Pm10 Readings Correct In Chiang Mai?

[Ulysses G.]

A very fair post.

[Priceless]

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.

On the subject of anecdotal "evidence".

1/ I guess everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, but personally I have two requirements to take anecdotal evidence into consideration:

a/ It should not contradict known and well established/documented facts.

b/ There should be a reasonable level of consensus on the claim. If poster X claims something and poster Y claims the opposite, who should we believe?

2/ I don't think I have ever argued with a poster's claim about his/her experience. What I have frequently argued with is one or several posters' claim of causal relationships. As I have stated many times I am not a medical professional, but my statistical background tells me to always watch out for the well-known fact that "correlation does not imply causation" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_d...imply_causation ). E.g. if somebody moves to Chiang Mai and soon thereafter starts suffering from respiratory problems and at the same time observes a high pollution level (or, at least, poor visibility which is not the same thing), it is very common and understandable if pollution is blamed for the health problems. There may, however, be any number of other explanations for the problems:

One example is the very low humidity that frequently coincides with the haze problem. This time of year, humidity levels of 20-30% are frequent in this part of Thailand. This is well below the human "comfort level" of 40-60% and can cause very real health problems: "Humidity levels under 35% can have several effects on your health, which may range from discomfort to serious complications. A common sign that your air is too dry is when your nose, throat and skin feel dry and scratchy. Insufficient moisture in the air makes the mucous membranes inside your nose and throat - your organism's first barrier against airborne infections - dry and more susceptible to diseases like cold and flu. Dry air is also dangerous for allergy and asthma sufferers, since it can aggravate their symptoms." ( http://www.allergybegone.com/humidity.html#loweffects )

Another cause of respiratory health problems could be some environmental problem other than Particulate Matter pollution. One example would be the presence of an indoor pollutant such as the fungus Microsporum canis ( http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1212389 ).

3/ Without knowledge of the person making a health claim, it is obviously (even for somebody with training and experience in medicine) impossible to have an opinion about the possible causes of that person's problem. The person could obviously have an underlying chronic health problem that is subsequently triggered into an acute stage by some environmental factor here. (There may of course also be underlying causes of psychological as well as medical character.)

To sum up: "Anecdotal evidence" may, in my experience, have value in pointing to an area in need of further investigation, but only rarely merits direct acceptance of any claim of a causal relationship.

/ Priceless

[cardinalblue]

Cobra,

The soldiers must have taken last Friday off..In my drive to Phayao province, I observed dozens of small fires (brush clearing/garabge burning) in the mountains and along the road-side. Crop burning has been over with for some time as now we are well into the off-season second crop..And the lack of proper enforcement isn't real the main issue. First and foremost, the Thai gov and their private sector need to held accountable for developing alternatives to burning for the farmers, for the rural landowners, for the hilltribe people and migratory people who live off the mountain lands. What good is it whether soldiers or regulatory inspectors going around and telling people not to burn? Is there truly a fine/penalty system in place? You don't fine poor people who are just scraping by. The stick approach doesn't work in the Thai culture...

CM,

I agree with most of what you say but take a different take on a middle ground. For foreigners from industrialized countries, we have gone through this and we have much higher expectations of what/how things should/can be...Sacramento Valley in Calif (huge rice region) implemented a no-burn policy over a 10-year period in the 90"s...

I believe there is a general acceptance of the vast majority of Thai people, gov, culture, etc that organic burning is a way of life here for hundreds of years. Doesn't mean that Thai people don't complain. But there is a hugh difference between people's attitudes and people's behaviors and what is needed to bring about change..getting propositions on ballots, boycotting rice and corn from known burned sites, paying higher taxes for non-burning disposal methods, developing and supporting secondary markets for biomass/organic matter, stiff fine system for noncompliance, etc..Thai aren't willing to support these types of programs to bring about real change. In my mind, they do accept/tolerate burning (i.e. pollution) even if its affecting the health and safety of their people. I think they see that they have no alternatives (that don't cost money or inconvenience) and thus live with the consequences...I think they see it as an inescapable living condition even at the cost of human health...

