Pollution In Chiang Mai

[anselpixel]

I finally arrived in Chiang Mai last Saturday, and have to say I don't understand the panic about air quality. Try living in Atlanta for a few years, and a walk though CM rush hour seems an alpine stroll in comparison. I have reactive asthma, and was concerned about visiting here because of all the chatter about pollution that I've encountered in my online research. So far, I've been very pleasantly surprised.

[Thakkar]

On the whole, it may seem fine, but there's a lot of localized burning. It really depends on where you happen to be. The City and nearby areas are OK. Further out is where the small-scale localized burnings are affecting air quality.

[Sparkles]

I finally arrived in Chiang Mai last Saturday, and have to say I don't understand the panic about air quality. Try living in Atlanta for a few years, and a walk though CM rush hour seems an alpine stroll in comparison. I have reactive asthma, and was concerned about visiting here because of all the chatter about pollution that I've encountered in my online research. So far, I've been very pleasantly surprised.

I stand corrected if wrong but I think Feb/March is the time it can get very hazy due to burning off . We also had unexpected rain a week or so ago and many are waiting for it to really dry out before lighting up .

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

it's great now and just had a rare strong rain. It can change in a hurry though. In March people will be singing a much different tune. I am like a lot of others who hope the burning will not all be at once this year and keep praying for occasional rains :-)

I usually have to curtail or suspend my bike rides by early/mid March and not really get back into an enjoyable routine until almost May.

[Mapguy]

The weather has been truly wonderful of late in Chiang Mai, not just in the city but also in recent days north, east and west and (a little bit) south as I have seen in my travels. I was east of the city at the edge of the valley yesterday. It was positively gorgeous! Not totally clear, but absolutely beautiful! There are some real reasons for that: a recent unusually heavy rain, which settles air pollution, a New Year's holiday for farmers who have started burning rice straw, perhaps.

More broadly, Priceless might take the time to research how many posts there have been on this topic over the past (nearly) three years, but I think that would be an onerous task. It is a huge number; even more than posts about favorite restaurants in Chiang Mai. But my request is unreasonable on the simple grounds that there are so many threads on the topic of air pollution in Chiang Mai that have evolved over time. Too bad. Despite much crap, there has often been many very useful and constructive posts including the best available sources of information on air pollution to go to. Ah well, such is life on a forum like this one!

One doesn't have to use pure, purportedly "scientific" methods to discover the obvious. I just wish the silly and the ad hominem posts wouldn't be so ill-considered regardless of which side of this "argument" people happen to be on. Otherwise, I obviously don't think that there is much of an argument posted by the naysayers and apologists for air pollution in central and northern Thailand.

I am not a "whinger," a complainer who gets it off by complaining. I don't post for the enjoyment of it. To wit:

The general problem is "us."

If your sense of anomie makes you give up --- light another cigarette in a smoky bar with the argument that "since air pollution may bother some people but not all so what the hel_l," or (like thousands of others) 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 liter of gas or diesel for your truck or monster CRV. Then, hop on an airplane for Phuket when it really gets bad. Well, bon voyage!!! Carry on, mates! But I wish you wouldn't. Indeed, I don't wish you well. There are a few hundred thousand people in northern and central Thailand who live and work here and can't hop on a plane to escape the bad weeks.

This message isn't about saving sharks or baby seals or hugging trees. 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 personal 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 information about Chiang Mai pollution, he regrettably often misleads people away from the much larger point! There is definitely a problem!

I am not "bemused," as Priceless recently posted, with "unseasonal" comments on air pollution when, indeed, the weather has recently been terrific. There is a problem!. Educating folks regardless of the season and helping to solve the problem is where the action should be, in large or modest ways, not with phishing around zapping cheap hyperbole or irrelevant arguments (comparisons with pollution of Chiang Mai with other places), blah, blah, blah. That's a waste of time. Here we are. This is where we live and hope to live as long as we can in good health.

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 have been --- and will continue to be from time to time --- regional weather considerations which make the situation better (now) or really progressively worse, generally, in mid February - early April).

There is a huge amount of discussion with a lot of concrete information and sources of information to explore in the many TV Chiang Mai threads focusing on this general problem. Look those things up. You might or might not.

