Jump to content

Thailand's Most Polluted Air Is In The North


sriracha john

Recommended Posts

Thanks 'Priceless'.

I admire your tenacity in trying to convert the pollution complaining mob with the facts. I'm afraid that you have an impossible task trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

So I guess you're also against the cigarette complaining mob who also have this wild idea cigarette smoking is harmful.

There are inane posts and then there are real inane posts. Anyone believing the air pollution in Chiang Mai is not a problem and comes out and states it falls in the latter category.

Then again it is probably the pollution affecting their brains that makes them make stupid comments like this.

I am not going to fall into the name-calling trap, I'll just try to explain this thing in very easy-to-understand terms.

Chiang Mai has among the lowest levels of air pollution (PM<10) of all the locations measured by the Pollution Control Department.

If the incidence of respiratory disease is indeed (much?) higher in Chiang Mai, then this cannot logically be caused by the air pollution. If air pollution were the (or a major) cause of respiratory disease, then higher pollution levels would cause higher incidences of these diseases.

This is not a matter of opinion but rather a case of logical reasoning. In statistics this relationship is called "correlation". If there is no correlation, then one can safely assume that there is no (or an extremely weak) causal relationship.

/ Priceless

Priceless, I really do very much appreciate and admire what you often contribute to this ongoing (perhaps, boring to some, conversation), but I do think that your overall arguments, while sound in their fashion, are lacking some of the time. As well, I think your own "logical thinking," as you have presented it, is very flawed, but that's hard to explain. I think you are sometimes more than a tad arch in your "pronunciomentos!"

Regarding the news article in The Nation, frankly, if I were to subscribe to it, I would use it to line the cat boxes we keep handy at home for the resident felines except that the newsprint might be hazardous to their health. However, that article is neither more nor less than found in a typical Murdoch publication, often including articles even in the Times. I suggest the CMU researcher himself also is embarrassed.

Nonetheless, I would hope that such articles would indeed continue to be published. Within them, from time to time, there might be a clue to look further --- unless you don't want to look. A "toss-off" article in The Nation by itself doesn't add up to much.

Priceless, your lectures illustrated with graphs are woefully incomplete and regrettably misleading to too many. I don't think that you can be expected to present complete arguments here, but it's the misleading (appearance of truth through graphs!!) aspect that distresses me quite a lot. I don't think that Burroughs (the manufacturer of calculating machines that descriptive statisticians and researchers used before computers were generally available) guaranteed truth. Nor do Dell or Apple. Or--- more to the point --- SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), or whatever statistical package you prefer to use.

The bottom line, friends --- to keep it short here --- is that there is a problem with air pollution specific to this area for various reasons too much to get into in this post. Comparatively, as Priceless has pointed out, there are indeed better places to live (seasonally, especially) in Thailand. But if you like people more than calculators, then you will appreciate that not all people are able to "winter" here and "summer" there when the pollution is better or worse. And I do hope that people appreciate that subjective opinions about air pollution are not always "delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph. I do, however, agree that some folks go absolutely bonkers with hyperbole.

Now, this might seem to some a "flame." It isn't. I'll say it again. It isn't. But don't just look at the graphs. When you do, understand that they are created from the best available data. In the case of Chiang Mai, there are more PCD data than in most places in Thailand to help give you a picture of what's going on with air pollution --- but, folks, to quote myself (sorry!) --- the traffic police don't wear face masks because they are worried about chapped lips. And, you folks who think haze on Doi Suthep is some kind of harmless water vapor, have I got news for you! Later!!

Cheers!

Brilliantly written Mapguy. Totally agree.

I'd also be more inclined to listen to a "Dr" and Professors' opinion rather than anyone who looks at websites a lot and calls it research.

Are the air monitoring sites run by an independent company or a government agency?

How accurate are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks 'Priceless'.

I admire your tenacity in trying to convert the pollution complaining mob with the facts. I'm afraid that you have an impossible task trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

So I guess you're also against the cigarette complaining mob who also have this wild idea cigarette smoking is harmful.

There are inane posts and then there are real inane posts. Anyone believing the air pollution in Chiang Mai is not a problem and comes out and states it falls in the latter category.

Then again it is probably the pollution affecting their brains that makes them make stupid comments like this.

I am not going to fall into the name-calling trap, I'll just try to explain this thing in very easy-to-understand terms.

Chiang Mai has among the lowest levels of air pollution (PM<10) of all the locations measured by the Pollution Control Department.

If the incidence of respiratory disease is indeed (much?) higher in Chiang Mai, then this cannot logically be caused by the air pollution. If air pollution were the (or a major) cause of respiratory disease, then higher pollution levels would cause higher incidences of these diseases.

This is not a matter of opinion but rather a case of logical reasoning. In statistics this relationship is called "correlation". If there is no correlation, then one can safely assume that there is no (or an extremely weak) causal relationship.

/ Priceless

Priceless, I really do very much appreciate and admire what you often contribute to this ongoing (perhaps, boring to some, conversation), but I do think that your overall arguments, while sound in their fashion, are lacking some of the time. As well, I think your own "logical thinking," as you have presented it, is very flawed, but that's hard to explain. I think you are sometimes more than a tad arch in your "pronunciomentos!"

Regarding the news article in The Nation, frankly, if I were to subscribe to it, I would use it to line the cat boxes we keep handy at home for the resident felines except that the newsprint might be hazardous to their health. However, that article is neither more nor less than found in a typical Murdoch publication, often including articles even in the Times. I suggest the CMU researcher himself also is embarrassed.

Nonetheless, I would hope that such articles would indeed continue to be published. Within them, from time to time, there might be a clue to look further --- unless you don't want to look. A "toss-off" article in The Nation by itself doesn't add up to much.

Priceless, your lectures illustrated with graphs are woefully incomplete and regrettably misleading to too many. I don't think that you can be expected to present complete arguments here, but it's the misleading (appearance of truth through graphs!!) aspect that distresses me quite a lot. I don't think that Burroughs (the manufacturer of calculating machines that descriptive statisticians and researchers used before computers were generally available) guaranteed truth. Nor do Dell or Apple. Or--- more to the point --- SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), or whatever statistical package you prefer to use.

