Smog Doubles Chiang Mai Lung Cancer Threat

[Ulysses G.]

If we need to get rid of some carcasses, we will call you.

[Mapguy]

Some of the worst apologists seem to be those in the tourism business, especially those with stakes in small and large B&B, guest house and hotels. Add TAT to that list. And certainly the deputy governor who last week gave his blessing to a car caravan to publicise an anti-pollution campaign!!! Oy! By default, whatever your humor, you are tending toward that camp and, alas, not contributing anything constructive.

Who exactly are apologists here that you refer to? You'd be hard pressed to find people saying that March is a great month weather wise?

Some of the claims are so ludicrous though (worst city in the world, worst in Thailand, etc) that a dose of common sense would add some much needed balance.

And I have no connection whatsoever to the tourist industry other than as a customer.

The apologists I refer to are those who, even after acknowledging the seasonal haze, say that there is no pollution problem worth worrying about, the "It doesn't bother me or 'most people' " crowd. Then there are those who actively try to ignore it, to gloss over the problem and/or to attempt to suppress information about it, such as TAT marketers and those who have huge financial stakes in large hotels in Chiang Mai. If anything, such folks should be in the van of working toward solutions. Such behavior is not unusual. Consider the battles over tobacco smoking and CFCs, for example.

I can't recall the source offhand, but there was a marketing study recently published that showed, politics and travel difficulties aside, that travel to Northern Thailand was lessening and that visitors here were advance booking for longer trips than they were actually staying. The reasons were not, apparently, totally political or economic.

I do not intend to argue the relative impact of political unrest, economic downturn, and pollution on tourism. What seems odd is lack of effective concern and action to address a problem that does, indeed have some viable solutions to substantially ameliorate if not eliminate the problem.

UG has written something about tackling the pollution problem a "Mission Impossible." That's rather melodramatic! He's right to point out that there are global and regional problems that are harder to address. But then, when you think about it, they are in many ways the sum of local problems, aren't they? Local concern and action can lead to larger efforts to change policy and implement programs that have some positive impact.

[chiang mai]

Some of the worst apologists seem to be those in the tourism business, especially those with stakes in small and large B&B, guest house and hotels. Add TAT to that list. And certainly the deputy governor who last week gave his blessing to a car caravan to publicise an anti-pollution campaign!!! Oy! By default, whatever your humor, you are tending toward that camp and, alas, not contributing anything constructive.

Who exactly are apologists here that you refer to? You'd be hard pressed to find people saying that March is a great month weather wise?

Some of the claims are so ludicrous though (worst city in the world, worst in Thailand, etc) that a dose of common sense would add some much needed balance.

And I have no connection whatsoever to the tourist industry other than as a customer.

Hmm, therein lies the problem or a part of it at least, what is the reality. I agree that the statements of the extremes are laughable but I remain keen to understand whether CM truly is the third best, third worst or whatever in the air quality league tables and I think it's important we all know the answer. Given the present limited capture and sampling of the air I don't think anyone really knows. I have great difficulty believing that CM is the third best when and if it remains true that it also has the third highest incidence of lung cancer. I also have great difficulty believing that CM air quality is cleaner than say Phuket. And once we quantify the problem I would like to understand what CM equates to in air quality terms, is it the same as Shenyang in China where the air quality is truly dire or perhaps it's similar to say London or Boston. So why do I want to know these things and why do I think they're important - because with the answers in hand people can make informed decisions about where they want to live and how long they want to live.

[Ulysses G.]

UG has written something about tackling the pollution problem a "Mission Impossible." That's rather melodramatic! He's right to point out that there are global and regional problems that are harder to address. But then, when you think about it, they are in many ways the sum of local problems, aren't they? Local concern and action can lead to larger efforts to change policy and implement programs that have some positive impact.

It very well might be possible to get Thai people to change their habbits, but, from everything that I have read, it is very difficult to control hill tribes in Thailand and neighboring countries from stopping what they have been doing for a very long time.

Anyone have any do-able ideas on how to control them?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Good post Mapguy, I think we're roughly on the same page. I fully agree that there's is plenty opportunities to to make improvements. These can be made and should be made.

Ulysses, I'm not at all sure that hill tribes contribute to any greater level than flat-land Thais do either in absolute or relative numbers. I also don't think that it would be any harder to change ways of one particular group over the other. Burning fields does not help the soil any more compared to letting it be and then ploughing it over, and actually wastes nutrients. This is a simple truth that needs to sink in among farmers everywhere.

