Pollution In Chiang Mai

[retiredat50]

Is it really this bad?

earthoria dot com/air-pollution-levels-in-chiang-mai-rising dot html

[elektrified]

Yes.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

February 27th, 2008

Next.

(Do a forum search; there's the yearly field burning which causes haze from late February through March.)

Edited October 12, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[ZZZ]

There are worse places in Thailand but CM is one of the worst for pollution:

You can monitor many locations in Thailand at the PCD site:

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

[Thailand]

Yes, only another 5 months to wait before choking begins.

[IanForbes]

I never found it all that bad. Thousands of people smoke cigarettes and never complain about them. People drink booze to excess and I don't hear any complaints from that group. If it gets too bad in a temperature inversion then it's a great time to visit the beach areas.

[Donnyboy]

fluro is the next years season colour

[Thailand]

I never found it all that bad. Thousands of people smoke cigarettes and never complain about them. People drink booze to excess and I don't hear any complaints from that group. If it gets too bad in a temperature inversion then it's a great time to visit the beach areas.

Are you in a different Chiang Mai.?

You can't see the hills or mountains for three months, the air is full of ash ,those with respiratory problems struggle even more.

I am fortunate enough to have a swimming pool, normally we change the filter every one to two days- during the smog it's three times a day- and the white filter we put in comes out black- very black- and we are sucking that in when we breathe!

[Ulysses G.]

It bothers some people and does not bother others. I hardly notice it until I start looking at Thai Visa and then I wonder what some people are talking about. I have been in much worse pollution is all that I can say.

[PeaceBlondie]

Most of us can't escape for months during burning season. I did escape for a year, and the jellyfish and beach dogs got me.

[gotlost]

Stop breathing.. This past March the wife and I drove down to Phuket to get out of this crap. At Lampang the smog eased up by Ayutthaya we were in the Bangkok crap about 100 Klicks sout of Hua Hin we finally breathed clean air. Is it bad..?? I can hardly wait for this coming season.

[tigerbalm]

Yes it is pretty bad in the early part of the beginning of the year Feb to April, usually for the best part of this time the mountains to the West and East of the Doi Saket road are not visible they even send up plans dropping water over the city and surrounding area to try and dissipate the pollution.

I don't know which way the wind blows but on a recent trip up to Chiang Rai i have noticed on a few occasions that the mountains/hills are slowly being stripped of trees and given over to corn production even the side of the roads are being used to grow the stuff.

The area is about 40 KMs from Doi Saket east and stretches quite a few more Kilometers

Sooner or later this is going to get burned adding to even more polution if the wind direction is towards Chiang mai.

I saw a planet earth documentary a little while back in which the comentator remarked that Thailand has lost most of it's rain forest's, given over to rice production i assume, and now it is quite worrying to see these mountain or hill side areas which i assume belongs to the Goverment and has been just taken over by people who just want to grow corn, adding to more problems.

I understand there is lively hoods dependant on food but at what cost.

I really do like Chiang mai but i would really like to get a way for the better part of the on coming burning season as it is so commonly called.

Any body got a nice little Chalet in Switzerland for about 15000 a month...................Bht

[Donnyboy]

Most of us can't escape for months during burning season. I did escape for a year, and the jellyfish and beach dogs got me.

im doing it rough in nz for the next 3 months,(from late oct) but hopefully will be back to catch the onset, most smoke i will see in nz will likely be coming off a bbq

[Priceless]

Is it really this bad?

earthoria dot com/air-pollution-levels-in-chiang-mai-rising dot html

The short answer: No, it isn't.

The long answer: The website that you quote (earthoria[dot]com) is not something you should trust. I don't know who is behind it or his/her/their motives. This is, however, not the first time an article made up of insinuations, half-truths and lies is posted on the site.

An example: "In London, the United States and the European Union as a whole it is considered a serious pollution ‘episode’ if the PM-10 level exceeds 50". The author conveniently "forgets" to mention that the European Union standard ( http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm ) also states that this level may be exceeded up to 35 times/year (i.e. about every tenth day) without this being considered in breach of the standard. The Thai standard, on the other hand, should never be exceeded, though of course it occasionally is. That the "London standard" is the same as the EU one is not surprising since the UK, including London, is a member of the EU

As for a PM<10 level being considered a serious pollution 'episode' in the United States, this is an outright lie. The US standard ( http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html#3 and http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/standards.html ) sets the permissible limit at 150 µg/m³, i.e. three times what the author claims and 25% over the Thai standard ( http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_std_airsnd01.html ).