The bottom line, friends --- to keep it short here --- is that there is a problem with air pollution specific to this area for various reasons too much to get into in this post. Comparatively, as Priceless has pointed out, there are indeed better places to live (seasonally, especially) in Thailand. But if you like people more than calculators, then you will appreciate that not all people are able to "winter" here and "summer" there when the pollution is better or worse. And I do hope that people appreciate that subjective opinions about air pollution are not always "delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph. I do, however, agree that some folks go absolutely bonkers with hyperbole.

Now, this might seem to some a "flame." It isn't. I'll say it again. It isn't. But don't just look at the graphs. When you do, understand that they are created from the best available data. In the case of Chiang Mai, there are more PCD data than in most places in Thailand to help give you a picture of what's going on with air pollution --- but, folks, to quote myself (sorry!) --- the traffic police don't wear face masks because they are worried about chapped lips. And, you folks who think haze on Doi Suthep is some kind of harmless water vapor, have I got news for you! Later!!

Cheers!

Brilliantly written Mapguy. Totally agree.

I'd also be more inclined to listen to a "Dr" and Professors' opinion rather than anyone who looks at websites a lot and calls it research.

Are the air monitoring sites run by an independent company or a government agency?

How accurate are they?

See the previous thread on this subject to understand the scope of the monitoring equipment which as I recall amounts to one fixed device in CM and one mobile site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks 'Priceless'.

I admire your tenacity in trying to convert the pollution complaining mob with the facts. I'm afraid that you have an impossible task trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

So I guess you're also against the cigarette complaining mob who also have this wild idea cigarette smoking is harmful.

There are inane posts and then there are real inane posts. Anyone believing the air pollution in Chiang Mai is not a problem and comes out and states it falls in the latter category.

Then again it is probably the pollution affecting their brains that makes them make stupid comments like this.

I am not going to fall into the name-calling trap, I'll just try to explain this thing in very easy-to-understand terms.

Chiang Mai has among the lowest levels of air pollution (PM<10) of all the locations measured by the Pollution Control Department.

If the incidence of respiratory disease is indeed (much?) higher in Chiang Mai, then this cannot logically be caused by the air pollution. If air pollution were the (or a major) cause of respiratory disease, then higher pollution levels would cause higher incidences of these diseases.

This is not a matter of opinion but rather a case of logical reasoning. In statistics this relationship is called "correlation". If there is no correlation, then one can safely assume that there is no (or an extremely weak) causal relationship.

/ Priceless

Priceless, I really do very much appreciate and admire what you often contribute to this ongoing (perhaps, boring to some, conversation), but I do think that your overall arguments, while sound in their fashion, are lacking some of the time. As well, I think your own "logical thinking," as you have presented it, is very flawed, but that's hard to explain. I think you are sometimes more than a tad arch in your "pronunciomentos!"

Regarding the news article in The Nation, frankly, if I were to subscribe to it, I would use it to line the cat boxes we keep handy at home for the resident felines except that the newsprint might be hazardous to their health. However, that article is neither more nor less than found in a typical Murdoch publication, often including articles even in the Times. I suggest the CMU researcher himself also is embarrassed.

Nonetheless, I would hope that such articles would indeed continue to be published. Within them, from time to time, there might be a clue to look further --- unless you don't want to look. A "toss-off" article in The Nation by itself doesn't add up to much.

Priceless, your lectures illustrated with graphs are woefully incomplete and regrettably misleading to too many. I don't think that you can be expected to present complete arguments here, but it's the misleading (appearance of truth through graphs!!) aspect that distresses me quite a lot. I don't think that Burroughs (the manufacturer of calculating machines that descriptive statisticians and researchers used before computers were generally available) guaranteed truth. Nor do Dell or Apple. Or--- more to the point --- SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), or whatever statistical package you prefer to use.

The bottom line, friends --- to keep it short here --- is that there is a problem with air pollution specific to this area for various reasons too much to get into in this post. Comparatively, as Priceless has pointed out, there are indeed better places to live (seasonally, especially) in Thailand. But if you like people more than calculators, then you will appreciate that not all people are able to "winter" here and "summer" there when the pollution is better or worse. And I do hope that people appreciate that subjective opinions about air pollution are not always "delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph. I do, however, agree that some folks go absolutely bonkers with hyperbole.

Now, this might seem to some a "flame." It isn't. I'll say it again. It isn't. But don't just look at the graphs. When you do, understand that they are created from the best available data. In the case of Chiang Mai, there are more PCD data than in most places in Thailand to help give you a picture of what's going on with air pollution --- but, folks, to quote myself (sorry!) --- the traffic police don't wear face masks because they are worried about chapped lips. And, you folks who think haze on Doi Suthep is some kind of harmless water vapor, have I got news for you! Later!!

Cheers!

Brilliantly written Mapguy. Totally agree.

I'd also be more inclined to listen to a "Dr" and Professors' opinion rather than anyone who looks at websites a lot and calls it research.

Are the air monitoring sites run by an independent company or a government agency?

How accurate are they? TIT, you can answer this yourself surely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks 'Priceless'.

I admire your tenacity in trying to convert the pollution complaining mob with the facts. I'm afraid that you have an impossible task trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

So I guess you're also against the cigarette complaining mob who also have this wild idea cigarette smoking is harmful.

There are inane posts and then there are real inane posts. Anyone believing the air pollution in Chiang Mai is not a problem and comes out and states it falls in the latter category.

Then again it is probably the pollution affecting their brains that makes them make stupid comments like this.

I am not going to fall into the name-calling trap, I'll just try to explain this thing in very easy-to-understand terms.

Chiang Mai has among the lowest levels of air pollution (PM<10) of all the locations measured by the Pollution Control Department.

If the incidence of respiratory disease is indeed (much?) higher in Chiang Mai, then this cannot logically be caused by the air pollution. If air pollution were the (or a major) cause of respiratory disease, then higher pollution levels would cause higher incidences of these diseases.

This is not a matter of opinion but rather a case of logical reasoning. In statistics this relationship is called "correlation". If there is no correlation, then one can safely assume that there is no (or an extremely weak) causal relationship.

/ Priceless

Priceless, I really do very much appreciate and admire what you often contribute to this ongoing (perhaps, boring to some, conversation), but I do think that your overall arguments, while sound in their fashion, are lacking some of the time. As well, I think your own "logical thinking," as you have presented it, is very flawed, but that's hard to explain. I think you are sometimes more than a tad arch in your "pronunciomentos!"

