Just How Unhealthy Is Chiang Mai And The North?

[ogb]

Can we please get the facts about air pollution levels, and what is realistically considered dangerous?

Air pollution shortens life expectancy

Chiang Mai Pollution Levels

This is not meant to be a whine, but rather an enquiry as to what are safe levels, and if the regional levels are not safe, what is being done about it?

Hopefully vested interests, emotion and disinformation can be left out of any replies :jap:

Edited March 9, 2011 by ogb

[uptheos]

Don't the sections from the website you quoted help?

"It’s getting to that time of year again when the pollution levels in Chiang Mai start climbing to dangerous levels. This happens every year towards the end of the dry season, between February and April and is largely attributable to slash-and-burn farming methods. Last year the pollution levels got so high that literally thousands of people across Chiang Mai province were admitted to hospital with various respiratory illnesses – including Tina – and the government released a 24 hour emergency number for reporting the fires. You can view the pollution levels in Chiang Mai between 1998 and the present day by clicking on the button above".

"For some reason, the Thai Pollution Control Department has set the ‘safe level’ to be anything less than a PM-10 of 120. Just to illustrate how high the levels can get to in Chiang Mai, on 14th March 2007 PM-10 levels reached 303.9 – catastrophically high by any standards".

[gotlost]

A heck of alot better than a year ago. Blue skies with fluffy white clouds. www.pcd.go.th

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The OP is a little misleading.

Because the year on year trend is towards a reduction.

The articles quoted are from over 3 years ago.

This season in particular so far has seen dramatically lower levels.

Trend:

Edited March 9, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[ogb]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm just interested in the facts - if its getting better then thats a good sign.

There does seems to be some conflicting information about what is the unhealthy level, so that is the first question I have.

120 is often quoted as the safe limit - is that appropriate?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Facts:

Chances are that nobody here will be able to add something that isn't already in several studies and articles readily available online. For example, the US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/a...rnd95/pm10.html Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....#Health_effects and so on.

Note that this is of course not an exact science, so 'facts' is perhaps too strong of a term. But there is plenty research out there.

Note: Chiang Mai may actually meet the US EPA standard this year, though it's too early to call that one.

Edited March 9, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[gotlost]

Check out todays fires. Red dots are fires. BTW WTK is not to far off the mark.

[ogb]

Thanks again.

My reading of the epa link is that the unhealthy level is considered to be 150 (or 120?) on a daily basis and 50 on an annual basis.

Those levels seem to be considerably higher than the levels quoted in the first article I linked to in the OP - am I missing something?

The satellite photo's make it fairly clear wherere a lot of the pollution comes from - I now wondering can the apparent improvement mentioned above be attributed to changing habits due to education/enforcement, or some other (seasonal) factors?

Edited March 9, 2011 by ogb

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The satellite photo's make it fairly clear wherere a lot of the pollution comes from - I now wondering can the apparent improvement mentioned above be attributed to changing habits due to education/enforcement, or some other (seasonal) factors?

I think probably the latter.

[Priceless]

An attempt at (in part) answering the OP's questions:

There is no definitely "true" answer as to how dangerous Particulate Matter (and other) pollution is. The best available that I have found is the following World Health Organization report "Air Quality Guidelines". A word of warning: It consists of 496 pages of not exactly "light reading".

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78638/E90038.pdf

The blog in your second link has been discussed several times before on this forum. It is not only four years old, it was from the beginning an obnoxious mixture of truths, half-truths and outright lies that I have personally used as an unusually bad example of tendentious writing. As an example, take the second quotation in Uptheos' post:

"For some reason, the Thai Pollution Control Department has set the safe level to be anything less than a PM-10 of 120. Just to illustrate how high the levels can get to in Chiang Mai, on 14th March 2007 PM-10 levels reached 303.9 catastrophically high by any standards".

Without saying as much, this gives the impression that the Thai standard of 120 µg/m3 is very (or extremely) high. This is simply not true! I offer two pieces of evidence:

Please note that the seemingly low European standard of 50 µg/m3 is not, in fact, a daily maximum but the 36th highest value of the year (the 90th percentile for any statistics buffs out there). There is no such thing as an European daily maximum, theoretically there could be 35 days >500 µg/m3 without exceeding the standard!

As to the actual pollution levels in Chiang Mai, they could (and should) obviously be better, but are in fact not that bad. (My apologies to any asthmatics and other sensitive people that have to stay here during March.) The blog that the OP refers to mentions the level of 303.4 µg/m3 on March 14, 2007. It might be worth pointing out that this is the only occurrence over 300 µg/m3 this century. In the event that some reader shares my interest in statistics, here's a frequency distribution table for this century:

In the table you can see that there has also been one value between 280-300 and one between 260-280 over the same time period, and a total of 14 occurrences over 200 µg/m3.