Another example: "Last year [2007] the pollution levels got so high that literally thousands of people across Chiang Mai province were admitted to hospital with various respiratory illnesses – including Tina – and the government released a 24 hour emergency number for reporting the fires." This statement is actually true. However, not for the whole year but rather for a part of the month of March.

The author then goes on to quote a list (from the World Health Organisation) of yearly average pollution levels for a number of countries, implicitly comparing this to the Chiang Mai level for March 2007, the highest monthly average recorded this decade! This is a not uncommon, but nonetheless despicable, trick of demagoguery, mentioning two uncomparable facts together to create a non-existing contrast. The average pollution level for Chiang Mai this decade is 46.5 µg/m³, which does not compare that unfavourably with the WHO list.

Finally, it may be worth mentioning that the article is dated February 28, 2008. It is somewhat ironic to note that 2008 turned out to be the, pollution-wise, best year this decade with an average level of just 38.4 µg/m³!

So, what are the real facts? The following are two charts showing monthly average pollution levels for Chiang Mai and (1) some of the most and least polluted places in Thailand and (2) some popular "farang areas". The raw data comes from the Pollution Control Department website ( http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Q...fm?task=default ):

As one can easily see, March is usually a pretty bad time of year. On the other hand, for most of the rest of the year Chiang Mai is actually one of the least polluted places in Thailand.

My concusion would be: If you have a pre-existing respiratory condition you should avoid Chiang Mai during the month of March. If not, and during other times of the year, come and enjoy this wonderful city

/ Priceless

Edited October 13, 2009 by Priceless

[tigerbalm]

Interesting and informative post above.

Don't doubt the figures but how strange that places like Puhket and Chon buri have higher levels of pollution than Chiang Mai given that Puket is surrounded by the sea and Chon buri is not far from the coast,(If it is the Chon Buri i am thinking about in the Pattaya area) one usually assosiates costal areas to have less polution (Air) than inland areas.

Any idear why this might be?

[chiang mai]

Here we go again - bottom line is that the "real facts" on this subject will never be agreed to in this forum, best to take your own views based on what you see and how you feel and when you get really sick, come to Phuket for a breath of fresh air.

[Ulysses G.]

Any idear why this might be?

Think Sodom and Gamorah.

[slapout]

The term 'things are not what they seem' comes to mind. This probably applies to both sides of this and other debates/arguments which are presented on TV.

[chiang mai]

Interesting and informative post above.

Don't doubt the figures but how strange that places like Puhket and Chon buri have higher levels of pollution than Chiang Mai given that Puket is surrounded by the sea and Chon buri is not far from the coast,(If it is the Chon Buri i am thinking about in the Pattaya area) one usually assosiates costal areas to have less polution (Air) than inland areas.

Any idear why this might be?

A more appropriate answer might be, doubt the figures!

Another way to look at the problem is to use the medical approach to diagnosis - in medical training schools doctors are taught, if that's what you think it is, that's what it is. So your observations about being surrounded by sea versus surrounded my mountains and the logic that ensues, well,..... Mostly what's missing in that argument is the reason why, the likely causes of pollution and the contributing factors in CM are pretty much self evident but Phuket, hmm, maybe it's all the fish smoke houses or beach barbecues, not sure!

Edited October 14, 2009 by chiang mai

[Priceless]

Interesting and informative post above.

Don't doubt the figures but how strange that places like Puhket and Chon buri have higher levels of pollution than Chiang Mai given that Puket is surrounded by the sea and Chon buri is not far from the coast,(If it is the Chon Buri i am thinking about in the Pattaya area) one usually assosiates costal areas to have less polution (Air) than inland areas.

Any idear why this might be?

This is a very good question! I wish that I had an equally good answer, but I don't I do have a few points and hypotheses, though

Firstly a statistical point: The graphs show ten year averages and may consequently hide significant differences and developments over time. The Phuket graph is an example of this:

As you can see, the pollution levels were significantly higher from late 2001 to early 2007 than earlier and later during the decade. I don't know why this is so, but it may be because one factor that one often forgets: The source of pollution is frequently not local but regional. According to the Economist ( http://www.economist.com/specialreports/di...ory_id=14391374 ) Indonesia is in fact the world's third biggest emitter of carbon (mostly in the form of dioxide). Since these emissions mostly come from forest fires, I think that one can safely assume that they are accompanied by particulate matter emissions. These emissions can spread very widely, certainly into southwestern Thailand.

