Smoke, Smog, Dust 2012 Chiang Mai

[Tywais]

Chiang Mai Still Facing Air and Dust Pollutions

The smog crisis continues in Chiang Mai Province. Recently, the air quality falls below standard and is affecting the health of locals.

Chiang Mai Province has been covered with smog throughout the day, and the province is now reeling under the high pollution levels.

According to a report from the Chiang Mai Pollution Control Department, air pollution measures at 118 points, which is higher than the pollution standard, by 18 points.

Local residents have been receiving respiratory treatments from the various hospitals in Chiang Mai Province. This month, about 2,100 patients have been treated for respiratory problems, an increase of 600 people, or 40 percent from the same time last year.

Meanwhile, the Chiang Mai Provincial Public Health Office warned locals to take care of their health during this time of smog and air pollution problems. Patients with chronic diseases, the elderly, pregnant women, and children should stay inside their residences.

-- Tan Network 24 February 2012

[MESmith]

Meanwhile, the Chiang Mai Provincial Public Health Office warned locals to take care of their health during this time of smog and air pollution problems. Patients with chronic diseases, the elderly, pregnant women, and children should stay inside their residences.

-- Tan Network 24 February 2012

Are they passing this info & warning on to schools?

[chiangmaiexpat]

Are they passing this info & warning on to schools?

Apparently, they don't. Our older daughter went on a forest field trip today, and the younger one went last week. The schools still do outdoor sport, too. As expected, they choose to completely ignore the problem.

Cheers, CMX

[WinnieTheKhwai]

They may even see some positives:

* Avoid dark skin; it's like having a free, city-wide layer of SPF-25 above our heads!

The "dark" simply moves to the lungs at such times!

That's on the inside. We carez about outside only.

[ludditeman]

I can't help but wonder what they're doing with the leaves they're collecting...

My neighbour is burning them. He has just raked up a handsome pile which he used as fuel to burn some larger logs. The surrounding air doesn't seem to bother him in the least. I never stop wondering why some people are that dense.

Cheers, CMX

My MIL raked up all the leaves and bits of wood in the garden last night then sat outside all evening burning them and warming her hands.

She's got enough left to light another fire tonight.

[Mapguy]

There was a huge increase yesterday reported (today) by FIRMS satellite for Doi Suthep-Pui in the number of fires --- and the satellite passes do miss most fires for various reasons, such as cloud cover, size and length of the blaze. That's been pretty easy to catch by "ground-truthing." This report included 16. Normally, daily reports are 2 - 3.

Here is some general information which should be helpful, especially to newcomers suffering the seasonal air pollution in Chiang Mai. Some of it has been posted on TV in years past but not this time around. There have been several threads on the topic before.

How (Un)Healthy Is the Air?

I recall that the "health standards" below originated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I believe they are still used in Thailand. There are more thorough versions of these standards, and individual vulnerability to air pollution does vary, but they are handy enough.

What Particulate Matter Is Most Dangerous to Health?

It has already been pointed out that PM<2.5 is the particularly insidious airborne particulate matter. Below is a brief explanation.

PM<2.5 and PM<10 are positively correlated: 40 - 60% of PM<10 consists of PM<2.5 The latter, except for various research projects, is not measured in Thailand, or in most countries, for that fact, but measuring PM<2.5 is becoming the new standard. It is the truly nasty stuff. There has been increased interest in recent years in measuring and understanding the impact on health of PM <2.5. Apparently there is more concern than before about short-term as opposed to long term exposure to PM<2.5 on health.

There is probably a more recent version of the following fact sheet, but I haven't looked it up. Anyway, there are also many sources of more detailed information including projections of mortality and morbidity rates, the impact of long- and short-range exposure, and so on. Here's the fact sheet except for two tables which are not really needed for understanding, but the references are included.

Fact sheet EURO/04/05

Berlin, Copenhagen, Rome, 14 April 2005

Particulate matter air pollution: how it harms health

Definition

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. Effects related to short-term exposure include: inflammatory reactions in the

lung, respiratory symptoms, adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases in

medication use, hospital admissions and mortality.

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....ment/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 longterm

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.

1 Pope AC et al. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air

pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287:1132–1141 (2002).

2 Pope AC et al. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287:1132–1141 (2002); and Pope AC et al. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution. Circulation, 109:71–77 (2004).

Fact Sheet EURO/04/05

page 4

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....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:

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:

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:

What about Number Crunching?

