Pm10 Readings Correct In Chiang Mai?

[scotbeve]

RESULTS ARE IN!!!!

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

And The Golden Facemask Goes To...

(opening envelope)

Meadish Sweetball!!!

279.3

Clap, clap, cough, cough, cough! Well done! Cough....

[KhunDave]

Mae Hong Son 437!!!!!!! Is anyone still alive in MHS?

[meadish_sweetball]

Cheers guys. Don't mind the teardrops in the corners of my eyes... oh I can see you're all crying too, how touching.

I really wonder what 437 is like, must be like standing right in the middle of a forest fire.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

congrats to Meadish Sweetball. !!!! ...definitely knows his P.M.

437 in MHS? Wow that is like a bbq smoker. I don't want to experience that. A record year could be in the cards for CM.

Only about 5-7 weeks until the rains usually come. I hope they are on time or even early.

Looks like my gamble to stay in CM this season is not paying off. groan.

I can stay inside and drink coconut juice but I feel bad for all the folks who have to be outside all day and work in it.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Cheers guys. Don't mind the teardrops in the corners of my eyes... oh I can see you're all crying too, how touching.

I really wonder what 437 is like, must be like standing right in the middle of a forest fire.

437 may be more convenient to get rid of, because at those levels you can just cut the air in cubes, pack it in boxes, call Nim See Seng and ship it South.

Edited March 17, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[cardinalblue]

Cobra,

Are you telling me I should forgo my tennis game this afterrnoon? What about my golf game tomorrow morning?

What does the winner get? A SCBA? I just thought of a great comparative with a West vs East heading. Show a fireman with a SCBA on at a smoky scene and then contrast it with a smokier scene with some poor soul wearing a surgical mask (by the way inapproriate respriatory protection for smoke) on a bicycle...

Anyone know of any useful "what to do" lists during air pollution events such as drastic as this? At least Thai Public Health, Thai Lung Association, TAT, etc should be printing and distributing..hopefully on post-consumer content (PCC) recyclable paper...

And finally to the poster quoting "if there is fire, there is smoke" I thought it is the other way around...

CB

[scotbeve]

Cobra,

Are you telling me I should forgo my tennis game this afterrnoon? What about my golf game tomorrow morning?

What does the winner get? A SCBA? I just thought of a great comparative with a West vs East heading. Show a fireman with a SCBA on at a smoky scene and then contrast it with a smokier scene with some poor soul wearing a surgical mask (by the way inapproriate respriatory protection for smoke) on a bicycle...

Anyone know of any useful "what to do" lists during air pollution events such as drastic as this? At least Thai Public Health, Thai Lung Association, TAT, etc should be printing and distributing..hopefully on post-consumer content (PCC) recyclable paper...

And finally to the poster quoting "if there is fire, there is smoke" I thought it is the other way around...

CB

CB,

Haven't seen a wisp of a list of "what to do " (if your gasping, etc.)

And correct... it's actually "where there's smoke, there's fire" either a Freudian slip, "lysdexia", or gray matter getting clogged by less than 2.5 mic. particles

sc(ough)beve

Edited March 17, 2010 by scotbeve

[Mapguy]

There seems to be a break in the discussion regarding the reliability of the measuring stations.

What PM measurement means and how it affects health may be found below. PM <2.5 particles are estimated to be 50 - 60% of total PM.

Fact sheet EURO/04/05 Berlin, Copenhagen, Rome, 14 April 2005

Particulate matter air pollution: how it harms health

Particulate matter (PM) is an air pollutant consisting of a mixture of particles that can be solid, liquid or both, are suspended in the air and represent a complex mixture of organic and inorganic substances. These particles vary in size, composition and origin. Their properties are summarized according to their aerodynamic diameter, called particle size.

• The coarse fraction is called PM10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10 μm), which may reach the upper part of the airways and lung.

• Smaller or fine particles are called PM2.5 (with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 μm); these are more dangerous because they penetrate more deeply into the lung and may reach the alveolar region.

The size of the particles also determines the time they spend in the atmosphere. While sedimentation and precipitation removes PM10 from the atmosphere within few hours of emission, PM2.5 may remain there for days or even a few weeks. Consequently, these particles can be transported over long distances.

Principal sources

The major PM components are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and water. Particles may be classified as primary or secondary depending on their formation mechanism.

