Pollution- You Decide!

[Thailand]

Well, that filter does look icky. If I might make a suggestion; maybe you shouldn't hose the dirt/grime/soot/ash of your pool deck and patio into your pool.

You are assuming that-we don't, we hoover it to avoid flushing more dirt and ash in to it..

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Not wanting to digress into pedantic detail but in Anthropology classes I recall the accepted figure was more like 13 years avg age for most of history.

I'd say that's impossible. (Unless you include monkeys and what not). Humans can have kids at the VERY earliest at 12-13-14 years. If they'd die shortly after, then there's nobody around to raise/protect the babies. The whole show would be over pretty soon.

[Thailand]

Not wanting to digress into pedantic detail but in Anthropology classes I recall the accepted figure was more like 13 years avg age for most of history.

I'd say that's impossible. (Unless you include monkeys and what not). Humans can have kids at the VERY earliest at 12-13-14 years. If they'd die shortly after, then there's nobody around to raise/protect the babies. The whole show would be over pretty soon.

This has to be one of the most off subject topics ever.

[Priceless]

To answer a few questions.

It does not normally happen until Feb/March of each year, this year the burning has started much earlier. Hopefully most of it will be done before the usual dates or are we going to get a longer season?

The ash is definitely from the burning of rice fields, leaves etc. We can see the smoke rising, smell the burning and watch the ash come down. It is very noticeable because of the colour of our pool and the surrounding patio area.

We live in Chiang Mai suburbs, if there is such a thing, 15 mins from central, 10 mins to airport in the middle of a secluded estate not close too highways etc.

No, the pictures show two separate filters not one inside the other, why would I do that?

Whilst I appreciate technical analysis what I have shown is simply what we get every year. We know what it is and where it comes from-simply sharing with the forum what most of you do not see.

We will not be seeking to move elsewhere, not looking to gripe or moan, simply showing it how it is where we are at the particular time of the year that we are all aware of.

Take it or leave it, your choice.

That seems to support anonymouse's suggestion that it is a local phenomenon, since you can see the smoke and smell the burning. This would also fit in with the PCD measurements being fairly normal, since they are taken NW of the city center, whereas you are apparently located SW of town.

I also live SW of town, though presumably not as far out as you do (I'm on Canal Rd near the Night Safari). Here I have not noticed any unusual pollution and have definitely not seen any soot or had to wash the veranda or the balcony.

/ Priceless

[WaiWai]

This is a good reminder to change your air con filters regularly, too. (Before I came to Asia, I had never lived in a home with air con, despite living in places with temperatures comparable to those of Chang Mai, so did not know much about air con use and maintenance). If you are not using air con now, you may be in a month or two. What you will find there may worry you, too.

And, yes, I know that many people will say that their home cities are as bad or worse, but for Aussies, amongst others, that's quite often not the case at all. Australia is a large, isolated country, with a low population, though sadly that is changing. Whatever happened to ZPG (Zero Population Growth)?

the central assertion I made was that because humans live much longer as time progresses

Undeniable, I think.

To introduce a third strand to the thread, if humans were to revert to a simpler, nomadic lifestyle, following -- or avoiding -- the seasons as best they can, as did the Australian Aboriginal people, would they perhaps live shorter but more individually fulfilling, environmentally friendly lives? Without the fear of long years of dementia or other severely debilitating illnesses? (Of course, some, who have the means, already do so, jetting in chase of the weather around the globe.) That's an entirely theoretical question, of course, and the Australian Aborigines practised "slash and burn" agriculture, which is said to be "relatively sustainable" if kept to a small scale.(http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0804.htm).

And I want "Thailand's" pool. We're a contradictory species, in so many ways. Natural selection could be our downfall.

[GUANO]

Are they both dry?

[Thailand]

To answer a few questions.

It does not normally happen until Feb/March of each year, this year the burning has started much earlier. Hopefully most of it will be done before the usual dates or are we going to get a longer season?

The ash is definitely from the burning of rice fields, leaves etc. We can see the smoke rising, smell the burning and watch the ash come down. It is very noticeable because of the colour of our pool and the surrounding patio area.

We live in Chiang Mai suburbs, if there is such a thing, 15 mins from central, 10 mins to airport in the middle of a secluded estate not close too highways etc.