What I would like to see if how long has Thailand been doing Env. air monitoring and what is the actual gooal(s)?..Has there been a change, an improvement or just a random pattern, no change at all. Is the air quality really going to be any different five years from now? Are there actual time-lines goals, and objectives set and be realistically and properly measured over time. Yes, the five years I have been in the North, they see every year to monitor and report out and during this time of year we get some press issues of what needs to be happening (I call it talking a good game). But record-keeping is only the first of many many action steps needed in a comprehensive prgram to reach a desired end-state. A few NGO and foundation efforts are not going to cut it..because this is a very comprehensive and complex issue. It is not a burning issue..It is a major economic issue which currently takes precedent over the health one..How big is tourism of that economic equation one needs to ask? Lets not forget, burning occurs year around..what we are experienceing is due to the atmospheric gods..

I think the consequences of burning is very much a middle ground that has already been agreed upon..unfortunately!

CB

[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.

On the subject of anecdotal "evidence".

1/ I guess everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, but personally I have two requirements to take anecdotal evidence into consideration:

a/ It should not contradict known and well established/documented facts.

b/ There should be a reasonable level of consensus on the claim. If poster X claims something and poster Y claims the opposite, who should we believe?

2/ I don't think I have ever argued with a poster's claim about his/her experience. What I have frequently argued with is one or several posters' claim of causal relationships. As I have stated many times I am not a medical professional, but my statistical background tells me to always watch out for the well-known fact that "correlation does not imply causation" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_d...imply_causation ). E.g. if somebody moves to Chiang Mai and soon thereafter starts suffering from respiratory problems and at the same time observes a high pollution level (or, at least, poor visibility which is not the same thing), it is very common and understandable if pollution is blamed for the health problems. There may, however, be any number of other explanations for the problems:

One example is the very low humidity that frequently coincides with the haze problem. This time of year, humidity levels of 20-30% are frequent in this part of Thailand. This is well below the human "comfort level" of 40-60% and can cause very real health problems: "Humidity levels under 35% can have several effects on your health, which may range from discomfort to serious complications. A common sign that your air is too dry is when your nose, throat and skin feel dry and scratchy. Insufficient moisture in the air makes the mucous membranes inside your nose and throat - your organism's first barrier against airborne infections - dry and more susceptible to diseases like cold and flu. Dry air is also dangerous for allergy and asthma sufferers, since it can aggravate their symptoms." ( http://www.allergybegone.com/humidity.html#loweffects )

Another cause of respiratory health problems could be some environmental problem other than Particulate Matter pollution. One example would be the presence of an indoor pollutant such as the fungus Microsporum canis ( http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1212389 ).

3/ Without knowledge of the person making a health claim, it is obviously (even for somebody with training and experience in medicine) impossible to have an opinion about the possible causes of that person's problem. The person could obviously have an underlying chronic health problem that is subsequently triggered into an acute stage by some environmental factor here. (There may of course also be underlying causes of psychological as well as medical character.)

To sum up: "Anecdotal evidence" may, in my experience, have value in pointing to an area in need of further investigation, but only rarely merits direct acceptance of any claim of a causal relationship

/ Priceless

As I started to read your post Priceless I was in a agreement with you, but then as I continued to read further I began to sense that you are once again in defensive mode, case in point is you starting to determine alternate causes for medical problems, other than air borne pollution and I put that very firmly into the category of "known unknowns" - I hope I am wrong in my interpretation of what you have written. I can agree fully however that anecdotal evidence must not , "contradict known and well established/documented facts".

I propose the following: that a statement is drafted that sets out the combined views of the members of this forum on this subject and that when it is agreed, it be pinned. The purpose of the statement is to set out this forums views on pollution in CM, acknowledging that it exists, accepting that it is seasonal, that much of the year it's not problematic but at other times it is a cause for concern and that medical issues almost certainly result from it at certain times of the year, etc etc. That position statement should be completely unbiased, it's purpose being two fold: the first is to remind us all as to what we have agreed and and to serve as a memory jog when discussions start to head off the rails - the second purpose is to serve as a basis for new comers to this subject to join the debate and to point the more radical ones to a series of agreed facts - the statement should be written in simple English, unambiguous and easy to understand.

If you and/or anyone else in this thread can agree the above I am happy if someone wants to draft such a vehicle with a view to agreeing it here - if required or asked I will be happy to draft a first cut. Over to you.

