Smoke, Smog, Dust 2012 Chiang Mai

[Mapguy]

There is a very recent article in a newspaper which can not be mentioned on this forum. It has to do with the causes of extensive forest burning in Northern Thailand and focuses on ethanol production involving large agrobusiness and growing more corn to fuel Thailand's (and the world's) vehicles. I gather, due to forum rules, you'll have to search for the article yourselves. Try checking major national news media.

Traditional burning of rice straw, preparation for mushroom growing, neighborhood burning, et al are still part of the problem of air pollution. When you have increasing population pressures in an area of traditional slash-and-burn agriculture, harm to the natural environment is a result, but it is still relatively local in impact except, of course, when large-scale traditional practices (e.g., rice farming) predominate over a wide area, such as in Thailand-Myanmar-Laos. The name of the game has changed. It is no longer subsistence agriculture; there are national and international economic consequences (i.e., national trade income as well as food security concerns). There are economic consequences involving farmers large and small.

The interests of agribusiness and the impact on the environment are nothing new in SE Asia. Mono-cropping in what used to be natural forest has been literally breath-taking for some years. Palm oil production is one instance. Another is rubber. Destruction of native habitat is widespread. Another consequence, of course, is the brutal effect on health, which is magnified when it affects large population centers Then, of course, there is the tie-in with globe warming, but let's not go there now.

A quote at the end of the article very much points to what complicates solving the problem. Basically an official says that the problem of haze in more than a problem regarding the natural environment; it also involves the economic and social interests of a large number of poor people. True, but then Thailand did something quite remarkable in years past in gaining control over opium production among poor farmers in the hills.

[Tywais]

There is a very recent article in a newspaper which can not be mentioned on this forum. It has to do with the causes of extensive forest burning in Northern Thailand and focuses on ethanol production involving large agrobusiness and growing more corn to fuel Thailand's (and the world's) vehicles. I gather, due to forum rules, you'll have to search for the article yourselves. Try checking major national news media.

Note my post #810 which has pretty much the same information. The 'other' article was brought to my attention so I did a little digging around for an alternative as it looked interesting.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It seems with every post there is another attempt to fabricate some kind of unmeasurable measurement that would show that it's getting worse (or at least not getting better.)

So now we need to go check hospitalizations. Go ahead I say; do the research, collect the data, draw up the graphs. Priceless is doing an excellent job making sense of the issue year on year, using the only reliable data that is available.

By all means come up with some other measurement or objective indication but then please follow through on it, don't just use it to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt without showing a shred of data.

It also seems that when a person is saying 'here is the data', there is a pitchfork crowd ready to not hear 'data' but hear 'denial'. Nobody is denying there is a serious issue. But howling at the moon really won't help to make sense of it.

Edited April 6, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

To illustrate the above, for example this one:

The other reason I thought this year was the worst is that things simply didn't improve until we were south of Bangkok - visibility-wise. In years past, the cutoff point for bad air had been Tak, 3 hours south of CM. This year... bad air all the way through to BKK. This was in February.

Unless you drove up and down to Bangkok every day during Feb and March, every year since 2001 and kept detailed records, the above doesn't mean anything. Given a choice between the above and 70 odd environmental measuring stations that capture every important indicator every day, I'll go with the latter. And is there a reason you give your own personal feeling on this, but aren't putting in the leg work to actually look it up? There ARE measuring stations South of Tak, so is it just lazyness that you don't feel like actually finding out if this year was worse South of Tak? For example, station A41 is Nakhon Sawan. If you drove pas it on 5 (!) February 2007 then you would have found a reading over 120 for Nakhon Sawan.

I wonder what's next.. probably doubting the quality of the measuring stations, or finding fault with 'statistics' in general again, but without pointing out which specific calculation or logic could be faulty. (This argument seems to go something like: "Because statistics can sometimes be used to deceive a casual observer, statistics can therefore never be trusted.". But we're not even getting to a discussion on the math; that would at least be something, to have an actual debate with everyone on the same page.

Anyway, then we got another one:

In general I question the method of cutting it up into months... does the smog look at the calendar?

So.. I guess you're now asking Priceless to redo the summary analysis for the season as a whole? I believe that's been done, but instead of asking if smog looks at a calendar, why not actually find out, dump it into Excel for any period you fancy and then see if the findings are different from what Priceless compiled? Taking random pot shots isn't very helpful.