Regarding the news article in The Nation, frankly, if I were to subscribe to it, I would use it to line the cat boxes we keep handy at home for the resident felines except that the newsprint might be hazardous to their health. However, that article is neither more nor less than found in a typical Murdoch publication, often including articles even in the Times. I suggest the CMU researcher himself also is embarrassed.

Nonetheless, I would hope that such articles would indeed continue to be published. Within them, from time to time, there might be a clue to look further --- unless you don't want to look. A "toss-off" article in The Nation by itself doesn't add up to much.

Priceless, your lectures illustrated with graphs are woefully incomplete and regrettably misleading to too many. I don't think that you can be expected to present complete arguments here, but it's the misleading (appearance of truth through graphs!!) aspect that distresses me quite a lot. I don't think that Burroughs (the manufacturer of calculating machines that descriptive statisticians and researchers used before computers were generally available) guaranteed truth. Nor do Dell or Apple. Or--- more to the point --- SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), or whatever statistical package you prefer to use.

The bottom line, friends --- to keep it short here --- is that there is a problem with air pollution specific to this area for various reasons too much to get into in this post. Comparatively, as Priceless has pointed out, there are indeed better places to live (seasonally, especially) in Thailand. But if you like people more than calculators, then you will appreciate that not all people are able to "winter" here and "summer" there when the pollution is better or worse. And I do hope that people appreciate that subjective opinions about air pollution are not always "delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph. I do, however, agree that some folks go absolutely bonkers with hyperbole.

Now, this might seem to some a "flame." It isn't. I'll say it again. It isn't. But don't just look at the graphs. When you do, understand that they are created from the best available data. In the case of Chiang Mai, there are more PCD data than in most places in Thailand to help give you a picture of what's going on with air pollution --- but, folks, to quote myself (sorry!) --- the traffic police don't wear face masks because they are worried about chapped lips. And, you folks who think haze on Doi Suthep is some kind of harmless water vapor, have I got news for you! Later!!

Cheers!

Brilliantly written Mapguy. Totally agree.

I'd also be more inclined to listen to a "Dr" and Professors' opinion rather than anyone who looks at websites a lot and calls it research.

Are the air monitoring sites run by an independent company or a government agency?

How accurate are they?

See the previous thread on this subject to understand the scope of the monitoring equipment which as I recall amounts to one fixed device in CM and one mobile site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

"delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph.

[...]

I have taken the time to go through all my posts on the ThaiVisa Chiang Mai forum. Never once have I used the word "paranoid", much less so about another poster. I have however once used the word "delusional", in a reply to another poster who had himself introduced the word into that thread.

Mapguy, I think an apology would not be amiss.

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

To try to explain to another poster (not Mapguy) why I do not trust my own, or others', sense of e.g. smell or sight in comparison to available, objective and credible measurements, I once suggested that the poster googled the four words "perception", "illusion", "delusion" and "psychosomatic". The poster in question did not comment on my suggestion, but Mapguy became very upset for some reason and accused me of "uncivility".

For the benefit of anyone interested in the subject, here are (in very brief form) Wikipedia's definitions of these four words:

1/ In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

2/ An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

3/ A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

4/ Psychosomatic medicine is an interdisciplinary medical field studying psychosomatic illness, now more commonly referred to as psychophysiologic illness or disorder, whose symptoms are caused by mental processes of the sufferer rather than immediate physiological causes.

/ Priceless

Edited by Priceless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking past the end of ones nose is a task some find difficult.

If some folks got out a little more and appreciated this beautiful natural environment we are lucky to be allowed to live in, debating what is right and wrong in their honest' or 'considered' opinions on these forums, may well become more realistic.

But before I venture out, consider this. A slice of bread seems quite dry when you put it into a toaster. Leaving it close to some hot filaments for a couple of minutes, browns the surface and in some cases, blackens it!

Now lay those once apparently dry and now burned slices flat on a plate. Are they now dry? No.

Now this little exercise in your imagination isn't to tickle your taste buds, or to make a fool of anyone who doesn't have an inquiring mind.

The purpose of this post is merely to draw a correlation to the pure and simple matter (that occasionally drips from the end of our noses) of moisture.

Priceless, I can see clearly.

Ally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking past the end of ones nose is a task some find difficult.

If some folks got out a little more and appreciated this beautiful natural environment we are lucky to be allowed to live in, debating what is right and wrong in their honest' or 'considered' opinions on these forums, may well become more realistic.

But before I venture out, consider this. A slice of bread seems quite dry when you put it into a toaster. Leaving it close to some hot filaments for a couple of minutes, browns the surface and in some cases, blackens it!

Now lay those once apparently dry and now burned slices flat on a plate. Are they now dry? No.

Now this little exercise in your imagination isn't to tickle your taste buds, or to make a fool of anyone who doesn't have an inquiring mind.

The purpose of this post is merely to draw a correlation to the pure and simple matter (that occasionally drips from the end of our noses) of moisture.

Priceless, I can see clearly.

Ally

Sorry, I have NO idea what you are going on about. Clear, yes, clear as mud.

Great, I thought it was just me.......dry bread, toasters, moisture on your nose..............answers anybody??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

"delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph.

[...]

I have taken the time to go through all my posts on the ThaiVisa Chiang Mai forum. Never once have I used the word "paranoid", much less so about another poster. I have however once used the word "delusional", in a reply to another poster who had himself introduced the word into that thread.

Mapguy, I think an apology would not be amiss.

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

To try to explain to another poster (not Mapguy) why I do not trust my own, or others', sense of e.g. smell or sight in comparison to available, objective and credible measurements, I once suggested that the poster googled the four words "perception", "illusion", "delusion" and "psychosomatic". The poster in question did not comment on my suggestion, but Mapguy became very upset for some reason and accused me of "uncivility".

For the benefit of anyone interested in the subject, here are (in very brief form) Wikipedia's definitions of these four words:

1/ In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

2/ An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

3/ A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

4/ Psychosomatic medicine is an interdisciplinary medical field studying psychosomatic illness, now more commonly referred to as psychophysiologic illness or disorder, whose symptoms are caused by mental processes of the sufferer rather than immediate physiological causes.