[chiang mai]

Cobra,

The soldiers must have taken last Friday off..In my drive to Phayao province, I observed dozens of small fires (brush clearing/garabge burning) in the mountains and along the road-side. Crop burning has been over with for some time as now we are well into the off-season second crop..And the lack of proper enforcement isn't real the main issue. First and foremost, the Thai gov and their private sector need to held accountable for developing alternatives to burning for the farmers, for the rural landowners, for the hilltribe people and migratory people who live off the mountain lands. What good is it whether soldiers or regulatory inspectors going around and telling people not to burn? Is there truly a fine/penalty system in place? You don't fine poor people who are just scraping by. The stick approach doesn't work in the Thai culture...

CM,

I agree with most of what you say but take a different take on a middle ground. For foreigners from industrialized countries, we have gone through this and we have much higher expectations of what/how things should/can be...Sacramento Valley in Calif (huge rice region) implemented a no-burn policy over a 10-year period in the 90"s...

I believe there is a general acceptance of the vast majority of Thai people, gov, culture, etc that organic burning is a way of life here for hundreds of years. Doesn't mean that Thai people don't complain. But there is a hugh difference between people's attitudes and people's behaviors and what is needed to bring about change..getting propositions on ballots, boycotting rice and corn from known burned sites, paying higher taxes for non-burning disposal methods, developing and supporting secondary markets for biomass/organic matter, stiff fine system for noncompliance, etc..Thai aren't willing to support these types of programs to bring about real change. In my mind, they do accept/tolerate burning (i.e. pollution) even if its affecting the health and safety of their people. I think they see that they have no alternatives (that don't cost money or inconvenience) and thus live with the consequences...I think they see it as an inescapable living condition even at the cost of human health...

What I would like to see if how long has Thailand been doing Env. air monitoring and what is the actual gooal(s)?..Has there been a change, an improvement or just a random pattern, no change at all. Is the air quality really going to be any different five years from now? Are there actual time-lines goals, and objectives set and be realistically and properly measured over time. Yes, the five years I have been in the North, they see every year to monitor and report out and during this time of year we get some press issues of what needs to be happening (I call it talking a good game). But record-keeping is only the first of many many action steps needed in a comprehensive prgram to reach a desired end-state. A few NGO and foundation efforts are not going to cut it..because this is a very comprehensive and complex issue. It is not a burning issue..It is a major economic issue which currently takes precedent over the health one..How big is tourism of that economic equation one needs to ask? Lets not forget, burning occurs year around..what we are experienceing is due to the atmospheric gods..

I think the consequences of burning is very much a middle ground that has already been agreed upon..unfortunately!

CB

CB

The debates on this subject on TV have been going on for many years and throughout that period there have been some good ideas put forward, unfortunately, the debate is often derailed because of the reasons that I set out in my earlier post, entrenchment, or perception of entrenchment, in a particular camp on one of the two extremes. Where I'm trying to get to currently is to a agree a consensus view that will allow the debate to move forward more productively.

It's really no use stating that as Westerners we have more experience of these things and that progress ought to be made in a particular way, measured, goals set etc, we live in Thailand and our hosts have a certain way of managing such things and all we can ever hope to do is to influence appropriately. And yes, the middle ground has already been established and that is that the traditional way of farming is how things are done here, the questions now are, how do we measure the negative impact of that, find ways to change the things that we can and inform others appropriately.

[Priceless]

[...]

What I would like to see if how long has Thailand been doing Env. air monitoring and what is the actual gooal(s)?..Has there been a change, an improvement or just a random pattern, no change at all. Is the air quality really going to be any different five years from now? Are there actual time-lines goals, and objectives set and be realistically and properly measured over time.

[...]

The Pollution Control Department (PCD) started their regular measurements of PM<10 pollution with six sites in Bangkok on 25 March 1997. The first "upcountry" sites were Hat Yai and Phuket in September of the same year. As far as I know there are at the moment 37 measuring stations in Thailand, including BKK. The goals are of course the set PCD standards, i.e. a max 24-hour average of 120 µg/m³ and a max yearly average of 50 µg/m³.