Primary particles are directly emitted into the atmosphere through man-made (anthropogenic) and natural processes. Anthropogenic processes include combustion from car engines (both diesel and petrol); solid-fuel (coal, lignite and biomass) combustion in households; industrial activities (building, mining, manufacturing of cement, ceramic and bricks, and smelting); erosion of the pavement by road traffic and abrasion of brakes and tyres; and work in caves and mines. Secondary particles are formed in the air, usually by chemical reactions of gaseous pollutants, and are products of atmospheric transformation of nitrogen oxides mainly emitted by traffic and some industrial processes, and sulfur dioxide resulting from the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels. Secondary particles are mostly found in the fine PM fraction.

Fact Sheet EURO/04/05 page 2

Health hazards

The systematic data assessment completed in 2004 by the WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn, indicates that:

• PM increases the risk of respiratory death in infants under 1 year, affects the rate of lung function development, aggravates asthma and causes other respiratory symptoms such as cough and bronchitis in children;

• PM2.5 seriously affects health, increasing deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Increased PM2.5 concentrations increase the risk of emergency hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory causes; and

• PM10 affects respiratory morbidity, as indicated by hospital admissions for respiratory illness.

Relation of health effects to PM concentration

In the last decade, studies of the short-term effects of PM, based on association between daily changes in PM10 concentrations and various health outcomes, were conducted in many cities in the WHO European Region, including Erfurt and Cologne in Germany. In general, results indicate that short-term changes in PM10 at all levels lead to short-term changes in acute health effects

[Table of health outcomes omitted since it does not transfer here well]

Source: Anderson HR et al. Meta-analysis of time series studies and panel studies of particulate matter (PM) and ozone (O3). Report of a WHO task group. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2004 (http://www.euro.who.int/document/e82792.pdf, accessed 8 April 2005).

Fact Sheet EURO/04/05 page 3

Because long-term exposure to PM results in a substantial reduction in life expectancy, the long- term effects clearly have greater significance to public health than the short-term effects. PM2.5 shows the strongest association with mortality, indicating a 6% increase in the risk of deaths from all causes per 10-μg/m3 increase in long-term PM2.5 concentration.1 The estimated relative risk amounts to 12% for deaths from cardiovascular diseases and 14% for deaths from lung cancer per 10-μg/m3 increase in PM2.5.2

The effects related to long-term exposure include: increases in lower respiratory symptoms and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, reductions in lung function in children and adults, and reduction in life expectancy, due mainly to cardiopulmonary mortality and probably to lung cancer.

Studies on large populations show a strong effect of PM2.5 on mortality, and have been unable to identify a threshold concentration below which ambient PM has no effect on health: a no-effect level. After a thorough review of recent scientific evidence, a WHO working group therefore concluded that, if there is a threshold for PM, it lies in the lower band of currently observed PM concentrations in the European Region.

Estimated change in health damage due to PM in the EU through implementation of current legislation, 2000–2020

[Chart omitted since it does not transfer here well and is not relevant to Chiang Mai]

Source: Pye S, Watkiss P. CAFE CBA: baseline analysis 2000 to 2020. Vienna, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2005 (AEAT/ED51014/Baseline Scenarios; http://www.iiasa.ac.at/docs/HOTP/Mar05/caf...ine-results.pdf, accessed 8 April 2005).

For more technical information contact:

TECHNICAL INFORMATION:

Dr Michal Krzyzanowski Regional Adviser, Air Quality and Health WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn WHO Regional Office for Europe Bundeshaus, Görresstraße 15 D-53113 Bonn, Germany Tel.: + 49 228 209 4405. Fax: +49 228 209 4201 Email: [email protected]

PRESS INFORMATION:

Ms Liuba Negru Press and Media Relations Officer WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Tel.: +45 39 17 13 44. Fax: +45 39 17 18 80 E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Cristiana Salvi Technical Officer, Communication and Advocacy WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Rome WHO Regional Office for Europe Via Francesco Crispi 10, I-00187 Rome, Italy Tel.: +39 06 4877543. Mobile: +39 348 0192305 Fax: +39 06 4877599 E-mail: [email protected]

[CMX]

Well, this string has convinced me of at least three things:

Breathing smoke is not good for my health, and

All that smoke in Mae Hong Son is NOT from Thailand,

Next year, I am not going to rural Burma/Myanmar for better views.