There have been some doubting Thomases posting comments about the veracity of the measurements taken by the Pollution Control Department in Thailand. As Priceless pointed out several threads ago on this topic, there is no real reason to doubt the readings or to suspect that they are tampered with. But there is a problem having to do with measurement: the paucity of reporting stations. The "best available data" for Chiang Mai come from readings at just two stations within Chiang Mai Province, one at the governmental complex north of town (at a fairly traffic-free location) and one at Yupparaj School (on a fairly busy intersection inside the moat). Neither is a location where burning takes place.

Although the point is well-taken that statistical manipulation of such limited data can be overdone, the results of sensible statistical analysis in this case basically gibe with simpler observation of air pollution be it viewed from the air, from the peak of Doi Inthanon, from your window, or on top of your dining room table. The reporting station numbers don't apply everywhere in the province, but there's no reason to think these data have been "cooked," and they are reasonably indicative of what's been experienced within the valley in which the city lies as well as useful in detecting trends.

Want More Information?

There is a huge amount of information about air pollution to access on the web. Here's one place to start. I included one WHO reference above. Here's a good general place to start developed by the U.S. Environmental Agency: http://www.epa.gov/a...ticlepollution/

Edited February 24, 2012 by Tywais
E-mails removed as per forum rules

[Mapguy]

Sorry! Can't get the table to load. Here's what it says:

PM<10

Good: <40

Moderately-Polluted: 41-120

Unhealthful: 100 - 200

Very Unhealthful: 351 - 420

Hazardous: 420+

I dimly remember one dim day in 2007 when we had a reading above 300.

[chiangmaiexpat]

Probably it's more like:

PM<10

Breathable: <40

Unhealthy: 41-120

Hazardous: 100 - 200

Extremely Hazardous: 351 - 420

Lethal: 420+

The gaps and overlaps in the intervals are probably a good indicator for the absence of a solid scientific foundation of this classification.

Edited February 25, 2012 by chiangmaiexpat

[scotbeve]

Are they passing this info & warning on to schools?

Apparently, they don't. Our older daughter went on a forest field trip today, and the younger one went last week. The schools still do outdoor sport, too. As expected, they choose to completely ignore the problem.

Cheers, CMX

I forbid my son to play any sports during this time. He's very active in sports but found out the hard way (didn't heed my advice) what this smog can do to ones lungs.

[Thailand]

Not seeing too many posts from the "what pollution", no problem for me,weathers great, brigade at the moment.

The filter test on my pool is a good indicator. Over a 24 hour period the filter goes in white and comes out grey/black - it's what you are breathing out there as well! Been seeing that for the last couple of weeks.

And no it's not dirt etc from the surrounding area it's straight out of the sky.

[siouxzen]

"siouxzen, what are your thoughts regarding the effectiveness of the C-130 military transport aircraft spraying the water into the air?"

I'm not familiar with this method. I know it's been done in Southern California during and immediately after forest fires, but honestly I have no idea what the scale of those were and how they would compare to Chiang Mai.

Without doing my research, I'd imagine it wouldn't hurt, though I'm not sure it's the most efficient use of resources to get the problem under control.

[nikster]

Can anyone reccomend safer places in Thailand which does not have this health hazard, short of leaving the country that is .

Appriciate any and all advice

Hua Hin is fine. Anywhere near the ocean is fine, I guess.

We drove the car all the way from Chiang Mai to Hua Hin and to be honest there was haze all along the way. The worst in the north up until south of Tak, but unlike in other years it didn't get much better after that. Even Bangkok seemed to have some haze - maybe it's the normal pollution there, or maybe northern winds? Don't know but BKK did not look a whole lot better than CM the day we left (PM10 around 100).

Here in Hua Hin we're enjoying a clean sea breeze. Just don't go in the water 555

[chiangmaiexpat]

I would be quite interested in what we can do on an individual level to mitigate the adverse health effects of the smog, short of leaving Northern Thailand. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone. In times like this, the government usually recommends to stay indoors and refrain from strenuous outdoor activity, but I wonder whether there is there any scientific evidence to suggest that the PM concentration inside the house is actually lower than outside?

For example, our house is designed for passive cooling, and therefore relatively open and breezy, which is likely a disadvantage in this season. I can shut the doors and windows, of course, but I doubt that this alone will help to reduce PM inside the house. What effect does air circulation have? What about the effectiveness of air conditioners? What about the effectiveness of additional filters, air purifiers with HEPA filters, air moisturisers, and similar devices? I am prepared to buy these devices for our house if they are effective.

