April) pollution problems, the bashers not only often go overboard and often don't (know about let alone) differentiate between different seasons here. At the same time, I worry increasingly about "shoulder" seasons. Right now, for example, air pollution is increasing --- pretty much as it does each year at this time. Should I worry about my health? No --- when I drive, I drive with the air con on with internal circulation of air (regardless of what Kevin Hunt speculates about my talents for farting) so I minimize the smoking exhausts in traffic --- but I do feel very, very sad that Doi Suthep, quite visible from my house, is now normally masked by haze throughout the day.

Before I leave you sobbing in your beer, have faith! You can do something! Sensible heads aren't ignoring the problem. There are personal steps people can take that have been provided on previous threads to this one on the same topic, especially in March-April 2007. Take the time to identify and read them. Summing them up, you can work with your neighbors and your moo baan. There are groups and organizations to join. Be a helpfully squeaky wheel!

Cheers!

[Priceless]

[...]

Sometimes on these various threads it has been suggested that if you can't put up with the pollution in Chiang Mai, move elsewhere. That attitude troubles me. Perhaps that is fine for retired and relatively wealthy people, but it certainly is not at all sympathetic to those who can not move elsewhere as readily as they, summering here and wintering there!

[...]

To "completely" avoid the risk of negative effects from Particulate Matter pollution, you have to reside in an area with average yearly PM<10 at less than 20 µg/m3 (according to the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, Global Update 2005, p278, http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf). Unfortunately, according to a World Bank paper (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/table3_13.pdf) there is no major city outside temperate climate zones that achieves values that low.

Consequently, the advice to move elsewhere may not be that misdirected or inconsiderate. Of course, one can (and should) do whatever one can to help improve the air quality here in Chiang Mai, but don't hold your breath while waiting for it to come down to the WHO Air Quality Guideline. As can be seen in my Chiang Mai graph posted earlier today, it has decreased (been brought down?) from just over 61 in mid-2004 to just under 39 by the end of this year (defined as 12-month moving averages). Halving this value, to get down below 20, will however take a long time and a lot of resources, if it is at all possible.

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

As Priceless writes in post #85 above, "Have fun reading!" But it is worth reading. That's right! I hope you'll go back and read it (Post #85) again! This kind of considered study gets about as good as you can get for its type. If you do slog through it, pause and consider carefully the contributing variables that are still missing and practically impossible to consider since their impact is either unavailable, unmeasurable, or just to dam_n complicated. I am not criticising the study. I am just pointing out the difficulties in this kind of research. Sometimes, anecdotal experience and common sense are as valuable --- sometimes more valuable.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Mapguy

[Priceless]

As Priceless writes in post #85 above, "Have fun reading!" But it is worth reading. That's right! I hope you'll go back and read it (Post #85) again! This kind of considered study gets about as good as you can get for its type. If you do slog through it, pause and consider carefully the contributing variables that are still missing and practically impossible to consider since their impact is either unavailable, unmeasurable, or just to dam_n complicated. I am not criticising the study. I am just pointing out the difficulties in this kind of research. Sometimes, anecdotal experience and common sense are as valuable --- sometimes more valuable.

This is where our opinions diverge completely. I consider undocumented and unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence to be of no value whatsoever! There are far too many possible causes of error (physical, psychological, commercial and so on) for me to bother at all about anecdotes.

/ Priceless

[adjan jb]

--- a word about conspiracies! Recently, I read a post (by UG, I think, but I might be wrong; if so, apologies) speculating that there is some sort of ulterior motive of those who post concerns about pollution; that is that there are farang settled here that don't want any more farang to come so the former falsely bad mouth the place. I think that's a big stretch, but points for being creative!

That sounds like UG

[Mapguy]

[...]

Sometimes on these various threads it has been suggested that if you can't put up with the pollution in Chiang Mai, move elsewhere. That attitude troubles me. Perhaps that is fine for retired and relatively wealthy people, but it certainly is not at all sympathetic to those who can not move elsewhere as readily as they, summering here and wintering there!

[...]

To "completely" avoid the risk of negative effects from Particulate Matter pollution, you have to reside in an area with average yearly PM<10 at less than 20 µg/m3 (according to the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, Global Update 2005, p278, http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf). Unfortunately, according to a World Bank paper (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/table3_13.pdf) there is no major city outside temperate climate zones that achieves values that low.

Consequently, the advice to move elsewhere may not be that misdirected or inconsiderate. Of course, one can (and should) do whatever one can to help improve the air quality here in Chiang Mai, but don't hold your breath while waiting for it to come down to the WHO Air Quality Guideline. As can be seen in my Chiang Mai graph posted earlier today, it has decreased (been brought down?) from just over 61 in mid-2004 to just under 39 by the end of this year (defined as 12-month moving averages). Halving this value, to get down below 20, will however take a long time and a lot of resources, if it is at all possible.

/ Priceless

Well, you are right, Priceless, about the difficulty of substantial progress. I'd caution folks about being too accepting with the numbers you present above, not because you don't know how to crunch numbers or because you don't appreciate how shaky these data are but because too many readers get snowed by the relative simplicity of descriptive statistics even when you provide caveats. Same sort of fear you share, as you have told me. On a much, much more elaborate level, there're Thomas Kuhn's thoughts about scientific inquiry to consider << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn >> and those of Abraham Kaplan << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kaplan >>.

I do hope that both of us are not misunderstood, as indicated by the highlighting above. When I write of my concern with the ability of people to move from Chiang Mai to less polluted climes, I am talking about all of us in Chiang Mai, not just expatriates or Thais who might have the wherewithall to move. Indeed, while advice to move might not be misdirected for some, it is certainly very inconsiderate of many.

What is your personal opinion, Priceless?

[Ulysses G.]

--- a word about conspiracies! Recently, I read a post (by UG, I think, but I might be wrong; if so, apologies) speculating that there is some sort of ulterior motive of those who post concerns about pollution; that is that there are farang settled here that don't want any more farang to come so the former falsely bad mouth the place. I think that's a big stretch, but points for being creative!

That sounds like UG

I suggested that as one possibility of ulterior motives for writing these posts and I was talking about the extreme, alarmist ones, not the rational ones where people just want to improve our living conditions.

I have noticed certain posters claiming that their whole family has been made ill by the air and that they plan on leaving Chiang Mai immediately, but they are still here saying the same things 3 years later. These are very wealthy people with no job, no business and no reason that I know of that they have to stay here. If my "whole family" was sick, I would be on the first plane out of here.

One poster said simular things about his family several days ago and raved about how terrible it is in Chiang Mai right now, but claims to have a house in another part of the country where the air does not bother them. I do not know who this fellow is, but I have to wonder why he would remain here under the circumstances.