Pm10 Readings Correct In Chiang Mai?

[Ulysses G.]

Worthwhile?

You mean as in incessant whining about somewhere that you haven't lived for years and how all the facts and figures that prove you wrong are incorrect because the doctor gives you antibiotics to cure your obsessive moaning?

No, you shouldn't hold your breath.

[scotbeve]

Worthwhile?

You mean as in incessant whining about somewhere that you haven't lived for years and how all the facts and figures that prove you wrong are incorrect because the doctor gives you antibiotics to cure your obsessive moaning?

No, you shouldn't hold your breath.

This is all going a bit off topic isn't it lads/lasses?

[aandrei]

 is there any effective air-filtering system in the market that can be installed to a condo  filtering out all particulate matter from the incoming air? any ideas?

[scotbeve]

 is there any effective air-filtering system in the market that can be installed to a condo  filtering out all particulate matter from the incoming air? any ideas?

Google (or whatever) Microban - Bionaire. I have 4 x stand-alone units in the house for this time of year

[orang37]

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

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun UG,

We miss MapGuy, and feel he contributed some good stuff to the "dialogue" on weather and pollution, particularly in his last month or two of posting. We agree with you that he is a "Bull," but can't quite agree on the "Goose Looney" attributes.

As "Bull," we think Khun MapGuy had some panache in the way he tossed his horns, pawed the earth, and snorted: then charged full-on.

best, ~o:37;

[Ulysses G.]

I agree that mapguy started contributing some good stuff near the end of his posting career, but I'm not sure that made up for all the "Bull" that came before it!

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV CM Friends, (cough, cough, cough)

Without getting embroiled ourselves in the imbroglio now in play ...

We note the Nation today is reporting the Public Health Ministry says 100k persons "fallen ill from the smog" in northern Thailand : Lanna Can't Breathe Can we admit now that, as astronaut John Swigert said : "Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here" ?

Unfortunately the Nation article doesn't mention any details of what the 100k persons "officially" recorded with some form of respiratory ailment specifically have: can we assume that most are bronchitis ? And, given our skepticism, on Thai data collection in general, should we perhaps consider that there's a lot of people not reported "officially" who are having respiratory problems ?

Some "facts" on Bronchitis : Wikipedia on Bronchitis : quotes below from this article.

1. acute : "Viruses cause about 90% of cases of acute bronchitis while bacteria account for less than 10%." The bacterial caused forms are treated with antibiotics, the virally caused forms treated via other means.

2. chronic : "a productive cough that lasts for 3 months or more per year for at least 2 years." primary cause : cigarette smoking; major secondary causes include air pollution. Not treated with antibiotics.

3. "Protracted bacterial bronchitis is defined as a cough of more than 8 weeks" : treated with antibiotics. No information in the Wikipedia article about the prevalence of this form of bronchitis.

Of course there are many other possible "respiratory problems" other than bronchitis: and you can find an infinity of resources via Google at : Pollution and Respiratory Problems

When Khun Chiang Mai says he has been much healthier in Phuket compared to when he lived in Chiang Mai : "That contrasts sharply with the thrice yearly visit to CM RAM for multiple courses of antibiotics to treat various respiratory ailments."

We don't question that is the "truth" of his experience, but we would like to know more about the exact nature of his respiratory ailments, since treatment with antibiotics suggests bacterial causation. Also, for any one person, it looks like whether or not they smoke cigarettes would be important information to know.

But, come to think of it, we haven't seen any statistical information on differential exacerbation by pollution on smokers vs. non-smokers: we just assume it happens.

It is interesting to speculate about the idea that respiratory distress and stress, caused by pollution, might weaken the immune system, and thus render one more vulnerable to "opportunistic" bacterial infections, however.