What about averages then? The following graph illustrates Chiang Mai averages compared to three other locations: Bangkok (admittedly a roadside location), Chon Buri (where you would find Pattaya) and Sara Buri (in the industrial heartland Norh East of Bangkok), the most polluted place that I know of in Thailand.

As WTK pointed out the trend is towards lower average levels. The extreme April of last year still influences the current 12-month average in this graph, but the trend is clear:

Finally another illustration of the fire situation (from http://firefly.geog.umd.edu:8080/firemap/?x=99.30937499999999&y=18.009375000000005&z=7&g=g&v=1&r=5&i=er&l=ad,ct ) to show one of the reasons the problem is so difficult: Many (most?) fires occur beyond Thailand's borders:

/ Priceless

Edited March 9, 2011 by Priceless

[ogb]

Thanks for the detailed response, and at least I'm now fully informed as to the meaning of the saying "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

My gut feeling is that 120 would be considered a high figure in an ideal world (based on the WHO, EU links, and also this: NEPM (National Environment Protection Measure) one-day standard for PM10 is 50 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with a maximum allowable exceedence of five days a year. )

Overall, I suppose its up to each individual to read the relevant information, form our own opinions as to what we think is safe or not, and monitor the daily readings and overall trends.

Thanks again for all the information and links.

[Mapguy]

OP,

Thanks for the article. The situation is a complex one to discuss. But you can count on one thing: "dirty" air isn't good for you or anyone.

There have been numerous (often not very helpful) threads on this problem. Some have focused on the health issue, as you have.

Locally, public health officials do keep records of hospital admissions and there have been spot studies regarding health, but don't expect too much. Generally, the WHO reports are the most comprehensive, but other reports of various governments, notably in the EU and in the USA, are useful. Not everyone agrees just what standards are "healthy." Decision-making on standards takes into account a number of social and economic costs.

I have attached some information on Thailand, which includes several sources of information. I think I have posted it twice already this year.

Otherwise, it appears the seasonal agricultural burning has now begun in earnest.

Thailand_Air_Quality_2010.pdf

Edited March 9, 2011 by Mapguy

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

This article in Thailand news clippings seems to suggest it's getting worse.

North Air quality worsening

The particulate matter is undeniable and as those particles float around they bind/bond up and transport various pollutants like hydrocarbons and then their size easily deposits deep into the lung tissue and and transported to the bloodstream.

I started using a 3M respirator for my outdoor workouts and what a difference. When I started my ride this morning I was a bit congested with mucus from the past few days of moderate air quality. Used the mask for 2 hours and amazed how clean my lungs felt afterward. It's geeky and a little hot to wear but not such a big deal. Covers the nose and mouth.

Can get a variety of respirator masks at the 3M retailer on Wualai road.

The have models from 600 bt and up. I got one for 700 bt. Uses 50 baht replaceable filters.

Making the breathing more forceful and difficult I suspect provides a degree of altitude effect on the body and might increase the red blood cell count.

[Joop50]

Yes it's getting worse.

Forest fires have cancelled four air flights from Chiang Mai to Mae Hong Son in the past two days.

Wild fires broke out around Mae Hong Son provincial town, resulting in very thick smoke with poor visibility forcing Nok Air to cancel flights on March 8.

The volume of minute particles continues to rise since the 8th and is nearly at the maximum allowed level, Peerat Ruangsuksai, chief of the Meteorological Station in Mae Hong Son said on March 9, 2011.

Nok Air has cancelled its four flights from Chiang Mai to Mae Hong Son on March 8, as well as two more flights on March 9 forcing visitors to cancel their plans. Locals complain of burning and itching eyes and officials have measured the air quality with a PM10 level of 110.1 and the Air Quality Index level at 94.0, near the maximum safe level. Above 120 PM10 and 100 AQI officials warn of health hazards.

Wild fires broke out east of Wat Phrathart Doi Kongmu and in the mountainous areas of villages in Tambon Pang Moo and Tambon Huay Pooling, the remoteness of the locations has caused firefighters great difficulty in trying access the fires.

“There are forest fires around Mae Hong Son city, but also in Pai and Pang Mapha districts, as well as along sides of Highway 1095 –Mae Hong Son –Pang Mapha-Pai,” he added.

