Pm10 Readings Correct In Chiang Mai?

[earlofwindermere]

I'm sitting in Hua Hin enjoying a week of fresh air. Like many people, we planned to be away from Chiang Mai during much of March because of the air quality.

I just checked the readings back in Chiang Mai and they are surprisingly low compared to neighbouring provinces. How can it be 212 in Chiang Rai, 146 in Mae Hong Son and only 86 in downtown Chiang Mai? Is it really not that bad this year?

In previous years, the readings for the northern provinces were similar. If it was high in Chiang Rai, it was also high in Chiang Mai. This year seems different. Are the numbers being fudged or is it really not that high in Chiang Mai right now?

[harrry]

Because the air here is great right now.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Because the air here is great right now.

I wouldn't say its great but the readings seem accurate based on visibility. I went to Mae Sai earlier in the week and it was a lot worse in CR and M.S.

Even the C.M. readings say its 80% of the level where it becomes hazardous.

Two shots. One taken minutes ago and other more normal time of about AQI of 40 according to the PCD

[PeaceBlondie]

Microns aren't visible. What you see is. Two different things.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Microns aren't visible. What you see is. Two different things.

you might want to read this study conducted in BKK. It came to the opposite conclusion.

PM and Visibility study

"In conclusion, 24-h visibility was found to be inversely associated with PM10 after adjusting for temperature and seasonal indicator variables, suggesting that visibility was reduced with increasing concentration of airborne particle mass in Bangkok. This indicates that missing values of PM10 data during 1992 to 1997 can be estimated from this regression model, making it possible to have a complete PM10 time series to associate with daily mortality."

[PeaceBlondie]

Maybe so; I'm no expert.

[Priceless]

I'm sitting in Hua Hin enjoying a week of fresh air. Like many people, we planned to be away from Chiang Mai during much of March because of the air quality.

I just checked the readings back in Chiang Mai and they are surprisingly low compared to neighbouring provinces. How can it be 212 in Chiang Rai, 146 in Mae Hong Son and only 86 in downtown Chiang Mai? Is it really not that bad this year?

In previous years, the readings for the northern provinces were similar. If it was high in Chiang Rai, it was also high in Chiang Mai. This year seems different. Are the numbers being fudged or is it really not that high in Chiang Mai right now?

1/ The first full year of measurements (or at least postings of them) in Chiang Rai was last year (2009), so there is not much comparison to be made with "previous years".

2/ Last year, the measurements for Chiang Rai were much higher than those for Chiang Mai. PM>10 average for March 2009 was 112.9 µg/m³ in CM, while it was 162.7 µg/m³ in Chiang Rai. Chiang Rai also had 28 "bad days" (i.e. with PM<10 in excess of 120 µg/m³), while CM had "only" 16.

3/ As can be seen in this graph, Chiang Rai had in 2009 the highest pollution level of all the measuring stations in Northern Thailand, while Chiang Mai had pretty much the lowest:

4/ Though it is still early days, it seems that this year will follow the same pattern, with the exception that the new measuring station in Phrae appears to have lower levels than Chiang Mai.

5/ It is also interesting to note the brand new measuring station in Mae Sai (reporting only since 27 February) showing much worse, i.e. higher, values than even Chiang Rai. Could it be that a lot of the pollution is coming in from the north, i.e. Burma, and that Chiang Mai is protected by the mountain ranges to the west, north and east?

/ Priceless

[orang37]

... snip ... 5/ It is also interesting to note the brand new measuring station in Mae Sai (reporting only since 27 February) showing much worse, i.e. higher, values than even Chiang Rai. Could it be that a lot of the pollution is coming in from the north, i.e. Burma, and that Chiang Mai is protected by the mountain ranges to the west, north and east?

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Priceless,

Always interesting to read your posts, and appreciate the graphs, thanks !

We were in Mae Sai (daytime) two weeks ago, and observed heavy haze: regret to tell you we'll go up again tomorrow, and expect more of the same.

best, ~o:37;

Edited March 6, 2010 by orang37

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I'd say the levels are consistent with what you see out there. When you get above 100 then you really don't see the mountain anymore, not even the outline.

[millwall_fan]

A few customers have commented at the bar that they think the air has improved this week. Great graph Priceless. Any chance of sharing where you go the data. I am often asked a bout rainfall figures max temps - as well as polution. A graph or two on my noticeboard would be of interest to quite a few people

[rcjoop]

There are measurements correlating visibility and PM10 values here in Chiang Mai.