This is an area we are curious about, and would like to know more about the possible "differential" vulnerabilities of children and old folks (like us) to pollution and possible interaction with the immune system.

best, ~o:37;

Edited March 11, 2010 by orang37

[Chicog]

We note the Nation today is reporting the Public Health Ministry says 100k persons "fallen ill from the smog" in northern Thailand : Lanna Can't Breathe Can we admit now that, as astronaut John Swigert said : "Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here" ?

Not really, because that implies it's gone away

As for the handfuls of antibiotics, in my experience, it doesn't actually matter *what* is wrong with you in Thailand, you're going to get a bag of "pretty pills", so I don't really think you can categorically state that it must be bacterial.

But I'm getting emails and FB messages from plenty of CM friends, independent of each other, who all complain of the same symptoms or irritation. I can't say I'm really looking forward to my next trip (22 March) but I'm coming anyway. Then I'll be able to see for myself and not rely on those who seem to have a vested interest in trying to silence or browbeat anyone who dares to moan about it.

I'm considering buying a condo in CM, but that decision goes out of the window if I'm going to find it an uncomfortable place to live for a significant chunk of each year. Time will tell.

[chiang mai]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV CM Friends, (cough, cough, cough)

Without getting embroiled ourselves in the imbroglio now in play ...

We note the Nation today is reporting the Public Health Ministry says 100k persons "fallen ill from the smog" in northern Thailand : Lanna Can't Breathe Can we admit now that, as astronaut John Swigert said : "Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here" ?

Unfortunately the Nation article doesn't mention any details of what the 100k persons "officially" recorded with some form of respiratory ailment specifically have: can we assume that most are bronchitis ? And, given our skepticism, on Thai data collection in general, should we perhaps consider that there's a lot of people not reported "officially" who are having respiratory problems ?

Some "facts" on Bronchitis : Wikipedia on Bronchitis : quotes below from this article.

1. acute : "Viruses cause about 90% of cases of acute bronchitis while bacteria account for less than 10%." The bacterial caused forms are treated with antibiotics, the virally caused forms treated via other means.

2. chronic : "a productive cough that lasts for 3 months or more per year for at least 2 years." primary cause : cigarette smoking; major secondary causes include air pollution. Not treated with antibiotics.

3. "Protracted bacterial bronchitis is defined as a cough of more than 8 weeks" : treated with antibiotics. No information in the Wikipedia article about the prevalence of this form of bronchitis.

Of course there are many other possible "respiratory problems" other than bronchitis: and you can find an infinity of resources via Google at : Pollution and Respiratory Problems

When Khun Chiang Mai says he has been much healthier in Phuket compared to when he lived in Chiang Mai : "That contrasts sharply with the thrice yearly visit to CM RAM for multiple courses of antibiotics to treat various respiratory ailments."

We don't question that is the "truth" of his experience, but we would like to know more about the exact nature of his respiratory ailments, since treatment with antibiotics suggests bacterial causation. Also, for any one person, it looks like whether or not they smoke cigarettes would be important information to know.

But, come to think of it, we haven't seen any statistical information on differential exacerbation by pollution on smokers vs. non-smokers: we just assume it happens.

It is interesting to speculate about the idea that respiratory distress and stress, caused by pollution, might weaken the immune system, and thus render one more vulnerable to "opportunistic" bacterial infections, however.

This is an area we are curious about, and would like to know more about the possible "differential" vulnerabilities of children and old folks (like us) to pollution and possible interaction with the immune system.

best, ~o:37;

And indeed that has always been the case with my respiratory infections - they would start around the end of January each year, almost like clockwork and the first symptoms would be nasal congestion followed by sinus infection and nasal drip into the bronchial tubes, bronchitis was always a secondary infection so the overall was always treated with antibiotics, typically Cravix - about eight to ten weeks to clear and generally three trips or so per year to RAM for new medication.

No, I'm not a smoker and no, I don't have a history of respiratory infections - indeed I have not suffered with such problems since I moved away, that move incidentally being suggested at first my a doctor at CM RAM.