/ Priceless

&lt;deleted&gt; Priceless, TV readers post their individual experiences of pollution by the score, doctors at CM Ram and other hospitals report, in one to one discussions, massive seasonal increases of patients suffering respiratory distress, a professor from a CM teaching hospital reports an increase in lung cancer patients in the North and you want to debate Wikipedia's definition of words and defend your statistics with your dying breath - do you not feel that you're missing the point just a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

&lt;deleted&gt; Priceless, TV readers post their individual experiences of pollution by the score, doctors at CM Ram and other hospitals report, in one to one discussions, massive seasonal increases of patients suffering respiratory distress, a professor from a CM teaching hospital reports an increase in lung cancer patients in the North and you want to debate Wikipedia's definition of words and defend your statistics with your dying breath - do you not feel that you're missing the point just a little bit.

I have not argued that the incidence of respiratory diseases (including lung cancer) in Chiang Mai may be higher than elsewhere in Thailand. In fact I have posted links to, and excerpts from, research reports that indicate that this is the case. Furthermore I have no qualifications whatsoever to make such a claim.

What I have claimed is however that there is nothing in available data to support the hypothesis that this high incidence is related to (or caused by) air pollution. If there were such a relation, one would expect a much higher incidence to occur in highly polluted areas (Samut Prakarn, Sara Buri, Din Daeng etc), rather than in low-pollution Chiang Mai. This does not seem to be the case, though.

The reason I posted a few quotes from Wikipedia was to try to explain that people's (including my own) subjective experiences, e.g. of low visibility, are in fact "filtered" by their previous experiences, preconceptions etc, possibly leading to incorrect conclusions.

I have in no way intended to belittle other people's experience of respiratory or other medical problems, and I would have had no grounds for doing so. However, I will continue to question the frequent arguing that these experiences are caused by air pollution, until such time as I'm proven wrong.

/ Priceless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not argued that the incidence of respiratory diseases (including lung cancer) in Chiang Mai may be higher than elsewhere in Thailand. In fact I have posted links to, and excerpts from, research reports that indicate that this is the case. Furthermore I have no qualifications whatsoever to make such a claim.

What I have claimed is however that there is nothing in available data to support the hypothesis that this high incidence is related to (or caused by) air pollution. If there were such a relation, one would expect a much higher incidence to occur in highly polluted areas

Might the above not suggest that there may be an additional factor/s in CM acting in combination with air pollution (going out on a limb here and asssuming nobody will dispute a connection between poor air quality and lung disease)?

Edited by WaiWai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

"delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph.

[...]

I have taken the time to go through all my posts on the ThaiVisa Chiang Mai forum. Never once have I used the word "paranoid", much less so about another poster. I have however once used the word "delusional", in a reply to another poster who had himself introduced the word into that thread.

Mapguy, I think an apology would not be amiss.

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

To try to explain to another poster (not Mapguy) why I do not trust my own, or others', sense of e.g. smell or sight in comparison to available, objective and credible measurements, I once suggested that the poster googled the four words "perception", "illusion", "delusion" and "psychosomatic". The poster in question did not comment on my suggestion, but Mapguy became very upset for some reason and accused me of "uncivility".

For the benefit of anyone interested in the subject, here are (in very brief form) Wikipedia's definitions of these four words:

1/ In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

2/ An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

3/ A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

4/ Psychosomatic medicine is an interdisciplinary medical field studying psychosomatic illness, now more commonly referred to as psychophysiologic illness or disorder, whose symptoms are caused by mental processes of the sufferer rather than immediate physiological causes.

/ Priceless

Priceless, you are right. You didn't include "paranoid" on your list; and you used the noun "delusion," not the adjective "delusional. I should have dug up the quote. Didn't mean to send you off chasing words in over 600 posts!! My apology.

Why did I get upset with your post? At the time, I felt that in the context of the conversation (and from time to time throughout the discussion over several months as it has bounced from one thread to another) that you have been demeaning in your attitude toward people who use their senses rather than to rely solely on the objective data provided by two (sometimes three) sensing devices covering the entire province of Chiang Mai! And it is often the connotative rather than the denotative meaning of words as well as when and how they are used that is meaningful. Look at what I have underlined above, and I think you can see how you can get into trouble. Finally, you can't measure everything effectively on an interval scale.

Anon!

Edited by Mapguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not argued that the incidence of respiratory diseases (including lung cancer) in Chiang Mai may be higher than elsewhere in Thailand. In fact I have posted links to, and excerpts from, research reports that indicate that this is the case. Furthermore I have no qualifications whatsoever to make such a claim.

What I have claimed is however that there is nothing in available data to support the hypothesis that this high incidence is related to (or caused by) air pollution. If there were such a relation, one would expect a much higher incidence to occur in highly polluted areas

Might the above not suggest that there may be an additional factor/s in CM acting in combination with air pollution (going out on a limb here and asssuming nobody will dispute a connection between poor air quality and lung disease)?

Further to my previous post, here's an abstract of a research paper from the Department of Medicine, the University of Hong Kong ( http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/resp/abstract...#33;8091!-1 ):

"Lung Cancer in Asian Women - The Environment and Genes

Abstract

The mortality rate of lung cancer in Asian women has increased significantly in the last few decades. Environmental factors include tobacco smoke (active and environmental), other indoor pollutions (cooking oil vapours, coal burning, fungus spores), diet, and infections. Active tobacco smoking is not the major factor. The relative risk of lung cancer among non-smoking women ever exposed to environmental smoke from their husbands was 1.20 from a meta-analysis. Cooking oil vapours associated with high temperature wok cooking and indoor coal burning for heating and cooking in unvented homes, particularly in rural areas, are risk factors for Chinese women. Chronic benign respiratory diseases due to the fungus Microsporum canis probably accounts for the high incidence of lung cancer in northern Thai women at Sarapee. Diets rich in fruits, leafy green vegetables, and vitamin A are protective, while cured meat (Chinese sausage, pressed duck and cured pork), deep-fried cooking, and chili increased the risk. Tuberculosis is associated with lung cancer. Also, a Taiwanese study shows that the odds ratio of papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 infection in non-smoking female lung cancer was 10.1, strongly suggesting a causative role. Genetic factors have also been studied in Chinese women, including human leucocyte antigens, K-ras oncogene activation, p53 mutation, polymorphisms of phase I activating enzymes (cytochrome P450, N-acetyltransferase slow acetylator status), and phase II detoxifying enzymes (glutathione-S-transferases, N-acetyltransferase rapid accelerator status). New molecular screening technology would facilitate identification of molecular targets for future studies. The interaction between environmental and genetic factors should also be further elucidated."

