Smoke, Smog, Dust 2014 Chiang Mai

[Choonpon]

When one day the loved ones of those perpetrators lose their lives by the very crime they committed. Then will they wake up? Sigh..

[MESmith]

From the guardian newspaper, UK

Air pollution has become the world's single biggest environmental health risk, linked to around 7 million – or nearly one in eight deaths in 2012 – according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).


The new figures are more than double previous estimates and suggest that outdoor pollution from traffic fumes and coal-burning, and indoor pollution from wood and coal stoves, kills more people than smoking, road deaths and diabetes combined.


Around 80% of the 3.7 million deaths from outdoor pollution came as a result of stroke and heart disease, 11% from lung diseases and 6% from cancers. The vast majority were in Asia, with 180,000 in the Americas and Europe combined, said the WHO.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/air-pollution-single-biggest-environmental-health-risk-who

[Somtamme]

How are we to know that the AQI reading is correct, if there are one or two readings that are not present, especialy PM10.

The important thing to be aware of is the PM10 data being reported is the raw uncorrected data and also it is quoted at every hour, which means it is generated by a continuous i.e. non-reference analyser e.g. typically a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) analyser. TEOM is known, however, to under-read with respect to the reference gravimetric method. At the end of the reporting period (calendar year) Thai authorities will apply this correction.

In terms of 'missing data', this is to be expected to a degree owing to instrument failure etc., but if data capture is less than generally 90% then another correction has to be applied which involves quoting the 24-hour means at the 90.4th percentile (in brackets).

Even in developed countries the monitoring will have some missing data.

[jonwilly]

"You also have to understand that the tools available to manage air quality have come along way from the smogs after the Second World War in Europe, which were primarily caused by widespread burning of coal. Widespread burning of agricultural crops and vegetation in ASEAN countries does seem to strike a similar cord."

Eh By Gum !

Smog like I knew as a child.

I was born in a Coal and Cotton town north of England.

If I had, had adults arms on my pre teens body i would not have seen my fingertips with outstretched arms, the smog was that bad when I walked home from school on bad days.

And crossing the main road on the three mile walk. Stop, look right, Listen, look left, listen then look right, listen and if all clear, off you go.

No wonder I have to go to the seaside these days.

john

[chiang mai]

"You also have to understand that the tools available to manage air quality have come along way from the smogs after the Second World War in Europe, which were primarily caused by widespread burning of coal. Widespread burning of agricultural crops and vegetation in ASEAN countries does seem to strike a similar cord."

Eh By Gum !

Smog like I knew as a child.

I was born in a Coal and Cotton town north of England.

If I had, had adults arms on my pre teens body i would not have seen my fingertips with outstretched arms, the smog was that bad when I walked home from school on bad days.

And crossing the main road on the three mile walk. Stop, look right, Listen, look left, listen then look right, listen and if all clear, off you go.

No wonder I have to go to the seaside these days.

john

Eeee, them were days. I remember the big smog of Batley in '61, it were two and a half weeks before we found grandad, lost in his allotment! That were proper smog that were, none of the namby pamby burning nonesence

[jonwilly]

Quite right sir, now just tell them about the Great Smog of London early to mid 50's killed thousands,

Din'it.

john

[chiang mai]

That's right, that's why London was called The Smoke. I'm actually starting to feel overcome with nostalgia, there's a tear in my eye.

[T_Dog]

Our smoke level is building at an alarming rate this morning. Went from being fairly clear at dawn to 1 km visibility at the moment with a sharp smell of smoke in the air. Hoping the afternoon winds save us, but for right now the windows are closed and filters running. Lock Down!

[Somtamme]

Quite right sir, now just tell them about the Great Smog of London early to mid 50's killed thousands,

Din'it.

john

That's just the point. Even in the UK (Air Quality Strategy (Vol. 1, 2007), 'air pollution is currently estimated to reduce the life expectancy of every person in the UK by an average of 7-8 months with estimated equivalent health costs of up to £20 billion each year' ;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69336/pb12654-air-quality-strategy-vol1-070712.pdf

This is because of small particulate matter pollution. In Thai concentrations are much higher than UK's, so life expectancy is likely to be less. The burning fields could be termed the killing fields.