One thing I've always wondered about though and have never really managed to bottom out an answer, has to do with the effects of pollution at different altitudes. Home for me in CM was a condo on a mid teens floor at Floral Condo where the views were wonderful, when the air was clear - when the air was not clear it was painfully obvious because our views in all directions simply disappeared. On days when that happened we would know the pollution level was high but friends who lived at ground level would often remark that they had not noticed any difference in the air quality. Some of that is the out of sight is out of mind syndrome I would guess but I do wonder whether the density of pollution varies with increased altitude.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

As an aside, I'm in Bangkok right now and I have to say it's pretty hazy here as well. Similar to Chiang Mai a week (or two) ago. Rather nice temperatures as well, I remember Bangkok being excruciatingly hot, but it's quite pleasant at the moment.

Hope it stays this way for this weekend's events.

[scotbeve]

Wtk,

It's lovely out in my mini-beer garden tonight! There's still a haze - but not too bad, the wind has been puffing away all day - all except for an hour, and the wind is back again... Sorry, got to go and enjoy it!

[whiterussian]

Just back from a bike ride to Mae Sai from CM.

Couldn't see a thing the whole way... no views at all.

No idea if it was smoke or fog - did see lots of burnt areas, - looks like the smallholdings are expanding right next to the road.

But can confirm the weather seems better here in CM than up north.

[mcgriffith]

It did seem a little clearer today.

Let us appreciate these small blessings....

Saw a friend a few days ago in a soi near my apt.

While we were talking, I saw a large piece of ash settle on his face.

I told him about it; he rubbed at it- large streak of black on his forehead.

(Definitely from a forest fire, not rice stubble, or garbage, or vehicles).

[cardinalblue]

CM,

You raise a good point that laymen don't understand. An effective H & S professional knows the importance of numbers and not the importance of numbers..

As to PELs, TLVs, STELs, air/water standards, etc these are to guide the H & S professional and public health officials as to compliance/non-compliance, but as to air contaminant exposre and illness, human individual variation and their particular signs and symptoms can and will flourish well below published air contaminant standards...This is where action should be taken regardless of what air monnitoring reports say. Numbers supplement and support but listening to complaints drive action whether that means costly engineering controls, administrative or PPE controls...

An ineffective H & S professional relies strictly on numbers and when the readings are below PELs, they equate that to "safe" and above the PELs as "potentially unsafe". It is never that clear cut when discussing individual exposure and human disease. One has to manage those readings for the regulators and the community but also listen to an individual worker or the persons in the affected community experiencing symptoms regardless what the numbers say..

It's a delicate balancing act where one is trying to appease management, the nay-sayers, the doubters, etc on one hand and the affected individual or group of individuals in the workplace/community..

Health and safety standards are created from specific groups of people (healthy adults in the workplace) to the air pollutant standards created not just for the general population at large but other affected factors like animals and crops/vegetion are included...They are moving guidelines (Yyes enforceable is exceeded) but chnage over time usually more stringent as bettter research becomes available...

Yet that being said, the USEPA revoked their annual PM-10 standard and now relies on PM-10 of 150 (basically a ceiling limit which cannot be exceeded more than once a year). This caveat is huge of nott more than one day a year Why, their research concluded that much more serious health problems at short-term exposure but at higher levels..

Further USA research created a new standard, PM-2.5 which H & S professionals put more weight in (no pun intended) than the PM-10 because they were able to demonstate that smoke and haze ranges in the 1.0 to 2.5 finer particle size and correlated significantly to more serious health effects and a wider range of illnesses than the PM-10 standard. And thus the new levels are 15 for the annual (average mean) and 35 for the 24-hour day rate...

I am interested in seeing how Thailand views the PM-2.5 standard. Uness current buring practices change, It would make compliance virtually impossible and hit them hard economically if the public and health officials become educated and shift from PM-10 or in relevant cases where smoke and haze are the known air contaminants....

CB

[scotbeve]

Cardinal blue,

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the smaller the particle, the deeper in your lungs it gets (my engineering side speaking). Has this obvious info been conveniently omitted from health standardization procedures for xx amount of years? I reckon it has....

