Smoke, Smog, Dust 2012 Chiang Mai

[Priceless]

So four years for every 10 micrigrams reduction, at that rate we'll be down to zero in fourteen years, phew, thanks for that, I feel much better and now wont worry nearly so much.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating why one should not confuse a trend with a forecast For a number of reasons I doubt that we will ever see the average go below ~20 µg/m³, at least in my lifetime (and in my family we tend to become very old).

/ Priceless

Edited March 2, 2012 by Priceless

[elektrified]

As for your march, I think that you might irritate a few people. Apart from that, I don't think you will achieve anything. Political demonstrations by foreigners are not that appreciated here, in my experience (though other posters might not agree).

/ Priceless

I agree. There were about 25 Burmese demonstrating in front of the Chinese Consulate Thursday morning and about 30 very angry and unfriendly looking police keeping them "under control".

[chiang mai]

So four years for every 10 micrigrams reduction, at that rate we'll be down to zero in fourteen years, phew, thanks for that, I feel much better and now wont worry nearly so much.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating why one should not confuse a trend with a forecast For a number of reasons I doubt that we will ever see the average go below ~20 µg/m³, at least in my lifetime (and in my family we tend to become very old).

/ Priceless

Said tongue in cheek of course! But more importantly: do we really understand what the factors are that have allowed the current trend to develop, why exactly has the level of pollution fallen so much for so long, if indeed it has!!

[shroomer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/china-air-pollution-tough-rules

Chinese authorities have set tougher rules to combat air pollution by ordering all major cities to monitor tiny particles that do serious damage to health. One of China's leading environmental activists, Ma Jun, greeted the change as a major step forward.

Surprisingly, given China's strict control of the internet, state media have acknowledged the change is partly in response to online environmental campaigners.

The national air quality rules were agreed at an executive meeting of the state council presided over by the premier, Wen Jiabao, on 1 March, a statement on its website said.

They order stricter air pollution monitoring standards this year in the mega-cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and Tianjin, 27 provincial capitals, and three key industrial belts: the Yangtze and Pearl river deltas, and Beijing's hinterland. Another 113 cities must adopt new standards next year, and all but the smallest cities by 2015.

To "help allay public concern over official air quality readings", levels of ozone and PM2.5 particles must be included. PM2.5 particulate matter is below 2.5 micrometres in diameter, or 1/30th the width of an average human hair, and easily penetrates lung tissue.

"This is a major step forward in terms of China's process to combat urban air pollution," said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. "The prerequisite for mobilising our people is to let them know what is going on.

"It doesn't mean that the sky will turn blue automatically because at the end of the day we still need to cut off these emissions."

Following the announcement, more than a million – mostly positive – comments were posted on the Weibo micro-blogging service in under 24 hours. "Good news, applause," wrote Xu Xiaonian, a prominent economist. Others questioned whether the rules would be enforced.

In January, Beijing's environmental agency included PM2.5 particles in its calculations after months of postings from netizens mocking the discrepancy between officially clear days and the dense smog at their windows. Ma said social media had played an essential role in changing government policy last year.

State media also acknowledged the role of bloggers: "A stirring campaign on the country's social network websites since last autumn seemed to have gained a satisfying response from the country's policymakers," Xinhua news agency said.

The question is, when will Thai authorities adopt this monitoring. We have exactly the same problem here, very high PM2.5 levels, and it is not even monitored.

[onthedarkside]

Post removed as per rule 31) Bangkok Post do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post publications will be deleted from the forum. Please note that this is a decision by the Bangkok Post, not by Thaivisa.com and any complaints or other issues concerning this rule should be directed to them.

[Priceless]

http://www.guardian....ion-tough-rules

Chinese authorities have set tougher rules to combat air pollution by ordering all major cities to monitor tiny particles that do serious damage to health. One of China's leading environmental activists, Ma Jun, greeted the change as a major step forward.

Surprisingly, given China's strict control of the internet, state media have acknowledged the change is partly in response to online environmental campaigners.

The national air quality rules were agreed at an executive meeting of the state council presided over by the premier, Wen Jiabao, on 1 March, a statement on its website said.