EDIT: BTW, I do agree that hospitalizations would be a good and reasonably objective measurement. Nobody is doubting that there are hospitalizations, many actually, including my son this year. It's something that can be compared year on year, if hospitals make the data available, and have a common definition of what conditions are related to air quality (or lack thereof). Not sure if it's always black and white if a condition is caused (or worsened) by pollution, but given enough reports it should still be possible to show trends.

Edited April 6, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[orang37]

... Thailand did something quite remarkable in years past in gaining control over opium production among poor farmers in the hills.

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun MapGuy,

That article you mentioned (we can't even mention the name of the newspaper ? or link to the article ? : that's a new one "on me:" I just thought we could not quote from it: well: so be it, selah), left me, as you already know, via PM, with some lingering questions.

My interpretation of said article was: that it implied there was more burning in the hills, not the fields in the valleys, or relatively flat lands, for ethanol production from corn which led me to ask:

1. given the labor/materials inputs (requirements to prepare the ground, for fertilizer ? for pesticide ?, etc.), beyond seed, required to grow corn on hillside land, or land punctuated by large rocks, highly uneven in the vertical dimension, tend to it,harvest it, etc. ...

is there a highly profitable potential for large-scale agriculture business there ?

2. I would assume that as you leave the relatively flatter lands once etched by the rivers, and ascend, that there would be changes in the nature of the soil chemistry: would those changes, if any, reduce yield. Or, maybe it's the case that corn (whatever seed strains they use) is so dam_n hardy and adaptable, that it will be highly productive anywhere ?

So, obvisously, I don't know a dog's-tick worth of knowledge about the dynamics of corn agriculture, but I would also speculate that ... if it is the ethnic hill-tribe people being recruited for growing this corn: then we have two cultural "stories" to consider: is the particular ethnic group's lifestyle hunter-gatherer, or, as in the case of the Akka and Lisu, agriculture performed by women, and opium crops tended by men, typically higher up the mountain from the village.

Now the article in question uses the term "farmers," so is it the Thai farmers who typically are involved in flatland rice, garlic, etc., agriculture who are expanding "up" into vertically irregular terrain to plant this corn, and thus extending burning of forest upland ... or is it: who, exactly ?

Finally, I am fascinated by the excerpt from your post, quoted above: do you have some sources you could share with the forum (or if necessary by PM to moi) regarding exactly what you are referring to in this statement ?

thanks, ~o:37;

[FarangBha]

Nice and crispy clean today. Just realised too late I cant go out on the balcony in the buff anymore.

[Mapguy]

Orang37,

Sorry, didn't mean to be too mysterious about the source of the article, just cautious since I didn't care to post something beyond what's acceptable and then just have it deleted. It really is quite a decent article that is worth tracking down. (It was published on 1 April in the "News" section). Indeed you were kind enough to share it with me! I hadn't read it before.

Otherwise, like you, I'm no corn farming expert either. But, there appears to be a way to find out more about where the upland burning is occurring as well as what sorts of crops are going in. One official has been quoted as saying the more remote the area, the more burning, and reference is made to a Chiang Mai provincial district! The article does note interesting detailed analysis through satellite mapping of the area over a few years by the CMU Geography Department.

[Priceless]

Yet another poster that claims the Thai 24-hour standard for PM10 at 120 µg/m³ is 'so high' or 'ridiculous'. As a reference for those who like a whiff of facts with their daily diet, here are the standards for some other countries (Source: http://ehs.sph.berke...0with%20sup.pdf )

Australia 50 (May be exceeded 5 times/year)

Bangladesh 150

Barbados 150

Bolivia 150

Brazil 150

Cameroon 260

Chile 150

China 150 (Source: cleanairinitiative.org)

Colombia 150

Costa Rica 150

Dominican Republic 150

Ecuador 150

Egypt 150

El Salvador

Ethiopia 150

The Gambia 50

Ghana 70

India 100

Indonesia 150

Israel 150

Jamaica 150

Japan 100

Korea, Rep. 150

Mauritius 100

Mexico 120

Nepal 120

New Zealand 50

Peru 150

Philippines 150

Senegal 260

Singapore 150

South Africa 75

Trinidad & Tobago 75

Turkey 150

United States 150

Vietnam 150

Serbia 50

Zambia 75

/ Priceless

Edited April 7, 2012 by Priceless

[villagefarang]

I prefer visual references to endless number crunching and graphs. Distant mountains not visible, not good. Next range not visible, bad. Closest range not visible, toxic and I don’t leave the air-conditioned room. Sorry I don’t have statistical data to verify my personal observations. Today’s reading in Phaya Mengrai is not bad.