Coming from a blue collar family (to the chorus of eeewwww!!! shrieking from numerous TV posters) and watching BOTH my parents getting respiratory diseases - more than half the maladies from slack industry (OSHA) standards. AND the useless diatribe and dialogue with MANY administration of my home country RE: Kyoto protocol. Any attempt of appeasing my loathing of unnecessary pollution is as useless as trying to get a mega-power admitting that it's been wrong for x amount of years.

[chiang mai]

CB - I seem to recall being told that international standards exists whereby the PM2.5 number is assumed from the PM10 number although I cannot be certain or precise on this point.

[chiang mai]

I came across the following document from the Canadian health authorities recently and it explains the linkage between air born pollution and respiratory/cardio vascular diseases quiet nicely, it makes for good reading for anyone who lives in a polluted area of the world. The document also explains bacterial bronchitis within the context of polluted air hence it's relevant here.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/out-ex...s_sante-eng.php

[orang37]

... snip ... Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the smaller the particle, the deeper in your lungs it gets (my engineering side speaking). Has this obvious info been conveniently omitted from health standardization procedures for xx amount of years? ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun ScotBeve,

You'll forgive us, we hope, if we interpret the above as a hypothesis : please have mercy, since we don't have an "engineering side"

While this "hypothesis" seems reasonable, we'd like to know more about exactly what kinds/sizes of "particle" can make it into the lungs, and how "deep" they can go.

And what does it mean when you say "deeper in the lungs" : is there really a parameter of "depth" here which is of clinical and medical significance ?

For example: could it be the case that some larger particles when inhaled break into smaller fragments ?

Do we need to think about the difference between inhaling through the nose and the mouth ?

Last time we looked our human's nose was not full of spit, but his mouth (salivary glands damaged by radiation requiring frequent hydration) was kept moist.

Could it be that many tell Orang37 to keep his mouth shut out of a desire to warn him to breathe through his nose: we weep at the thought what we may have perceived as ridicule and rejection might have actually been brotherly and sisterly love mis-interpreted !

Yes, we're joking around, but our curiousity is sincere, and we really value hearing from people who have scientific, technical, medical, engineering, etc. backgrounds, or from people like Khun Priceless who have a passion for quantitative data and statistics.

So, please do ... say more ...

best, ~o:37;

Edited March 12, 2010 by orang37

[orang37]

I came across the following document from the Canadian health authorities ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Chiang Mai,

Good article, thanks !

We're hoping someone will post here with some sound medical knowledge about the nature of the vulnerability of children to pollution compared to adults, and the nature of the vulnerability of older people compared to younger adults.

best, ~o:37;

Edited March 12, 2010 by orang37

[scotbeve]

... snip ... Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the smaller the particle, the deeper in your lungs it gets (my engineering side speaking). Has this obvious info been conveniently omitted from health standardization procedures for xx amount of years? ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun ScotBeve,

You'll forgive us, we hope, if we interpret the above as a hypothesis : please have mercy, since we don't have an "engineering side"

While this "hypothesis" seems reasonable, we'd like to know more about exactly what kinds/sizes of "particle" can make it into the lungs, and how "deep" they can go.

And what does it mean when you say "deeper in the lungs" : is there really a parameter of "depth" here which is of clinical and medical significance ?

For example: could it be the case that some larger particles when inhaled break into smaller fragments ?

Do we need to think about the difference between inhaling through the nose and the mouth ?

Last time we looked our human's nose was not full of spit, but his mouth (salivary glands damaged by radiation requiring frequent hydration) was kept moist.

Could it be that many tell Orang37 to keep his mouth shut out of a desire to warn him to breathe through his nose: we weep at the thought what we may have perceived as ridicule and rejection might have actually been brotherly and sisterly love mis-interpreted !