But even if there was a group of total aliens somewhere on a mountain with whom communication was completely impossible, then that still wouldn't be a reason not to start big campaigns to improve the issue. And finally it was apparently successful to make hill tribe people stop growing opium by and large (never mind how that was accomplished) but if you can do that then you can do anything. )It's easier to find smoke than poppy fields.)

[Ulysses G.]

The problem is that this burning is not taking place only in Thailand, but in all the countries around us. Growing Opium was mostly stopped here - with LOTS of money from the U.S. - but there is still plenty of it being grown in Burma and Laos.

Do you really think that Thailand will spend its own money to stop pollution in less developed surrounding countries?

I wish anyone luck who thinks they can change this situation, but it is certainly going to take a lot of co-operation from the poorer neighbors in this part of the world and that is not something that they are known for.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[Mapguy]

The problem is that this burning is not taking place only in Thailand, but in all the countries around us. Growing Opium was mostly stopped here - with LOTS of money from the U.S. - but there is still plenty of it being grown in Burma and Laos.

Do you really think that Thailand will spend its own money to stop pollution in less developed surrounding countries?

I wish anyone luck who thinks they can change this situation, but it is certainly going to take a lot of co-operation from the poorer neighbors in this part of the world and that is not something that they are known for.

Whoa, UG! You still appear to keep reaching hither and yon for any argument you can find just for the sake of argument!

True, burning is taking place elsewhere as well as in Thailand, but there is a problem to deal with HERE that can be dealt with. And opium production is still too dam_n profitable. There's some that still goes on in Thailand, certainly, as well in the much less regulated areas of Burma and Laos. Anyway, let's look at two situations.

First, the hill tribes in this and surrounding valleys. Historically, the campaign to substantially stop opium production was indeed expensive, but it was basically effective in the long run because a market was created for agricultural crops. Providing economic incentive is indeed a fundamentally sound approach to changing habits. However, if you've paid attention, the hill tribes still get the very short end of the stick economically.

As a sidelight, one of the regrettable truths of NE Burma is that the peoples there require income to provide for their fight against being integrated into the country (not just against the junta there). The fight has been going on for decades. They continue to get it from opium and the manufacture of ectasy speed, and other pharmaceutical cocktails. Economically, they are otherwise basically isolated. The situation is different than buying off the old Kumintang war lords of the "Golden Triangle."

Back to Thailand, economic incentive is indeed also important, even to get over something so simple as the laziness of rice farmers of Central and Northern Thailand (not everywhere!) to change their habit of rice straw burning, which has been noted above by Winnie the Kwai. Actually, not much is needed! Alternatives are available. In many ways, it adds up to simply getting people off their butts. Tostart things off, there probably are some useful short-term economic incentives that government could offer.

Never mind the Ministry of Agriculture! A stodgy educational bureaucracy in the Ministry of Education doesn't help, either. Ajarn Duonchon Charoenmuang, a serious researcher and activist at CMU whom I have mentioned numerous times on TV, once reviewed all the government textbooks on the topic of rice farming. I believe she said that there were eleven of them at the time. Burning was actually encouraged! And even after a campaign covering two changes of minister, she didn't have any luck in getting such texts revised.

Well, enough for now. Dinnertime.

[Ulysses G.]

Whoa, UG! You still appear to keep reaching hither and yon for any argument you can find just for the sake of argument!

Huh?

Sorry, but it has been obvious for years that the seasonal burning is coming from multiple countries/sources all over the area and therefore is almost impossible to control. Whatever is done in Thailand only stops part of the pollution. Pretending otherwise is just plain wrong.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[chiang mai]

Whoa, UG! You still appear to keep reaching hither and yon for any argument you can find just for the sake of argument!

Huh?

Sorry, but it has been obvious for years that the seasonal burning is coming from multiple countries/sources all over the area and therefore is almost impossible to control. Whatever is done in Thailand only stops part of the pollution. Pretending otherwise is just plain wrong.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with UG on this point. I think the pollution problem in CM may have similarities with the pollution problems in Hong Kong - the air in HK can be appallingly bad yet there is hardly any manufacturing or heavy industry in HK that can be blamed. But the Pearl River Delta contains huge numbers of polluting sources and the resultant clouds of poison drift many miles to hover over HK. But back to CM and UG's point - if you look at Google Earth and the number and location of fires burning in the North you'll see that major fires exist in an arc that covers Laos, Myanmar, Southern China and Northern Thailand, burning in northern Thailand is only a part of CM's problems.