[chiang mai]

Cameroon looks like a lot of fun!

[Priceless]

I prefer visual references to endless number crunching and graphs. Distant mountains not visible, not good. Next range not visible, bad. Closest range not visible, toxic and I don’t leave the air-conditioned room. Sorry I don’t have statistical data to verify my personal observations. Today’s reading in Phaya Mengrai is not bad.

Quote from Utah Department of Environmental Quality ( http://www.deq.utah.gov/FactSheets/Visibility.htm ):

'Hazy Air

Is the air unhealthy when it gets hazy? It depends. Along the Wasatch Front, the most common situation is for particles of just the right size to cause haze to accumulate first. When this happens, the visibility deteriorates more quickly than the air quality. As a result, the air looks bad with a gray or brown haze, but the amounts of PM10 and PM2.5 do not exceed the health standard. It is not uncommon for air quality to comply with health standards, even though the valleys are very hazy.

Some people, especially those with respiratory problems, feel the effects of pollution at levels that do not violate health standards. Also, the severity of haze and pollution can sometimes be similar. It is always best to know the specific health condition of ourselves and family members and respond to health advisories and increased haze accordingly.'

/ Priceless

[Mapguy]

...

EDIT: BTW, I do agree that hospitalizations would be a good and reasonably objective measurement. Nobody is doubting that there are hospitalizations, many actually, including my son this year. It's something that can be compared year on year, if hospitals make the data available, and have a common definition of what conditions are related to air quality (or lack thereof). Not sure if it's always black and white if a condition is caused (or worsened) by pollution, but given enough reports it should still be possible to show trends.

Sorry to hear that your son ended up in the hospital. I hope he is outside playing today, which is delightfully clear.

Regarding public health statistics, I remember with regret the last time (in 2007, I think) the discussion delved into that. I don't recall that it got very far, and it was marred by unnecessary cheap shots at the prowess of Public Health statisticians. Another question came up as to whether health studies elsewhere are relevant to Thailand. Anyway, Google this: << health impact of particulate matter pollution EPA >> .

The continuing focus upon statistical analysis, such as is feasible, of the situation here in Chiang Mai is becoming obsessive and getting rather pointless. Isn't it time to move on? Priceless might be in danger of getting carpal tunnel syndrome and end up in the hospital himself. Once we get through April, it would be nice to have a final seasonal comparative analysis. I suggest February - April, although it is true that some burning does start in December and our neighbors do it most of the year!

Otherwise, the tenor of this year's discussion is quite different than, say, the discussion in 2007 and the confusing plethora of threads in that and other years on the topic. The relative absence of the naysayers and those belittling the nasty realities of air pollution is --- well --- breathtaking! And we have Tywalis to thank for getting a handle on channeling the discussion this year.

This year was notable also for a (very rare) equipment breakdown at one of the Chiang Mai measuring stations. That brought out some conspiracy theorists. Indeed, I still wonder at the rumor that the station was destroyed by a direct hit of a bag of rain-making crystals used in fruitless seeding the atmosphere above the Chiang Mai provincial offices in the questionable attempts at rain making.

Finally, there's been more humor this year. Photos of the governor spraying water on the city from atop a fire engine are memorable. Indeed, video of it was broadcast internationally by Aljazeera in which the reporter called it for what it was: a publicity stunt !

Let's hope today that the fat lady has sung, and that the curtain will now come down on the 2012 burning season. That may be wishing for clear days too much too soon, but at least she came on stage at just about the right time, as those who have lived here a while recognize from the showers which have showed up pretty much on schedule.

Happy Songkran! And on to the Songkran threads !!!!

[harrry]

Hospitilization is a poor measure here as it is used randomly. In the case of COPD astma which is basically the probable major presentation THai clinics may treat symptomatically and discharge whereas in the west admission is automatic.

The only useful measure would be death statistics for the peiod and It would be interesting if there is an easy way these can be collected and collated Priceless....onother way for you to fill in your spare time.