Yes, we're joking around, but our curiousity is sincere, and we really value hearing from people who have scientific, technical, medical, engineering, etc. backgrounds, or from people like Khun Priceless who have a passion for quantitative data and statistics.

So, please do ... say more ...

best, ~o:37;

Sorry, but I'm not a doctor nor do I have a lot of extra time to perform lengthy researching on the internet to post the info to you all. Can't we just use a bit of common sense to simplify and expedite the crux of the problem??? Or should I not bother....?

[cardinalblue]

Don't have time right now, but to wet your appetite. IRespiratory damage was thought (probably still is) to be from 1 to 10 particle size. meaning this size paramatrer gets trapped in the lung. Under one passes thru the sac exchange and above 10 just too big to get deep into the respiratory system to do damage...

Forgot the proper terminology but will look it up in my rsources tonight...

CB

[Priceless]

I came across the following document from the Canadian health authorities ... snip ...

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Chiang Mai,

Good article, thanks !

We're hoping someone will post here with some sound medical knowledge about the nature of the vulnerability of children to pollution compared to adults, and the nature of the vulnerability of older people compared to younger adults.

best, ~o:37;

I have negligible medical knowledge of my own, but the best (though not easiest to understand) text on the effects of PM<10 pollution that I have found is here:

http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf

Pages 217 - 306 should give a lot of the answers that you are looking for.

/ Priceless

[cardinalblue]

I recall the big thing with children is that they breathe in more air per pound of body weight relative to adults so it makes them more susceptible to asthma attacks...I would guess there is a lot material on the net with regard to children and air pollutants..

The term "deep in the lungs" is a common term out there to covey that the further the particle(s) make their way through the respiratory tract (driven by size) but deposits/lodges in the more sensitive areas: sub/terminal bronchus, alveolar ducts and sacs and alveoli, the more serious diseases/illnesses are associated..

I think the medical world has gotten pretty good about pinpointing size/shape/denisty of the particles with what location in the respiratory tract will they deposit and thus what diseases could be exhibited/develop/present...

What one needs to worry about smoke is the generation of fine particles (1 to 2.5 microns) and thus the correlation with "deep in the lung" diseases..

CB

[scotbeve]

CB,

Thank you for a layman - termed reply there that is succinct and not long winded. Also, it reflects a modicum of common sense.

[Hugh Jarse]

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.

Its late friday here at the Hang dong end of town where usually the pyromaniacs are in full fire mode. There is a high pressure , the stars are visible and not as much as a dog end whiff of smoke. Im off to the far south soon so hope you have some relatively fresh air to breath also , in this usually great part of the world.

[scotbeve]

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.

Its late friday here at the Hang dong end of town where usually the pyromaniacs are in full fire mode. There is a high pressure , the stars are visible and not as much as a dog end whiff of smoke. Im off to the far south soon so hope you have some relatively fresh air to breath also , in this usually great part of the world.

And up in Mae Rim as well! The air last night was rather nice!

[orang37]

... snip ... Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the smaller the particle, the deeper in your lungs it gets (my engineering side speaking). Has this obvious info been conveniently omitted from health standardization procedures for xx amount of years? ... snip ...

Sorry, but I'm not a doctor nor do I have a lot of extra time to perform lengthy researching on the internet to post the info to you all. Can't we just use a bit of common sense to simplify and expedite the crux of the problem??? Or should I not bother....?

If you claim "expert knowledge" because you have an "engineering side," and then, when asked to be specific, you bail out by saying you're not a doctor, and attempt to avoid the question by implying it can be answered by "common sense," then we doubt your words, and find them of little value.

The hypothesis that "obvious info been conveniently omitted from health standardization procedures for xx amount of years?" is suggestive of conspiracy theories and/or paranoia.

The phrase "Or should I not bother" is suggestive of arrogance and intellectual laziness.