The changes obviously vary between sites, but most show improvements. Here is a relevant graph for Chiang Mai, which shows a decrease of about one third in ~5½ years.

/ Priceless

[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 ...

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;

Orang37,

Thank you for so eloquently putting my "non-scholarship-like" views to light (no pun intended). At no time did I say or imply I was/ am / or will be an expert in the medical . My point was to simplify the version to the medical problem of pollution (and I stress the simplified explanation as we live in laid-back Thailand). I've lived here for some time and find that simplifying discussions and views go a long way with the average Joe. I'm an engineer, I work around the world, and have dealt with the whole realm of this human theater. And in doing so I'm just not going to beat around the bush and research / post something I'm NOT an expert on. Soooo... Any blockage of any passageway, whether it be dams, piping, hoses, drains, or (for that matter) internal body organs can only do harm or damage to said item or organism. The smaller an intrusive item of blockage the more damage (eg: blockage) it could cause or create.

If you don't agree with this "simplified" version, why didn't you just say that alone or just "Don't bother scotbeve" . Seems that global warming is extensive on here with all the hot-puffy-chested- air emanated. PS - I'm neither sitting on a bar stool or stuffy armchair. Once again, I don't have the luxury of time to do what you "scholars" do.

Edited March 13, 2010 by scotbeve

[orang37]

... snip ... 1/ I guess everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, but personally I have two requirements to take anecdotal evidence into consideration:

a/ It should not contradict known and well established/documented facts.

b/ There should be a reasonable level of consensus on the claim. If poster X claims something and poster Y claims the opposite, who should we believe?

Sawasdee Khrup Khun Priceless,

The problem we have with your reasoning is that the statistics you publish are not "facts" : they are measurements averaged over time : measurements subject to mechanical and human flaws; measurements subject to being "fudged" or tampered with, or "skewed" by conscious and unconscious biases on the part of the measurers. And it's obvious to us there are not enough data collection centers in Chiang Mai (the city or the province) to give anything but broad indicators.

The "fact" that one (of the few) measuring stations is evidently up on top of the mountain some of the time is suggestive the data may be skewed to show less of the pollution level down in the flood-plain of the Ping, in the city.

And statistics themselves also do not imply causation : but if you hold them up as "icons of fact," rather than just sets of data : you are implying, on a kind of metaphysical level, they somehow partake of "factness" in a way that qualitative social research (surveys, for example) do not.

By holding up "anecdotal evidence" as a "discounted straw man" : you are creating a false dichotomy between the experiences people report and the so-called statistical "facts."

Are we dealing with a situation here, air pollution, in which there is an absence, a dearth, of "well established/documented facts" ?

There is abundant evidence for widespread respiratory distress and illness here in northern Thailand, and its correlation (in intensity as indicated by the number of people seeking treatment) with periods of high air pollution that strongly suggests a causal link : we think you probably agree with that. ... uhhh ... do you ?

Why should it be surprising that different posters on ThaiVisa report widely varying experiences ? The people on this forum are almost certainly living a wide variety of life-styles in which the duration of being outdoors varies widely. Local variations in pollution levels are probably wide.

We'd not be surprised if we did a broad survey of ThaiVisa Chiang Mai members if their degrees or respiratory distress and/or illness had some correlation with how much time they spent outdoors, whether or not they rode in a bicycle, motorcycle, or car, etc. How much of the time they spent outdoors they were exercising or breathing deeply, etc.

You mentioned humidity level here: WeatherUnderground for Chiang Mai today reports an average humidity of 42%, but also reports a low of 16% and a high of 73% : with the lower humidity ocurring in the hours of 9am to 7pm.

Compare that variation, just out of curiousity, for the humidity figures for June 13, 2009 for Phoenix, Arizona : minimum 8%, maximum 22%, average 15%.

A curious mind wants to know as much about patterns of variation, and degrees of fluctuation in variation, as the average, mean, mode, etc. It is often the "outliers on the bell-shaped curve" who generate the most interesting scientific hypotheses: the rare people in a group who do not get "sick with x" when 99% of the people in their "cohort" get "sick with x."

For years many people in the United States with asthma and other respiratory illnesses moved to Arizona and other southwestern states of the US for the warm and dry air on the advice of their doctors.