[Tywais]

... Thailand did something quite remarkable in years past in gaining control over opium production among poor farmers in the hills.

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun MapGuy,

That article you mentioned (we can't even mention the name of the newspaper ? or link to the article ? : that's a new one "on me:" I just thought we could not quote from it:

Just to clarify this for those who are not familiar with the forum rule regarding Bangkok Post - an excerpt from the full 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.

As you can see I said 'Bangkok Post' so saying "you can read/search for the article in the News section of Bangkok Post" is not an issue.

Stepped out back today and looked out in the distance over the rice fields and thought WTH is that bump in the background? It is the foot hills near Hang Dong and haven't seen them in weeks. Just a perfect day today.

[T_Dog]

... Thailand did something quite remarkable in years past in gaining control over opium production among poor farmers in the hills.

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun MapGuy,

That article you mentioned (we can't even mention the name of the newspaper ? or link to the article ? : that's a new one "on me:" I just thought we could not quote from it:

Just to clarify this for those who are not familiar with the forum rule regarding Bangkok Post - an excerpt from the full 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.

As you can see I said 'Bangkok Post' so saying "you can read/search for the article in the News section of Bangkok Post" is not an issue.

Stepped out back today and looked out in the distance over the rice fields and thought WTH is that bump in the background? It is the foot hills near Hang Dong and haven't seen them in weeks. Just a perfect day today.

I just had a similar experience here seeing Doi Luang in Chiang Dao and Doi Mon Ngok up the Pai road from downtown Mae Taeng. Have not seen them in two months from here!

[Tywais]

Stepped out back today and looked out in the distance over the rice fields and thought WTH is that bump in the background? It is the foot hills near Hang Dong and haven't seen them in weeks.

Just used Google Earth to see what the distance was to the hills from my house and it is 25 kms. Quite impressive compared to the 1km days.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I prefer visual references to endless number crunching and graphs. Distant mountains not visible, not good. Next range not visible, bad. Closest range not visible, toxic and I don’t leave the air-conditioned room. Sorry I don’t have statistical data to verify my personal observations. Today’s reading in Phaya Mengrai is not bad.

That typically works for me too, though there are some cases where haze is caused (or worsened) by less harmful substances (like water vapor, and larger solid particles.) But almost all of the time, a visual observation is very accurate in establishing if it's a nasty day or not. What it does NOT provide is a year on year comparison. So if we only had visual observations then there would be nothing to counter people screaming that it's getting worse, or 'this is the worst year ever!'.

And crucially, without data it becomes very hard to monitor if there is any success in making an improvement. The debate is then just about if it's human efforts that are causing an improvement, or other environmental factors. But at least that's an intelligent debate, once you're past the 'OMG it's worse every year, we're all gonna die!'.

BTW my son had pneumonia. That's something caused by a bacteria, however pollution is a contributing factor, as it spreads more easily if the lungs are already stressed. Can I say with absolute certainty that pollution caused/enabled it.. No. But looking at a sea of gray haze from a hospital window is not fun. So can I say with absolute certainty that we're planning a holiday somewhere in March next year: Yes! When exactly that holiday will take place will depend a lot on monitoring the data that's collected; not only Chiang Mai but specifically also Lampang, MHS and Chiang Rai. It seems that if it gets bad, it gets bad first in those places. So that would be a good cue to leave.

Edited April 7, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

BTW I removed the 3M Filtrete filter material from the air conditioners today. Really a " " moment.

I attached it to the outside of the filter and it's incredible how well this stuff worked. The standard aircon plastic filters below it came out *completely* clean. As in bright white clean. And a lot of the nastiness was firmly embedded in the Filtrete material; normally when I take out a regular filter you get some dust flying all over the place, it looks like the 3M filter grabbed the dust and never let go.

Edited April 7, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[jko]

This is a very important article written by a doctor at the Faculty of Medicine in Chiang Mai, which reveals that our 'accepted safety level' of 120 microgrammes for particles less then 10 microns - is more than double the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

The author goes on to say:

'With haze, we tend to discuss just the damage to tourism, scenery, visibility, and sore eyes and noses. Those impacts are small when compared with the long-term health risks. How many people in the North will die of cancer because of it?''