I do not claim to understand all of the above, but it clearly indicates to me that there are many and varied causes for (female) lung cancer. One factor that is however not mentioned, is air pollution. I am personally convinced that air pollution actually does contribute, but probably to a much lesser degree than what is frequently assumed on this forum. Please note the reference to the fungus Microsporium canis as a cause for chronic benign respiratory diseases, and thereby indirectly a cause for lung cancer, in Sarapee. This causal relationship was also mentioned in a Japanese-Thai report that I have previously quoted. (Actually, this report may be referring to the previous one.)

/ Priceless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks 'Priceless'.

I admire your tenacity in trying to convert the pollution complaining mob with the facts. I'm afraid that you have an impossible task trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

So I guess you're also against the cigarette complaining mob who also have this wild idea cigarette smoking is harmful.

There are inane posts and then there are real inane posts. Anyone believing the air pollution in Chiang Mai is not a problem and comes out and states it falls in the latter category.

Then again it is probably the pollution affecting their brains that makes them make stupid comments like this.

I am not going to fall into the name-calling trap, I'll just try to explain this thing in very easy-to-understand terms.

Chiang Mai has among the lowest levels of air pollution (PM<10) of all the locations measured by the Pollution Control Department.

If the incidence of respiratory disease is indeed (much?) higher in Chiang Mai, then this cannot logically be caused by the air pollution. If air pollution were the (or a major) cause of respiratory disease, then higher pollution levels would cause higher incidences of these diseases.

This is not a matter of opinion but rather a case of logical reasoning. In statistics this relationship is called "correlation". If there is no correlation, then one can safely assume that there is no (or an extremely weak) causal relationship.

/ Priceless

Priceless, I really do very much appreciate and admire what you often contribute to this ongoing (perhaps, boring to some, conversation), but I do think that your overall arguments, while sound in their fashion, are lacking some of the time. As well, I think your own "logical thinking," as you have presented it, is very flawed, but that's hard to explain. I think you are sometimes more than a tad arch in your "pronunciomentos!"

Regarding the news article in The Nation, frankly, if I were to subscribe to it, I would use it to line the cat boxes we keep handy at home for the resident felines except that the newsprint might be hazardous to their health. However, that article is neither more nor less than found in a typical Murdoch publication, often including articles even in the Times. I suggest the CMU researcher himself also is embarrassed.

Nonetheless, I would hope that such articles would indeed continue to be published. Within them, from time to time, there might be a clue to look further --- unless you don't want to look. A "toss-off" article in The Nation by itself doesn't add up to much.

Priceless, your lectures illustrated with graphs are woefully incomplete and regrettably misleading to too many. I don't think that you can be expected to present complete arguments here, but it's the misleading (appearance of truth through graphs!!) aspect that distresses me quite a lot. I don't think that Burroughs (the manufacturer of calculating machines that descriptive statisticians and researchers used before computers were generally available) guaranteed truth. Nor do Dell or Apple. Or--- more to the point --- SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), or whatever statistical package you prefer to use.

The bottom line, friends --- to keep it short here --- is that there is a problem with air pollution specific to this area for various reasons too much to get into in this post. Comparatively, as Priceless has pointed out, there are indeed better places to live (seasonally, especially) in Thailand. But if you like people more than calculators, then you will appreciate that not all people are able to "winter" here and "summer" there when the pollution is better or worse. And I do hope that people appreciate that subjective opinions about air pollution are not always "delusional" or "paranoid," two descriptions that Priceless once suggested in an array of nasty adjectives in his dismay of those who offered more than "facts" one can graph. I do, however, agree that some folks go absolutely bonkers with hyperbole.

Now, this might seem to some a "flame." It isn't. I'll say it again. It isn't. But don't just look at the graphs. When you do, understand that they are created from the best available data. In the case of Chiang Mai, there are more PCD data than in most places in Thailand to help give you a picture of what's going on with air pollution --- but, folks, to quote myself (sorry!) --- the traffic police don't wear face masks because they are worried about chapped lips. And, you folks who think haze on Doi Suthep is some kind of harmless water vapor, have I got news for you! Later!!

Cheers!

Brilliantly written Mapguy. Totally agree.

I'd also be more inclined to listen to a "Dr" and Professors' opinion rather than anyone who looks at websites a lot and calls it research.

Are the air monitoring sites run by an independent company or a government agency?

How accurate are they?

I don't know the answer to these questions. You might inquire at the provincial Department of the Environment. Ask for Khun Sanya. I am accepting these readings on faith as I have never seen them questioned. How precise the readings are and how often the devices are checked and recalibrated, if necessary, I don't know. However, the paucity of measuring sites and their location are probably greater concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my blindness, being one of those folks with vision only in one eye, such as actor Peter Falk ("Colombo"). You guys who can look all the way to Doi Suthep and see microns with your unaided eye have better vision than Superman. And to be certain that it causes respiratory diseases, makes you smarter than George W. Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my blindness, being one of those folks with vision only in one eye, such as actor Peter Falk ("Colombo"). You guys who can look all the way to Doi Suthep and see microns with your unaided eye have better vision than Superman. And to be certain that it causes respiratory diseases, makes you smarter than George W. Bush.

Not hard to be smarter than George W Bush............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if radon is so abundant i saraphi, then why isn't everybody getting lung cancer? Why only a tiny fraction of those living here?

I don't know anything about the claims of radon in Saraphi except for what has been posted here.

But -

Not everybody who smokes tobacco regularly develops lung cancer; still it has been firmly established that tobacco smoking significantly elevates the risk for lung cancer.

Not everybody who drives drunk gets into a car accident, but when you look at accident statistics, people who have been drinking are over-represented among those involved in car accidents.

So provided that there really are unusually high levels of radon in Saraphi (which I don't know), nobody ever said that all other factors are equal for the people who live in Saraphi. And these factors make a difference, too.

Genetic predisposition for lung cancer, diet, exercise level, exact location of house in Saraphi and time spent/activities there (some houses within Saraphi will have more radon leaks than others, and radon works "best" in enclosed spaces and on the first floor of a house so a person who lives in a one story house with conditions more conducive to radon leaks will contract more radon particles), profession, tobacco smoking etc. are all factors to consider as well.

So just where one lives is not the end-all and be-all of it all.

Well, this has often confused me. I'm sure the illegal burning goes on at certain times of the year, and that explains why doi suthep is difficult to impossible to see from march time. But here we are over the winter, some days it's clear as anything, the next day it can be very difficult to see. What changes this on a day by day basis? I don't notice huge amounts of wind on one day, then none the next.