Another factor that may contribute to variations in pollution levels is, of course, variations in prevailing winds and in precipitation (i.e. rain in our part of the world). I think we all know that rainfall can vary greatly from year to year. I am not a professional meteorologist but am under the impression that the weather in Thailand can vary greatly dependent on El Niño/La Niña, or their atmospheric counterpart the Southern Oscilllation. This ought to be able to influence the pollution levels, particularly in the southern (coastal) parts of Thailand. (The rather horrible pollution levels in Chiang Mai in March 2007 were to a large extent caused by another meteorological phenomenon: An unusually persistent inversion over the area.)

As concerns Chon Buri, this is indeed the province where Pattaya is situated. Pattaya is not exactly known as a haven of pristine nature In fact, the eastern seaboard of the Gulf of Thailand (Siam) is "heavily industrialized and underpinned by shipping, transportation, tourism, and manufacturing industries, and second to only Bangkok in economic output" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chonburi_Province ). To the immediate south of Chon Buri you'll find Rayong province, home to the recently much discussed Map Ta Put industrial estate, possibly the most heavily polluted place in Thailand. The pollution levels in Chon Buri may, consequently be more "home made" than those in Phuket.

To sum up: I don't claim to understand all the factors determining pollution levels and their variation over time and space. I am, however, convinced that one has to consider the sources of pollution as well as the forces spreading and/or dissolving it to even begin to understand why it behaves the way it does.

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

Ah, so, Phuket may suffer from transient pollution, blown in from other areas in the region - that being the case then surely CM must suffer similarly in respect of pollution blown in from neighboring countries such as China, Laos etc.

[Ulysses G.]

Much/most of the smoke in March is from slash and burn farming in Laos and Burma. I have never heard of pollution in China coming this far.

[chiang mai]

Much/most of the smoke in March is from slash and burn farming in Laos and Burma. I have never heard of pollution in China coming this far.

And I do agree, one of the many problems on this point however is that any prior talk of "imported" pollution and the need to study air currents et al has been poo poop'd by his highness in the past. Personally I am most strongly inclined to believe that a large percentage of CM pollution problems stem from countries to the North although not necessarily from just slash and burn! BTW, China aint that far away.

Edited October 14, 2009 by chiang mai

[caf]

I never found it all that bad. Thousands of people smoke cigarettes and never complain about them. People drink booze to excess and I don't hear any complaints from that group. If it gets too bad in a temperature inversion then it's a great time to visit the beach areas.

Are you in a different Chiang Mai.?

You can't see the hills or mountains for three months, the air is full of ash ,those with respiratory problems struggle even more.

I am fortunate enough to have a swimming pool, normally we change the filter every one to two days- during the smog it's three times a day- and the white filter we put in comes out black- very black- and we are sucking that in when we breathe!

Chiangmai, Canada

[PeaceBlondie]

My first visit to southernmost Mexico was when they burned their cornfields, an annual event for millennia. I returned to Houston - America's most industrialized and air-polluted metro area - to discover that the smoke had preceded me, causing smoke pollution to soar to all-time highs...1,600 km away.

[Ulysses G.]

You are in: World: Asia-Pacific Front Page World Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East South Asia -------------From Our Own Correspondent -------------Letter From America UK UK Politics Business Sci/Tech Health Education Entertainment Talking Point In Depth AudioVideo

SERVICES Daily E-mailNews TickerMobiles/PDAsFeedbackHelpLow GraphicsFriday, 13 July, 2001, 17:36 GMT 18:36 UK Indonesia fires shroud region in smoke

Indonesia has been urged to deal with the problem

After choking its neighbours with smoke, Indonesia is now going to host a four-nation meeting on 19 July, to seek solutions for forest fires raging on Sumatra and Borneo and the smoke that is driving up pollution in the region.

Singapore has officially complained to Jakarta over the haze, after its pollution index hit the highest level this year, a Singapore Government statement said.

We are confident that it is not beyond the capacity of the Indonesian authorities to exercise greater vigilance and impose strict punishment on the culprits

New Straits Times Singapore Environment Minister Lee Yock Suan has written his Indonesian counterpart to "convey our concern over the smoke haze situation", the statement said.

Attending the meeting in Jakarta next Thursday will be environment officials from Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia.

Singapore optimistic

"Our sense is that there is a commitment on their [indonesia's] part to actually deal with the fires," said Loh Ah Tuan, a director at Singapore's Ministry of the Environment.

Singapore's pollution level remained relatively low until Thursday, thanks to favourable winds that took the smoke from the Sumatra blazes elsewhere.

Areas of Malaysia are shrouded in smoke

It has not been as hard hit as parts of Thailand and Malaysia this week.