Chiang Mai mail.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Joop50

[KhunDave]

This gets me wondering about the current season. I don't think there's any doubt that, so far, this has been the least smoky smoke season for a long, long time (hope I'm not tempting fate)!

The hot-spot detections on the satellite maps are very extensive, but the smoke does not seem to be gathering in our valley as it normally does. Anyone got a theory as to why this is? I note that there is a La Nina episode going on in the Pacific and wonder if that has anything to do with it...

[gotlost]

Yes it's getting worse.

Forest fires have cancelled four air flights from Chiang Mai to Mae Hong Son in the past two days. Wild fires broke out around Mae Hong Son provincial town, resulting in very thick smoke with poor visibility forcing Nok Air to cancel flights on March 8.

Chiang Mai mail.

Chiang Mai Mail

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/449729-forest-fires-cancel-mae-hong-son-flights/page__gopid__4269821#entry4269821

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV CM Friends,

Great to see the quality of discussion, and information analysis, here on posts from our esteemed Khuns WinnieTK, MapGuy, Priceless, Greenside, and CobraSN.

On a practical level, Khun Ogb, whatever the safe minimal levels are, the tangible impact of the pollution, which is being already experienced in the last week by this human body, is certainly related to how "outdoorsy" your lifestyle is, how much time you spend in traffic, etc. And, if you are doing a lot of travel in town, often on heavily trafficed roads, eating a lot of car, bus, motosai, tuk-tuk, etc., exhaust, it is our belief (hypothesis) that the effects of the pollution, particulate matter, etc. are compounded.

Whatever the statistics, this is the time of year this body has its main outdoor activity, bicycle riding, limited to early am, around sunrise, and a late night soy-milk run, and we try to minimize being outdoors between 10am to 7PM.

We wonder if it seems to be getting worse each year because we are getting older each year, and therefore are less "hardy," resilient, etc., but that seems like an unlikely one-size-fits-all hypothesis: we bet that children are coming down with respiratory distress, and conditions requiring medical treatment, just as much (or more ?) as the aged here (would be very interesting to see some differential statistics of hospital admissions for respiratory distress from March through May in Thailand broken out by age: if you assume there actually is such a mythical beast as any "accurate statistic" in Amazing T.).

Of course, for any one individual, statistics are often less than useless. Consider a 65 year old farang who's been a smoker for most of their adult life: do you think the impact of the coming months will be, generally, more severe, or the same as for a 65 year old adult farang who's never smoked ?

Subjectively, we agree with Khun WinnieTK's conclusion that's it better, in general, this year, as of now, compared to last year at this time of the month of March (if we accurately grok Khun WTK's thoughts).

But, we are feeling it now, and we are coughing now ! Did you notice the headline running on TV about flights to Mae Hong Son being cancelled because of the current burning ?

We're going to follow Khun CobraSnakeNeckTie's advice, and get on down to the 3M shop, and check out the respirator.

And we find the simple practice of the yogic "neti kriya:"

... of running slightly warm, slightly salted, water, through one nostril, then the other, something practical that seems to help give us the feeling of being less "polluted." And, you don't need any fancy teapot to do this practice either: about anything that can fit in one nostril, and let you pour the saline water in without spilling will do. Whether this has any scientically measurable effect on the lungs, we do not know. We usually do this every time we return home. One friend of ours puts a tiny amount of tea-tree oil in her neti kriya solution, and we're going to try that soon. Baking soda is another likely candidate for augmenting the solution. Many cancer patients with throat-related after-effects of radiation "swear by" frequent oral rinses of a solution of about 1 tablespoon of baking soda and one teaspoon of salt per 2 liters of water (worked for this body).

Anybody else with anti-pollution, anti-congestion, cleanse the respiratory tract ... tips ? Appreciate hearing them !

to your health, ~o:37;

Edited March 9, 2011 by orang37

[Priceless]

As to whether it is getting better or worse:

1/ We are at the moment (at least if this year turns out like most) on our way into the worst of the smoky season. In that respect it is obviously getting worse.

2/ On the other hand, the long-term trend is clearly heading down. I, for one, hope it continues that way, though I can obviously not be sure.

As WTK's graph in post #4 clearly shows, the short-term variations, like the seasonal ones, are very large here in Northern Thailand. If I remember correctly (a big if) Mae Hong Son Airport was completely closed for a couple of weeks in 2007. One should take care not to draw long-term conclusions from short-term variations, thats one way that the old saying about lies, damned lies etc becomes true.

/ Priceless

[lannarebirth]

My recollection is that next week marks the average statistical peak of pollution here in Chiang Mai. Any is too much but I'm appreciating the trend.