There are local solutions. Many start with you. Who doesn't know what they are? Otherwise, as they used to say in military parlance, when smoking was more popular: "The smoking lamp is lit. Light 'em up!" Just not in other peoples' faces, please! Like some of the silly arguments denying air pollution on this site!

Edited January 11, 2010 by Mapguy

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV Friends,

May we say, again, how much we've enjoyed the recent posts on this thread by Khun Priceless, Khun Mapguy, and Khun ChiangMai.

If we can find a "gist" in all these messages, for us; it is : the issue of pollution is a complex phenomenon with hundreds of contributing variables, and various "feedback loops," as well as "patterns of variation."

We believe, without firm scientific basis, that our human meat-package is, now, as an oral cancer survivor three years out from successful (no recurrence) treatment, more sensitive to pollution : of course the reasons for that could include :

1. three years older : aging : very possible that in the process of aging there are key "inflection points" where there is a possibility of quantum "downshifts" in health and immune system capacity.

2. possible long-term side-effects of chemo and radiation

3. doing more in-city bicycling compared to bicycling out in the country now

4. doing more in-city bicycling during peak traffic hours.

And, of course, possible complex interactions between all of the above; and, other changes the human meat-package has gone through like shifting to a diet that is 90% soy-milk, being, on average, 15 kilos less of meat than in most of his post-larval (supposedly adult) form.

"Perceived pollution" vs. actual pollution is as big a "sticky," ioho, as the "stickiness" in statistics which we've tried to point to on this thread. If you tell us that in early December of 2009 you experienced more pollution in Chiang Mai than other Decembers you can remember, we have no reason to question the validity of your experience, and also no reason to question that "your experience" is one data point : and the data point that is most salient, and most important, to you !

And good scientific inquiry starts not by dismissing an individual's "data point," but by inquiring into what observable factors, and what hypothetical factors, go into that individual's perceptions. So if someone makes that statement to us about "their December" : we'd immediately ask them some "open-ended" questions; starting with questions like : "where are you living now compared to where you lived before ?;" "what is your daily/nightly routine like this December vs. previous Decembers ? ... and so forth. Inquiry into the individual's hypotheses is equally important : to try and detect subtle biases, influencs from media, or membership in social groups that might reinforce a "hyper-awareness" of environmental issues.

One key variable we feel we haven't seen coverage of yet in any of the TV CM posts is data on prevailing winds, and variation in prevailing winds over time and season of the year.

Also the extent to which the different forms of pollution "cling to the ground," or "rise in the air" independent of wind conditiions : for us, this is as yet unexplored in this thread.

Clearly one of the cases where Chiang Mai pollution can get horrible (and here we do think we are referring to a March in some year late in the 90's) is when the air is "trapped" in the Ping valley. My human remembers during that year, sometime in the late 90's, that he would bicycle down from the hill-top moo-baan where he lived to Huay Kaew : descending perhaps only two hundred feet at most : the contrast in air quality and temperature was astounding ! He remembers describing that month as like "trying to breathe with a felt cloth shoved down your throat."

If forest fires in other countries are increasing, and are contributing to pollution : surely wind, weather must be the key factors in the movement of the pollution from those areas here.

We also believe winds, or lack of wind, plays a key role in the build-up of vehicle exhaust pollution in peak-traffic hours on major Chiang Mai streets. In fact we believe we've seen so much evidence of this first-hand, that we're certain about this, and propose that if you set up measuring stations in ten key areas of Chiang Mai we could pin-point on a map for you, you'd find remarkable variations in key time-zones (we could also pin-point for you) correlated with traffic density.

To us this is more than a mere "academic thought experiement" : if we had human children, we might well be concerned with, depending on the location of their school, how much pollution they encountered just before and after school : assuming, for example, that their school might be in a very high-traffic area around school-time hours, and that the traffic would be compounded by school-related trafffic.

Let's take a deep breath now of the beautiful air and sunshine of today, while we can.

best, ~o:37

Edited January 12, 2010 by orang37

[jdinasia]

OK. why did that last 2 posts make me WANT to go light a cigarette and join my army neighbors in burning some trash?

Obviously there are issues and just as obviously whinging about people's SUV's or smoking isn't going to solve them I wonder, is my smoking habit and riding a well tuned 125cc motorcycle a higher or lower carbon footprint than complaining incessantly and driving a Honda City? I dunno!