They order stricter air pollution monitoring standards this year in the mega-cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and Tianjin, 27 provincial capitals, and three key industrial belts: the Yangtze and Pearl river deltas, and Beijing's hinterland. Another 113 cities must adopt new standards next year, and all but the smallest cities by 2015.

To "help allay public concern over official air quality readings", levels of ozone and PM2.5 particles must be included. PM2.5 particulate matter is below 2.5 micrometres in diameter, or 1/30th the width of an average human hair, and easily penetrates lung tissue.

"This is a major step forward in terms of China's process to combat urban air pollution," said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. "The prerequisite for mobilising our people is to let them know what is going on.

"It doesn't mean that the sky will turn blue automatically because at the end of the day we still need to cut off these emissions."

Following the announcement, more than a million – mostly positive – comments were posted on the Weibo micro-blogging service in under 24 hours. "Good news, applause," wrote Xu Xiaonian, a prominent economist. Others questioned whether the rules would be enforced.

In January, Beijing's environmental agency included PM2.5 particles in its calculations after months of postings from netizens mocking the discrepancy between officially clear days and the dense smog at their windows. Ma said social media had played an essential role in changing government policy last year.

State media also acknowledged the role of bloggers: "A stirring campaign on the country's social network websites since last autumn seemed to have gained a satisfying response from the country's policymakers," Xinhua news agency said.

The question is, when will Thai authorities adopt this monitoring. We have exactly the same problem here, very high PM2.5 levels, and it is not even monitored.

Just one question: How do you know that we have 'very high PM2.5' levels when they are not monitored?

Not that I doubt it. WHO gives a rule of thumb that PM2.5 constitutes about half of the PM10 level ('This ratio of 0.5 is close to that observed typically in urban areas in developing countries', Air Quality Guidelines, Global Update 2005, p277).

USA is one of very few countries (as far as I am aware) where PM2.5 is regularly monitored over large areas and where a limit is in force. I think that since we''re living in a third world country, we''ll just have to accept that our hosts are slightly lagging behind the European Union, which will have a limit starting in 2015.

/ Priceless

Edited March 3, 2012 by Priceless

[siouxzen]

If you think about how long it's taken to get the current low percentage of motorcycle riders to wear crash helmets, that action invloved passing legislation plus active involvement from the police across the country, all fining helmetless riders on a regular basis - that started some seven years ago and look how far it's got today, does anyone really think that an effective programme aimed at reducing pollution can be enacted in shorter timescales, I seriously doubt it!

I really do hate repeating myself, but the average pollution level in Chiang Mai has been, trend-wise, decreasing by more than a third over the last 7½ years:

/ Priceless

Again, yearly averages don't tell us the meaningful information we want regarding lung health during this time of year. PM averages most everywhere been trending downward in the past few years thanks to industrial and commercial vehicle and equipment attrition. If you look at the monthly averages and the instances of PM counts break 120 ug/m3 per month, it's evident that the burning season is still problematic and that most regions of Northern Thailand have exceeded the PM10 standards for the US and the EU already this year.

The current state of air quality in Northern Thailand is alarming, regardless of past data. Just because air quality is arguably less bad than it has been in previous years doesn't mean that it is good, especially considering current research on the affect of air pollution on our health. See this article for a good summary of recent studies from the US: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/air-pollution-tied-to-heart-and-brain-risks/?smid=fb-nytimeshealth

As farang, though, our choices are to live with it or move along, and for now I'm still here.

[Priceless]

If you think about how long it's taken to get the current low percentage of motorcycle riders to wear crash helmets, that action invloved passing legislation plus active involvement from the police across the country, all fining helmetless riders on a regular basis - that started some seven years ago and look how far it's got today, does anyone really think that an effective programme aimed at reducing pollution can be enacted in shorter timescales, I seriously doubt it!