A not so-funny paradox the cities of Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona today have tremedously high rates of asthma and respiratory illnesses : air pollution, and genetic factors resulting from immigration and inter-marriage of people with respiratory disorders and asthma, and disruption of the former desert eco-systems' flora and fauna (and too many people).

The warm dry air of Arizona is probably good for bronchitis and tuberculosis, and dry warm air might help reduce dust mites and mold spores : but for asthma it's no longer considered the place to go.

Perhaps it will not surprise you that in 1881 the territory of Arizona created an "immigration commission" to encourage migration to the state : its head was a man with tuberculosis. Over decades Arizona promoted itself as a "refuge" for people with respiratory problems. In Tucson a school for asthmatic children became later the Natonal Foundation for Asthmatic Children.

The point being that politics, genetics, demography interact in complex ways with a changing environment behind the phenomena we observe as "health" and "illness."

We need qualitative research and information on northern Thai air pollution as much as we need better measurements and statistics.

And hopefully, meanwhile, while some mumble the mantra "common sense," and nod-off into personal oblivion, in our daily lifestyle we can do something to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Strongly recommend you read the profound (non-technical, personal, even funny) famous essay written by Stephen Jay Gould called "The Median Is Not the Message" for a very "therapeutic" experience that may change the way you look at "statistics." Median Not the Message : Gould, famous evolutionary biologist and author, writes of his own experience with cancer (mesothelemia: often associated with asbestos exposure) which he survived twenty years.

Deep breaths now ...

best, ~o:37;

Edited March 13, 2010 by orang37

[orang37]

Thank you for so eloquently putting my "non-scholarship-like" views to light (no pun intended). At no time did I say or imply I was/ am / or will be an expert in the medical . My point was to simplify the version to the medical problem of pollution (and I stress the simplified explanation as we live in laid-back Thailand). I've lived here for some time and find that simplifying discussions and views go a long way with the average Joe. I'm an engineer, I work around the world, and have dealt with the whole realm of this human theater. And in doing so I'm just not going to beat around the bush and research / post something I'm NOT an expert on. Soooo... Any blockage of any passageway, whether it be dams, piping, hoses, drains, or (for that matter) internal body organs can only do harm or damage to said item or organism. The smaller an intrusive item of blockage the more damage (eg: blockage) it could cause or create.

If you don't agree with this "simplified" version, why didn't you just say that alone or just "Don't bother scotbeve" . Seems that global warming is extensive on here with all the hot-puffy-chested- air emanated. PS - I'm neither sitting on a bar stool or stuffy armchair. Once again, I don't have the luxury of time to do what you "scholars" do.

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun ScotBeve,

That's a very dignified response, and we must apologize to you for an unnecessary degree of harshness in our words in response to you !

You are obviously no "dullard," and, while we'd like to believe there is some scholarly-ness of the "social science" flavour in our human's mind still left standing, and able to put on shoes, that's questionable.

The concept of an "Average Joe" on ThaiVisa, with perhaps a complementary "Average Betty" (?), is a fascinating one; we shudder to think of what we might find if we could locate two actual individuals who best could suit up in that archetypal wardrobe without splitting the seams

Actually, it might be quite surprising if we did have a survey of TV CM participants in terms of what we would find in terms of education, work experiences, etc.

Would seem like your engineering expertise, which we certainly believe is real, could, indeed, bring another valuable perspective to the issues discussed here, both in terms of analysis of the environmental stressors involved, the structural dimensions of the problem in terms of geography, wind, climate, etc.

We think what "miffed" my human in reading your response was the feeling that you were implying that you could present a profound analysis of the situation, but you didn't care enough to do that.

You'll forgive us, we hope, if we quote Mahatma Gandhi a bit out of context : "I'd like the winds of every culture to blow around my house, but I don't want to be knocked over by any of them."

We need every viewpoint here from Khun Priceless' quantitative information, to information about individual's personal experience about what the impact of pollution is on there own neighborhood, their own health.

"Simplification" can be good, but paradoxical. A lot of the pollution here obviously originates from deliberately set fires : seems simple to say "just stop burning." The fact that does not work is what leads us into complex waters involving politics, economics, cultural history, and human character and psychology.