Anecdotally, two villages of which I am aware, one in Mae Rim and the other in Chiang Dao have had strong local policies prohibiting fires this year. What's more is, these policies are being enforced.

[pjclark1]

One could argue that the susceptibility of a person to the pollution is related to the state of their immune system.

Therefor those younger people who have had their immune systems damaged by multiple vaccination at an early age in the western world, would be more likely to suffer than those older people who never received such vaccinations (or those who actively sought to avoid such treatments).

[amexpat]

[Mapguy]

Well said, AMEXPAT !!!

Otherwise, here we go again !! I hope that people will avoid idle speculation and gross misinformation, which I, like Priceless, agree is not helpful. For example, I found the news items about cancelled flights interesting, not that they weren't expected from the data I have. For those, thank you, to whomever.

Priceless has noted his extreme distaste for general news items, which I agree can be stupid at worst. misrepresentative quite often. I think he uses The Nation for his cat box. A productive use! Useful also for cleaning crap off windows when cleaning with a little vinegar and water solution!

On the other hand (Here comes the smut, Orang! ) one should be careful about enshrining the scientific method (certainly statistical method) in some pantheon of gods. That is NOT to use the silly expression, "Lies, statistics, and dam_n statistical lies," or whatever it is. That is entirely too facile, as well as being trite. As well, one should be cautious about how the presentation of solid statistical work can be misinterpreted or misused. That has too often been the case in the past four years on this site. People all too often overlook Priceless' caveats and demurers.

On to other miscellaneous comments in posts above:

Probably the only funny thing I have ever said on TV Chiang Mai is that traffic cops don't wear face masks to keep from getting chapped lips. Well, I thought it was funny. Nevermind! There are some really heavy duty 3M masks! I personally choose not to go around looking like Darth Vader. Yes, they do help filter out "large" particles. And, yes, I imagine you will feel better. Nonetheless, they won't filter out the serious PM<2.5 shit that really gets into the lung tissue. From here on out, things get technical. So, if you are interested, read up on it. Use Google! Casually, it really isn't going to make a great difference except with traffic pollution when you wear a serious mask! Sorry!

Talk about it all you want. Dirty air is not good for anyone.

Bye!

[heybruce]

One could argue that the susceptibility of a person to the pollution is related to the state of their immune system.

Therefor those younger people who have had their immune systems damaged by multiple vaccination at an early age in the western world, would be more likely to suffer than those older people who never received such vaccinations (or those who actively sought to avoid such treatments).

Huh?

I assume you can reference some credible scientific studies to support the implication that immunizations, rather than boosting immune systems, actually damage them.

[ThaiPauly]

A year ago in 4 days we flew back to CM and the pilot could hardly see the runway, we could not see the mountain at all from the cabin window. We got home to a "green pool" but according to our pool guy we were not the only ones in the area to suffer.

I really don't think that will happen by March 14th this year, so things are better than they were this time last year

[LJW]

I'm feeling fine, how about you?

[pjclark1]

One could argue that the susceptibility of a person to the pollution is related to the state of their immune system.

Therefor those younger people who have had their immune systems damaged by multiple vaccination at an early age in the western world, would be more likely to suffer than those older people who never received such vaccinations (or those who actively sought to avoid such treatments).

Huh?

I assume you can reference some credible scientific studies to support the implication that immunizations, rather than boosting immune systems, actually damage them.

There are no such studies available to the public, The British government actively suppress all such information and work to remove funding from any researchers foolish enough to work in that area.I assume the other western governments are doing the same. I don't know why they do that, only what I have seen for myself.

Edited March 10, 2011 by pjclark1

[vagabond48]

I'm feeling fine, how about you?

Ahhhh, "ignorance is bliss"

[uptheos]

OP - How unhealthy is Chiang Mai?

Have a shower, wash your hair, put on a white shirt, light coloured slacks and white trainers.

Walk, Tuk Tuk, Seelor or Bike around Chiang Mai all day and evening (stop sometimes of course).

When you get home wash out your clothes in a bowl, look at you nice white trainers, wash your hair in a bowl and take a shower.

You will then know how unhealthy CM is.

[LJW]

I'm feeling fine, how about you?

Ahhhh, "ignorance is bliss"

I'm not ignorant, I just feel fine, this stuff in the air has never effected me.

[uptheos]

I'm feeling fine, how about you?

Ahhhh, "ignorance is bliss"

I'm not ignorant, I just feel fine, this stuff in the air has never effected me.

.........to your knowledge.

Edited March 10, 2011 by uptheos