Outside of the burning season i just don't really get it why the visibility of doi suthep changes from day to day, while blue skies abound.

Not all the haze we see is due to burning or traffic. Some of it is fog/mist.

HAZE

What is it, and so on.

I am attaching two documents from the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are helpful in understanding haze. One is perhaps too brief; the other quite extensive.

HUMIDITY

I haven't yet found much definitive about the impact of humidity. I got a rather casual answer from the American Lung Association that humidity outside may be a problem, but that the problem to be concerned about is high indoor humidity. Accordingly, I immediately suspended my own brilliantly conceived bathroom testing (suggested in an earlier post on another TV thread regarding air pollution) to see if pollution is intensified under humid conditions because of increased suspension of the pollutant. Methodology: Blow several farts in a steamed up bathroom and seeing how long you can hold out before turning on the fan. Don't try this at home, folks!! And, in the interests of protection for the whole family, install automatic fans and refrain from using the toilet during power outages!

Haze__EPA_brochure_.pdf

Introduction_to_Visibility__Study_.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my previous post was in jest, as usual. Nonetheless, whilst you can see the smoke for the fires, you cannot see the precise micron-size particles defined as life-theatening "pollution." I spent the last 2.5 years in the shadow of Doi Suthep, and I ...cough...assure you that...hack...my breathing is ...gasp...more than adequate for smoking things other than cigarettes. Ahh, amazing Thailand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish that people would concentrate on further improving this situation (and of course, in a wider perspective, to improve the situation in Samut Prakarn and Sara Buri) instead of spreading rumours, half-truths and desinformation about Chiang Mai. It is probably wise for people with a pre-existing respiratory condition to try to avoid Chiang Mai during March, but apart from that we live in a lovely city, including from an air pollution perspective!

/ Priceless

PS Concerning Dr Pongthep's last statement about Thai and European air quality standards. The Thai standard is 120 µg/m3, which should never be exceeded. The European standard is 50 µg/m3, which may be exceeded up to 35 times per, i.e. every ~10th day! One would expect a "Dr" to understand the difference between those two concepts, and that they are not comparable.

By the way, statistics shown on

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm

say 120 is a "standard" value for the Thai government. And if it should never be exceeded, -well- past levels show it didn't work (and that's not exactly the meaning of the word "standard", except if you want to mislead people).

European texts talk about "limits" (meaning it's a problem) not "standard" (meaning it's normal) like you say. And there's also a huge difference between 50 and 120!

I live in Chiang Mai. I know the polluted season starts because I feel it: unusual, persistant cought. Then, I check the stats and I see the levels: yes, there's something wrong. Again.

I hear already the typical question? "why do you live in Chiang Mai, then?" Pollution is not the only one aspect you take into account when living in a city. Chiang Mai is a very nice place to stay for many other reasons. But I know that if it happens to me to make up my mind and to leave the place, pollution will be top among the reasons.

My boyfriend lives in BKK where I travel almost twice a month. At both place we have an air filter with integrated pollution indicator. He was convinced the air was more polluted in BKK. We made the test. The filter indicator in BKK never turned red while it does most of the time in my house in CNX (suburb) between february until the first rains. And I don't smoke. It's true the apartment in BKK is on the 20+ floor (avoiding the direct street pollution) but I don't think that any condo in CNX spares its habitants from air pollution.

I do trust my body and my air filter more than government or other public stats about how safe the environment is (remember the ridiculous pointing of Korean BBQ restaurants by Chiang Mai police?)

Chiang Mai has a problem and nothing serious is being done about it. For years. The problem is not just about air pollution. It's about the way to adress problems.

At 10-16K THB per unit, I recommend air filters. High season is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you have no doubt noticed, not all air conditioner filters are equal. Some time ago there was a thread in which there was information on where to buy sheets of filter material suitable for an air conditioner by cutting the material to size and insert it over the manufacturers' filters.

Anyway, I went to the shop described in the post and looked at the 3M catalog provided by the shop for the 3M distributor for Thailand. I couldn't identify what I was after. Has anyone had better luck? PM<2.5 is the really dangerous stuff (which is really not reported, although it might be measured, in Thailand). PM<10 is what you see reported on the PCD site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish that people would concentrate on further improving this situation (and of course, in a wider perspective, to improve the situation in Samut Prakarn and Sara Buri) instead of spreading rumours, half-truths and desinformation about Chiang Mai. It is probably wise for people with a pre-existing respiratory condition to try to avoid Chiang Mai during March, but apart from that we live in a lovely city, including from an air pollution perspective!

/ Priceless

PS Concerning Dr Pongthep's last statement about Thai and European air quality standards. The Thai standard is 120 µg/m3, which should never be exceeded. The European standard is 50 µg/m3, which may be exceeded up to 35 times per, i.e. every ~10th day! One would expect a "Dr" to understand the difference between those two concepts, and that they are not comparable.

By the way, statistics shown on

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm

say 120 is a "standard" value for the Thai government. And if it should never be exceeded, -well- past levels show it didn't work (and that's not exactly the meaning of the word "standard", except if you want to mislead people).

European texts talk about "limits" (meaning it's a problem) not "standard" (meaning it's normal) like you say. And there's also a huge difference between 50 and 120!

I live in Chiang Mai. I know the polluted season starts because I feel it: unusual, persistant cought. Then, I check the stats and I see the levels: yes, there's something wrong. Again.

I hear already the typical question? "why do you live in Chiang Mai, then?" Pollution is not the only one aspect you take into account when living in a city. Chiang Mai is a very nice place to stay for many other reasons. But I know that if it happens to me to make up my mind and to leave the place, pollution will be top among the reasons.

My boyfriend lives in BKK where I travel almost twice a month. At both place we have an air filter with integrated pollution indicator. He was convinced the air was more polluted in BKK. We made the test. The filter indicator in BKK never turned red while it does most of the time in my house in CNX (suburb) between february until the first rains. And I don't smoke. It's true the apartment in BKK is on the 20+ floor (avoiding the direct street pollution) but I don't think that any condo in CNX spares its habitants from air pollution.

I do trust my body and my air filter more than government or other public stats about how safe the environment is (remember the ridiculous pointing of Korean BBQ restaurants by Chiang Mai police?)

Chiang Mai has a problem and nothing serious is being done about it. For years. The problem is not just about air pollution. It's about the way to adress problems.