Ask me in a few more months about how I feel after having been here full time through the burning season and I'll let you know, but after having lived in Bangkok for much of the last 6 years I kinda doubt I will be complaining too much about it!

[anonymouse]

I am not a "whinger," a complainer who gets it off by complaining. I don't post for the enjoyment of it. To wit:

Or our enjoyment for that matter

[orang37]

OK. why did that last 2 posts make me WANT to go light a cigarette and join my army neighbors in burning some trash? ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun JDInAsia,

We can only postulate a few hypotheses :

1. because you are deeply insecure about whether or not you are intelligent.

2. because when other people are articulate you feel nervous and inadequate.

3. because you are angry about something, or some things, or someone.

4. because you have a problem reading in general, a problem with attention span, or dyslexia, etc.

5. because you are having a bad day and want to share your suffering based on your understanding that "suffering shared is suffering diluted."

6. because of living six years in Bangkok you have permanent brain damage

7. because of living six years in Bangkok you are enlightened, all things are revealed to you, and you, out of mercy, want to drop us the hint we're wasting time even talking.

We would vote for hypothesis seven given our belief that this is "the best of all possible worlds," ... this was taught to my human's ancestor by Dr. Pangloss, himself.

best, ~o:37;

[orang37]

I am not a "whinger," a complainer who gets it off by complaining. I don't post for the enjoyment of it. To wit:

Or our enjoyment for that matter

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Anonymouse,

We have found this years's vintage of Khun Mapguy very palatable : an initial bouquet of fresh science tempered with an overtone of a kind of velvet-satiny fresh-soap-smelling skepticism, hints of bougainvilla and lotus blossom, and a strong top-note of healthy cynicism redolent of sun-dried weeds on the hills of Sonora county in California in the month of August.

But we also enjoyed the 2009 vintage several times with its hints of ferocious cinnamony tannicity tempered by a turmeric-scent of earthy forcefulness.

It would hurt us, to our core, if we felt that, because we enjoy Khun Mapguy's posts here (even when he came at us with his powerful feral jaws clacking to chomp on our exposed rear parts in well-deserved revenge for our excesses), that we are not part of your "our."

It is our great, burning, desire that you enjoy us, as we enjoy you ! And, we enjoy you, a lot

best, ~o:37;

Edited January 12, 2010 by orang37

[anonymouse]

I am not a "whinger," a complainer who gets it off by complaining. I don't post for the enjoyment of it. To wit:

Or our enjoyment for that matter

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Anonymouse,

We have found this years's vintage of Khun Mapguy very palatable : an initial bouquet of fresh science tempered with an overtone of a kind of velvet-satiny fresh-soap-smelling skepticism, hints of bougainvilla and lotus blossom, and a strong top-note of healthy cynicism redolent of sun-dried weeds on the hills of Sonora county in California in the month of August.

But we also enjoyed the 2009 vintage several times with its hints of ferocious cinnamony tannicity tempered by a turmeric-scent of earthy forcefulness.

It would hurt us, to our core, if we felt that, because we enjoy Khun Mapguy's posts here (even when he came at us with his powerful feral jaws clacking to chomp on our exposed rear parts in well-deserved revenge for our excesses), that we are not part of your "our."

It is our great, burning, desire that you enjoy us, as we enjoy you ! And, we enjoy you, a lot

best, ~o:37;

OK I admit it was a cheap shot, but one man's Châteauneuf-du-Pape is another's Châteauneuf-du-cr%p [very poor I know]

Edited January 12, 2010 by anonymouse

[chiang mai]

I sense that the nature and style of the hitherto, bordering on banal, discussions on CM's pollution problems has changed, for the better I might add.

[anselpixel]

Unholy crap! I see what people mean about poor air quality being a localized and transient problem. I really couldn't breathe in the city this morning and took a ride up Doi Suthep just to get a little oxygen. My first few days' impression is now being updated with "fresh" data.

[Chicog]

Unholy crap! I see what people mean about poor air quality being a localized and transient problem. I really couldn't breathe in the city this morning and took a ride up Doi Suthep just to get a little oxygen. My first few days' impression is now being updated with "fresh" data.

Was I hallucinating when I saw those big, vapour-blowing fans on the bridge last March, and read that this was an attempt at washing some of the crap out of the air? And they also cancelled Chiang Mai-Mae Hong Son flights for a while as well, because the haze made it impossible to land the aircraft safely.