[TheScribe]

I wonder why the Thai Govt. Dept.responsible calls itself the "Pollution Control Department". They do a sort-of reasonable job of reporting the air pollution across the country, but fail completely to exert any "control" at all. Is managing a few air monitoring kits and noodling about with crappy websites all they do for a living? They are likely aware of the national health costs of what their figures imply, but we never hear anything about that. Anyone know anything about what more they might be trying to do?

Just asking.

[Somtamme]

.

The reason this department as you put it, can be explained quite simply, that these departments will not tend to have the sort of budgets and powers needed to deliver the air quality action plans. It requires a range of stakeholders to deliver each action. Even to this day there are areas in city centres of Birmingham and London (http://naei.defra.gov.uk/data/gis-mapping) where there are declared air quality management areas due to the similar 24hr PM10 and have been like this for some while.

The difference with UK compared to Thailand is, the UK Govt is also accountable to the European Commission who recently have commenced infraction proceedings on the UK for its breaches in air pollution. Fines levied on central Govt departments tends to focus the attention of politicians. Making ASEAN countries accountable like this is a way forward, but I appreciate maybe some way-off.

In the mean time, it comes down to possibly writing to people like the chair of the local tourism office (Supoj Klinpraneet) to demand action and funding of these action plans on the basis of lost trade and tourism in the area. It would be interesting to know what is set out in the air quality action plans for this area?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I wonder why the Thai Govt. Dept.responsible calls itself the "Pollution Control Department". They do a sort-of reasonable job of reporting the air pollution across the country, but fail completely to exert any "control" at all. Is managing a few air monitoring kits and noodling about with crappy websites all they do for a living? They are likely aware of the national health costs of what their figures imply, but we never hear anything about that. Anyone know anything about what more they might be trying to do?

It's because those departments have absolutely nothing to say and cannot step on the toes on much more core departments like agriculture.

Something similar applies to Tourist Authority of Thailand; they do research, organize seminars and put out information all they long but can make absolutely no changes to anything.

[mrmillersr]

Just looked at the current PM10 levels for Wittayalai School. Shows readings of 299.94 at 11am and 259.77 for noon as the deadly poisoning of the air continues to escalate. These numbers are way too high so it's obvious absolutely nothing is being done to control the situation. They just don't care.

Based on what I have now read and seen, it is quite possible to have dangerous levels of air pollution on a number of days spanning from as early as January through the month of April. So planning to spend a couple of weeks somewhere south or elsewhere really doesn't work.

I think more people should consider relocating to a healthier climate especially those who already have preexisting medical conditions. It's not likely this is ever going to get any better, so for me, I would only make Chiang Mai a short term visit destination and not a place to live. Anyone else agree?

[onthedarkside]

Troll post removed.

[puck2]

I don't deny there's a lot of burning that takes place in N & N/W Thailand, the issue though is where does the majority of pollution currently affecting Chiang Mai come from.

The short answers include, external countries such as Myanmar, Laos and North Vietnam (the fire maps confirm) combined with the topography of northern Thailand and the inversion layer. It is therefore massively incorrect to assume that, just because you see fires every night (I'd move closer into town if I were you), the cause of the current pollution is derived from within Thailand's borders.

You will repeat the same theory next year and all years afterwards.

Even if somebody would invite you to cycle with him around Chiang Mai to see the fire and smell the smoke you wouldn't stop repeating your story ".... looking at the fire maps ...."

You would deny that all the smoke of the fire you see, smell, hear and feel on your skin is the reason for the high levels of smoke down in the valley.