[Asmerom]

The major PM components are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and water.

Anthropogenic processes include solid-fuel (coal, lignite and biomass) combustion in households;

• PM increases the risk of respiratory death in infants under 1 year, affects the rate of lung function development, aggravates asthma and causes other respiratory symptoms such as cough and bronchitis in children;

• PM2.5 seriously affects health, increasing deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Increased PM2.5 concentrations increase the risk of emergency hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory causes; and

• PM10 affects respiratory morbidity, as indicated by hospital admissions for respiratory illness.

No mention here of all that burning activity by peasants held to be the culprit of all the pollution problems hereabouts.It would seem that the European equivalent is "Anthropogenic processes include solid-fuel (coal, lignite and biomass) combustion in households." I suppose those terms would embrace the burning of plant material. Being quite uninformed about the chemistry I find it surprising that noxious gases like ammonia, sodium chlroide, sulfates etc. are emitted from plant combustion. I've always loved the smell of burning wood and inhaled it heartily in my youth, sitting round camp fires singing rude songs. How sad to learn its unhealthy and poisonous.

I wonder if you are aware of any corroborative evidence which would support these health hazards in Chiang Mai or Chiang Rai. I'm not questioning the claims but seeing the figures for local hospital admissions at times of high pollution and the relevant figues for cardiovascular, respiratory diseases and lung cancer in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai would be most enlightening. It would help to bring home the real dangers.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Anhydrous ammonia is commonly used to provide nitrogen fertilizer to the soil. Has many other uses for grain storage, animal production. Used a lot as a fungacide for anti mold properties.

Basically anything that is used in terms of pesticides/fungacides and fertilizers will be released via burning if it's on the plant material.

[scotbeve]

Mapguy,

Thank you for that very informative reply and info... One of the many replies you put forth on these threads and to us slackers whom either don't have the time or too lazy

[jangmai]

Today's index from the PCD gives MaeHongSon a reading of... 

FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN POINT FIVE (518.5)

Is there some kind of yearly world pollution trophy?

[chiang mai]

Today's index from the PCD gives MaeHongSon a reading of... 

FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN POINT FIVE (518.5)

Is there some kind of yearly world pollution trophy?

That's just incredible, I can't begin to imagine what that must feel or look like, it must be like living inside a sealed bag of smouldering charcoal.

[Bananaman]

That's truly horrifying and yet amazing at the same time! I'd love to know some figures for hospital admissions in the area, that might help convince some of the naysayers on here.

[scotbeve]

Today's index from the PCD gives MaeHongSon a reading of... 

FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN POINT FIVE (518.5)

Is there some kind of yearly world pollution trophy?

That's just incredible, I can't begin to imagine what that must feel or look like, it must be like living inside a sealed bag of smouldering charcoal.

Has anybody been up there as of late to see (and possibly take pictures) this mess?

[jangmai]

I just ran across a news report from March 20, 2007. Some extracts (google it, I'm not allowed to post URL)  

********************

The government declared Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son disaster zones yesterday after air quality worsened over the weekend. 

Deputy Prime Minister and Social Development and Human Security Minister Paiboon Wattanasiritham said the decision was made after the Pollution Control Department reported the deterioration in air quality.

Daily fine-particle dust recordings in Mae Hong Son rose yesterday from 278 micrograms per cubic metre (mpcm) to 284 mpcm. The acceptable standard is 120 mpcm. Recordings in Chiang Mai rose to 196 mpcm, Paiboon reported.

**********************

So in 2007, 278 mpcm merited a state of emergency; what kind of attention will 513 mpcm bring in 2010? 

[gotlost]

Today's index from the PCD gives MaeHongSon a reading of...

FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN POINT FIVE (518.5)

Is there some kind of yearly world pollution trophy?

That's just incredible, I can't begin to imagine what that must feel or look like, it must be like living inside a sealed bag of smouldering charcoal.

Has anybody been up there as of late to see (and possibly take pictures) this mess?

If this rain ever stops in Doi Saket and I can get a boat I'll give it a shot.

[chiang mai]

Today's index from the PCD gives MaeHongSon a reading of... 

FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN POINT FIVE (518.5)

Is there some kind of yearly world pollution trophy?

Can you substantiate your post with a link, please?