Fortunately we do have posters here, on all "sides" of this topic, who do take the time to back up their words with their real-life experience, drawing on real technical backgrounds, and some who exhibit real "scholarship," like Khun Priceless.

best, ~o:37;

Edited March 13, 2010 by orang37

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

let me nudge things a little

"Reinventing the wheel"

Is it necessary to prove that air pollution does 'have' significant negative costs to society?

Isn't it widely recognized by nearly every health organization in the world? WHO, CDC, AMA, EPA?

It has been well documented to cause a great number of negative effects on society.

Increased health costs due to many different disease pathologies by even small limited exposures. Literally mountains of studies.

Economic costs due to lost productivity, property damage, decreased economic base, decreased tourism, convention industry, education sector. health care costs, damage to agriculture production etc. A very long list of negative effects.

Can one think of a any C.M. political constituencies who would not want decreased pollution? or any benefits of not having decreased pollution?

The Thailand leadership has publicly and repeatedly acknowledged this serious environmental issue and increased monitoring, research and measures to try to improve it. They have even deployed troops to patrol the mountains. We might even be seeing early encouraging signs of modest improvements due to these efforts.

The respected fellow with a palace in the mountains considers it an major priority.

So does anyone want to contradict Thai leadership institutions and the vast majority of research organizations that in fact air pollution in general or Chiang Mai air pollution in specific is a social/environmental/health problem that should be aggressively addressed?

Now is your chance to make a case.

NOTE: I don't think any formal debate referree would require to re prove the case that Thailand leadership and so many others have already rigorously researched and concluded. A referree would however require proof to refute the claim.

[Ulysses G.]

Can one think of a any C.M. political constituencies who would not want decreased pollution? or any benefits of not having decreased pollution?

Has ANY poster ever spoken out in favor of pollution or against getting rid of it? I can't remember even one.

Some folks do feel that some members (who complain frequently about terrible pollution all year round) are exaggerating the problem in a way that helps absolutely nothing or no one. They dispute any real proof that they are wrong without offering any evidence themselves and can be quite insolent to Priceless (who actually provides official facts and figures) about it. We all should be thanking him for all the work that he puts into finding out the truth about all of this.

Also, many people feel that the problem is almost impossible to solve because most of the smoke is coming from other areas and other countries. If anyone has a workable idea how to stop this, everyone would love to hear it.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[chiang mai]

I agree that no poster, as far as I can recall, has ever spoken out in favour of pollution or been against getting rid of it, from my perspective that is not the issue in these endless debates.

I think almost everyone smiles to themselves and rolls their eyes when a new poster comes along with less than precise English and states something akin to, "the air quality in Chiang Mai has got to be the worst in the world". Unfortunately, that sort of newbie post is almost always countered with an argument that is equally as fierce and incorrect. When someone states there is poor air quality in Chiang Mai what they are really saying is yes, the air quality in Chiang Mai can be very poor at times. Similarly, those who promote the sound air quality in Chiang Mai almost always neglect to point out that whilst pollution levels can be very low during some parts of the year, there are other times when it can be appalling - there seems to be no general acceptance that there is a middle ground with only a few people willing to go there and promote it.

As far as the data in concerned: I have said so previously and I will say so again, I am grateful to Priceless for his efforts in bringing the facts to into the public spotlight and I hope he continues to do so. But whilst the data presented can be regarded as "known knowns" I am less enthusiastic about his dismissal of anecdotal evidence unless a topic has been professionally studied and its findings published under the banner of The WHO or similar - taking that approach is akin to saying, "look, here's the official figures, if you don't have any evidence from at least the same level of authority then I will totally disregard what you are saying", and it's seriously unhelpful.

When a CM newbie comes along and says, "goodness, my eyes are burning, my throat is sore, is the pollution here really that bad", pointing out that the data suggests that the air quality in CM at present is far better than forty or so other places in Thailand, is not hugely helpful, the poster is not a child and likely he's not stupid, he knows he's suffering from some form of external contamination so I suggest a different approach is appropriate - a greater acceptance of the fact that "known and unknown unknowns" exist is much needed.