Pm10 Readings Correct In Chiang Mai?

[Priceless]

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.

They're almost the same thing. The AQI is not a linear representation of the PM<10 level though, but "classifies" it according to a risk evaluation. Built on the Thai system a PM<10 level of 0-40 µg/m³ corresponds to an AQI of 0-50 and is rated "Good". A level of 40-120 corresponds to an AQI of 50-100 and is rated "Moderate". A level of 120-350 corresponds to AQI 100-200 and is rated "Unhealthful". A level of 350-420 corresponds to AQI 200-300 and is rated "Very Unhealthful" and a level over 420 corresponds to AQI 300+ and is rated "Hazardous".

More interesting may be the USEPA descriptions in terms of who needs to take extra care, and in what way (see the attached table in my previous post). Hence my statement about Chiang Mai air up to the day before yesterday having "Moderate" pollution. The AQI is, as far as I know, an EPA invention intended for communicating pollution and its risks to the general public.

/ Priceless

[Ulysses G.]

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.

On the other hand, of course it is perfectly acceptable to attack anyone who who says that most of the time the pollution isn't really so terribly bad.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[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.

They're almost the same thing. The AQI is not a linear representation of the PM<10 level though, but "classifies" it according to a risk evaluation. Built on the Thai system a PM<10 level of 0-40 µg/m³ corresponds to an AQI of 0-50 and is rated "Good". A level of 40-120 corresponds to an AQI of 50-100 and is rated "Moderate". A level of 120-350 corresponds to AQI 100-200 and is rated "Unhealthful". A level of 350-420 corresponds to AQI 200-300 and is rated "Very Unhealthful" and a level over 420 corresponds to AQI 300+ and is rated "Hazardous".

More interesting may be the USEPA descriptions in terms of who needs to take extra care, and in what way (see the attached table in my previous post). Hence my statement about Chiang Mai air up to the day before yesterday having "Moderate" pollution. The AQI is, as far as I know, an EPA invention intended for communicating pollution and its risks to the general public.

/ Priceless

So the disagreement among many people could be based on which system they are using and on which country's classification of that system they are basing it on. For me, I've always looked at the PM10 levels and not so much the AQI. When I check the standards of this system, many countries have limits of 50 µg/m³ for no more than XX days per year. So, to me, when we are reaching the 100 levels, it seems quite high.

I'll let the experts debate this because I certainly am not.

[chiang mai]

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.

On the other hand, of course it is perfectly acceptable to attack anyone who who says that most of the time the pollution isn't really so terribly bad.

For a number of years now these recurring debates have been trying unsuccessfully to determine what the phrase, "really not so terribly bad" really means. You and your chum seem to think it's "really not so terribly bad", whilst tens of other posters merely complain about watery and stinging eyes, sore throats, nasal problems, bronchitis and worse (don't you just hate those whiners), difficult to understand which group might be more right, ahem!

[MESmith]

 What burning?  Photos taken today.

 

[Ulysses G.]

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.

On the other hand, of course it is perfectly acceptable to attack anyone who who says that most of the time the pollution isn't really so terribly bad.

For a number of years now these recurring debates have been trying unsuccessfully to determine what the phrase, "really not so terribly bad" really means. You and your chum seem to think it's "really not so terribly bad", whilst tens of other posters merely complain about watery and stinging eyes, sore throats, nasal problems, bronchitis and worse (don't you just hate those whiners), difficult to understand which group might be more right, ahem!

There are plenty of people who are bothered by the air, but lots and lots of posters have said they are not very bothered at all. However, certain neurotic whingers seem to live to moan and complain about it all year round - even though they have not lived in CM for years. They also reject any "anecdotal evidence" by anyone who disagrees with their views and any real evidence as well - ahem!

Edited March 10, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[MESmith]

There are people who are bothered by the air, but lots and lots of posters have said they are not very bothered at all. However, certain neurotic whingers seem to live to moan and complain. They also reject any "anecdotal evidence" by anyone who disagrees with their views and any real evidence as well - ahem!

I guess the pollution is not noticeable in the city.  Smoke from burning outside the city must cancel out the diesel fumes 

[Ulysses G.]

What big city full of cars and other vechicles does not have pollution? Maybe we should move to LA.

[chiang mai]

There are people who are bothered by the air, but lots and lots of posters have said they are not very bothered at all. However, certain neurotic whingers seem to live to moan and complain. They also reject any "anecdotal evidence" by anyone who disagrees with their views and any real evidence as well - ahem!