It's reality against theory. And your theory is derived by this sentence:

From what I see and from I've seen these past ten years of looking at the pollution and of looking at the fire maps, the balance of probability is that the much of the smoke is externally sourced, the sheer density and volume of fires in the region make that an undeniable fact.

Although there will be some smoke coming in from the Northern Thai neighbours, it's not a one-way street. It seems as if you would like to play down the Thai share of the pollution in the Northern area. If you uphold your theory about the externally sourced smoke then you must also admid that a lot of smoke leaves the Thai territory. This would mean, fabricated in Thailand, but landing in neighbour countries.

Now my questions to you.

- Is the view on the (somewhat questionable) fire maps a reliable argument?

- Do you have some dead-sure details or datas about the incoming smoke different from your personal theory ?

- Don't you see any immediate connection between the fires photographed and noticed by some visa members ( i.e.. T_Dog #355, John Clarc #346) and the level of high pollution numbers at the same day? On all those days the pollution stems from the fires here in Thailand and not from anywhere else.

- Do you believe that the wind is blowing only in one direction = into Thailand? Following your dubious theory the wind blows the smog into western direction if coming from Vietnam, blowing into the southern direction when coming from the Nothern Thai-Laos borderline and at the same time blowing into the western direction if stemming from southern Laos? Then we have the Myanmar wind. Your theory says, the wind is blowing= carrying the smoke eastwards and at the same time from the North to Thailand.

Your theory is not convincing at all.

My own experience: on March 14 we flew to BKK. A few days before there was already smoke alarm in the provinces of CM and Pai which belongs to the Mae Hong Son province. In our vally we did not yet see any fires on Sunday, March 12, but there was already a smell of smoke. This was the smoke of the Pai vally creaping over the mountains.

A few days after our departure we got the information that the fires and the smoke have been extremely visible in our vally. Smoke from Myanmar? No, made in our vally. This means respecting the geography the smoke went into the direction of Myanmar. That is in strong contradiction to your theory.

I believe in Einstein's theories, but not in your vage and unprecise one.

Edited March 27, 2014 by puck2

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Just looked at the current PM10 levels for Wittayalai School. Shows readings of 299.94 at 11am and 259.77 for noon as the deadly poisoning of the air continues to escalate. These numbers are way too high so it's obvious absolutely nothing is being done to control the situation. They just don't care.

Out of curiosity, what do you propose 'they' do? Specifically right now, short-term, as you're commenting on the most recent values going up. So what could they have done last week to prevent the values going up again?

Based on what I have now read and seen, it is quite possible to have dangerous levels of air pollution on a number of days spanning from as early as January through the month of April.

I think there have been two days on record where the PM10 went over 120 in January. That was one day in 2005 and one in 2007. (And likely before 2000 too, but January data is spotty pre 2000)

But yes, that makes it definitely possible. (And for argument's sake I'll assume that 'dangerous' here means the same as 'moderate' (or 'unhealthy for sensitive groups') as per the US EPA.)

Other than that, January is pretty okay. And I mean 'okay' also compared to most other places in Thailand, including beach locations which are no means exempt from levels similar to January Chiang Mai levels. (And potentially year round too)

(Also I assume you don't smoke, because even the worst possible day in Chiang Mai is still much lower in PM10 and PM2.5 than smoking half a cigarette.)

I think more people should consider relocating to a healthier climate especially those who already have preexisting medical conditions. It's not likely this is ever going to get any better, so for me, I would only make Chiang Mai a short term visit destination and not a place to live. Anyone else agree?

Agreed. It's not going to get significantly better over the next 10 years or so. (Best case scenario is that the current trend continues, so slightly lower levels when averaged out over the years.) But there will still be >120 days in Late Feb-March-Early April, yes.

(And again for arguments sake I'll assume that 'short term visit' means something like Songkran through mid February the following year. And again, outside of the smoky season the air in Chiang Mai is much better than in Central Thailand regions, for example. So pick your destination carefully. Scotland is a good choice.)