[Bananaman]

Today's index from the PCD gives MaeHongSon a reading of... 

FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN POINT FIVE (518.5)

Is there some kind of yearly world pollution trophy?

Can you substantiate your post with a link, please?

Chiang Mai, you can see the figure here: http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/G...?task=graphsite

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The above link didn't quite make it.

Check here: http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm

Made a screen shot for you as well.. It's pretty unsettling:

[nikster]

First of all claiming that it's not so bad is pretty silly. I am in Pai, the mountains are on fire every night, you can't see the other side of the valley and everyone's coughing, that is, everyone that doesn't take antibiotics for pneumonia already. It smells like you are standing inside a campfire.

Then, some links. Wikipedia about PM-10, in short: The worst polluted city in the world by PM-10 value in 2004 was Cairo with a value of 169. Unfortunately the data is a bit old but... that's the worst polluted city in the world. Chiang Mai hit 268 last week. Surrounding provinces are worse, I know Pai is worse than CM this year.

Quote: "Particulate matter studies in Bangkok Thailand indicated a 1.9% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, and 1.0% risk of all disease for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter. " Make of that what you will but a value of 268 is not good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate

Here's a view from above (source: NASA) - shows that the mountain fires are wide-spread into Burma and Laos, but Thailand has its fair share as well

As for what to do, if the Thai government wanted to tackle this problem, it could. It would just take an effort, and it would probably take everyone in the north to stand up and demand something be done. Unfortunately herein lies the problem. The locals see nothing wrong with the situation (in Pai). It's been like this for generations. They will cough, and happily light some trash on fire in their back yard. And this - the people - is why nothing will change.

Now if they wanted to, they could. I would start with the trash burning - a minor thing compared to the other fires, but you could stop that by simultaneously providing efficient, free trash pick-up and substantial fines. Right now, people wouldn't really know what to do if they didn't burn their trash - there's no gargage services in most places in the north, even Chiang Mai struggles with this (as evident from the trash lying in the streets), let alone villages in the Pai valley.

Once trash burning has stopped, the same thing could be done for burning the fields - slash and burn can be replaced by other methods, if government incentives were at hand rather quickly. Carrot and stick would work very well here too.

Last, the burning of the forests - this is more difficult to accomplish as it's unclear who at any given time starts these fires. I honestly don't know, though I have heard various reasons, hunting amongst them. Burn a half circle and wait on the other end for the animals to emerge, then hunt them down. Would take some research to figure out who is doing it. But one thing should be clear - there are not huge financial incentives to burn the forests. Whatever is gained stands in no relation to the pollution caused. This is Thailand - a little bit of money would probably go a very long way with the hill tribes. You could make each village a champion of protecting their forest, and reward them every year there is no large fire (easily checked by sat image). I bet it would stop the burning - the locals control their area, it's just the way it is.

The fact that Burma and Laos won't change because of that doesn't matter - Thailand can only control its own territory, and do the best it can there. Air would be much better here already if there was no burning on Thai soil. Maybe not perfect - but much better.

BTW sending this from my yearly exile in Samui. I have kids and I know that every baht I spend here in Samui is 10 baht saved in health care costs later in their lives. Deal of a lifetime! Enjoying the beaches as well

Edited March 21, 2010 by nikster

[Chicog]

Here's a lengthy article from today's post about the problem:

Chiang Mai is choking, as is most of northern Thailand. Grey smoke billows from thousands of deliberately lit fires, both large and small. Mountains, temples and city tower blocks dim into a dull grey background. An ineffectual sun tries to shine through the dusty haze.

Take a drive in any direction and it looks like a scorched earth policy has been enacted for Chiang Mai and its surrounds. Roadside shrubs and grass verges are burnt to blackened lanes; trees planted on centre road median strips are crisped to their charcoaled bare branches.

Long-term residents make plans to take refuge in southern beach towns. Others, unable to get away, spend time following the rising air quality figures on the Pollution Control Department's website with little hope of relief from the smoke. Emergency rooms at most of the city's hospitals juggle services to cope with the increase in people coming in with asthma, allergies, chronic bronchitis, pneumonia and emphysema.

Dr Chaicharn Pothirat, the head of the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Allergy at the Department of Medicine at Chiang Mai University, says once the air quality in Chiang Mai drops, peoples' health risks increase.