It's interesting to see people using statistics to try and prove or disprove the problem, but for those of us that have noticed the problem worsening and have experienced it first hand (over the last 12 years in my case), I'm afraid those arguments do not stand up. I would not suggest that it doesn't affect some as much as others, that is surely about perception and peoples own personal health.

Two years ago was the worst I've experienced here. That was also the time I went flying around and saw the extent of the burning. In my opinion that is the biggest problem. (And anselpixel, I agree it must be something to do with the Chiang Mai "bowl", because even at 1,000 feet - I would estimate - the problem was noticeably less).

Having said that, all that it takes is a decent shower and it's mostly gone.

However, I'd like to see the figures for reported respiratory illnesses in March; in the absence of precipitation they must be significantly higher than any other time of year. These are the statistics that matter. Is the number of people getting sick during burning season on the rise? And if so, why? Because people are more prone to sickness? Or because there's more burning? Or are other factors at work (perhaps a highly contagious, airborne strain of hypochondria).

Edited January 18, 2010 by Chicog

[gotlost]

Yes its that time of year. Started seeing ridge fires on the hills north of Doi Saket last week. Smoke is coming off these hills as I post this. This is not I repeat not rice burn.

[harrry]

Or you could live in Bangkok where you can wash downtcyour driveway every couple of days and watch a black tide finding its way down the drain. The burning off,in rural areas, is a problem but its not going to stop in the forseeable future. If you have a chronic resoiratory condition you may have to consider moving to the coast

Or you could live in a place like parts of Australia where because of water shortages it is illlegal to wash driveways

[Thakkar]

Unholy crap! I see what people mean about poor air quality being a localized and transient problem. I really couldn't breathe in the city this morning and took a ride up Doi Suthep just to get a little oxygen. My first few days' impression is now being updated with "fresh" data.

Was I hallucinating when I saw those big, vapour-blowing fans on the bridge last March, and read that this was an attempt at washing some of the crap out of the air? And they also cancelled Chiang Mai-Mae Hong Son flights for a while as well, because the haze made it impossible to land the aircraft safely.

It's interesting to see people using statistics to try and prove or disprove the problem, but for those of us that have noticed the problem worsening and have experienced it first hand (over the last 12 years in my case), I'm afraid those arguments do not stand up. I would not suggest that it doesn't affect some as much as others, that is surely about perception and peoples own personal health.

Two years ago was the worst I've experienced here. That was also the time I went flying around and saw the extent of the burning. In my opinion that is the biggest problem. (And anselpixel, I agree it must be something to do with the Chiang Mai "bowl", because even at 1,000 feet - I would estimate - the problem was noticeably less).

Having said that, all that it takes is a decent shower and it's mostly gone.

However, I'd like to see the figures for reported respiratory illnesses in March; in the absence of precipitation they must be significantly higher than any other time of year. These are the statistics that matter. Is the number of people getting sick during burning season on the rise? And if so, why? Because people are more prone to sickness? Or because there's more burning? Or are other factors at work (perhaps a highly contagious, airborne strain of hypochondria).

Respiratory illness figures: I don't know that there are any reliable figures because there seems to be no central reporting system except for contagious diseases. Anecdotally though, our family doctor (a mouth, throat and nose specialist), who also works at a hospital tells us that there is a definite upsurge in respiratory illnesses during March/April every year, but again, no figures. Mrs T and both our daughters are sensitive to the pollution and count among the statistics.

[el jefe]

Unholy crap! I see what people mean about poor air quality being a localized and transient problem. I really couldn't breathe in the city this morning and took a ride up Doi Suthep just to get a little oxygen. My first few days' impression is now being updated with "fresh" data.

Was I hallucinating when I saw those big, vapour-blowing fans on the bridge last March, and read that this was an attempt at washing some of the crap out of the air? And they also cancelled Chiang Mai-Mae Hong Son flights for a while as well, because the haze made it impossible to land the aircraft safely.

It's interesting to see people using statistics to try and prove or disprove the problem, but for those of us that have noticed the problem worsening and have experienced it first hand (over the last 12 years in my case), I'm afraid those arguments do not stand up. I would not suggest that it doesn't affect some as much as others, that is surely about perception and peoples own personal health.