Edited March 27, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[chiang mai]

Regrets P2 if you think the NASA fire maps are not reliable, cannot help either that you are unable to comprehend my posts, not a problem however.

Best.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I think the fire maps are very reliable in showing fires.

But it's less clear how exactly that impacts particulate pollution. For example we didn't see too many fires this week, yet the pollution levels are going up rapidly again.

Regardless though, preventing fires does seem the course of action that has the biggest chance of causing an improvement. I'd try the death penalty on people who start fires for a while (similar to the War on Drugs, which showed that a lot can be achieved when the political will is there) and then see how that goes.

[T_Dog]

I think the fire maps are very reliable in showing fires.

But it's less clear how exactly that impacts particulate pollution. For example we didn't see too many fires this week, yet the pollution levels are going up rapidly again.

Regardless though, preventing fires does seem the course of action that has the biggest chance of causing an improvement. I'd try the death penalty on people who start fires for a while (similar to the War on Drugs, which showed that a lot can be achieved when the political will is there) and then see how that goes.

Plenty of fires up here last night, especially toward Chiang Dao.

-edit... Big one just 4 km west of HWY-107 in Mae Taeng. Can't seem to see it on a fire map so the coverage must not be continuous.

Edited March 27, 2014 by T_Dog

[mrmillersr]

Just looked at the current PM10 levels for Wittayalai School. Shows readings of 299.94 at 11am and 259.77 for noon as the deadly poisoning of the air continues to escalate. These numbers are way too high so it's obvious absolutely nothing is being done to control the situation. They just don't care.

Out of curiosity, what do you propose 'they' do? Specifically right now, short-term, as you're commenting on the most recent values going up. So what could they have done last week to prevent the values going up again?

Based on what I have now read and seen, it is quite possible to have dangerous levels of air pollution on a number of days spanning from as early as January through the month of April.

I think there have been two days on record where the PM10 went over 120 in January. That was one day in 2005 and one in 2007. (And likely before 2000 too, but January data is spotty pre 2000)

But yes, that makes it definitely possible. (And for argument's sake I'll assume that 'dangerous' here means the same as 'moderate' (or 'unhealthy for sensitive groups') as per the US EPA.)

Other than that, January is pretty okay. And I mean 'okay' also compared to most other places in Thailand, including beach locations which are no means exempt from levels similar to January Chiang Mai levels. (And potentially year round too)

(Also I assume you don't smoke, because even the worst possible day in Chiang Mai is still much lower in PM10 and PM2.5 than smoking half a cigarette.)

I think more people should consider relocating to a healthier climate especially those who already have preexisting medical conditions. It's not likely this is ever going to get any better, so for me, I would only make Chiang Mai a short term visit destination and not a place to live. Anyone else agree?

Agreed. It's not going to get significantly better over the next 10 years or so. (Best case scenario is that the current trend continues, so slightly lower levels when averaged out over the years.) But there will still be >120 days in Late Feb-March-Early April, yes.

(And again for arguments sake I'll assume that 'short term visit' means something like Songkran through mid February the following year. And again, outside of the smoky season the air in Chiang Mai is much better than in Central Thailand regions, for example. So pick your destination carefully. Scotland is a good choice.)

What do I propose they do? How about making the law hard and fast and that anyone lighting fires be harshly dealt with. It should be considered a criminal offense to endanger the general public and that is exactly what is happening and on a grand scale.

Last year in January, 20% of the month the levels for PM 2.5 were considered unhealthy by Thai standards. Worse were the months of February, March and April when over 50% of the time in each month the PM 2.5 levels exceeded Thai standards.

Were you implying that breathing in PM 10 particles at levels near 400 for a day was less harmful that smoking 1/2 a cigarette? Can't find any logic to your analogy and I doubt anyone else would either. Again I will say that there is a lot more pollution in CM than people realize and I think it is bad enough that people should consider other areas to move to and no, I don't mean Scotland.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I thought that would raise questions. Anyway, the source is this: http://www.myhealthbeijing.com/china-public-health/a-day-in-beijing-is-like-smoking-only-one-sixth-of-a-cigarette-its-almost-disappointing/

We all agree it's bad though. I couldn't leave this year so on bad days (incl. today) we spend most of the time inside with some air filters running. (Because of my kids; for myself it doesn't' really affect me so I'm still out and about.