No, the pictures show two separate filters not one inside the other, why would I do that?

Whilst I appreciate technical analysis what I have shown is simply what we get every year. We know what it is and where it comes from-simply sharing with the forum what most of you do not see.

We will not be seeking to move elsewhere, not looking to gripe or moan, simply showing it how it is where we are at the particular time of the year that we are all aware of.

Take it or leave it, your choice.

That seems to support anonymouse's suggestion that it is a local phenomenon, since you can see the smoke and smell the burning. This would also fit in with the PCD measurements being fairly normal, since they are taken NW of the city center, whereas you are apparently located SW of town.

I also live SW of town, though presumably not as far out as you do (I'm on Canal Rd near the Night Safari). Here I have not noticed any unusual pollution and have definitely not seen any soot or had to wash the veranda or the balcony.

/ Priceless

Hi Priceless,

I am less than 5 mins drive to Night Safari and probably closer to town than you are.

When I drive out of the back way of our estate I come on to the 121. Nearly all the way driving up to Hang Dong golf course area most of the fields are black, a few weeks early this year?

Maybe we are more sensitive to the smells.

But the falling ash- I doubt if we would have noticed it if it was not for the pool and the pool area and subsequently the filters. Most of the year they are relatively clean, we know the burning has started as soon as they start to change to the shitty colour on the photos.

That's just the way it is, I doubt if it will change in coming years.

[caf]

Not wanting to digress into pedantic detail but in Anthropology classes I recall the accepted figure was more like 13 years avg age for most of history.

I'd say that's impossible. (Unless you include monkeys and what not). Humans can have kids at the VERY earliest at 12-13-14 years. If they'd die shortly after, then there's nobody around to raise/protect the babies. The whole show would be over pretty soon.

This has to be one of the most off subject topics ever.

Oh.that is rather a harsh comment, Winnie.

The op has a problem with pollution and if he does not care to read up on the Homousian Schism and withcraft then he has only himself to blame for the state of his pool.

Chiangmai Thaivisa is becoming the HUB OF ORANGUTANS

[Priceless]

To add to the confusion, I'd like to offer an alternative explanation to the recently higher pollution levels. (I.e. alternative to the theory of unusually early field burning in the local area.) The somewhat unseasonally high pollution levels started around December 8 and continued until about December 18. Please see this table:

During that period we've had predominantly south-easterly winds. If one supposes that the causes of Chiang Mai's pollution, at least partly, lie farther away one would then look south-east of here. If you look at the fire mapping done by the University of Maryland for this period, it is obvious that there is a large concentration of fires in Phrae (at "TH" in "THAILAND" on this map):

The pollution level then fell off in the last 4-5 days, which might lead you to suspect that the fires at Phrae have abated. This is the fire map for these days:

Yes, there have been very few fires in the Phrae area lately. This is obviously not enough to make my hypothesis probable. If the last two weeks' pollution actually (in part) comes from Phrae, one should find a band of pollution from Phrae to CM, being highest in Phrae, decreasing into Lampang, decreasing further into Lamphun and then decreasing again into CM. One would also expect to see lower levels outside of the band, i.e. in Payao to the north and in Nan to the east (and in Mae Hong Son, which is on the leeward side of the mountains). If you look at the table at the start of this post, you'll find that this is actually what has occurred. In other words, my hypothesis is at least not disproven by the latest two weeks' events.

Please note that this is just a hypothesis, though it seems plausible, at least to me. It is still based on just a single event, one would need a lot more events and deeper analysis to even call it a theory.

During 2009 the Pollution Control Department has added a number of new measuring stations, Chiang Rai, Lamphun and Mae Hong Son from the beginning of the year, Nan from about mid-year and Phrae and Payao from the beginning of December. These should make it possible to do some deeper analysis of pollution patterns during the coming year(s). I hope that we will be supplied with continuous reports from these new stations in the future.

Conclusion: If my hypothesis is correct (a big IF) local factors are only partly responsible for air pollution in Chiang Mai. This means that to understand the problem, and to be able to tackle it effectively, one needs to look farther afield as well as to the actions of local farmers. On the other hand, it of course does not mean that the work to decrease local pollution sources (farming, but also vehicles etc.) is any less important than before, just that it is not likely to solve the whole problem.