It is a PowerPoint presentation by the PCD

Will try to upload the file

Joop

CM_PM10_Visibility.pdf

[earlofwindermere]

Thanks for the info. I guess I booked my trip down south during the wrong week. I'm back tomorrow so let's hope that the air quality stays relatively good.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

I'd say the levels are consistent with what you see out there. When you get above 100 then you really don't see the mountain anymore, not even the outline.

Sunday morning reality check. PM might be breaking 100 based on lack of visibility.

photo 1 9:30 a.m. ---- photo 2 more normal AQI of about 40

[dave2]

millwall fan.

re ...... A graph or two on my noticeboard would be of interest to quite a few people

here ya go .

enjoy ... dave2

[brennanstimpy]

Priceless, I appreciate your graph, thanks. Even though CM is the lowest in the graph, it still isn't any good. My eyes are burning every day and I find it much more difficult to breathe deeply when I use a lot of energy, ie. Muay Thai. Are you still getting most of your info from Baltimore?

[realthaideal]

Yeah... the air is crappy right now and luckily though, we could/should get some storm activity sweeping some of the smoke dust out of here or down to the ground.

And by the way, I count this essential thread #8 on fires n pollution this season.

[cardinalblue]

Yeah... the air is crappy right now and luckily though, we could/should get some storm activity sweeping some of the smoke dust out of here or down to the ground.

And by the way, I count this essential thread #8 on fires n pollution this season.

[cardinalblue]

Little bit silly to compare CM to other provinces and then state CM is better than the other nearby provinces..

The air pollution is terrible now in CM and yeah it could be worse. But since we like to compare things.

If CM averaged PM-10 of 105 micrograms per cubic meter for its daily rate over a year, it would make the top 10 worst air polluted cities in the world. Granted we are dealing with is only one month time-frame but when one day is over a 100, it ranks up there with the worst cities in the world for air pollution for that one day...

Lets not diminish the fact that these numbers we see every feb/march are major health and env. hazards....Absolute is much more important than comparing to other provinces...kind of like saying "my D is better than your D-"..

The aim should not be how bad it is but to shoot/measure for acceptable positive numbers vs avoidance numbers or else you have city officials and others patting themselves on the back by being slightly under a 100....

CB

[WinnieTheKhwai]

All true. ( Still, can we be happy that this seems to be a really good year, and consistent with the overall year on year decline in pollution levels? )

[scotbeve]

Cadinalblue,

I agree... yesterday was the worst I've seen it this year and the PCD put this out:

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

AND last years pics (almost to the day) compared with yesterdays pollution: (as well as a "clean day" pic in Nov. - my favorite month)(AND a pic of the sun whereas one could almost look at it directly without "smoked" glass or sunglasses)

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Interesting; very similar. However this year, yesterday was the first 'bad' day of the year (over 120). In 2009, the first bad day was a good three weeks earlier, in mid February. Note by the way that when comparing pictures you need to make sure you take the picture at the same time of day when it comes to visibility. Between noon and 1pm is a good time for comparison, as you're rid of any morning moisture, while not taking pictures against the direction of the sunlight yet.

It's an excellent year so far, relatively speaking of course.

Let's hope all areas get some rain today.

Edited March 10, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Priceless]

Little bit silly to compare CM to other provinces and then state CM is better than the other nearby provinces..

The air pollution is terrible now in CM and yeah it could be worse. But since we like to compare things.

If CM averaged PM-10 of 105 micrograms per cubic meter for its daily rate over a year, it would make the top 10 worst air polluted cities in the world. Granted we are dealing with is only one month time-frame but when one day is over a 100, it ranks up there with the worst cities in the world for air pollution for that one day...

Lets not diminish the fact that these numbers we see every feb/march are major health and env. hazards....Absolute is much more important than comparing to other provinces...kind of like saying "my D is better than your D-"..

The aim should not be how bad it is but to shoot/measure for acceptable positive numbers vs avoidance numbers or else you have city officials and others patting themselves on the back by being slightly under a 100....

CB

I am very sorry, but this must be about the silliest nonsense that I've read on ThaiVisa.

Firstly, I've read through this thread again and nobody has claimed that Chiang Mai is "better" than any other Northern province. Nobody's claimed that it is "less bad" either. I posted a graph showing that PM<10 air pollution in Chiang Mai in 2009 was mostly lower than in other provinces. A graph, though, is a mathematical/statistical tool, not a statement of opinion.

Now to the silliness.

You state: "If CM averaged PM-10 of 105 micrograms per cubic meter for its daily rate over a year, it would make the top 10 worst air polluted cities in the world."

The most comprehensive list of pollution levels in world cities, that I have found, was produced by the World Bank (WB) in 2006 ( http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/...:469382,00.html ). According to that list, a yearly average level of 105 µg/m³ would not have put Chiang Mai in "the top 10 worst air polluted cities in the world". It would rather have come in joint 283^rd place!