I really do hate repeating myself, but the average pollution level in Chiang Mai has been, trend-wise, decreasing by more than a third over the last 7½ years:

/ Priceless

Again, yearly averages don't tell us the meaningful information we want regarding lung health during this time of year. PM averages most everywhere been trending downward in the past few years thanks to industrial and commercial vehicle and equipment attrition. If you look at the monthly averages and the instances of PM counts break 120 ug/m3 per month, it's evident that the burning season is still problematic and that most regions of Northern Thailand have exceeded the PM10 standards for the US and the EU already this year.

The current state of air quality in Northern Thailand is alarming, regardless of past data. Just because air quality is arguably less bad than it has been in previous years doesn't mean that it is good, especially considering current research on the affect of air pollution on our health. See this article for a good summary of recent studies from the US: http://well.blogs.ny...b-nytimeshealth

As farang, though, our choices are to live with it or move along, and for now I'm still here.

'Again, yearly averages don't tell us the meaningful information we want regarding lung health during this time of year.'

The post that you are replying to had nothing to do with seasonal variations, but rather the long-term trend for air pollution in Chiang Mai. Since you are obviously incapable of understanding the difference between these topics, I'll give you 'the works', i.e.daily, seasonal, yearly and long-term information:

As concerns your earlier expressed disregard for yearly data and limits, you are obviously the greater authority on the subject, having 'worked as environmental consultant focusing on air quality for several years'. However, I would like to quote what the World Health Organization has to say on the subject: 'Based on known health effects, both short-term (24-hour) and long-term (annual) guidelines are needed for both of the PM indicators.' (Air Quality Guidelines - Global Update 2005, p277). 'Both of the PM indicators' refers to PM10 and PM2.5.

/ Priceless

[chiang mai]

"incapable of understanding the difference", it's only early March Priceless hence the burning season and this debate have some way to go, so do try and remain civil with us all!

[ludditeman]

There is massive burning in the mountains around Doi Suthep, Doi Pui and the HTT lake areas.

In the last week acres of the forest undergrowth has been burnt.

[Priceless]

"incapable of understanding the difference", it's only early March Priceless hence the burning season and this debate have some way to go, so do try and remain civil with us all!

If you look at the post that 'siouxzen' was replying to and criticizing, it shows a graph of 12-month moving averages of PM10 pollution levels, and a trend line derived from this data. 12-month moving averages is an elementary statistical method used to create a data set where seasonal variations are eliminated, e.g. to enable study of long-term trends. To critizise such a graph (or data set) for not showing seasonal variations is, in my opinion, clear proof of lack of understanding of the subject. My expression 'incapable of understanding the difference' was in no way intended to be uncivil, but rather a simple statement of fact.

/ Priceless

[orang37]

... As for CM residents actually doing something instead of navel gazing....what do you think of a MARCH? I remember there's a highly respected older Thai activist who has a big network of schoolkids who could perhaps do something. I know there used to be an activist group about this.....know anything about it?

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Cheeryble,

Now, that strikes me as a strange idea: let's have a march of schoolkids ... and ... now .... assuming you do mean an outdoor march rather than some form of maypole dance held indoors ... let us imagine how many of these schoolkids are being exposed to possibly lung-damaging pollution.

So, then what: some percentage of the marchers end up in the hospital, and we plaster Chiang Mai with large billboards of their pictures taken at the hospital as they look absolutely miserable with respiratory distress, with slogans in Thai and English saying "look what our air is doing to us !"

In this case I think omphaloskepsis (navel-gazing), in an indoor area with filtered air, or in areas with much less polluted air, may be a much healthier alternative. And curtailing kids', and adults', outdoor activities on high-pollution days, a much better idea to promote.

~o:37;

Edited March 3, 2012 by orang37

[orang37]

Thanks to Priceless, Chiang Mai, MapGuy, MESmith, and many others, for bringing a very high-quality discussion, debate, and information ranging from statistics, to interpretations of WHO GuideLines, to personal observations of the Chiang Mai area ... to this topic this year !

best, ~o:37;

[mcgriffith]

Photos taken tonight March 3 Saturday of a big fire on the mountain. From a distance of ~ 10 km, I can see huge spikes of flame as trees are engulfed.

Air quality will be worse tomorrow, I guarantee.