I guess the pollution is not noticeable in the city.  Smoke from burning outside the city must cancel out the diesel fumes 

That could be the case or perhaps it's something else, who knows. For example, one of this forums posters, owns a business in the heart of CM and finds the air most palatable on most days, even to the point of jogging early in the morning. I on the other hand used to live some one hundred and fifty feet or so above him and about one kilo further away and I could rarely even see his shop on most days during the burning season, actually on those days I could often not even see the ground. So yes, proximity to the centre of town is perhaps one factor as is altitude and the access to a decent pairs of eyes and cast iron lungs another.

[MESmith]

Chiang mai is quite a small town.  Luckily the pollution caused by all the burning outside the city has no effect on the residents.  Time to sell up & move into the city where the air is pure.  Can someone please tell me & all the other residents where this cut off is.

[Ulysses G.]

There are people who are bothered by the air, but lots and lots of posters have said they are not very bothered at all. However, certain neurotic whingers seem to live to moan and complain. They also reject any "anecdotal evidence" by anyone who disagrees with their views and any real evidence as well - ahem!

I guess the pollution is not noticeable in the city. Smoke from burning outside the city must cancel out the diesel fumes

That could be the case or perhaps it's something else, who knows. For example, one of this forums posters, owns a business in the heart of CM and finds the air most palatable on most days, even to the point of jogging early in the morning. I on the other hand used to live some one hundred and fifty feet or so above him and about one kilo further away and I could rarely even see his shop on most days during the burning season, actually on those days I could often not even see the ground. So yes, proximity to the centre of town is perhaps one factor as is altitude and the access to a decent pairs of eyes and cast iron lungs another.

How many years is it since you even lived in Chiang Mai? What a load of complete and utter malarkey. It is posters like you that make Priceless do so much research into real facts.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[lannarebirth]

Hi Priceless,

Say, aren't we within a week or so of the historic top of the peak pollution period? Mid March isn't it? Much variation of that over the years? TIA

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Yes we are.

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

(Ok he didn't actually say bar-stool blabbermouths, that's my interpretation. )

[MESmith]

Yes we are.

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

(Ok he didn't actually say bar-stool blabbermouths, that's my interpretation. )

Well pm priceless to tell him to shut the f...........

I look out of my window for the "data" that concerns me

[chiang mai]

Mines a large glass of Sprite please, love and peace to one and all and do keep up the work.

[chiang mai]

Yes we are.

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

(Ok he didn't actually say bar-stool blabbermouths, that's my interpretation. )

Well pm priceless to tell him to shut the f...........

I look out of my window for the "data" that concerns me

Don't be too sensitive, I think it was me they were talking about.

[MESmith]

And today's pcd "facts" are soooooooo low.  But, hey, we're lower than Mae Sai, so everything's hunkydory here in Lanna paradise.....

[MESmith]

Just by chance, the song on my stereo RIGHT now is DENY by the Clash.....  "you ain't got a hope, deny, you're such a liar".......

[MESmith]

Yes we are.

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

(Ok he didn't actually say bar-stool blabbermouths, that's my interpretation. )

Well pm priceless to tell him to shut the f...........

I look out of my window for the "data" that concerns me

Don't be too sensitive, I think it was me they were talking about.

I've had it up to my tits with the denials & bs from certain members, & today, my non-thai neighbour fires up his garden.  PLONKER!!!!!!!!!  My wife called the orbator, but they just said........... I've &lt;deleted&gt; had enuf.  Time to head down Chiang Moi rd & enquire about a shooter.......

ok, that last sentence was an exaggeration born out of frustration, incase people think there's a psycho on the loose  BUT, I have had enough of the &lt;deleted&gt; burning!!!!!!

Edited March 10, 2010 by MESmith

[chiang mai]

There are people who are bothered by the air, but lots and lots of posters have said they are not very bothered at all. However, certain neurotic whingers seem to live to moan and complain. They also reject any "anecdotal evidence" by anyone who disagrees with their views and any real evidence as well - ahem!

I guess the pollution is not noticeable in the city. Smoke from burning outside the city must cancel out the diesel fumes

That could be the case or perhaps it's something else, who knows. For example, one of this forums posters, owns a business in the heart of CM and finds the air most palatable on most days, even to the point of jogging early in the morning. I on the other hand used to live some one hundred and fifty feet or so above him and about one kilo further away and I could rarely even see his shop on most days during the burning season, actually on those days I could often not even see the ground. So yes, proximity to the centre of town is perhaps one factor as is altitude and the access to a decent pairs of eyes and cast iron lungs another.