/ Priceless

[lannarebirth]

Well, that filter does look icky. If I might make a suggestion; maybe you shouldn't hose the dirt/grime/soot/ash of your pool deck and patio into your pool.

You are assuming that-we don't, we hoover it to avoid flushing more dirt and ash in to it..

Ah, I see. I think my assumption came from reading your post #5 in this thread. Chok Dee.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3220617

[orang37]

... This has to be one of the most off subject topics ever. ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Thailand,

Well, we think that is just your reaping the "karma" of having started a thread in which you have played mind-games with us by :

1. withholding the information that you observe the cause of the blackening directly, and that you know exactly why the filter is so dark.

2. creating the impression (deliberately, we believe), that you are making a statement about air quality in general in Chiang Mai this year.

3. in response #7, our very selves asked you a series of appropriate questions about what you observe, and its possible linkage to your environment, time of day, season, etc. You ignored them.

4. later you reveal you hoover the pool, but only after someone else has posted a speculation on that

Off-topic seems like an appropriate meal for a troll, to us.

We pray you have not been bewitched or possessed by a succubus.

best, ~o:37;

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

wasn't the really bad year in 06? the smoke was coming from as far as Myanmar? No way was it being generated locally. CM has some inversion issues that can really hold it in. That year it was so bad it was almost comical.

Good luck trying to get Burmese farmers to do anything for Thailand. I would bet the pollution fluctuates at fairly high levels in CM for at least a few decades. If the source area's for this burning redeveloped into cleaner uses then things could change but that almost seems like science fiction at this point.

I remember when I first visited CM about 15 years ago and rode a songthau to Doi Suthep and the air was naseauting. It is encouraging that as new vehicles are purchased then their emissions get better and better. Still more could be done like enforcement of badly tuned vehicles and banning of two strokes. At least that way road ways are not major sources of sickening air.

Is there any indication that agricultural intensity has changed over the last decade? What would explain the slightly downward trending data points in face of a growing population and expanding vehicle km's?

If the data is largely subject to the whim of air currents then does the data indicate decreasing pollution or simply just good luck? I am fine with lucky air.

Living near agriculture uses has it plusses and minuses. Cheap food. lower population densities and pleasant scenery on the upside and dodgy air quality and agricultural toxins being the downside. Even if uses transitioned they would tend to develop for industrial uses first before later becoming clean industries.

In the US decades ago they just banned agricultural burning and it worked. Good luck getting any compliance in LOS. They can't even get people to wear motorcycle helmets.

[Priceless]

wasn't the really bad year in 06? the smoke was coming from as far as Myanmar? No way was it being generated locally. CM has some inversion issues that can really hold it in. That year it was so bad it was almost comical.

Good luck trying to get Burmese farmers to do anything for Thailand. I would bet the pollution fluctuates at fairly high levels in CM for at least a few decades. If the source area's for this burning redeveloped into cleaner uses then things could change but that almost seems like science fiction at this point.

I remember when I first visited CM about 15 years ago and rode a songthau to Doi Suthep and the air was naseauting. It is encouraging that as new vehicles are purchased then their emissions get better and better. Still more could be done like enforcement of badly tuned vehicles and banning of two strokes. At least that way road ways are not major sources of sickening air.

Is there any indication that agricultural intensity has changed over the last decade? What would explain the slightly downward trending data points in face of a growing population and expanding vehicle km's?

If the data is largely subject to the whim of air currents then does the data indicate decreasing pollution or simply just good luck? I am fine with lucky air.

Living near agriculture uses has it plusses and minuses. Cheap food. lower population densities and pleasant scenery on the upside and dodgy air quality and agricultural toxins being the downside. Even if uses transitioned they would tend to develop for industrial uses first before later becoming clean industries.

In the US decades ago they just banned agricultural burning and it worked. Good luck getting any compliance in LOS. They can't even get people to wear motorcycle helmets.

The really bad year was 2007, but apart from that I tend to agree with you. I have a suspicion that at least a large part of the pollution in Chiang Mai comes from Myanmar, but it takes more data to make that more than a hunch. During 2009 pollution levels have been much higher in Mae Hong Son and in Chiang Rai (i.e. along the border with Myanmar) than in Chiang Mai. A single year isn't much to draw far-reaching conclusions from, though.