Edited March 27, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[nikster]

I always thought the solution would be to solve a simple economic equation: (Cost to the general public) vs. (Benefits to those individual responsible for the burning)

Turn that around and you have a solution. Reward the people that are now setting fires for not doing it / putting out fires.

Currently the two stand in no relation. 60,000 admitted to hospitals provides a low side estimate - true costs will be higher. Benefits - there's many stories I've heard about why farmers burn fields and forests; fields, OK - there's better ways to do agriculture, there only needs to be education. From all I can tell burning the forests is even less profitable - hunting animals that run away from the flames is one thing I've heard. Making sure mushrooms will grow is another one.

Recently read about a Chiang Mai based group that wants to do exactly that. Not sure which of the two major newspapers had the story, but it was online.

Harsher laws do nothing - the people responsible have no money, therefore police has no incentive to enforce laws, and besides, they're all locals, and pretty much everyone's doing it. Make a One Tambon No Fire kind of policy and the problem will go away soon enough. At least as far as Thailand is concerned.

[nikster]

Regrets P2 if you think the NASA fire maps are not reliable, cannot help either that you are unable to comprehend my posts, not a problem however.

Best.

I think you're just trolling?! Same thing every year.

The fire maps were showing fires all over Thailand. Also over Burma and Laos. Those Thai ones seemed to be a lot nearer to where we live though. Fires were all over the Pai valley too; and guess what, it smelled and felt like the inside of a campfire.

I also wonder what your conclusion would be if your theory, absurd as it is, were right. Call the UN to make Burma stop burning? What's the point? And what about those smoke- and odor-less Thai fires? Leave them be because they're not causing pollution?

To modify an old saying: If you have a fire in front of your house, don't worry about the fire in front of your neighbor's house.

[chiang mai]

Regrets P2 if you think the NASA fire maps are not reliable, cannot help either that you are unable to comprehend my posts, not a problem however.

Best.

I think you're just trolling?! Same thing every year.

The fire maps were showing fires all over Thailand. Also over Burma and Laos. Those Thai ones seemed to be a lot nearer to where we live though. Fires were all over the Pai valley too; and guess what, it smelled and felt like the inside of a campfire.

I also wonder what your conclusion would be if your theory, absurd as it is, were right. Call the UN to make Burma stop burning? What's the point? And what about those smoke- and odor-less Thai fires? Leave them be because they're not causing pollution?

To modify an old saying: If you have a fire in front of your house, don't worry about the fire in front of your neighbor's house.

...except the density and coverage of fires to our west (and East in Laos and North Vietnam) are far more extensive than anything that can be seen within Thailand's borders, have you ever actually looked at the fire maps and studied them!!!

[T_Dog]

Here is the last 24 hours of fires near Chiang Mai. Chiang Mai is in the center of the image and all these events are within a 100 km radius. We saw some fires in the hills yesterday that lasted several hours but they do not appear here for some reason. There seems to be an extremely high density of fires to the southwest of Chiang Mai toward Doi Inthanon.

[puck2]

Regrets P2 if you think the NASA fire maps are not reliable, cannot help either that you are unable to comprehend my posts, not a problem however.

Best.

Read T_Dog's postings #409 and #415 and then you should think about the reliability of the fire maps and your own theory. That are only 2 examples, but there are more.

Your reaction to my posting is the typical answer of somebody who wouldn't like to reply to my questions about the reliability of your theory. May I repeat them?

- Is the view on the (somewhat questionable) fire maps a reliable argument?

- Do you have some dead-sure details or datas about the incoming smoke different from your personal theory ?