And, ioho, we have not had enough information here (yet) about the human body and its absorption of air-borne seasonal pollution through the nose and mouth (did we leave out any orifices ?).

best, ~o:37;

[cardinalblue]

Orang37,

Actually a pretty good post with a different perspective and you ask some tough questions....

One problem with the utilization of standards that we tend to think of them as end all be all. That is the furthest from the truth (and facts). Because of their simplicity (created for the limitations of the human mind), do we exceed or comply with that number? Then we extrapolate that anything below that number is safe free from health hazards and anything above can contriute or even cause adverse health effects..As we know and the explanation of how standards are devised and implemented explains this but for the average person and the public, they want someone simple, precise, easy to understand..Standards are guidelines when trying correlate/interpret various disease/illness from exposure. They provide for a big picture but says little for that "at risk" group or that unlucky or unsuspecting individual...

One of many problems is just the lack of agreement on standards. Thailand uses PM-10 daily rate of 120. EU now use 20 and 50 for yearly and daily. the USA revoked their annual PM-10 and uses PM-10 (ceiling limit) of 150 (but only exceeded one time a year) and over a decade ago created PM-2.5 of 15 (annual) and 35 (daily)..Which one is the most accurate in trying to protect human health?

For our particular interest, how and why is Thailand using PM-10 of 120? Did they actually do their own research or did they just adopt it from a western country some time ago and now is completely out-dated and ineffective?

Standards are far from perfect. We are trying to make them into a science but the application, intertpretation and extrapolation are much closer to an art..

For human health effects, we know approaching zero is much better than the other direction for the general population. But for negative health effects on an actual individual, we rely on signs and symtoms if you are lucky. But for some, the horse has already left the barn. I guess that is why "premature dealth" is listed as a health effect category for this type of air particulate. A nice catch-all phrase about trying to cover one's ass...

CB

[scotbeve]

Dear Orand 37,

Thank you for your reply and good understanding of "where I'm coming from"...

Your second sentence in your post #99 is pretty much spot on IE: some people can not chew gum and walk simultaneously. The world is in fact dumbing down to a point a spell checker program is useless to many. Hence, a (very) short version of some of the good data that many of you folks have posted. I have downloaded most of the data from links you folks embedded and I will (I promise) get to it soon. BTW - last years info posted was digested by July. Wish I had more time to get to it sooner. Sorry if I had left out the fairer gender here, please accept my apologies ladies! There certainly have been good info input by you ladies as well.

That survey would indeed be interesting...

Re: engineering and preventative maintenance in Thailand including instrument calibration.... Would any of you posters know whom and when maintains, tests, and how often the monitoring instruments are calibrated. Upgraded instruments at all? BTW - wasn't there a PCD monitor in Mae Jo U. before? This would appease my engineering side for the reliability of the instruments.

Cause, effect(s), and "fixes" : I agree with your statement 100% , "A lot of the pollution here obviously originates from deliberately set fires : seems simple to say "just stop burning." The fact that does not work is what leads us into complex waters involving politics, economics, cultural history, and human character and psychology."

I have been trying with little success for years to modify villagers behavior re: rubbish disposal and burn offs. I will continue to do this and perhaps now that I'm considered a "loong" of the district where our farms are, we (my family, friends, and acquaintances) who already are in the eco frame of mind, will continue to grow as a group to instruct and spread the word around - it is slowly (VERY SLOWLY) happening.

CB,

Yes, there were a couple of tough questions there in Orang37 post #99.

I like where you are going with the standardization ideas (or should I say lack of standardization?) In a few posts ago, either you, Priceless, Orang37, or Chiang Mai mentioned something of a "conspiracy" type of comment I made... Guilty!!! Does anyone remember during G.Bush's (the little one) administration near the end that he had told the EPA to change the inspection monitoring time for annually (one day a year...!!!) to every 5 years (one day a year!!) especially in places like VA and W. VA coal countries. Other big (energy) industries were included in that bill... Conspiracy? No. It is a public fact.

Updating standards are a governments duty, not a right. If the scientists had a bigger say in standardizations instead of government, I would think that we would see those numbers a lot lower (AQI, etc.) CB...

Sorry, I'd like to do this a bit more but my (short) time is knocking at the door....