"The number of people seeking emergency help for asthma, allergies and COPD [Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease] is much higher now the air is so polluted and today the PM10 levels are so high they are dangerous."

PM10 levels are used to indicate the density of miniscule particulate matter in the air we breathe. The particles are so small the human eye cannot see them, but they can be lethal if these tiny particles find their way into our lungs and stay.

Numerous international and local scientific papers have identified cancer as the most common cause of death in Thailand and lung cancer as the second. A paper put out by the National Cancer Institute identifies lung cancer as the top cancer killer of Chiang Mai men and the second in women.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says particulate matter (PM) "affects more people than any other pollutant. The major components of PM are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and water. It consists of a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles of organic and inorganic substances suspended in the air".

The Pollution Control Board, Regional Area Air Quality Data webpage shows Chiang Mai's PM10 levels are dangerously high at 268.4, Mae Sai 328 and Mae Hong Son a staggering 437.8. To put the severity of northern Thailand's current high figures in context, international standards consider anything more than 50 a serious threat.

Dr Chaicharn says Chiang Mai PM10 is at least five times higher than the acceptable international standards.

Some doctors argue there is no such thing as "safe levels" of particulate matter.

The World Health Organization's Fact Sheet #313 estimates that air pollution causes two million premature deaths worldwide each year. WHO's fact sheet also paints a disturbing picture for Chiang Mai and northern Thailand residents, citing that "even relatively low concentrations of air pollutants have been related to a range of adverse health effects".

Wandee loves Chiang Mai's lifestyle and moved there from Bangkok to work as a writer and to raise her four-year-old son, but now says she may have to consider leaving if the pollution does not improve. Speaking from her sickbed she explained.

"Last year I took my son to Bangkok because of the smoke. This year I'm sick. My eyes want to cry. My throat hurts. I cough all day and night. I can't sleep, I can't breathe and my nose is blocked. I'm worried about my son - he's so young. I'm thinking of taking him to Bangkok. It's expensive, but my son's health is more important. I've had to take him for the last two years. It's ironic, but I moved to Chiang Mai from Bangkok because I thought the air was good."

Journalist Jeff Hodson has had enough.

"I can't take it any more. Every year the politicians talk and talk and talk, but nothing gets done to stop the pollution."

This is the third year the Hodson family has evacuated because of the smoke.

"Last year we left for five weeks. My eyes sting, my kids have coughs and my wife has headaches. They're going crazy locked inside all day. My kids are two and four."

Hodson says it cost him about 100,000 baht to move out last year and wonders if there's not some way citizens can take a class action against the government for failing to enforce laws to stop the burning.

"Someone has to take responsibility, someone has to enforce the law. There are serious health risks involved, like cancers. What price do we put on our children's health?"

But not everybody is able to leave the city. Ewun has been driving a tuk tuk around Chiang Mai for four years and says Chiang Mai's smog is getting worse.

"I'm used to pollution, but I can't handle this. My eyes are sore, I can't see and my throat hurts. Tourists are running away, they don't want to come here when it's like this. Yesterday, I couldn't take any more. I went home. I'm losing money, my customers all complain. It's too smokey to work. Someone should fix it."

But finding "someone" to fix the annual burning off is not easy. A trawl of newspaper clippings shows there is plenty of media space devoted to local politicians talking about how they plan to fix the pollution. Buzz words like recycling, eco-friendly, composting, pollution hotlines, posters, clean air campaigns and healthy food fairs all are uttered.

In a recent edition of The Chiang Mai Mail, Boonlert Buranupakorn, the president of Chiang Mai's Provincial Authority, said he planned to work with agencies to "speed up the installation of water spraying machines around the city roads to make the city wet so as to reduce dust in the air".

But residents say it's the same every year. Politicians and city officials talk, but nothing changes. Politicians have blamed everyone from Korean Bar-B-Que restaurants, slash and burn hill farmers, backyard rubbish burners, gardeners and even neighbouring countries such as Laos and Burma for the polluting smoke.

Meanwhile, in spite of the political spin from officials and government officers, northern Thailand continues to burn, often within sight of the law enforcers.

Somchai is a professional driver. He drives a luxury mini-van to tourist spots and is a regular traveller on northern roads. He says he was surprised to see land burning opposite a fire fighting office.