- Don't you see any immediate connection between the fires photographed and noticed by some visa members ( i.e.. T_Dog #355, John Clarc #346) and the level of high pollution numbers at the same day? On all those days the pollution stems from the fires here in Thailand and not from anywhere else.

- Do you believe that the wind is blowing only in one direction = into Thailand? Following your dubious theory the wind blows the smog into western direction if coming from Vietnam, blowing into the southern direction when coming from the Nothern Thai-Laos borderline and at the same time blowing into the western direction if stemming from southern Laos? Then we have the Myanmar wind. Your theory says, the wind is blowing= carrying the smoke eastwards and at the same time from the North to Thailand.

Edited March 28, 2014 by puck2

[chiang mai]

I've never quite understood why some posters get so upset at the idea that there may be another PART of the answer somewhere else, other than the obvious that sits in their

back yard - that is unless they come home at 1 am after a skinful and feel the need to rant!

Of course there's burning taking place in Thailand, that fact was never disputed. And as a mere mortal I use the best available tools I can find to help me better understand the problem, NASA firemaps seem like a sensible tool to meet that objective.

So what do I see on the firemaps? I see a density and coverage of fires in neighboring countries that exceeds far beyond anything I see in Thailand. Not knowing much about air/wind currents/direction, other than what I have picked up from looking at weather maps from time to time, and, listening to the sagely advice of posters on TVF for the past ten years where this subject has been debated each year, I conclude the following:

With such a high density and proliferation of fires in Myanmar and Laos, it is inevitable that some airborne pollution will be derived from those sources.

Air/wind currents flow are different at different altitudes, poster "cloudhopper" confirmed this via his flying knowledge some years ago and is indeed a fact.

The inversion layer has a role to play in all of this in the context of air direction and flow. It is evident from the fire maps that Chiang Mai proper sees very little burning, understandably, yet the residue from the burning efforts elsewhere manifest themselves in Chiang Mai city.

So, nobody is denying local burning exists, but I think it would be naive to believe the problem we see currently in CM is entirely locally sourced.

[T_Dog]

I surely don't dispute that burning is a problem across Southeast Asia and other countries contribute to our local problem. What I know is that when you get 150 kilometers from a fire, you do not have visibilities of 300-1000 meters like we occasionally have around Chiang Mai. The high levels of smoke and particulate that Chiang Mai residents suffer from is from local forest burning. I have spent a lot of time flying near forest fires in Idaho, Washington, and Montana, some as large as 170,000 acres, and I can assure you that when you get 100 miles away from a fire, the visibilities will never be less than five kilometers. Get within 20 miles of a fire, and visibilities are much lower. If Thailand cleaned up ITS act, we would have some haze on the horizon, but we would not have choking air and visibilities less than a few kilometers. You don't have to look far to find scorched forests here, but unfortunately there is no movement to ever change the habits.

[nikster]

@chiang mai - fires in neighboring countries are fewer than in thailand. I don't have the time or energy to refute every single one of your posts so I put the burden of proof for this one on you. Show me those maps where Burma has a lot more fires. Because all the ones posted in this forum show either an even number or more in Thailand. Just look 3 posts up.

When you have a fire, don't blame your neighbor for the smoke.

If Thailand cleaned up ITS act, we would have some haze on the horizon, but we would not have choking air and visibilities less than a few kilometers.

^^ exactly!

[Tywais]

@chiang mai - fires in neighboring countries are fewer than in thailand. I don't have the time or energy to refute every single one of your posts so I put the burden of proof for this one on you. Show me those maps where Burma has a lot more fires. Because all the ones posted in this forum show either an even number or more in Thailand. Just look 3 posts up.

When you have a fire, don't blame your neighbor for the smoke.

Tell that to Singapore and southern Thailand when Indonesia does its thing.

I would say the main reason so far that we are not getting as much from our northern neighbor is the wind has been favorable. Get a nice Chinese front coming along and winds coming from the north and suspect the percentage of this from Burma will jump.