[chiangmaiexpat]

For our particular interest, how and why is Thailand using PM-10 of 120? Did they actually do their own research or did they just adopt it from a western country some time ago and now is completely out-dated and ineffective?

It should be blatantly obvious why Thailand is not applying EU standards. If they did, their pollution statistics would look pretty bad. They would record limit violations for several months in a row and suffer complete loss of face.

The current limit definitions appear to be a typical Thai solution. Since they are exceeded regularly, it allows them to acknowledge that there is a problem - a fact that can hardly be denied by any sane observer. However, because their standards are exceeded only a few days/weeks per year, it provides them with an excuse for continued complacency.

Cheers, CMX

[WinnieTheKhwai]

EU standard is 50, however they do allow 35 exceedences (yes, that's a word in Europe) per year. The yearly average should be under 40.

Chiang Mai is well over the first standard; 2010 is still in progress of course, but over 2009 there were 84 days over 50. It is just slightly over the second standard though, in 2009 the average was 42.07.

[mcgriffith]

I can weigh in on this, a little bit, I hope.

I can appreciate, and have always seen both sides of this issue- speaking from a strictly personal point of view.

First, in support of the folks who have health issues with this (or their kids or loved ones).

Today, around 6 AM I was woken by a macaw on my balcony.

I'm on the 11th floor of an apt bldg that is about 2 km from CM Zoo on Huay Kaew Rd.

Opened my curtains....couldn't see the base of the mountain, 2 klicks away. My eyes were burning, throat parched; smell of wood smoke everywhere.

I've swept and mopped my apt like every 3 days in the last month....seems to make no difference. In a day or 2, everything is covered in thick dust/ash.

OK, now to the other side, and thanks to the above post by the member who mentioned the Sacramento Valley rice farming smoke abatement program.

I remember a road trip my family did in the early 1960's. California to the East Coast and back. I remember a few times we were traveling at night, through the Mid West where they have tremendous agriculture- mostly wheat and corn. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of crop land, as far as the horizon. Huge fires on the fields, after the end of the growing season. I do remember going by some big scary horizontal burners, that looked to be a block long to a little kid, that were burning crop waste, maybe by natural gas? I have no idea, this was 50 yrs ago. They stopped these practices, but my point is that it was just recently, historically speaking.

The more we educate ourselves, and talk to our Thai friends, the sooner we can resolve this. But it ain't gonna happen tomorrow.

It's perhaps not just a matter of education, and getting the word out to the farmers and hill tribe folks who engage in these burning practices.

It is a matter of lifting their income, so that they can afford to perhaps use a somewhat more costly method of disposing of crop waste and forest clearing for agriculture...and still make a profit and a decent living.

[chiang mai]

You have my sympathies with having to clean your apartment so frequently, I had the same issues when I lived at Floral, an American engineer that I met at Payap found a simple but interesting answer to that problem: he bought a small vacuum cleaner motor and set it up so that it pulled air from the outside thus creating positive pressure inside his apartment thus all the dust and dirt stayed outside - he set the motor to run at a very low level hence not much noise whilst still pulling enough air to create positive pressure inside the room - he also rigged up a series of filters on the air intake which he would change frequently, most often they were black within one day. Combine all of that with putting Microban filter paper on your air conditioning filters and you've got a fairly decent solution tot he problem.

[Larry]

Today is the worst air quality day in the year so far. Not only can't I see Doi Suthep from my home in Mooban Nantawan (just north of Nimmanhemin), but my eyes are smarting even though I have the air purifier on. At this point, capital punishment for those doing the burning doesn't seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. Also, can someone explain why there are two readings on the PCD (http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm) one for Chiangmai and one for Chiang mai. And there are always large discrepancies between them.

[scotbeve]

Because the air here is great right now.

This guy is living in an oxygen tent!!! Ooops... just saw the date...edit time!!! Yes, the weather was good on that day re: little smoke pollution. But today??? Ahhh, NO! And yes folks, I believe that the readings are incorrect - wonder if any of those instruments get maintained and calibrated at regular intervals????