/ Priceless

PS The worst air pollution in Thailand is to be found in Samut Prakarn, Sara Buri and in Bangkok, i.e. in industrial areas, so living in a largely agricultural area has mostly plusses.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Priceless

[Mapguy]

To answer a few questions.

It does not normally happen until Feb/March of each year, this year the burning has started much earlier. Hopefully most of it will be done before the usual dates or are we going to get a longer season?

The ash is definitely from the burning of rice fields, leaves etc. We can see the smoke rising, smell the burning and watch the ash come down. It is very noticeable because of the colour of our pool and the surrounding patio area.

We live in Chiang Mai suburbs, if there is such a thing, 15 mins from central, 10 mins to airport in the middle of a secluded estate not close too highways etc.

No, the pictures show two separate filters not one inside the other, why would I do that?

Whilst I appreciate technical analysis what I have shown is simply what we get every year. We know what it is and where it comes from-simply sharing with the forum what most of you do not see.

We will not be seeking to move elsewhere, not looking to gripe or moan, simply showing it how it is where we are at the particular time of the year that we are all aware of.

Take it or leave it, your choice.

That seems to support anonymouse's suggestion that it is a local phenomenon, since you can see the smoke and smell the burning. This would also fit in with the PCD measurements being fairly normal, since they are taken NW of the city center, whereas you are apparently located SW of town.

I also live SW of town, though presumably not as far out as you do (I'm on Canal Rd near the Night Safari). Here I have not noticed any unusual pollution and have definitely not seen any soot or had to wash the veranda or the balcony.

/ Priceless

Hi Priceless,

I am less than 5 mins drive to Night Safari and probably closer to town than you are.

When I drive out of the back way of our estate I come on to the 121. Nearly all the way driving up to Hang Dong golf course area most of the fields are black, a few weeks early this year?

Maybe we are more sensitive to the smells.

But the falling ash- I doubt if we would have noticed it if it was not for the pool and the pool area and subsequently the filters. Most of the year they are relatively clean, we know the burning has started as soon as they start to change to the shitty colour on the photos.

That's just the way it is, I doubt if it will change in coming years.

Yes, the burning has started and arguably is pretty widespread. There are local conditions that may and often do apply, but last year, at about this time, I also saw the burnt fields south of the city as I traveled to Doi Inthanon. This year, I have not been down that way, but I have noticed quite a few burnt fields to the north of the city in the general area of Mae Rim. As well, I subscribe to a satellite monitoring service that detects fires. It won't pick up the smaller fires, sometimes cloud cover makes a difference with detection, and, of course, the satellites are not always over Thailand, let alone Chiang Mai Province. About two - three weeks ago, it started picking up a fair number of the larger fires burning at the time the satellite passed over. When you plot them, they tend to be on a broad north-south axis right down the middle of the valley. Later (February - March), fires are more frequently noted in the mountains --- at least from a couple of years' observations.

Priceless' "facts," as UG loves to refer to as if they were some sort of gospel truth, are useful in a limited sense. The PCD readings are based on a very limited (two regular) number of monitoring stations in the province of Chiang Mai, as Priceless has noted more than once. Both are basically in the area of the city, one a little north of the town center and one in the middle of the old city. These are the best available data we have to use, but they are very, very limited. That's why anecdotal information can indeed also be useful. Simple observation can be quite useful, as uncalibrated as one's ears, nose, throat and lungs are.

The traditional burning of rice straw isn't actually necessary, nor is it done throughout Thailand. The Pollution Control Department (PCD) even has on its web site encouragement and information about plowing under "straw." But burning has become a custom, especially in central and northern Thailand, which is hard to change. This is not unusual from what I have been told so I do not interpret this cynically as some sort of "Oh dear, another TIT complaint." Burning of agricultural waste used to be a problem, for example, in Australia and North America where farmers were not happy to change their practices.

And the burning of rice straw, obviously, is not the only source of air pollution. Never mind burning household garbage at night. (Hotels with incinerators with tall smoke stacks are known to do that too, by the way!) Consider what incremental addition to foul air do dirty song tao diesel engines and 2-cycle motorbikes and tuk tuks make? I really don't know. But as the number of vehicles increases, following the "burners" can be truly nauseating. One saving grace is that --- despite naysayers and problem-minimalisers of the past pooh poohing a problem --- emissions standards for vehicles are being improved as well as fuels.