At 10-16K THB per unit, I recommend air filters. High season is coming.

Since you live in Thailand, you should be used to the somewhat awkward relationship between most Thais and the English language :o The 120 µg/m3 in Thailand is indeed a limit, whereas the 50 µg/m3 in Europe is not (but rather a target), as the "standard" expressly allows that level to be exceeded for up to 35 times per year.

About your other point, that the limit is sometimes exceeded, this is quite true, in Thailand as in Europe. I used to live in Stockholm, supposedly one of the cleanest cities in the world. In spite of this, the air pollution where I lived only rarely came down to the target of 50 µg/m3 (I lived less than 1 km from one of the measuring stations). London is certainly not considered one of the cleanest cities, but it might still be of interest to have a look, as this is one of the not too many cities that actually publish their results (data from 2007, since 2008 seems to not have been published yet). The red spots indicate where the 50 µg/m3 limit has been exceeded more than 35 times during the year:

post-20094-1233375495_thumb.jpg

From this site: http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/aqs...p;objective=All

As you can see, the "standard" of not exceeding the "target" of 50 µg/m3 more than 35 times/year is exceeded in large parts of London. One must always be rather suspicious of these things, mustn't one :D BTW, London lists it as an "objective".

I have no idea where in Bangkok your boy friend lives or where in CM you live but, as can be seen from the London example, this can have a great influence on pollution levels. The Din Daeng area of Bangkok has extremely high pollution levels, approximately twice those of Chiang Mai (though the measuring site is road-side, which of course influences levels). E.g. the Intrapituk area seems to have quite low levels, and only rarely exceeds the 120µg/m3 limit: not once in 2008, four times in 2007, none in 2006 and 2005 and so on. (BTW Chiang Mai exceeded the 120 µg/m3 limit three times in 2008, 30 times in 2007 :D and 5 times in 2006.)

I have no idea of exactly what is the influence on your boy friend's indoor air quality that he lives on the 20th floor, but I would intuitively think that it is very great as, particularly in Bangkok, vehicular emissions are among the greatest air polluters.

I have no list of all the initiatives that have been and are taken to improve the air quality here in Chiang Mai, and much less how they are actually implemented and enforced :D What I do know is that the air quality has improved greatly over at least the last six years or so. I'll repeat just one of the graphs that some people seem to hate so much:

post-20094-1233377088_thumb.jpg

As you can see, the average pollution has fallen from over 60 µg/m3 in the 12 months ending in mid-2004 to about 37 in the 12 months ending today. That's a decrease of about 40% :D

/ Priceless

Edited by Priceless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAZE

What is it, and so on.

I am attaching two documents from the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are helpful in understanding haze. One is perhaps too brief; the other quite extensive.

HUMIDITY

I haven't yet found much definitive about the impact of humidity. I got a rather casual answer from the American Lung Association that humidity outside may be a problem, but that the problem to be concerned about is high indoor humidity. Accordingly, I immediately suspended my own brilliantly conceived bathroom testing (suggested in an earlier post on another TV thread regarding air pollution) to see if pollution is intensified under humid conditions because of increased suspension of the pollutant. Methodology: Blow several farts in a steamed up bathroom and seeing how long you can hold out before turning on the fan. Don't try this at home, folks!! And, in the interests of protection for the whole family, install automatic fans and refrain from using the toilet during power outages!

More information for you:

FIRES AND MEASUREMENTS OF POLLUTION

Below is a graphic of a "FIRMS" alert showing fires in the Doi Suthep - Pui region that I recently received from the University of Maryland (USA). I signed up to receive these reports after learning about them from the Chiang Mai provincial environmental department. Basically, FIRMS is a satellite-sensing global fire detection method under development. Rather like putting Smokey the Bear into orbit! [smokey the Bear was arguably the most effective public service character ever created (in America) to encourage preventing forest fires.]

The graphic below looks mysterious, but it is not that hard to figure out with a little effort. First, if you can't make them out, there are four red dots located in the area of Doi Suthep - Pui. The red dots are located in what resembles large blobs of green and white. Well, don't despair! Check out the geographical coordinates that are given and plot them in Google Earth. Assign symbols to the plots and you end up with a readable map of these locations, once you have the hang of reading such maps. If you are old-fashioned, topographic maps are available at Surawong and DK book stores.

When I first saw FIRMS data replotted on Google Earth, they were of the March 2007 fires that raged in and to the east and northeast of the Chiang Mai valley. There were a heckova lot more than four red dots at the time.

Thus far, this season there's been very, very little to report. The only other reports I have received in the past two months correlated roughly with the trip when I visited Doi Inthanon a month ago and saw en route a lot of blackened rice paddies where the rice straw had recently been burned. But these locations were never reported by FIRMS. So, that got me wondering how large a fire does it have to be to be seen from space by this particular satellite, or how many revolutions around different sectors of Earth does the satellite make between scans of this area, and so on.

Note the information on the FIRMS report about statistical probability. I suggest that, more than likely, the probability formula is built upon factors like cloud cover which might hide the fires, but I haven't pursued this. You could if you'd like to know. The folks at the University of Maryland will probably tell you. Regarding number and size of the fires, it is apparent to me that this objective system of monitoring has some limitations.

Fires pollute the air, of course. But how much? In an area like Chiang Mai Province, all of three (generally two regular) pollution monitoring points hardly provide enough data. That is not to discount the accuracy of the readings they provide; it is simply that that's all the objective data we have. Studying a problem, you go with the "best available data." How representative and useful they are depends on a lot of variables, including how they fit in the framework of the “standards,” “objectives,” "limits," "goals," or whatever you want to call the interpretative framework. They employ objective (machine-generated) but the data are generally interpreted subjectively. Well, certainly a lot of thought and a wealth of scientific experience goes into that process, but it also includes other factors: political, economic and so on.

Then, consider a monitoring station we shall call "Gladys:"

Gladys and William have just turned off the TV and have climbed into bed hopeful of getting a few winks of sleep before the soi dogs and horny cats in the neighborhood start their nightly chorus:

Gladys: William, [cough! cough!] I smell smoke!

William: What smoke? [William has a long background of TV pissups in the smoky bars of Chiang Mai.]

Gladys: William, really, it is getting smoky in here.