What is more relevant though, is that Chiang Mai does not have, and has never been anywhere close to, a yearly average of 105 µg/m³. In the twelve months ending today, the average level has been 40.7 µg/m³. That would put CM in about the 1,500^th place on the WB list.

Your statement "when one day is over a 100, it ranks up there with the worst cities in the world for air pollution for that one day" I cannot refute with any kind of precision, since I have not been able to find any list of daily pollution levels for cities around the world. It is, however, worth noting that there are about 340 cities in the world with yearly averages of 100 µg/m³ or higher. I would guess that something like 1,000 cities in the world would be at that level, or higher, on any given day. Today alone, ten of them would be in Thailand.

Since the posting that I am commenting on was made, there have unfortunately been two "bad days" with pollution in excess of 120 µg/m³. Prior to that, the worst days had been at a level that the Pollution Control Department (and, incidentally, the US Environment Protection Agency) considers "Moderate pollution". It seems to me that your statement that "these numbers we see every feb/march are major health and env. hazards" rather lacks support among environmental and health expertise. I am, however, of course fully willing to admit that this kind of level is unpleasant, and I am sure that certain people, e.g. asthmatics, actually suffer from it.

To sum up what your post actually says:

If the yearly average pollution level in Chiang Mai had been more than 150% higher than it is, it would have been rather bad

/ Priceless

[Ulysses G.]

It is pretty obvious that Priceless is doing his best to just ignore all the nonsense posts that pop up at this time of year, but, unfortunately, the guy just cannot seem to suffer fools gladly!

[cardinalblue]

Priceless,

First of all, why lie? you are not sorry at all..classic case of apologizing before being critically judgmental...

This thread and you in particular tries to minimize the poor air quality in CM by comparing it to CR. You definately are thru your data drawing a relative comparson saying see it aint so bad..Env pollulants should be absolute and not relative comparisons as this thread has taken on that tone...

as to dat, all i did was a quidk look at Wikipedia and it shows a 2004 table that the 10 worst cities ranging from Cairo at 169 to Senyong, China at 101. yes, it is a daily average over a year and I stated that in my analysis just to show that the day we are experiencing yesterday, today and over the next 2 ot 3 weeks will be those types of numbers. I clearly stated CM does not have annual averages like three but just to point out to a reader what a "bad day" is and what it feels like equals making a top ten worst city list n 2004. Can only report what data they report...

As to your comment about USEPA, I believe "moderate pollution" is your language and not theirs. The EPA standard of 150 MUST NOT not be exceeded more than one day a year over a three year period of time. Have we not exceeded that standard for the last two days? Do you wish to take back your "moderate pollution" comment. The european commission set a 2010 standard of 20 a day reducing it from 2005 of 40 a day over a year. I am just pointed this out; not expecting thailand or any other country in this region to follow suit as it would be unreasonable for a number of reasons...

As to your medical comments, what we are experiencing and will experience over the next month is a very serious health hazard for many "at risk" population groups. It is well documented that these levels we now are experiencing are correlated with an array of respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, many cariovascular issues and premature death. It is negatively impacting the even so-called healthy population. How will you minmize the thousands of masks the Thai gov distributed to the northern provinces? Little bit of a feeble effort but at least they regconize they have a serious health problem on their hands or should I say in the air? The problem with these third world countries is poor and incomplete record-keeping but we will see something in the news about air pollution illnesses soon but it won't be comprehensive, enforceable, accurate nor bring about substantial change...Now if there was a story about prosecuting farmers burning their lands, that would raise a few eyebrows (if they the air allows them to be raised)...

And finally, sounds like you fell for "blame it on Burmese forest fires"? Dude, you need to get out into farm lands of the northern provinces and see why and where the smoke is coming from. The rural areas continue to this day to burn their crops, their fields, clear bush from roadsides and their daily garbage. It is happening in all these countries laos, cambodia, thailand, china, vietnam and burma. It is a home grown and regional problem but I hate to hear the old "it coming from forest fires of our neighbors" It's weird how these foreign "forest fires" happen to the day every year..maybe you wisg to discuss what a forrest fire is?

Lets debate...

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

debate is good but helpful to try to limit and constrain arguments to specific finite issues.

Good logic and debate technique is essential. A clever debater can make mincemeat of someone regardless of fact, data, truth etc by shifting argument battles onto favorable battlefields.

for example

Be careful about letting someone apply diversionary logic.

it works like this. How can you complain about pollution in CM? The pollution is worse in CR so it really cannot be bad if it's more severe somewhere else.