Two years ago was the worst I've experienced here. That was also the time I went flying around and saw the extent of the burning. In my opinion that is the biggest problem. (And anselpixel, I agree it must be something to do with the Chiang Mai "bowl", because even at 1,000 feet - I would estimate - the problem was noticeably less).

Having said that, all that it takes is a decent shower and it's mostly gone.

However, I'd like to see the figures for reported respiratory illnesses in March; in the absence of precipitation they must be significantly higher than any other time of year. These are the statistics that matter. Is the number of people getting sick during burning season on the rise? And if so, why? Because people are more prone to sickness? Or because there's more burning? Or are other factors at work (perhaps a highly contagious, airborne strain of hypochondria).

Comparing the figures for reported respiratory illnesses in March doesn't really mean much. Everyone is told that they may get sick in March from the polluted air so they may be more likely to seek medical treatment then than with the same symptoms at other times of the year. Besides, the pollution caused by burning causes long-term health problems so counting the people with scratchy throats is pretty meaningless.

And your claim that "Two years ago was the worst I've experienced here" is pretty meaningless. If you look at all the statistics that are readily available on this and other threads, you'll see that 2008 was actually pretty good while February and March 2007 were horrendous.

Despite the above, I still think there is a pollution problem in CM that could be better addressed. But, meanwhile the air quality for the past 10 days has been excellent.

[orang37]

Comparing the figures for reported respiratory illnesses in March doesn't really mean much.

Speaking about how figures you have not had access to : as if you know how "much" or how "little" they mean : means absolutely nothing.

Everyone is told that they may get sick in March from the polluted air so they may be more likely to seek medical treatment then than with the same symptoms at other times of the year. Besides, the pollution caused by burning causes long-term health problems so counting the people with scratchy throats is pretty meaningless.

On what evidence do you base these interesting speculations ?

If you look at all the statistics that are readily available on this and other threads, you'll see that 2008 was actually pretty good while February and March 2007 were horrendous.

What if the statistics that are available are skewed, under-reported, deliberately fudged, or not broadly collected enough to make meaningful generalizations from ?

If we assumed, for the sake of discussion, that the statistics were in fact quite accurate, that would not rule out certain areas from having very unusually high increasing levels of pollution, possibly other areas showing unusual improvement. The nature of statistical summaries is to mask out variations which have great meaning for people's quality of life (note : there are other kinds of statistical analysis, like factor analysis, that are very useful for revealing important variations in statistics).

Personally, we assume the statistics are probably rather low quality, and assume the possibility they may have been deliberately manipulated for "political" reasons.

By the way, we are not saying there's anything about Thailand in particular, or northern Thailand specifically, that leads us to questioning the validity of statistics on climate and air, and weather : you don't have to look far to see the world's most technically and scientifically advanced nations bungling up statistics : Himalayan Glacier Melt Data Bogus

~o:37;

Edited January 18, 2010 by orang37

[el jefe]

So I'm in almost total agreement with what (both of) you wrote. Statistics are meaningless unless you know how to use them, and even then you don't know the validity of the statistics.

As fr the pollution statistics being "skewed ... fudged ...", etc, why would the govt want to indicate that Mae Hong Son, Chiang Rai and many parts of Thailand have worse air pollution than CM? Are they trying to kill tourism there?

Comparing the figures for reported respiratory illnesses in March doesn't really mean much.

Speaking about how figures you have not had access to : as if you know how "much" or how "little" they mean : means absolutely nothing.

Everyone is told that they may get sick in March from the polluted air so they may be more likely to seek medical treatment then than with the same symptoms at other times of the year. Besides, the pollution caused by burning causes long-term health problems so counting the people with scratchy throats is pretty meaningless.

On what evidence do you base these interesting speculations ?

If you look at all the statistics that are readily available on this and other threads, you'll see that 2008 was actually pretty good while February and March 2007 were horrendous.

What if the statistics that are available are skewed, under-reported, deliberately fudged, or not broadly collected enough to make meaningful generalizations from ?

If we assumed, for the sake of discussion, that the statistics were in fact quite accurate, that would not rule out certain areas from having very unusually high increasing levels of pollution, possibly other areas showing unusual improvement. The nature of statistical summaries is to mask out variations which have great meaning for people's quality of life (note : there are other kinds of statistical analysis, like factor analysis, that are very useful for revealing important variations in statistics).