A Singapore meteorological official, Wong Teo Suan, told Reuters: "The situation will not change very much in what we're experiencing in Singapore - a slight to moderate haze - and I don't think it will deteriorate."

Malaysia hard hit

Central Kuala Lumpur in neighbouring Malaysia, however, is shrouded in smoke, obscuring the hills that ring the capital.

Malaysia's New Straits Times newspaper urged Indonesia to confront the issue of farmers starting fires deliberately to clear land for cultivation.

"We are confident that it is not beyond the capacity of the Indonesian authorities to exercise greater vigilance and impose strict punishment on the culprits," the newspaper said in an editorial on Friday.

In 1997, the region suffered a suffocating haze caused by Indonesia fires.

Indonesia has asked Australian fire-fighters to help put out the fires in Sumatra and Borneo.

Is this the smoke that Priceless was talking about in Phuket?

[Priceless]

[...]

Is this the smoke that Priceless was talking about in Phuket?

"Indonesia must ratify anti-haze treaty

The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (THP) was signed in 2002 and came into force in November 2003. Indonesia signed the agreement in 2002, but it will not be legally binding unless Indonesia ratifies it.

Without Indonesia joining as a party, the treaty will lose its intention to prevent and monitor transboundary haze pollution. As Indonesia is the main source of haze pollution, it seems to be reluctant to ratify the treaty.

According to Indonesian law, an international treaty has to be enacted as a law, which requires a long and tedious process of public hearings and meetings at the House of Representatives. The bill on the ratification of the ASEAN Agreement on THP was initially considered as one out of 78 bills the House would debate in 2006, but the legislative body later decided to drop it.

Environmental issues have never been on the main agenda of Indonesia ’s national policy and also the problem of transboundary pollution receives little attention from the decision makers. Indonesia is bogged down by other pressing priorities, such as terrorism, the oil price hike and subsidies, and other economic and social problems."

(Source: http://www.imcg.net/imcgnl/nl0601/nl0601_11.htm )

As far as I have been able to find out, Indonesia has still not ratified the treaty

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

Priceless is bang on, but

It is not just Indonesia.

The general problem is "us." That includes Indonesians and everyone else.

If your sense of anomie makes you give up --- light another cigarette in a smoky bar with the argument (UG's favorite) that "since air pollution may bother some people but not all so what the hel_l," or burn your little bit of trash at the back of the garden every night since it is such a little bit of trash so what does it matter, or buy another mucho-liter gas or diesel burning "super CRV," well, carry on, mates! But I wish you wouldn't. Indeed, I don't wish you well.

This message isn't about saving sharks or baby seals or hugging trees, but it is about common sense. Our friend Priceless unfortunately keeps steering folks in the wrong direction --- giving pollution junkies or apologists a cheap fix --- with his particular narrow concern about cheap hyperbole in the use of statistics. I share this concern with him, but in my opinion --- even though he is right with much of his complaint about the careless hyperbole of complaints about Chiang Mai pollution, he misses the much larger point! That's a problem! There is a problem! A super big problem! Educating folks generally and helping to solve the problem is where the action should be, in large or modest ways, not with phishing around with zapping cheap hyperbole or irrelevant arguments (comparisons with pollution of Chiang Mai with other places), blah, blah, blah. That's a waste of time.

Get real, people! Chiang Mai has an air pollution problem. As Priceless persistently points out, it is seasonal. It basically begins in mid February and continues until the first rains in early to mid April. There has been --- and probably from time to time --- will be regional weather considerations which makes the situation better or worse (as in 2007). There is a huge amount of discussion with a LOT of concrete information in the many threads focusing on this general problem.

Look those things up. You might or might not. There are, however, local solutions. They start with you. Who doesn't know what they are?

Edited October 26, 2009 by Mapguy

[Ulysses G.]

It looks like Mapguy's favorite time of year is approaching - smoky season. He has some serious complaining to do and everyone better listen. No one is disputing that pollution is an important issue, but the problem is that he moans and groans and blames people who have nothing to do with it, and never offers any solutions.

Nobody wants Chiang Mai to be polluted; however, we all know that much of the seasonal smoke comes from hill tribes and surrounding countries and that there is realistically little that can be done to stop it.

Mapguy seems to think that whinging about it on the internet - while pointing fingers at other foreigners - is the solution, but whining does not get rid of pollution and neither do taunts or wishful thinking.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[vagabond48]

Perhaps, he also reacts (as I do sometimes) to some member's "it don't bother me none, so it can't be all that bad" attitude.