The full article is here

[Priceless]

This is a very important article written by a doctor at the Faculty of Medicine in Chiang Mai, which reveals that our 'accepted safety level' of 120 microgrammes for particles less then 10 microns - is more than double the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

The author goes on to say:

'With haze, we tend to discuss just the damage to tourism, scenery, visibility, and sore eyes and noses. Those impacts are small when compared with the long-term health risks. How many people in the North will die of cancer because of it?''

The full article is here

Obviously lower pollution levels are better than higher. However, the good doctor exaggerates a bit when he says 'the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)' In fact, WHO sets four levels labelled 'Intermediate Target 1-3' and 'Air Quality Guideline'. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I read the report) there is no mention anywhere of a 'maximum safety level'. WHO on the contrary says that such a level cannot be determined. Here is a list of some standards (please note that the EU standard is not for a single 24-hour period, but rather for the 36^th highest 24-hour value of the year with no maximum for a single period):

The full WHO report can be found here: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78638/E90038.pdf

/ Priceless

[Awk]

This is a very important article written by a doctor at the Faculty of Medicine in Chiang Mai, which reveals that our 'accepted safety level' of 120 microgrammes for particles less then 10 microns - is more than double the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

The author goes on to say:

'With haze, we tend to discuss just the damage to tourism, scenery, visibility, and sore eyes and noses. Those impacts are small when compared with the long-term health risks. How many people in the North will die of cancer because of it?''

The full article is here

Obviously lower pollution levels are better than higher. However, the good doctor exaggerates a bit when he says 'the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)' In fact, WHO sets four levels labelled 'Intermediate Target 1-3' and 'Air Quality Guideline'. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I read the report) there is no mention anywhere of a 'maximum safety level'. WHO on the contrary says that such a level cannot be determined. Here is a list of some standards (please note that the EU standard is not for a single 24-hour period, but rather for the 36^th highest 24-hour value of the year with no maximum for a single period):

The full WHO report can be found here: http://www.euro.who....8638/E90038.pdf

/ Priceless

Perhaps the doctor is referring to the WHO saying that while "no threshold for PM has been identified below which no damage to health is observed", the guideline value from WHO has, as the doctor appears to say, a maximum level for PM10 of 50^μg/m324-hour mean.

This can be found on e.g., http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs313/en/.

[Priceless]

This is a very important article written by a doctor at the Faculty of Medicine in Chiang Mai, which reveals that our 'accepted safety level' of 120 microgrammes for particles less then 10 microns - is more than double the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

The author goes on to say:

'With haze, we tend to discuss just the damage to tourism, scenery, visibility, and sore eyes and noses. Those impacts are small when compared with the long-term health risks. How many people in the North will die of cancer because of it?''

The full article is here

Obviously lower pollution levels are better than higher. However, the good doctor exaggerates a bit when he says 'the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)' In fact, WHO sets four levels labelled 'Intermediate Target 1-3' and 'Air Quality Guideline'. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I read the report) there is no mention anywhere of a 'maximum safety level'. WHO on the contrary says that such a level cannot be determined. Here is a list of some standards (please note that the EU standard is not for a single 24-hour period, but rather for the 36^th highest 24-hour value of the year with no maximum for a single period):

The full WHO report can be found here: http://www.euro.who....8638/E90038.pdf

/ Priceless

Perhaps the doctor is referring to the WHO saying that while "no threshold for PM has been identified below which no damage to health is observed", the guideline value from WHO has, as the doctor appears to say, a maximum level for PM10 of 50^μg/m324-hour mean.

This can be found on e.g., http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs313/en/.

Maybe he is, but that is using the expression 'maximum safety level' very loosely. Anyway, what he is conveniently forgetting is the obvious fact that lowering the standard level, be it to 50 or to 0, won't change a thing. What is important is the following, from the end of the article:

'But Wijarn Simachaya, director-general of the Pollution Control Department, which sets the safety standard, said adjusting the figure would not help as surpassing it carries no penalties.

''This has nothing to do with the number, but with the burning and how well we can control it,'' he said.'

There are laws and regulations concerning polluting emissions, including agricultural burning, vehicles, industries etc., but the problem is the same as with most such things in Thailand: No enforcement!

/ Priceless

[Awk]

This is a very important article written by a doctor at the Faculty of Medicine in Chiang Mai, which reveals that our 'accepted safety level' of 120 microgrammes for particles less then 10 microns - is more than double the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

The author goes on to say:

'With haze, we tend to discuss just the damage to tourism, scenery, visibility, and sore eyes and noses. Those impacts are small when compared with the long-term health risks. How many people in the North will die of cancer because of it?''