A word about standards. What's "acceptable" and what isn't? "Standards" are based on what is politically and economically possible as well as upon public health research. And, it doesn't take a scientist to appreciate the significant rise in respiratory disease and related illnesses during the seasonal (mid February - early April) high air pollution. But then, scientists in Chiang Mai, are indeed recording it. That is, if you wish, "factual."

Does air pollution bother all people the same way. No, it doesn't. As a former smoker, for example, I remember being not so terribly bothered by smoky rooms. But, now, I find being downwind of a smoker quite annoying. Asbestos didn't bother a lot of people for a long time, either, but would you care to check out the major diseases caused by inhaling asbestos dust and fibers. Just google "Union Carbide asbestos."

"Take it or leave it." OP was writing about what he has found in his pool filters. Make up your mind if it is worth noting seems a reasonable interpretation of what he meant. Some nasty water? Could be a contributor to the crud in his filter. Not everyone has such a lovely pool. But want to check out what he is noting? Do an independent study of your air conditioner filters. For me, a really troublesome variation of "take it or leave it" (not OP's use of the phrase) has been the attitude of some posters on the numerous pollution threads focusing on Chiang Mai that if you don't like it here, get out of town,or, at least, get out of town during the "high [pollution] season." "Shall we pop on down to the sea, old boy?! Enjoy a bit of fresh air?!" Well, we [several hundred thousand] hoi polloi who live here, can't afford that, have commitments here, actually can't or don't want to leave it, but do want to help make it a better place to live.

[Mapguy]

To add to the confusion, I'd like to offer an alternative explanation to the recently higher pollution levels. (I.e. alternative to the theory of unusually early field burning in the local area.) The somewhat unseasonally high pollution levels started around December 8 and continued until about December 18. Please see this table:

During that period we've had predominantly south-easterly winds. If one supposes that the causes of Chiang Mai's pollution, at least partly, lie farther away one would then look south-east of here. If you look at the fire mapping done by the University of Maryland for this period, it is obvious that there is a large concentration of fires in Phrae (at "TH" in "THAILAND" on this map):

The pollution level then fell off in the last 4-5 days, which might lead you to suspect that the fires at Phrae have abated. This is the fire map for these days:

Yes, there have been very few fires in the Phrae area lately. This is obviously not enough to make my hypothesis probable. If the last two weeks' pollution actually (in part) comes from Phrae, one should find a band of pollution from Phrae to CM, being highest in Phrae, decreasing into Lampang, decreasing further into Lamphun and then decreasing again into CM. One would also expect to see lower levels outside of the band, i.e. in Payao to the north and in Nan to the east (and in Mae Hong Son, which is on the leeward side of the mountains). If you look at the table at the start of this post, you'll find that this is actually what has occurred. In other words, my hypothesis is at least not disproven by the latest two weeks' events.

Please note that this is just a hypothesis, though it seems plausible, at least to me. It is still based on just a single event, one would need a lot more events and deeper analysis to even call it a theory.

During 2009 the Pollution Control Department has added a number of new measuring stations, Chiang Rai, Lamphun and Mae Hong Son from the beginning of the year, Nan from about mid-year and Phrae and Payao from the beginning of December. These should make it possible to do some deeper analysis of pollution patterns during the coming year(s). I hope that we will be supplied with continuous reports from these new stations in the future.

Conclusion: If my hypothesis is correct (a big IF) local factors are only partly responsible for air pollution in Chiang Mai. This means that to understand the problem, and to be able to tackle it effectively, one needs to look farther afield as well as to the actions of local farmers. On the other hand, it of course does not mean that the work to decrease local pollution sources (farming, but also vehicles etc.) is any less important than before, just that it is not likely to solve the whole problem.

/ Priceless

This is a useful post, and I appreciate the time and effort Priceless put into it. He has spent an extraordinary amount of time over a long time working with what data there are. Problem is (as he points out here, and he has pointed out before) the data are very, very limited. (And that includes the satellite data from the University of Maryland to which I also subscribe.) You can work up time series that are indicative, and so on, and so on.

Substantively, broad seasonal wind patterns do make a difference. And unusual atmospheric pressure system events beyond seasonal monsoon changes can cause big problems. This general area (northern and central Thailand) experienced one that was a big contributing factor in the awful seasonal pollution of 2007.