Can we do something to help our bodies to deal with the increased load of toxins?

Unfortunately, the officials and media in Thailand don't have much substantial to say about these topics.

Cheers, CMX

[chiang mai]

Can anyone reccomend safer places in Thailand which does not have this health hazard, short of leaving the country that is .

Appriciate any and all advice

We lived here in Chiang Mai for four years before the burning season got too much for us and in 2007 we moved to Phuket, in the four subsequent years we had almost no health complaints at all

whereas in Chiang Mai I was constantly coming down with all sorts of nasty respiratory ailments. By a quirk of fate we are now back in Chiang Mai and have really enjoyed the past six months here, it remains

to be seen what the effects of this burning season have in store for us health wise and that will likely determine our future plans. But to answer your question specifically. the statisticians may not rate Phuket's air as the cleanest

but it certainly does the job as far as I'm concerned, visibility is nearly always excellent and there's very little sense of pollution at any time other than when the winds from Indonesia bring smoke Northwards. The trade offs

of course between the two locations is higher cost of living and constant humidity.

[chiang mai]

I would be quite interested in what we can do on an individual level to mitigate the adverse health effects of the smog, short of leaving Northern Thailand. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone. In times like this, the government usually recommends to stay indoors and refrain from strenuous outdoor activity, but I wonder whether there is there any scientific evidence to suggest that the PM concentration inside the house is actually lower than outside?

For example, our house is designed for passive cooling, and therefore relatively open and breezy, which is likely a disadvantage in this season. I can shut the doors and windows, of course, but I doubt that this alone will help to reduce PM inside the house. What effect does air circulation have? What about the effectiveness of air conditioners? What about the effectiveness of additional filters, air purifiers with HEPA filters, air moisturisers, and similar devices? I am prepared to buy these devices for our house if they are effective.

Can we do something to help our bodies to deal with the increased load of toxins?

Unfortunately, the officials and media in Thailand don't have much substantial to say about these topics.

Cheers, CMX

The engineers who have tackled this problem over the years will tell you that you need to create a positive airflow where the air pressure inside your house is greater than the outside, you can do this by installing an air feed from the outside that is heavily filtered and is driven by something similar to a vacuum cleaner motor, that set up will mean that the only air entering your home is via the filtered intake (providing you keep all other windows and doors closed that is). Just remember to change the filters on a regular basis.

[CMwanderer]

I agree - what can we be doing personally on a daily basis to try and get through this?

[Thailand]

I agree - what can we be doing personally on a daily basis to try and get through this?

And stopping breathing is not a current option although this pollution could take us to that state quicker than we would want!

[ludditeman]

I would be quite interested in what we can do on an individual level to mitigate the adverse health effects of the smog, short of leaving Northern Thailand. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone. In times like this, the government usually recommends to stay indoors and refrain from strenuous outdoor activity, but I wonder whether there is there any scientific evidence to suggest that the PM concentration inside the house is actually lower than outside?

Last Friday a group of us went hiking in the mountains near CM. This is a walk we do often and most of us are fairly fit. On Friday, we were out of breath and panting after a kilometer. Something that hasn't happened before. It was very strange.

[cloudhopper]

Can anyone reccomend safer places in Thailand which does not have this health hazard, short of leaving the country that is .

Appriciate any and all advice

Hua Hin is fine. Anywhere near the ocean is fine, I guess.

We drove the car all the way from Chiang Mai to Hua Hin and to be honest there was haze all along the way. The worst in the north up until south of Tak, but unlike in other years it didn't get much better after that. Even Bangkok seemed to have some haze - maybe it's the normal pollution there, or maybe northern winds? Don't know but BKK did not look a whole lot better than CM the day we left (PM10 around 100).

Here in Hua Hin we're enjoying a clean sea breeze. Just don't go in the water 555

I'm in Phuket and the air quality is quite good.

But the odds of being a crime victim or a traffic fatality are such that the overall risk is probably much greater here.

[MESmith]

Last Friday a group of us went hiking in the mountains near CM. This is a walk we do often and most of us are fairly fit. On Friday, we were out of breath and panting after a kilometer. Something that hasn't happened before. It was very strange.

Have you tried hiking near the top of Doi Pui? Maybe above the smog? A great walk is to drive up to Ban Doi Pui, the hill tribe village further on from Phuping Palace. Go through the gardens, & on to Doi Pa Kha or Doi Pui.