[MESmith]

Photos taken tonight March 3 Saturday of a big fire on the mountain. From a distance of ~ 10 km, I can see huge spikes of flame as trees are engulfed.

Air quality will be worse tomorrow, I guarantee.

Just looked out the window - I can see that from south of San Kamphaeng!!

[chiang mai]

There's a large area of Suthep, to the North of the town about half way up the mountain that is pretty much all ablaze, Mrs CM reckons it's a forest fire, it is substantial.

[dave2]

theres another one started very low on the left of doi suthep temple abot 30 mins ago in what is

probaby the area above wat u mong or cmu

dave2 ... sorry no pics coz my camera wont focus on it : (

[PottersOnHoliday]

We live right at the top of Suthep Road, and 2 fire engines have just headed up the road towards the Royal Project, as it looks as if the fire is spreading in that direction.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

theres another one started very low on the left of doi suthep temple abot 30 mins ago in what is

probaby the area above wat u mong or cmu

dave2 ... sorry no pics coz my camera wont focus on it : (

Your camera was just confused probably at being pointed at something other than a shop or sign along a road downtown.

[dave2]

wtk .. your probably nright coz i dont normaly use my camera at night

but an update to 11 30 pm tonight

the fire on the right of doi suthep looks as though its out

the fire above wat u mong , cmu has spread from left to right in a straight line

and is getting wider now and spreading ( 11 40 pm )

theres another fire to the left and behind doi suthep on a hillside just to the right of the royal flora site

that started about an hour ago

three fires in one night ? .. hhmm

dave2

[T_Dog]

There's a large area of Suthep, to the North of the town about half way up the mountain that is pretty much all ablaze, Mrs CM reckons it's a forest fire, it is substantial.

Regarding the last several posts, mountain side fire-setting scenes like that have been a nightly occurrence up north for over a month now. The only difference is that in the last week we can't see the fires as the visibility is now so poor. Good winds yesterday so the air is a bit better this morning.

[chokrai]

I live right beside the canal in Maerim and I can hear that fire you guys are seeing. It is right across the canal burning the forest on the small mountain.

[tomdfc]

Why was the land adjoining the running / jogging / cycling track at Hung Tuay Thao burned recently? There is no rice farming there. This is where people go to positively do something good for their health, not to mention enjoy the environment. Some one must be known to be responsible for this lunacy. Why are they not made to be accountable?

[LemanRus]

Why was the land adjoining the running / jogging / cycling track at Hung Tuay Thao burned recently? There is no rice farming there. This is where people go to positively do something good for their health, not to mention enjoy the environment. Some one must be known to be responsible for this lunacy. Why are they not made to be accountable?

Forest fires in dry and windy conditions are known to leapfrog. I have seen embers the size of a door (probably bark of a tree) floating along for large distances (kms)

[Thailand]

http://www.thaivisa....ze-hit-mae-sai/

And where would they evacuate them too?

The same problem over most of the North.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Thailand

[Mapguy]

This PCD web site identifies "Pollution Control Officials and Other Competent Officials" and summarizes MOSTE Ministerial Regulations:

http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_pol_officer.html

Note: I am not responsible for the title of this PCD web page.

[Mapguy]

An exceptional educational web site is found here:

http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=topics.about_airnow

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Photos taken tonight March 3 Saturday of a big fire on the mountain. From a distance of ~ 10 km, I can see huge spikes of flame as trees are engulfed.

Air quality will be worse tomorrow, I guarantee.

And yet, it ISN'T. (!)

We've been on a decreasing line since Thursday.

Not sure how much more proof people need that local factors have a very limited influence on the city-wide (valley-wide) situation: Insane forest fire on the mountain right next to town, and the air is better than yesterday.

[cloudhopper]

How much miore proof do people need that the improvement is entirely due to the success of the current weather control campaign?

[siouxzen]

If you think about how long it's taken to get the current low percentage of motorcycle riders to wear crash helmets, that action invloved passing legislation plus active involvement from the police across the country, all fining helmetless riders on a regular basis - that started some seven years ago and look how far it's got today, does anyone really think that an effective programme aimed at reducing pollution can be enacted in shorter timescales, I seriously doubt it!