But Burma? Blame poor Burma ?! Another black mark on Burma's report card! Yes, without looking, rice straw burning is probably pretty popular there, too, but I suggest, Priceless, you look more seriously at the Chinese contribution that comes with the northerlies if you want to pass the blame! Geographically, of course, those wind patterns do bring in smoke from parts of Burma.

Anyway, carry on! And I hope you don't get stuck in traffic in back of too many smoky song tao!

[Ulysses G.]

Laos also deserves much of the blame. I have seen much worse pollution in Luang Prabang at this time of year than anything I have ever seen in Chiang Mai.

The fact that the smoke and other pollution is coming from so many countries other than Thailand is what makes doing something about it so difficult.

[caf]

Laos also deserves much of the blame. I have seen much worse pollution in Luang Prabang at this time of year than anything I have ever seen in Chiang Mai.

The fact that the smoke and other pollution is coming from so many countries other than Thailand is what makes doing something about it so difficult.

Yes, but much pollution is generated in Thailand. And that is something that is relevant to everyone living here and is capable of action by the Thais.

A usual response is always to blame it on the farang or farang country. Thais are good at copping out. They don't need encouragement from this forum.

[PeaceBlondie]

Side note: two-stroke m/c engines have been nearly non-existent for ten years. The worst tail-pipe offenders are nearly phased out. My tuk-tuk driver converted to LPG years ago, maybe to NGV now.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khuns MapGuy and Priceless,

Sincerely many deepest of thanks for the quality of these on-going dialogues which are now (praise be : getting) wonderfully civil in tone.

Our pleasure to inhale the smoke of your rational and thoughtful words !

best, ~o:37;

[Priceless]

Laos also deserves much of the blame. I have seen much worse pollution in Luang Prabang at this time of year than anything I have ever seen in Chiang Mai.

The fact that the smoke and other pollution is coming from so many countries other than Thailand is what makes doing something about it so difficult.

Yes, but much pollution is generated in Thailand. And that is something that is relevant to everyone living here and is capable of action by the Thais.

A usual response is always to blame it on the farang or farang country. Thais are good at copping out. They don't need encouragement from this forum.

Since when are Myanmar and Laos "farang countries", or are you discussing another subject?

/ Priceless

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Side note: two-stroke m/c engines have been nearly non-existent for ten years. The worst tail-pipe offenders are nearly phased out. My tuk-tuk driver converted to LPG years ago, maybe to NGV now.

Two strokes cannot utilize sump lubrication systems correct? Are we talking about the same thing? It where oil is added to the petrol via a oil reservoir tank so that it lubricates the engines operation. since the crankcase is being used to pump fuel-air mixture into the cylinder. It's a total loss lubrication system. The lubrication oil is burned out the tailpipe.

Tuk Tuks do use LPG/NGV as fuel which is good but they burn oil for lubrication and emit the burned oil thru the tailpipe. How can you explain the black smoke that spews from the tuk tuks? Some more than other of course owing to how well their piston rings are maintained.

Is anyone aware of any sump lubricated Tuk Tuks?

I see two stroke Motorbikes on the roads every day constantly. Fortunately they are not a majority but still very common to see and smell.

PB your a gearhead right? please enlighten us.

[PeaceBlondie]

Side note: two-stroke m/c engines have been nearly non-existent for ten years. The worst tail-pipe offenders are nearly phased out. My tuk-tuk driver converted to LPG years ago, maybe to NGV now.

Two strokes cannot utilize sump lubrication systems correct? Are we talking about the same thing? It where oil is added to the petrol via a oil reservoir tank so that it lubricates the engines operation. since the crankcase is being used to pump fuel-air mixture into the cylinder. It's a total loss lubrication system. The lubrication oil is burned out the tailpipe.

Tuk Tuks do use LPG/NGV as fuel which is good but they burn oil for lubrication and emit the burned oil thru the tailpipe. How can you explain the black smoke that spews from the tuk tuks? Some more than other of course owing to how well their piston rings are maintained.

Is anyone aware of any sump lubricated Tuk Tuks?

I see two stroke Motorbikes on the roads every day constantly. Fortunately they are not a majority but still very common to see and smell.

PB your a gearhead right? please enlighten us.