[MESmith]

I would be quite interested in what we can do on an individual level to mitigate the adverse health effects of the smog, short of leaving Northern Thailand. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone. In times like this, the government usually recommends to stay indoors and refrain from strenuous outdoor activity, but I wonder whether there is there any scientific evidence to suggest that the PM concentration inside the house is actually lower than outside?

For example, our house is designed for passive cooling, and therefore relatively open and breezy, which is likely a disadvantage in this season. I can shut the doors and windows, of course, but I doubt that this alone will help to reduce PM inside the house. What effect does air circulation have? What about the effectiveness of air conditioners? What about the effectiveness of additional filters, air purifiers with HEPA filters, air moisturisers, and similar devices? I am prepared to buy these devices for our house if they are effective.

Can we do something to help our bodies to deal with the increased load of toxins?

Unfortunately, the officials and media in Thailand don't have much substantial to say about these topics.

Cheers, CMX

Just speaking from experience, the air inside our house "feels ok" . If I venture into the garden without my n95 mask on, I don't feel ok. I'm planning on rigging up a ring of small sprinklers around the outside of the house. Good for the garden, & maybe cleanse the air near the entrances to the house.

[T_Dog]

Last Friday a group of us went hiking in the mountains near CM. This is a walk we do often and most of us are fairly fit. On Friday, we were out of breath and panting after a kilometer. Something that hasn't happened before. It was very strange.

Have you tried hiking near the top of Doi Pui? Maybe above the smog? A great walk is to drive up to Ban Doi Pui, the hill tribe village further on from Phuping Palace. Go through the gardens, & on to Doi Pa Kha or Doi Pui.

I wonder what level the inversion layer is at this year? In 2007, one of the "other" bad years, you could find clean air at or above Wat Doi Suthep as the inversion layer was right around 900 meters MSL. A hike or mountain bike ride up there would be nice if it is clear...... From that hill tribe village you mention, there is a trail that leads you to Doi Pa Klong or Drum Mountain. Beautiful place and if the air is clear, definitely a better place to be. Since 2001, this is the first year where the general air is making me sneeze and making my eyes sore. Very unhealthy feeling.

[MESmith]

Last Friday a group of us went hiking in the mountains near CM. This is a walk we do often and most of us are fairly fit. On Friday, we were out of breath and panting after a kilometer. Something that hasn't happened before. It was very strange.

Have you tried hiking near the top of Doi Pui? Maybe above the smog? A great walk is to drive up to Ban Doi Pui, the hill tribe village further on from Phuping Palace. Go through the gardens, & on to Doi Pa Kha or Doi Pui.

I wonder what level the inversion layer is at this year? In 2007, one of the "other" bad years, you could find clean air at or above Wat Doi Suthep as the inversion layer was right around 900 meters MSL. A hike or mountain bike ride up there would be nice if it is clear...... From that hill tribe village you mention, there is a trail that leads you to Doi Pa Klong or Drum Mountain. Beautiful place and if the air is clear, definitely a better place to be. Since 2001, this is the first year where the general air is making me sneeze and making my eyes sore. Very unhealthy feeling.

Doi Pa Klong = Doi Pa Kha. It's named Doi Pa Kha on the map. If you do the ascent as I describe, there's not much altitude gain, quite an easy walk, under cover of forest And great views to Doi Inthanon, tho' maybe only the top right now....

[T_Dog]

Doi Pa Klong = Doi Pa Kha. It's named Doi Pa Kha on the map. If you do the ascent as I describe, there's not much altitude gain, quite an easy walk, under cover of forest And great views to Doi Inthanon, tho' maybe only the top right now....

Aha! I thought that. That trail along the pine needles on that ridge is very nice. Nice to see you get out there MESmith!

[Mapguy]

"siouxzen, what are your thoughts regarding the effectiveness of the C-130 military transport aircraft spraying the water into the air?"

I'm not familiar with this method. I know it's been done in Southern California during and immediately after forest fires, but honestly I have no idea what the scale of those were and how they would compare to Chiang Mai.

Without doing my research, I'd imagine it wouldn't hurt, though I'm not sure it's the most efficient use of resources to get the problem under control.

A very thoughtful and considered (tongue in cheek?) way to put your initial reaction to this notion! Hope you stay around! To repeat a blatant opinion (by an engineer) heard elsewhere today: "Like pissing into the ocean!"

[MESmith]

"siouxzen, what are your thoughts regarding the effectiveness of the C-130 military transport aircraft spraying the water into the air?"