I really do hate repeating myself, but the average pollution level in Chiang Mai has been, trend-wise, decreasing by more than a third over the last 7½ years:

/ Priceless

Again, yearly averages don't tell us the meaningful information we want regarding lung health during this time of year. PM averages most everywhere been trending downward in the past few years thanks to industrial and commercial vehicle and equipment attrition. If you look at the monthly averages and the instances of PM counts break 120 ug/m3 per month, it's evident that the burning season is still problematic and that most regions of Northern Thailand have exceeded the PM10 standards for the US and the EU already this year.

The current state of air quality in Northern Thailand is alarming, regardless of past data. Just because air quality is arguably less bad than it has been in previous years doesn't mean that it is good, especially considering current research on the affect of air pollution on our health. See this article for a good summary of recent studies from the US: http://well.blogs.ny...b-nytimeshealth

As farang, though, our choices are to live with it or move along, and for now I'm still here.

'Again, yearly averages don't tell us the meaningful information we want regarding lung health during this time of year.'

The post that you are replying to had nothing to do with seasonal variations, but rather the long-term trend for air pollution in Chiang Mai. Since you are obviously incapable of understanding the difference between these topics, I'll give you 'the works', i.e.daily, seasonal, yearly and long-term information:

As concerns your earlier expressed disregard for yearly data and limits, you are obviously the greater authority on the subject, having 'worked as environmental consultant focusing on air quality for several years'. However, I would like to quote what the World Health Organization has to say on the subject: 'Based on known health effects, both short-term (24-hour) and long-term (annual) guidelines are needed for both of the PM indicators.' (Air Quality Guidelines - Global Update 2005, p277). 'Both of the PM indicators' refers to PM10 and PM2.5.

/ Priceless

Thank you, Priceless, but I have access to this information. Clearly, I understand the difference between daily and longterm air quality forecasts, and I don't know why you are bothering to insult me, when my intent was only to point out that the annual charts are not the whole picture for people stopping by this thread. The problem is that in terms of of the air pollution we're living through now (which is the subject of this thread, and what most people want to know about when they read responses), the overall downward trend is not particularly relevant and yearly averages can be misleading to folks who are new to air quality measures.

I'm not accusing you of ignorance, wrongness, or of misleading others, but I wanted to issue a disclaimer to people reading bits and pieces of this thread hoping to gain insight into the situation as a whole. That's it. My response was for people reading the thread, looking only at the graph, not for you. I thought it pertinent to comment on the annual graph because time and time again I have seen averages and graphs like that confuse people and used by people in power during my (limited, discredited) experience in the industry to gloss over real problems or claim full progress when there is more to the story. To understand the full affect of air quality on our health, you must look at short-term data, too.

I'm quite taken aback by your tone and why you are insulting me and nitpicking the way that I contextualized my first response by mentioning my history with air quality. Yeah, I only have several years experience because even though I studied this in college and have worked in the industry since, I'm 25. If you want to discredit what I say because of my age, fine. I'm no authority, and I didn't claim to be, and I'm not prescribing a course of action. But, I do know what the WHO and the US EPA say about air quality, because it's my job to know what the WHO and US EPA (and researchers) say about air quality and to interpret air quality data in context of these institutions, government regulations, and technological innovations. So there you have it. Now that you have the information, feel free to insult me on a much more personal level.

And because I've circled back to it...

The accepted knowledge is that exposure to even moderate PM over a long time (decades) is bad for everyone, and that exposure to very high levels of PM on the short term is bad for everyone, but especially for vulnerable populations (very old, very young, people with existing respiratory conditions). If you clicked on the link I left in my last response, you would know that current research indicates that health is threatened for criteria air pollutants at lower levels than previously thought. Chiang Mai, despite its downward trending in PM10 over the past several years, is still very much in a danger zone given the current scientific consensus on air quality on health.

Edited to add:

Priceless, I'm really not trying to start a feud or pick a fight, but unfortunately I'll defend myself even when it's not good for my blood pressure or when it limits civil discourse.

Edited March 4, 2012 by siouxzen