Edited March 16, 2010 by scotbeve

[scotbeve]

Today is the worst air quality day in the year so far. Not only can't I see Doi Suthep from my home in Mooban Nantawan (just north of Nimmanhemin), but my eyes are smarting even though I have the air purifier on. At this point, capital punishment for those doing the burning doesn't seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. Also, can someone explain why there are two readings on the PCD (http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm) one for Chiangmai and one for Chiang mai. And there are always large discrepancies between them.

There's actually 3 readings. See the bottom : Uparaj Collage (Chiangmai 36T) and note the spelling!!!

[gotlost]

Its going to suck again today. I'm under 2 Klicks from Wat Doi Saket and can not see it. With this as my barometer I don't need charts to tell me that the air is bad.

[scotbeve]

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.

WTK,

I took your "advice" and took the pictures a bit later when I know there wasn't ANY moisture... This I proved by "experiment", and that was to blow on the dust particles on my car which were deposited since 1700 hrs. the previous day (15-03-2010). Could easily blow all the dust off my car... Then took the below pics. and added the Nov. weather pic for comparison. Note: the picture of the sun has a better contrast and reference now against my neighbors house as compared with the above picture of the sun. And yes, one can look at the sun for a short time without eye damage. Also are pics of a large fire behind 700 yr. stadium the other day. And finally, see: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3401168 for my last years pics.

Edited March 16, 2010 by scotbeve

[meadish_sweetball]

Today I find no need for rose-coloured glasses as the beautiful light of the rays of the sun finding their way down through the haze create the exact same light conditions. Anyone for tennis?

[scotbeve]

Today I find no need for rose-coloured glasses as the beautiful light of the rays of the sun finding their way down through the haze create the exact same light conditions. Anyone for tennis?

Heh, heh And I get a kick out of Foxcast weather saying it is cloudy.... Perhaps they should state smoke clouds....

[KhunDave]

Today is the worst air quality day in the year so far. Not only can't I see Doi Suthep from my home in Mooban Nantawan (just north of Nimmanhemin), but my eyes are smarting even though I have the air purifier on. At this point, capital punishment for those doing the burning doesn't seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. Also, can someone explain why there are two readings on the PCD (http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm) one for Chiangmai and one for Chiang mai. And there are always large discrepancies between them.

Chiang Mai monitoring station is at City Hall, just off the Canal Road, whereas Chiangmai is up at Phuping Palace - hence the usually lower readings there.

It's certainly a bad one today. Yesterday's pcd readings were pretty ugly, but I would anticipate a significant spike when today's readings are posted later this morning.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Today's figures will be in tomorrow am. Yes, it'll be a huge spike, possibly exceeding 200.

[scotbeve]

Today's figures will be in tomorrow am. Yes, it'll be a huge spike, possibly exceeding 200.

Very sad especially for the young, old, and infirm....

[Larry]

Today is the worst air quality day in the year so far. Not only can't I see Doi Suthep from my home in Mooban Nantawan (just north of Nimmanhemin), but my eyes are smarting even though I have the air purifier on. At this point, capital punishment for those doing the burning doesn't seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. Also, can someone explain why there are two readings on the PCD (http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm) one for Chiangmai and one for Chiang mai. And there are always large discrepancies between them.

Chiang Mai monitoring station is at City Hall, just off the Canal Road, whereas Chiangmai is up at Phuping Palace - hence the usually lower readings there.

It's certainly a bad one today. Yesterday's pcd readings were pretty ugly, but I would anticipate a significant spike when today's readings are posted later this morning.

Thank you, Khun Dave for clarifying that....makes sense.

[Tywais]

I agree that this is the worse of the year. Even sitting in my office at the uni it smells like I'm in an ash tray and irritated eyes. Same at home near Hang Dong when I got up this morning, strong smell of smoke - only a few hundred meters visibility coming into work.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

almost comically bad

we should start a pool to guess the highest PM reading for this season.

the winner can be named 'Chiang Mai Black Lungs Champion 2010'.

Loh Kroh katoey's will be so impressed they will throw in a bonus STD for free. No charge for water at the Red Lion and other possible glorious spoils of victory.

normal view and today at 12:30

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Ok here's my guess for tomorrow's report of today's air quality, or lack thereof: PM-10 of 243.5

Edited March 16, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[chiang mai]

I bid 244 !