Personally, we assume the statistics are probably rather low quality, and assume the possibility they may have been deliberately manipulated for "political" reasons.

By the way, we are not saying there's anything about Thailand in particular, or northern Thailand specifically, that leads us to questioning the validity of statistics on climate and air, and weather : you don't have to look far to see the world's most technically and scientifically advanced nations bungling up statistics : Himalayan Glacier Melt Data Bogus

~o:37;

[Ulysses G.]

So I'm in almost total agreement with what (both of) you wrote. Statistics are meaningless unless you know how to use them, and even then you don't know the validity of the statistics.

Please don't forget that Priceless started quoting the statistics in response to a few real wackjobs that were claiming that Chiang Mai is the most polluted city on the planet and such.

His purpose is to educate rather than confuse.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It'd almost be worth buying a PM-10 measuring station just to shut up the wackjobs and conspiracists.

[orang37]

Please don't forget that Priceless started quoting the statistics in response to a few real wackjobs that were claiming that Chiang Mai is the most polluted city on the planet and such. His purpose is to educate rather than confuse.

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun UG,

We dare not speculate on the complex motivations that may have lead anyone to start a thread, or the universe of mystery that lies within a single comment, like yours

We live in a wondrous strange time where the word "mumble" can now refer to : "an open source, low-latency, high quality voice chat software primarily intended for use while gaming."

From our point of view, the "scientific method," and "statistics," are tools that, at best, can help turn the great "beasts" of confusion, driven by the great engines of fear of death, greed, desire, lust, etc., within and without us into ... education, to lift our pathetically limited human consciousness up by the height of one lotus petal out of the muck of our narrow view of the world, divorced from nature and the senses' richness.

By the way, there is such a beautiful statement of the "scientific method," to many "western minds" very "resonant" with the principle of "Occam's Razor" so essential to the western rational, syllogistic reasoning, in the teachings of Gautama, the Buddha (the former Prince Siddhartha of the Sakya clan), where he addressed the villagers of Sahagraha who had asked him how they could recognize a "real teacher" :

"It is no wonder that a man gets puzzled and confused when he hears teachings contradictory to each other, but I tell you this: don't accept a thing merely because it is handed down by tradition, don't accept a thing merely because many people repeat it, don't accept a thing merely on the authonty of the sage who teaches it, don't accept a thing merely because it is found in the so-called scriptures, don't accept a thing merely because probability is in its favour, don't accept a thing merely because you have imagined it, or that it is inspired by some supernormal agency.

After examination, after testing it for yourseff, if you find it reasonable and is in conformity with your well being and the well being of others as well, then accept it and follow it."

But when used to disparage the validity of the individual's experience, to stifle debate, the carpenter's hammer of reason that knocks together the frail shacks of human wisdom : becomes Thor's mighty weapon of destruction, most often wielded by humans against other humans in the name of the "divine."

And from the charred ruins, from the murmur of the now homeless-again refugees whose empty stomachs speak louder than their thoughts, is born the sugar-high of "cheap consensus," which we'll buy at any price rather than experience the terrible and dreadful freedom we have to create a universe, as well as directly experience our own insignificance in the vast panoply of possible universes that Pascal described as : "a fearful sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere."

If you enjoyed Umberto Eco's "In the Name of the Rose" : suggest you re-read the wonderful dialogue where the elderly blind Monk, Jorge of Burgos (Eco's code name for the great Argentinian surrealist, Jorge Borges), starts by saying (to William of Baskerville) :

"And so the word of God is illustrated by the ass playing a lyre, the owl plowing with a shield, oxen yoking themselves to the plow, rivers flowing upstream, the sea catching fire, the wolf turning hermit! Go hunting for hares with oxen, have owls teach you grammar, have dogs bite fleas, the one-eyed guard the dumb, and the dumb ask for bread, the ant give birth to a calf, roast chickens fly, cakes grow on rooftops, parrots hold rhetoric lessons, hens fertilize cocks, make the cart go before the oxen, the dog sleep in a bed, and all walk with their heads on the ground! What is the aim of this nonsense? A world that is the reverse and the opposite of that established by God, under the pretext of teaching divine precepts!"