The full article is here

Obviously lower pollution levels are better than higher. However, the good doctor exaggerates a bit when he says 'the maximum safety level of 50 microgrammes set by the World Health Organisation (WHO)' In fact, WHO sets four levels labelled 'Intermediate Target 1-3' and 'Air Quality Guideline'. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I read the report) there is no mention anywhere of a 'maximum safety level'. WHO on the contrary says that such a level cannot be determined. Here is a list of some standards (please note that the EU standard is not for a single 24-hour period, but rather for the 36^th highest 24-hour value of the year with no maximum for a single period):

The full WHO report can be found here: http://www.euro.who....8638/E90038.pdf

/ Priceless

Perhaps the doctor is referring to the WHO saying that while "no threshold for PM has been identified below which no damage to health is observed", the guideline value from WHO has, as the doctor appears to say, a maximum level for PM10 of 50^μg/m324-hour mean.

This can be found on e.g., http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs313/en/.

Maybe he is, but that is using the expression 'maximum safety level' very loosely. Anyway, what he is conveniently forgetting is the obvious fact that lowering the standard level, be it to 50 or to 0, won't change a thing. What is important is the following, from the end of the article:

'But Wijarn Simachaya, director-general of the Pollution Control Department, which sets the safety standard, said adjusting the figure would not help as surpassing it carries no penalties.

''This has nothing to do with the number, but with the burning and how well we can control it,'' he said.'

There are laws and regulations concerning polluting emissions, including agricultural burning, vehicles, industries etc., but the problem is the same as with most such things in Thailand: No enforcement!

/ Priceless

I don't think the doctor is conveniently forgetting anything.

If the safe level in Thailand were to be raised to e.g., 1000μg/m3, then there would officially be no problem anymore, on any day, anywhere in Thailand.

Similarly, if the level was reduced to e.g., 50μg/m3, then just as obvious there would officially be far more problematic days, in far more places.

Why would any official care if city X has been suffering from 300 consecutive days with a pm10 level constantly ranging between 80 and 100μg/m3 when that is still far from the officiall danger level of 120μg/m3?

As the doctor says, ”We first have to admit the fact that we have a problem, a serious problem,” and one of the steps to do that is to set the maximum safe levels to a more correct value.

I think the doctors points as quoted in the article were concise, interesting, and well made. It was sad to see the nonsense response from the PCD guy though.

[wolfmuc]

Prime minister Yingluck and the Minister of Education,he comes from Phrae province demand: STOP BURNING.

Highway 101, 5 km south of Rongkwang, Phrae.

[hudriwudri]

CNX is back with real time data at http://aqmthai.com/

[chiangmaiexpat]

I think the doctor has a very good point.

Where is the reasoning behind the relaxed Thai air pollution limits? Why do they differ so markedly from the WHO recommendation and from the EU and US limits? Are the Thai limits based on any actual research/studies conducted or are they just set arbitrarily? I don't see any explanation on the PCD site. If the latter is the case, the current limits would merely make relatively bad pollution look good rather than providing a credible guideline; in fact they would just be a thinly veiled face-saving effort.

Cheers, CMExpat

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I think the doctor has a very good point.

Where is the reasoning behind the relaxed Thai air pollution limits? Why do they differ so markedly from the WHO recommendation and from the EU and US limits?

I think you may have missed this post:

Yet another poster that claims the Thai 24-hour standard for PM10 at 120 µg/m³ is 'so high' or 'ridiculous'. As a reference for those who like a whiff of facts with their daily diet, here are the standards for some other countries (Source: http://ehs.sph.berke...0with%20sup.pdf )

Australia 50 (May be exceeded 5 times/year)

Bangladesh 150

Barbados 150

Bolivia 150

Brazil 150

Cameroon 260

Chile 150

China 150 (Source: cleanairinitiative.org)

Colombia 150

Costa Rica 150

Dominican Republic 150

Ecuador 150

Egypt 150

El Salvador

Ethiopia 150

The Gambia 50

Ghana 70

India 100

Indonesia 150

Israel 150

Jamaica 150

Japan 100

Korea, Rep. 150

Mauritius 100

Mexico 120

Nepal 120

New Zealand 50

Peru 150

Philippines 150

Senegal 260

Singapore 150

South Africa 75

Trinidad & Tobago 75

Turkey 150

United States 150

Vietnam 150

Serbia 50

Zambia 75

/ Priceless

[Awk]

I think the doctor has a very good point.