How many years is it since you even lived in Chiang Mai? What a load of complete and utter malarkey. It is posters like you that make Priceless do so much research into real facts.

I haven't lived there for three years although I have been a frequent visitor there each year, why, do you think the pollution issue has changed during that time? BTW, it's interesting to note that for the past three years whilst in Phuket I have not suffered a single incidence of respiratory disease, no coughs, no running nose or sore throat and not a single occurrence of bronchitis. That contrasts sharply with the thrice yearly visit to CM RAM for multiple courses of antibiotics to treat various respiratory ailments, really!

And I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused by making Priceless compile all his data, it's very inconsiderate of me I know.

[Ulysses G.]

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

Khun Chiang Mai, it seems that every single time you bless Chiang Mai with one of your visits - at any time of year - you end up in the hospital being pumped full of antibiotics. Therefore, it might be sensible to stick to propping up that barstool on Patong Beach in order to preserve your fragile health - don't do us any favors. You don't want to take any chances in depriving planet Earth of any incessant whining or neurotic whinging. These things make the world go 'round.

By the way, I'm sure that some other Looney Tunes will come along to argue with Priceless about certified data, official statistics and published facts. Don't worry, the cause will live on without you!

Edited March 11, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[chiang mai]

I realize it's early in the morning UG but that's not what I said, unsurprising however that you would try to twist my statement! What I said, for the avoidance of doubt, is that whilst I lived in CM I was frequently ill with respiratory infections and diseases but since I've lived in Phuket I have not suffered a single one, interesting anecdotal evidence don't you think!

[scotbeve]

 What burning?  Photos taken today.

 

Isn't this isolated fog or mist???????

[venturalaw]

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

By the way, I'm sure that some other Looney Tunes will come along to argue with Priceless about certified data, official statistics and published facts. Don't worry, the cause will live on without you!

Where is mapguy when you need him?

[harrry]

Yes we are.

Priceless confided to me in a private e-mail that he's getting a bit tired of replying to bar-stool blabbermouths' fantasies in response to straight facts.. Can't really blame him.

(Ok he didn't actually say bar-stool blabbermouths, that's my interpretation. )

Isn't a private email just that....and the forum rules specifically ban posting them don't they?

Edited March 11, 2010 by harrry

[Ulysses G.]

The rule is against posting them, not mentioning something that was said in one.

[Ulysses G.]

Where is mapguy when you need him?

Mapguy has retired. Khun Chiang Mai seems to be the new Bull Goose Looney.

http://thenewtrierward.blogspot.com/

Edited March 11, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Priceless]

I haven't lived there for three years although I have been a frequent visitor there each year, why, do you think the pollution issue has changed during that time? BTW, it's interesting to note that for the past three years whilst in Phuket I have not suffered a single incidence of respiratory disease, no coughs, no running nose or sore throat and not a single occurrence of bronchitis. That contrasts sharply with the thrice yearly visit to CM RAM for multiple courses of antibiotics to treat various respiratory ailments, really!

And I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused by making Priceless compile all his data, it's very inconsiderate of me I know.

Firstly, I am sorry for disappointing you but I am not doing my data compiling or analysis for the benefit of anybody but myself. I am doing it because I am interested in understanding the Northern Thai pollution problem, its sources, dissemination patterns and any possible remedies. I know that this kind of thinking would never enter your mind, but to me it comes quite naturally.

Incidentally, if your doctors are giving you multiple courses of antibiotics whenever you visit Chiang Mai, they obviously don't think that your problems are caused by the pollution. Antibiotics are used against bacteria and similar living microorganisms (biotic = "of or relating to living organisms") and have no effect against what you would mostly find in particulate matter pollution.

Wikipedia on Particulate Matter:

"The composition of aerosol particles depends on their source. Wind-blown mineral dust tends to be made of mineral oxides and other material blown from the Earth's crust; this aerosol is light-absorbing. Sea salt is considered the second-largest contributor in the global aerosol budget, and consists mainly of sodium chloride originated from sea spray; other constituents of atmospheric sea salt reflect the composition of sea water, and thus include magnesium, sulfate, calcium, potassium, etc. In addition, sea spray aerosols may contain organic compounds, which influence their chemistry. Sea salt does not absorb.