(It's interesting to draw comparison for relative merit but still invalid logic)

It's like this

'Father my skin hurts and I think I have some sort of skin dis-ease which needs attention or treatment'

'Son this man over here has psorasis and is in great discomfort. You don't really have a disease compared to him so drop this complaint'

Son falsely feels bad about bringing up his condition. If the son accepts the invalid logic then can only compete by comparison and cannot receive treatment until his disease is really bad. Classic invalid misdirection with bonus guilt. It's just designed to paralyze and confuse.

Easy to fall prey to.

if you want to effectively debate Priceless then back up and sharpen your foundational skills of logic and debate.

[Priceless]

Priceless,

First of all, why lie? you are not sorry at all..classic case of apologizing before being critically judgmental...

This thread and you in particular tries to minimize the poor air quality in CM by comparing it to CR. You definately are thru your data drawing a relative comparson saying see it aint so bad..Env pollulants should be absolute and not relative comparisons as this thread has taken on that tone...

as to dat, all i did was a quidk look at Wikipedia and it shows a 2004 table that the 10 worst cities ranging from Cairo at 169 to Senyong, China at 101. yes, it is a daily average over a year and I stated that in my analysis just to show that the day we are experiencing yesterday, today and over the next 2 ot 3 weeks will be those types of numbers. I clearly stated CM does not have annual averages like three but just to point out to a reader what a "bad day" is and what it feels like equals making a top ten worst city list n 2004. Can only report what data they report...

As to your comment about USEPA, I believe "moderate pollution" is your language and not theirs. The EPA standard of 150 MUST NOT not be exceeded more than one day a year over a three year period of time. Have we not exceeded that standard for the last two days? Do you wish to take back your "moderate pollution" comment. The european commission set a 2010 standard of 20 a day reducing it from 2005 of 40 a day over a year. I am just pointed this out; not expecting thailand or any other country in this region to follow suit as it would be unreasonable for a number of reasons...

As to your medical comments, what we are experiencing and will experience over the next month is a very serious health hazard for many "at risk" population groups. It is well documented that these levels we now are experiencing are correlated with an array of respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, many cariovascular issues and premature death. It is negatively impacting the even so-called healthy population. How will you minmize the thousands of masks the Thai gov distributed to the northern provinces? Little bit of a feeble effort but at least they regconize they have a serious health problem on their hands or should I say in the air? The problem with these third world countries is poor and incomplete record-keeping but we will see something in the news about air pollution illnesses soon but it won't be comprehensive, enforceable, accurate nor bring about substantial change...Now if there was a story about prosecuting farmers burning their lands, that would raise a few eyebrows (if they the air allows them to be raised)...

And finally, sounds like you fell for "blame it on Burmese forest fires"? Dude, you need to get out into farm lands of the northern provinces and see why and where the smoke is coming from. The rural areas continue to this day to burn their crops, their fields, clear bush from roadsides and their daily garbage. It is happening in all these countries laos, cambodia, thailand, china, vietnam and burma. It is a home grown and regional problem but I hate to hear the old "it coming from forest fires of our neighbors" It's weird how these foreign "forest fires" happen to the day every year..maybe you wisg to discuss what a forrest fire is?

Lets debate...

I'll limit my debate to the following, both about "Moderate" and about the health risks (concerning which I have no qualifications).

The Thai PCD has in principle adopted the US EPA definition of Air Quality Index, with the following limits (which are somewhat stricter than the US ones (e.g. AQI 100 = 120 µg/m³ as opposed to 150 µg/m³ in the US):

/ Priceless

[earlofwindermere]

To be fair, wasn't the discussion about the PM-10 levels and not the AQI? I am assuming that it is not the same thing.

[brennanstimpy]

I dont understand why there is an AQI number when it is just representing the PM10 number.

[scotbeve]

Can one of you PM 10 guru posters bring a more important aspect into the foray please? This of course is the (usually left aside topic) residents health. I know when I'm in Singapore, Malaysia, or Indo during the Indo annual "burnoffs", my throat hurts, I develop a cough, and my eyes sting. Funnily enough, what I'm experiencing at present....

[chiang mai]

Can one of you PM 10 guru posters bring a more important aspect into the foray please? This of course is the (usually left aside topic) residents health. I know when I'm in Singapore, Malaysia, or Indo during the Indo annual "burnoffs", my throat hurts, I develop a cough, and my eyes sting. Funnily enough, what I'm experiencing at present....

This debate does not accept anecdotal evidence and any reference to it is instantly dismissed and cannot be considered into evidence, only charts and official looking documents are acceptable.

Sorry to hear about your eyes and your throat however, you have my sympathies.