Not that much of a gearhead. Are you saying tuk-tuks are two-strokes? I hadn't noticed. Two-strokes are definitely the tiny minority of bikes.

[Thailand]

... This has to be one of the most off subject topics ever. ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Thailand,

Well, we think that is just your reaping the "karma" of having started a thread in which you have played mind-games with us by :

1. withholding the information that you observe the cause of the blackening directly, and that you know exactly why the filter is so dark.

2. creating the impression (deliberately, we believe), that you are making a statement about air quality in general in Chiang Mai this year.

3. in response #7, our very selves asked you a series of appropriate questions about what you observe, and its possible linkage to your environment, time of day, season, etc. You ignored them.

4. later you reveal you hoover the pool, but only after someone else has posted a speculation on that

Off-topic seems like an appropriate meal for a troll, to us.

We pray you have not been bewitched or possessed by a succubus.

best, ~o:37;

If I had pre-empted the questions by anticipating and answering them then none of you guys would have had a reason to contribute to the thread and it would have been boring and fizzled out on the first day.

Pleasantly surprised to see such diverse comments without any of the usual personal attacks and obnoxious comments.

At the end of the day the filters are simply dirty from the burning of the fields, leaves, verges etc. Pollution in my book others disagree, tis their right to do so.

It will happen again next year and the year after that and surely long after I am many of the contributors have long gone. TIT

Footnote: some of these Succubus look worth being possessed by http://images.google.co.th/images?hl=en&am...sa=N&tab=wi

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Not that much of a gearhead. Are you saying tuk-tuks are two-strokes? I hadn't noticed. Two-strokes are definitely the tiny minority of bikes.

I think most of the Tuk Tuk's in CM are still two strokes and just converted to NGV/LPG fuel. If you look at the average one you will see a oil tank next to the driver seat which supplies drip lubrication and the driver adds oil as its consumed. There must be some 4 stroke ones out there because they do sell them for export to other countries. I should look closer and maybe the 4 strokes TT's are growing in numbers.

A 4 stroke engine sounds completely different and quieter BTW. It would be great if TT's were all 4 stroke NGV in CM. The noise level would decrease substantially. 2 stroke Tuk Tuks are just glorified chain saw motors.

Anyone up to date on the spec's of the CM Tuk Tuk herd?

[chiang mai]

I would be looking for a cleaner water supply after a couple of hours its that black?

Nothing to do with the water supply, it's from the falling ash that we have to wash away from our patio on a daily basis during this time of the year.

The falling ash is coming from where?

to me this indicative of something localised to you a factory or something

I tend to agree with anonymouse, if for no other reason than that the present pollution levels are not particularly high. So far this month the Chiang Mai average is 52.7 µg/m³, certainly higher than December of last year (which was an all-time low) but not much above the decade's December average of 48.7. The Thai limit for daily pollution level is 120 µg/m³ and the US limit is 150 µg/m³.

During the infamous March of 2007, the monthly average was 161.7 µg/m³. If ambient air pollution were the reason for the OP's problem, one would have expected his pool to turn solid at that time

/ Priceless

It's not entirely correct to suggest that "The Thai limit for daily pollution level is 120 µg/m3", rather the WHO recommend safe maximum level is 120.

But there's hope for this debate yet since I note that now there is finally an acknowledgement that air currents do play an important role in importing pollution from other countries so that's a step in the right direction in correcting the collective thinking. And yes UG I do know that Priceless can't see this but this was just an opportune place to post this message.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't keep track of who Priceless has added to his "unstable" list, but I do approve of anyone who is too paranoid about McDonald's. There is unhealthy fast food - Pad Thai, Kow Pad, Kow Mun Kai - all over the place and at least McDonalds has nice clean restrooms that one can use for free.

[PeaceBlondie]

I saw 2 tuk-tuks today.One small exhaust, two strokes. Other was huge tailpipe, 4 strokes. Or, a partridge in a pear tree.

[Priceless]

The falling ash is coming from where?

to me this indicative of something localised to you a factory or something

I tend to agree with anonymouse, if for no other reason than that the present pollution levels are not particularly high. So far this month the Chiang Mai average is 52.7 µg/m³, certainly higher than December of last year (which was an all-time low) but not much above the decade's December average of 48.7. The Thai limit for daily pollution level is 120 µg/m³ and the US limit is 150 µg/m³.