Secondary particles derive from the oxidation of primary gases such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides into sulfuric acid (liquid) and nitric acid (gaseous). The precursors for these aerosols—i.e. the gases from which they originate—may have an anthropogenic origin (from fossil fuel combustion) and a natural biogenic origin. In the presence of ammonia, secondary aerosols often take the form of ammonium salts; i.e. ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate (both can be dry or in aqueous solution); in the absence of ammonia, secondary compounds take an acidic form as sulfuric acid (liquid aerosol droplets) and nitric acid (atmospheric gas). Secondary sulfate and nitrate aerosols are strong light-scatterers. This is mainly because the presence of sulfate and nitrate causes the aerosols to increase to a size that scatters light effectively.

Organic matter (OM) can be either primary or secondary, the latter part deriving from the oxidation of VOCs; organic material in the atmosphere may either be biogenic or anthropogenic. Organic matter influences the atmospheric radiation field by both scattering and absorption. Another important aerosol type is constitute of elemental carbon (EC, also known as black carbon, BC): this aerosol type includes strongly light-absorbing material and is thought to yield large positive radiative forcing. Organic matter and elemental carbon together constitute the carbonaceous fraction of aerosols."

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

I haven't lived there for three years although I have been a frequent visitor there each year, why, do you think the pollution issue has changed during that time? BTW, it's interesting to note that for the past three years whilst in Phuket I have not suffered a single incidence of respiratory disease, no coughs, no running nose or sore throat and not a single occurrence of bronchitis. That contrasts sharply with the thrice yearly visit to CM RAM for multiple courses of antibiotics to treat various respiratory ailments, really!

And I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused by making Priceless compile all his data, it's very inconsiderate of me I know.

Firstly, I am sorry for disappointing you but I am not doing my data compiling or analysis for the benefit of anybody but myself. I am doing it because I am interested in understanding the Northern Thai pollution problem, its sources, dissemination patterns and any possible remedies. I know that this kind of thinking would never enter your mind, but to me it comes quite naturally.

Incidentally, if your doctors are giving you multiple courses of antibiotics whenever you visit Chiang Mai, they obviously don't think that your problems are caused by the pollution. Antibiotics are used against bacteria and similar living microorganisms (biotic = "of or relating to living organisms") and have no effect against what you would mostly find in particulate matter pollution.

Wikipedia on Particulate Matter:

"The composition of aerosol particles depends on their source. Wind-blown mineral dust tends to be made of mineral oxides and other material blown from the Earth's crust; this aerosol is light-absorbing. Sea salt is considered the second-largest contributor in the global aerosol budget, and consists mainly of sodium chloride originated from sea spray; other constituents of atmospheric sea salt reflect the composition of sea water, and thus include magnesium, sulfate, calcium, potassium, etc. In addition, sea spray aerosols may contain organic compounds, which influence their chemistry. Sea salt does not absorb.

Secondary particles derive from the oxidation of primary gases such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides into sulfuric acid (liquid) and nitric acid (gaseous). The precursors for these aerosols—i.e. the gases from which they originate—may have an anthropogenic origin (from fossil fuel combustion) and a natural biogenic origin. In the presence of ammonia, secondary aerosols often take the form of ammonium salts; i.e. ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate (both can be dry or in aqueous solution); in the absence of ammonia, secondary compounds take an acidic form as sulfuric acid (liquid aerosol droplets) and nitric acid (atmospheric gas). Secondary sulfate and nitrate aerosols are strong light-scatterers. This is mainly because the presence of sulfate and nitrate causes the aerosols to increase to a size that scatters light effectively.

Organic matter (OM) can be either primary or secondary, the latter part deriving from the oxidation of VOCs; organic material in the atmosphere may either be biogenic or anthropogenic. Organic matter influences the atmospheric radiation field by both scattering and absorption. Another important aerosol type is constitute of elemental carbon (EC, also known as black carbon, BC): this aerosol type includes strongly light-absorbing material and is thought to yield large positive radiative forcing. Organic matter and elemental carbon together constitute the carbonaceous fraction of aerosols."

/ Priceless

Umm, I did clarify this point subsequently, see below:

"I realize it's early in the morning UG but that's not what I said, unsurprising however that you would try to twist my statement! What I said, for the avoidance of doubt, is that whilst I lived in CM I was frequently ill with respiratory infections and diseases but since I've lived in Phuket I have not suffered a single one, interesting anecdotal evidence don't you think!"

[chiang mai]

Where is mapguy when you need him?

Mapguy has retired. Khun Chiang Mai seems to be the new Bull Goose Looney.

http://thenewtrierward.blogspot.com/

You know UG, I live in hope that one of these days you might actually contribute something worthwhile to these debates rather than merely promoting Priceless and calling other posters names, I'm not going to hold my breath however!