[Mapguy]

Whoa, UG! You still appear to keep reaching hither and yon for any argument you can find just for the sake of argument!

Huh?

Sorry, but it has been obvious for years that the seasonal burning is coming from multiple countries/sources all over the area and therefore is almost impossible to control. Whatever is done in Thailand only stops part of the pollution. Pretending otherwise is just plain wrong.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with UG on this point. I think the pollution problem in CM may have similarities with the pollution problems in Hong Kong - the air in HK can be appallingly bad yet there is hardly any manufacturing or heavy industry in HK that can be blamed. But the Pearl River Delta contains huge numbers of polluting sources and the resultant clouds of poison drift many miles to hover over HK. But back to CM and UG's point - if you look at Google Earth and the number and location of fires burning in the North you'll see that major fires exist in an arc that covers Laos, Myanmar, Southern China and Northern Thailand, burning in northern Thailand is only a part of CM's problems.

Hold on, folks!

Of course, there is burning elsewhere, but to deny that something effective can't be done with the central and northern regions of Thailand that will ameliorate the situation around here considerably is (Excuse me!) smoking something!

Nobody should need or wants a long lecture about particulate matter pollution and how far it can travel. Or about stationery winter cold fronts and temperature inversions. PM pollution in some cases (not just here in Asia) is literally trans-oceanic over hundreds of miles. In Asia, there is very serious upper atmospheric pollution covering broad areas from such phenomena as Indonesian burning of jungle to create palm oil plantations. You don't have to even bring up the coal-belching electricity generating plants of China and India.

BUT... do you honestly believe that nothing can be done around Chiang Mai or about the central and northern plains of Thailand? Mile after mile of burned out fields, smoldering highway verge, and thin columns of the nightly neighborhood trash burn? Never mind Al Gore! Just do something yourself, large or small. And encourage others to quit weeping in their beer or blaming "them."

[chiang mai]

Whoa, UG! You still appear to keep reaching hither and yon for any argument you can find just for the sake of argument!

Huh?

Sorry, but it has been obvious for years that the seasonal burning is coming from multiple countries/sources all over the area and therefore is almost impossible to control. Whatever is done in Thailand only stops part of the pollution. Pretending otherwise is just plain wrong.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with UG on this point. I think the pollution problem in CM may have similarities with the pollution problems in Hong Kong - the air in HK can be appallingly bad yet there is hardly any manufacturing or heavy industry in HK that can be blamed. But the Pearl River Delta contains huge numbers of polluting sources and the resultant clouds of poison drift many miles to hover over HK. But back to CM and UG's point - if you look at Google Earth and the number and location of fires burning in the North you'll see that major fires exist in an arc that covers Laos, Myanmar, Southern China and Northern Thailand, burning in northern Thailand is only a part of CM's problems.

Hold on, folks!

Of course, there is burning elsewhere, but to deny that something effective can't be done with the central and northern regions of Thailand that will ameliorate the situation around here considerably is (Excuse me!) smoking something!

Nobody should need or wants a long lecture about particulate matter pollution and how far it can travel. Or about stationery winter cold fronts and temperature inversions. PM pollution in some cases (not just here in Asia) is literally trans-oceanic over hundreds of miles. In Asia, there is very serious upper atmospheric pollution covering broad areas from such phenomena as Indonesian burning of jungle to create palm oil plantations. You don't have to even bring up the coal-belching electricity generating plants of China and India.

BUT... do you honestly believe that nothing can be done around Chiang Mai or about the central and northern plains of Thailand? Mile after mile of burned out fields, smoldering highway verge, and thin columns of the nightly neighborhood trash burn? Never mind Al Gore! Just do something yourself, large or small. And encourage others to quit weeping in their beer or blaming "them."

For my part I don't know what the effect would be overall if the problems we can see and know about in the North of Thailand were tackled head on and eradicated, be nice to think that would solve many problems but frankly I'm wholly unclear as to the possible benefit or potential lack of. My sense is that the imapct might be minimal but I can't quantify.

[Ulysses G.]

For my part I don't know what the effect would be overall if the problems we can see and know about in the North of Thailand were tackled head on and eradicated, be nice to think that would solve many problems but frankly I'm wholly unclear as to the possible benefit or potential lack of. My sense is that the imapct might be minimal but I can't quantify.

I'm afraid that because this is mostly a seasonal problem, what is done about it in Thailand will help very little overall, but it would be nice to be be wrong.

[adjan jb]

to be be wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.