During the infamous March of 2007, the monthly average was 161.7 µg/m³. If ambient air pollution were the reason for the OP's problem, one would have expected his pool to turn solid at that time

/ Priceless

It's not entirely correct to suggest that "The Thai limit for daily pollution level is 120 µg/m3", rather the WHO recommend safe maximum level is 120.

But there's hope for this debate yet since I note that now there is finally an acknowledgement that air currents do play an important role in importing pollution from other countries so that's a step in the right direction in correcting the collective thinking. And yes UG I do know that Priceless can't see this but this was just an opportune place to post this message.

Somebody, who is aware that 'chiang mai' is often not that well informed, told me about this post so I looked it up. Some of the more frequently quoted standards for PM<10 pollution, including their sources, are in the following table:

As you can see, the Thai (PCD) standard is 120 µg/m³ whereas the WHO does not quote that number, either for their "Guideline" or any of their intermediate targets.

As for the importance of air currents and inflow from other regions/countries, I have certainly never denied that and I can't recall anyone else doing it either (though I may of course have missed some posts). I can actually recall a thread from not too long ago that discussed the influence of forest fires in Indonesia on air quality in e.g. Phuket. There have also been numerous discussions on forest fires in Laos and (especially) Myanmar.

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

[chiang mai]

The falling ash is coming from where?

to me this indicative of something localised to you a factory or something

I tend to agree with anonymouse, if for no other reason than that the present pollution levels are not particularly high. So far this month the Chiang Mai average is 52.7 µg/m³, certainly higher than December of last year (which was an all-time low) but not much above the decade's December average of 48.7. The Thai limit for daily pollution level is 120 µg/m³ and the US limit is 150 µg/m³.

During the infamous March of 2007, the monthly average was 161.7 µg/m³. If ambient air pollution were the reason for the OP's problem, one would have expected his pool to turn solid at that time

/ Priceless

It's not entirely correct to suggest that "The Thai limit for daily pollution level is 120 µg/m3", rather the WHO recommend safe maximum level is 120.

But there's hope for this debate yet since I note that now there is finally an acknowledgement that air currents do play an important role in importing pollution from other countries so that's a step in the right direction in correcting the collective thinking. And yes UG I do know that Priceless can't see this but this was just an opportune place to post this message.

Somebody, who is aware that 'chiang mai' is often not that well informed, told me about this post so I looked it up. Some of the more frequently quoted standards for PM<10 pollution, including their sources, are in the following table:

As you can see, the Thai (PCD) standard is 120 µg/m³ whereas the WHO does not quote that number, either for their "Guideline" or any of their intermediate targets.

As for the importance of air currents and inflow from other regions/countries, I have certainly never denied that and I can't recall anyone else doing it either (though I may of course have missed some posts). I can actually recall a thread from not too long ago that discussed the influence of forest fires in Indonesia on air quality in e.g. Phuket. There have also been numerous discussions on forest fires in Laos and (especially) Myanmar.

/ Priceless

In your post number 1,115 you wrote:

"The following are the ambient air quality standards, concerning ozone, for a few countries//areas:

Thailand 100 µg/m3

USA 120 µg/m3

EU 120 µg/m3"

I'm also concious that I've seen the figure of 120 quoted extensively in the many many "discussions" on this subject but frankly I can't be bothered to search all the threads to pull out all the quotes. Regardless, the number is somewhat meaningless here in Thailand it seems since your most recent document suggests that it can never be exceeded (when clearly it is exceeded on occasion), how do they manage to do that I wonder, does the PCD use one of it's two monitoring stations to raise an alert and then all factories in the North are closed down immediately, doubtful. Kinda silly really unless it is just a target/desire and more or less window dressing material.

As for the issue of air currents et al: it was on the order of two years ago or so that I suggested in one of these threads that a study should be done to determine the impact of air currents and imported pollution and you replied that wasn't necessary, that was why I posted my original comment in this thread, give me time and I'll find your quote!

But hey, look, it's Xmas Eve and we've both got better things to do (at least I do) than to carry on this debate at this time of the year so I'll wish you and UG a Merry Xmas and all the best for 2010 and leave you both to it.

Edited December 24, 2009 by chiang mai