One of my favorite poems : "In Broken Images," by Robert Graves : to us suggests the nature of the duality inherent in our fatally flawed human attempts at understanding ourselves and the world we live in, and are actively destroying as fast as possible :

"In Broken Images

He is quick, thinking in clear images;

I am slow, thinking in broken images.

He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images;

I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images,

Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance;

Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance.

Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact,

Questioning their relevance, I question the fact.

When the fact fails him, he questions his senses;

When the fact fails me, I approve my senses.

He continues quick and dull in his clear images;

I continue slow and sharp in my broken images.

He in a new confusion of his understanding;

I in a new understanding of my confusion."

We pray that the very things that make us most human, like murder for the sake of murder, are also helping us exterminate enough of ourselves to render us less toxic to the planet. For no other pestilence, plague, virus, or predator, has ever come as close to its own "final solution" as we

Have a nice day !

best, ~o:37;

Edited January 19, 2010 by orang37

[chiang mai]

So I'm in almost total agreement with what (both of) you wrote. Statistics are meaningless unless you know how to use them, and even then you don't know the validity of the statistics.

Please don't forget that Priceless started quoting the statistics in response to a few real wackjobs that were claiming that Chiang Mai is the most polluted city on the planet and such.

His purpose is to educate rather than confuse.

Not 100% correct UG but a good line regardless, the article in the Bangkok paper that carried that headline came long after the debate had begun and long after we had all been subjected to the infamous graphs for many months if not years.

But to the point that you make: Priceless does do a good job of representing one side of the picture hence he does do well in counteracting those ridiculous headlines. Unfortunately he goes as far in the opposite direction as the headlines hence neither story is that convincing which is why they both need to be challenged.

[Mapguy]

I am not generally known for coming to Priceless' defense, but I believe he has and continues to mean well. As I recall, Priceless' principal concern early on (in early 2007, at least) seems to have been (and he expressed this directly to me) just as UG has indicated above: a really intense dislike for ridiculous misrepresentations about pollution that have shown up from time to time.

Priceless, who is a numbers junkie if there has ever been one, has gone to great pains to collate, examine and post the data that has been accumulated by the Pollution Control Department (PCD) over the years. Understand, however, that the "best available data" he has to work with are indeed limited, and that there are other means of "measuring" the severity of air pollution. Denying their usefulness, as subjective as some of those methods can be, and not including such observations as well as what limited data we have from PCD stations in a meaningful analysis of the situation is foolish in my view. There are only two regularly reporting PCD stations in the entire province, for pete's sake! You can probably find two stations on every block in Beijing these days! That said, there is no particular reason or any evidence that I am aware of to suspect that the numbers are manipulated (as they were in Beijing prior to the Olympics) to make the situation appear better or worse, or that the stations are not maintained well.

Priceless has also from time to time done more than work with numbers. He has some very good references to further information. I and others have tried to do the same thing, not that these posts are easy to find these days in the multiple threads on this topic!

Sometimes I have indeed had some strong argument with the way he has posted and interpreted the data, but not always. One thing that has concerned me often is that the approach taken has often diverted and encouraged apologists and naysayers from recognizing --- however you slice and dice it --- there is a serious air pollution problem in Chiang Mai seasonally that begins gradually toward the end of the calendar year and peaks between mid February and the early rains of early to mid April. The situation does vary, but it remains a problem here regardless of whether of not Chiang Mai happens to be a healthier or unhealthier place to live than other places. It isn't easy to change that, but not to recognize it really puzzles me. That smells --- stinks, really --- like the early arguments defending smoking and smoky air as harmless.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Mapguy,

The smoke of your last words is good to inhale ! Very thoughtful.

Nothing we have written on this thread has ever been intended to impugn the contributions of Khun Priceless, who we really respect.

To question the validity and quality of statistics is not to question the sincerity, or intent, of those who use them to support hypotheses. And questioning the hypotheses does not mean that we "throw statistics out the window," either.

Qualitative research has its "place in the sun" here, so to speak, also : along with quantitative research : it would be just as valuable to see a well-done social survey of people in a variety of Jungwat Chiang Mai areas (of varying occupations, and social statuses, and socio-economic levels, etc.) of what their perceptions are of pollution in the last decade

We look forward to hearing more from you and Khun Priceless and other CM TV members.

best, ~o:37;

[chiang mai]

I am not generally known for coming to Priceless' defense, but I believe he has and continues to mean well. As I recall, Priceless' principal concern early on (in early 2007, at least) seems to have been (and he expressed this directly to me) just as UG has indicated above: a really intense dislike for ridiculous misrepresentations about pollution that have shown up from time to time.