William: Are you sure? Didn't you check the Thai Pollution Control Department (PCD) readings tonight? The last rolling average says the air is quite clear. And, anyway, certainly better than in March, and, besides, the data show that air pollution is not as bad as it was in Chiang Mai six years ago or, certainly, not as bad as in the industrial centers of Thailand! Really!!! Not only that, before I climbed into the sack, I checked TV and no new Global House fires have been reported, either. Forget it [wheeze! wheeze!]

Gladys: William, you just wheezed!

William: Sweetie, I have a frog in my throat.

Gladys: [Not giving in] William, it is getting smoky in here.

William: Okay, I'll check the FIRMS data from the University of Maryland on my computer. Wait a sec. [Rises from bed, and checks his computer [which is busy downloading Deep Throat using BitTorrent; returns to bed.]

William: Gladys, there are no fires reported by the University of Maryland satellite. I even checked the rolling PCD readings again. They look great! It is all in your head.

Gladys: Yeah, and in my throat and lungs!

William: Good night, Gladys!

Gladys: [Gets up and shuts the window.]

Down the road, Khun Thun tosses the night's household garbage on top of the burning leaf pile, like he does most every night. Mai pen rai!

In the city, the Hotel Lotus Pang Suan Kaew, stokes its incinerator. Mai pen rai!

Khun "Toy" Song Tao worries about the price of oil and decides not to get an oil change. Mai pen rai!

The problem, after all, is that, Gladys isn't calibrated! Certainly not objective! Maybe she's delusional, even psychosomatic!

Not to worry! She can move to a lovely place in a temperate maritime clime with a prevailing wind off a broad sea. But she won't bother taking her maid. Getting visas is such a fuss! And the cost of an extra airplane ticket! Can you imagine! Better to give her an extra 1000 baht and let her go.

But our story ends happily, sort of. Gladys moves to Vancouver, Canada, and William bangs the maid every night without Gladys ever knowing.

Mai pen rai!

FIRMS_22JAN2008.pdf

Edited by Mapguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the leaflets Mapguy, interesting reading.

Based on an earlier post from you, I think you misread my post, deliberately or not I don't know.

My comment meant just what it said, and nothing more: some of the haze we see is mist.

I did not claim anywhere that this mist is harmless (I haven't got a clue - it might even be the opposite when combined with pollution from burning). I also did not claim that the haze is ALL mist.

All I intended to do was to suggest that humidity levels could account for some of the differences in visibility between calm days outside of the burning season, since that was what the poster I responded to was musing about.

I can't but agree that the levels of burning are cause for concern and I support all efforts to reduce air pollution. We diverge in our level of confidence in individual sensory perception though. We all use it, but it is the people who realize their limitations that bring us scientific breakthroughs. Sure, scientific method is nitpicky and tedious, but at least it tends to give us more tangible results in the end than assumptions.

We also don't disagree that the values and number of measuring points are unsatisfactory.

However, if nothing else, Priceless's insistance in sticking to the data available has caused you to go off and find more qualitative information with which to hit him on his (virtual, I hope) head. He also inspired you to write your little story about your fictional couple, which seems to have brought you great pleasure. :o

In the end the search for credible facts is surely a more beneficial outcome to us all than a thread of disgruntled coughing posters with pitchforks and lynch nooses airing their suspicions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the leaflets Mapguy, interesting reading.

Based on an earlier post from you, I think you misread my post, deliberately or not I don't know.

My comment meant just what it said, and nothing more: some of the haze we see is mist.

I did not claim anywhere that this mist is harmless (I haven't got a clue - it might even be the opposite when combined with pollution from burning). I also did not claim that the haze is ALL mist.

All I intended to do was to suggest that humidity levels could account for some of the differences in visibility between calm days outside of the burning season, since that was what the poster I responded to was musing about.

I can't but agree that the levels of burning are cause for concern and I support all efforts to reduce air pollution. We diverge in our level of confidence in individual sensory perception though. We all use it, but it is the people who realize their limitations that bring us scientific breakthroughs. Sure, scientific method is nitpicky and tedious, but at least it tends to give us more tangible results in the end than assumptions.

We also don't disagree that the values and number of measuring points are unsatisfactory.

However, if nothing else, Priceless's insistance in sticking to the data available has caused you to go off and find more qualitative information with which to hit him on his (virtual, I hope) head. He also inspired you to write your little story about your fictional couple, which seems to have brought you great pleasure. :o

In the end the search for credible facts is surely a more beneficial outcome to us all than a thread of disgruntled coughing posters with pitchforks and lynch nooses airing their suspicions.

a very scholarly sounding post indeed,professor meatball. and a breath of fresh air compared with some of the bickering. :D

Edited by mc2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did I get upset with your post? At the time, I felt that in the context of the conversation (and from time to time throughout the discussion over several months as it has bounced from one thread to another) that you have been demeaning in your attitude toward people who use their senses rather than to rely solely on the objective data provided by two (sometimes three) sensing devices covering the entire province of Chiang Mai!

Interesting. Before Priceless started providing us with scientific proof that the air in Chiang Mai is not nearly as bad as some folks claim, some of these same posters used to whine and cry and complain because I was relying on "feelings" to come to the same conclusion as Priceless and was not providing statistics - The truth is that plenty of people who live in Chiang Mai have very little problem with the air -they feel fine - and do not bother to fight about it on Thai Visa.

Now, many of these same "statistics are all that matter" people are whinging about Priceless using scientific studies as evidence that things are not all that bad and are insisting that their senses are more accurate.

I guess that you just can't please everybody! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Before Priceless started providing us with scientific proof that the air in Chiang Mai is not nearly as bad as some folks claim, some of these same posters used to whine and cry and complain because I was relying on "feelings" to come to the same conclusion as Priceless and was not providing statistics - The truth is that plenty of people who live in Chiang Mai have very little problem with the air -they feel fine - and do not bother to fight about it on Thai Visa.

Now, many of these same "statistics are all that matter" people are whinging about Priceless using scientific studies as evidence that things are not all that bad and are insisting that their senses are more accurate.

I guess that you just can't please everybody! :o

Are those folks like people who might smoke 1 or more packs a day and not see the harm they do to themselves or to others who are in the same room forced to inhale their clean smoke. But if they were to get lung cancel, they might lament about the mistake they made like some past celebrities such as

I don't have a motorcycle and ride a bicycle to get around. I average at least 12k a year.

This is not very scientific but this is my 3rd year here and like clock work, my throat has began to feel a more irritated, at this time of year. Maybe it is just my whining imagination or maybe it is something in the air.

Edited by vagabond48
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...