I'm not familiar with this method. I know it's been done in Southern California during and immediately after forest fires, but honestly I have no idea what the scale of those were and how they would compare to Chiang Mai.

Without doing my research, I'd imagine it wouldn't hurt, though I'm not sure it's the most efficient use of resources to get the problem under control.

A very thoughtful and considered (tongue in cheek?) way to put your initial reaction to this notion! Hope you stay around! To repeat a blatant opinion (by an engineer) heard elsewhere today: "Like pissing into the ocean!"

Maybe the illustrious science minister, Mr Plodprasop, famed for clearing the floods with 1000 boats, will line up planes on CNX runway, to blow away the smog

[Mapguy]

First, I thank Tywalis for the brief private tutorial on attaching pdf files to replies in the new version of TV.

So, I shall attempt to post the images I wished to post earlier. See below, I hope?

The Particle SIze Diagram:

Simplistic, but it does give you an idea of why PM<2.5 is particularly troublesome. That stuff can get into your blood stream! Check it out by surfing the web, if you wish.

The Diagram Reflecting Health Standards of Pollution Levels:

Someone has commented rather cynically on the commonly-used standards to measure various ranges of air pollution. True, these are general standards, and the ranges are quite broad. They were not derived so simply as one might suppose. If you wish to see much more thorough reserach-based rationale for these standards, you can find them with assiduous web searching. The point of simpllfying the numbers is to help common folk like us understand when we should really close the doors, shut the windows and turn on the air filters. (Always keep in mind, of course, that pollution affects people differently depending upon age and other factors).

And a surprise from the past!

A bonus illustration of London in 1952 which makes one pause to criticize. All those chimney pots and all that coal! The world not according to Mary Poppins, just to select one relatively recent romantic cinamatic image of coal-burning Britain.! But recall that the UK was an "economically REdeveloping" nation in 1952. Anyone care to share a similar photo of Los Angeles, California, once upon a time?

So, here goes!

PM Particle Size Illustration.pdf

[softgeorge]

I flew in this morning from K.L and you could not see a single thing from above, absolutely no vision what so ever until we got down to just above the rooftops. You can imagine some of the comments on the plane from tourists just arriving.

[MESmith]

And a surprise from the past!

A bonus illustration of London in 1952 which makes one pause to criticize. All those chimney pots and all that coal! The world not according to Mary Poppins, just to select one relatively recent romantic cinamatic image of coal-burning Britain.! But recall that the UK was an "economically REdeveloping" nation in 1952. Anyone care to share a similar photo of Los Angeles, California, once upon a time?

So, here goes!

And the UK did something about it!!

[Mapguy]

Seems I have figured out the attachment posting technique. I am ecstatic, but still realize not all readers are! Nonetheless, to continue on another comment du moment: trying to suggest how farang can help out with the pollution bit.

I want to try to spark a new discussion about constructive things that culturally interloping hoi polloi, like you and I, can attempt. The last constructive occasion for this arose in 2007 (when we were all choking on the smoke!) I sense that TV has a somewhat different active contributing membership these days, perhaps general readership. Anyway, opinions change over time!

Another illustration (to add to a post above) that I have dug up from a 2007 (simply awful pollution year!) discussion right here on TV is appended (I hope!). It is a card that one might present to neighbors and others as a friendly "educational tool." I am not the author. Please do not attach the card to a large stone and heave it at them or through the smoke in the dead of night! That's definitely not the way to do it! (And, those proficient in Thai manner of expression and custom, might well improve upon it!)

I suggest, in any case, that you get to know your neighbors first. Say hello! "Cake and cookies" are similar to the Thai way. Chat them up! Foreigners need to loosen up...or we might dry up! Wouldn't that be smart anywhere? What about the place you came from? It is oft noted that Thais don't appreciate confrontation. That's not so culturally specific, really, is it ? If under particular pollution distress, offer the card with a smile and an appropriate wai. I am not among those who believe that transporting one's culture and building walls and snappy-saluting security around it here works. Similar to past experience in Italy (the Amalfi Peninsula), later the Costa del Sol; or, Canadians in the Islands or for Americans, egregiously secured in walled compounds in Mexico nonetheless within easy reach of their national health scheme, such settlement doesn't create a sense of neighborliness!

So, rant over! Here (I hope!) is the attachment! Suggestions about improvements always welcome! As well as comments, of course! Oh dear, did I say that!