Priceless, who is a numbers junkie if there has ever been one, has gone to great pains to collate, examine and post the data that has been accumulated by the Pollution Control Department (PCD) over the years. Understand, however, that the "best available data" he has to work with are indeed limited, and that there are other means of "measuring" the severity of air pollution. Denying their usefulness, as subjective as some of those methods can be, and not including such observations as well as what limited data we have from PCD stations in a meaningful analysis of the situation is foolish in my view. There are only two regularly reporting PCD stations in the entire province, for pete's sake! You can probably find two stations on every block in Beijing these days! That said, there is no particular reason or any evidence that I am aware of to suspect that the numbers are manipulated (as they were in Beijing prior to the Olympics) to make the situation appear better or worse, or that the stations are not maintained well.

Priceless has also from time to time done more than work with numbers. He has some very good references to further information. I and others have tried to do the same thing, not that these posts are easy to find these days in the multiple threads on this topic!

Sometimes I have indeed had some strong argument with the way he has posted and interpreted the data, but not always. One thing that has concerned me often is that the approach taken has often diverted and encouraged apologists and naysayers from recognizing --- however you slice and dice it --- there is a serious air pollution problem in Chiang Mai seasonally that begins gradually toward the end of the calendar year and peaks between mid February and the early rains of early to mid April. The situation does vary, but it remains a problem here regardless of whether of not Chiang Mai happens to be a healthier or unhealthier place to live than other places. It isn't easy to change that, but not to recognize it really puzzles me. That smells --- stinks, really --- like the early arguments defending smoking and smoky air as harmless.

There really is no need to defend Priceless's contribution to the subject, I think most people will readily agree that Pricless has made huge and significant contributions to it, I certainly do. But the constraints of this debate are about achieving an acceptable balance of view amongst its observers, the near definitive answer is not clear so let's agree that is the case and not promote an early conclusion, one way or the other.

[Chicog]

As I recall, Priceless' principal concern early on (in early 2007, at least) seems to have been (and he expressed this directly to me) just as UG has indicated above: a really intense dislike for ridiculous misrepresentations about pollution that have shown up from time to time.

I don't see how I've misrepresented anything. I've been coming to Chiang Mai in March and December for 12 years now, and I stated that in my experience, March is the worst time for pollution based on the haze, smoke and reporting in the national press (it has become a regular feature pre-rainy season in the last 3-4 years). So it's not some filthy arab smoking algerian camel shit in the guest house room next to mine, and blowing it through the extractor.

If I had to guess, I'd say because that's when it's hottest, dryest and most ideal for burning. I stated that two years ago was the worst I experienced, and the response was that it is "meaningless". Well then what is the thread supposed to be about? According to my records, it's called "Pollution in Chiang Mai", not "Pollution statistics in Chiang Mai".

Perhaps there was more localised burning in the vicinity in which I was staying, which would not necessarily affect the overall statistics, I don't know. I merely stated how the effects of pollution were far more noticeable two years ago than any other year; and it affected a larger number of visitors that year, from what I recall. I'd like to find out if anyone was aware of other factors that year.

I don't consider my statements or questions ridiculous, and I don't consider them a misrepresentation.

Any moron can take an opposite viewpoint and prove it with a dazzling variety of debate tactics.

None of it really disproves what I've said anyway - it's equally meaningless.

So are we here to DISCUSS the effects, the nature and the trends of pollution in Chiang Mai, or just to surf around trolling for stats to show what bloody smart <deleted> we can be?

[Ulysses G.]

I don't consider my statements or questions ridiculous, and I don't consider them a misrepresentation.

You have only been a member here for about one week. We are talking about posts that were made several years ago. Don't take things so personally. No one is refering to your specific opinions.

[Chicog]

I don't consider my statements or questions ridiculous, and I don't consider them a misrepresentation.

You have only been a member here for about one week. We are talking about posts that were made several years ago. Don't take things so personally. No one is refering to your specific opinions.

That's odd. I'm looking at posts with today's date on, and comments made in reply to one of mine.