"They advertise their number for us to call if we see a fire. It's a joke - government officials do nothing. They just talk, but never take action."

Somchai says politicians should be aware that the smoke pollution affects everyone.

"People are getting angry. My customers don't like it, it's bad for my kids, the smoke and roadside fires makes it dangerous to drive."

A drive out of Chiang Mai confirms what Somchai says. A mountain top, necklaced with flames and billowing smoke, is within a couple of hundred metres of an official checkpoint. Somchai says this year the indiscriminate burning has worsened.

"Nobody seems to care. Every year it's the same. They make noises about doing clean-ups, but nothing ever gets done. It will be the same again next year."

Dr Chaicharn agrees and says officials have to do more and policy makers have to take the annual smog seriously.

"I and my colleagues are fed-up of dealing with sickness that could be prevented if policy makers tackled the problems with serious intent and stopped the burning before it's too late."

Hodson, like most of the people interviewed or spoken to for this article, felt politicians were more part of the problem than the solution, and if nothing is done he'll have little option but to take his young family elsewhere.

"Chiang Mai is a great place, but the pollution is the main reason I won't be staying long-term. Most of the time it's a lovely place, but when they start burning I can't stop them and the government doesn't stop them. What choice do we have?"

The WHO acknowledges air quality control is not something individuals can do much about.

"Exposure to air pollutants is largely beyond the control of individuals and requires action by public authorities at the national, regional and even international levels."

In the meantime, Dr Chaicharn says parents should follow his advice.

"Don't take exercise outdoors, while the air quality is bad. Keep your children inside. If you have to go outside, wear a mask and if you drive a car, don't take air from the outside. This pollution not only affects lungs, but is also a factor for people with diabetes, high blood pressure, circulatory diseases and heart conditions."

Dr Chaicharn and his colleagues have just completed a study that proves that when the PM10 levels increase then so does the number of people seeking emergency care.

"When the PM10 levels go up, then so does the number of people requiring treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Every time the PM10 increases by 10% we see an increase of two to three per cent of people needing emergency treatment."

Somchai says if government policy makers don't enforce the laws and curb the annual burning, Chiang Mai might soon become infamous as the lung cancer research capital of Thailand.

[ray23]

We are planning s trip to the area on the 19th of next month. Since this is an annual event when does the air become safe as a norm?

Under the current conditions doesn't sound like much fun.

[nikster]

We are planning s trip to the area on the 19th of next month. Since this is an annual event when does the air become safe as a norm?

Under the current conditions doesn't sound like much fun.

Yeah it's madness to go there now. Mid April used to be the time when things improve. Once the raining season starts, it will all be good. I'd delay until May 1 to be on the safe side.

This year was particularly bad, I guess because it was dry early and the air was already really bad in February.

I like that newspaper article if anything changes it will start in chiang mai.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Early April is fine. even in the terrible year 2007 everything was fine by April 6th.

[ray23]

Wife's family isn't going anywhere, so we can postpone a bit.

Thanks

[ferd54]

The major PM components are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and water.

Anthropogenic processes include solid-fuel (coal, lignite and biomass) combustion in households;

• PM increases the risk of respiratory death in infants under 1 year, affects the rate of lung function development, aggravates asthma and causes other respiratory symptoms such as cough and bronchitis in children;

• PM2.5 seriously affects health, increasing deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Increased PM2.5 concentrations increase the risk of emergency hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory causes; and

Does anyone know why Thailand does not report PM2.5 figures? The seems to be the standard used in most big cities elsewhere.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

evidently cost. <2.5 is significantly more expensive than pm10 and then multiple it all the stations. They probably have a plan for it at some point. I am guessing the 2.5 readings could also be unflattering.

I found this little blurb in a document titled

Cleaner Transport Fuels for Cleaner Air in Central Asia and the Caucasus

"The cost implications of these recommendations need not be high. Even in the most comprehensive program, a continuous air quality monitoring station for measuring the six criteria pollutants can be set up for less than US$300,000. In the early stage of system modification, it may be wise to limit the number of pollutants and target, for example, only fine particles and lead. Portable contin- uous monitors for measuring PM10 are available for US$3,000. The cost of setting up and operating one con- tinuous station monitoring the six classical pollutants, sup- ported by several satellite sites monitoring only PM10 and lead, for three years may be on the order of US$1.5 million to US$2.5 million."