Where is the reasoning behind the relaxed Thai air pollution limits? Why do they differ so markedly from the WHO recommendation and from the EU and US limits?

I think you may have missed this post:

Yet another poster that claims the Thai 24-hour standard for PM10 at 120 µg/m³ is 'so high' or 'ridiculous'. As a reference for those who like a whiff of facts with their daily diet, here are the standards for some other countries (Source: http://ehs.sph.berke...0with%20sup.pdf )

Australia 50 (May be exceeded 5 times/year)

Bangladesh 150

Barbados 150

Bolivia 150

Brazil 150

Cameroon 260

Chile 150

China 150 (Source: cleanairinitiative.org)

Colombia 150

Costa Rica 150

Dominican Republic 150

Ecuador 150

Egypt 150

El Salvador

Ethiopia 150

The Gambia 50

Ghana 70

India 100

Indonesia 150

Israel 150

Jamaica 150

Japan 100

Korea, Rep. 150

Mauritius 100

Mexico 120

Nepal 120

New Zealand 50

Peru 150

Philippines 150

Senegal 260

Singapore 150

South Africa 75

Trinidad & Tobago 75

Turkey 150

United States 150

Vietnam 150

Serbia 50

Zambia 75

/ Priceless

Saying the USA has a limit of 150, as in the above quote, makes the Thai limit of 120 look quite good, does it not?

But the US limit of 150 is a limit that, to quote http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, is a limit that can "Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years".

What relation does that have to the Thai limit of 120, presumably per 24h average? What is the point of comparing these two very different limits? Hell if I know.

[Priceless]

I think the doctor has a very good point.

Where is the reasoning behind the relaxed Thai air pollution limits? Why do they differ so markedly from the WHO recommendation and from the EU and US limits?

I think you may have missed this post:

Yet another poster that claims the Thai 24-hour standard for PM10 at 120 µg/m³ is 'so high' or 'ridiculous'. As a reference for those who like a whiff of facts with their daily diet, here are the standards for some other countries (Source: http://ehs.sph.berke...0with%20sup.pdf )

Australia 50 (May be exceeded 5 times/year)

Bangladesh 150

Barbados 150

Bolivia 150

Brazil 150

Cameroon 260

Chile 150

China 150 (Source: cleanairinitiative.org)

Colombia 150

Costa Rica 150

Dominican Republic 150

Ecuador 150

Egypt 150

El Salvador

Ethiopia 150

The Gambia 50

Ghana 70

India 100

Indonesia 150

Israel 150

Jamaica 150

Japan 100

Korea, Rep. 150

Mauritius 100

Mexico 120

Nepal 120

New Zealand 50

Peru 150

Philippines 150

Senegal 260

Singapore 150

South Africa 75

Trinidad & Tobago 75

Turkey 150

United States 150

Vietnam 150

Serbia 50

Zambia 75

/ Priceless

Saying the USA has a limit of 150, as in the above quote, makes the Thai limit of 120 look quite good, does it not?

But the US limit of 150 is a limit that, to quote http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, is a limit that can "Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years".

What relation does that have to the Thai limit of 120, presumably per 24h average? What is the point of comparing these two very different limits? Hell if I know.

The Thai limit may not ever be exceeded. That in fact it is, puts Thailand in the same group with USA and EU that don't live up to their limits, either. (E.g. 20-25% of the urban EU population live in areas where the 35 times per year llimit is exceeded.)

/ Priceless

[chiangmaiexpat]

I think you may have missed this post:

And you, Winnie, might have missed the fact that this list is selective. It shows mostly countries with higher limits and omits countries that have adopted the 50 μg/m3 limit to create the impression that the 50 μg/m3 limit is exceptional, which is clearly not the case.

Besides, my question is about the rationale behind the 120 μg/m3 limit, and not about which countries are doing better/worse. The list seems to communicate "oh well, things are worse in Cameroon", but this is hardly a justification.

P.S.: Besides, as Priceless pointed out, the limits of various countries are applied differently, so they cannot be compared easily.

Cheers, CMExpat

Edited April 9, 2012 by chiangmaiexpat