Air in Bangkok least polluted among world’s global cities

[SoiBiker]

They are comparing major cities after all.

Exactly. The way some people talk about Bangkok, I think the biggest place they'd previously lived was probably somewhere like Halifax.

[Alration]

Survey done by whom, DOT Property, trying to sell Thailand property, right! In August no less, come back and do it again in March!!!

Wrong!

DOT Property did not do the survey. "Nature" published the research, Airport Parking And Hotels put the report together, DOT just wrote about it.

What difference would doing the report in March have made?

This time of the year in Thailand typically has the cleanest air of the year, temperatures are lower, there is no inversion layer and there is no burning. Come February the burning season will be in full swing in Thailand and the surrounding countries, Myanmar in particular, at that time the PM10 number will soar from a very pleasant 30 or so currently, up to as high as 300 or 350 or higher as farmers and hill tribes burn/clear the land for planting. Watch the numbers from February through May.

The OP is about air quality in Bangkok, don't think you'll find much "burning" here, nor many hill tribesmen.

The OP also made the point that there is no correlation between temperature and air quality.

[Alration]

Serious question, I think we can all agree that most vehicles here emit more exhaust than in Europe with its strict regulations, catalyst converters and so. Sure many taxis use LPG, but so in Amsterdam. If the research is correct, one can only conclude that all these eco-regulations, eco-tax and what all, are worth nothing, and do not contribute at all to a cleaner environment. Or am I missing something?

The first thing that you're wrong about is your banal assumption that "we can all agree that most vehicles here emit more exhaust than in Europe". Secondly, Thailand has emissions requirements and, believe it or not, has required vehicles to be fitted with catalytic converters for decades.

All taxis use LPG but I'm not sure what taxis have to do with this, there are far more private vehicles in Bangkok than there are taxis.

[chiang mai]

Survey done by whom, DOT Property, trying to sell Thailand property, right! In August no less, come back and do it again in March!!!

Wrong!

DOT Property did not do the survey. "Nature" published the research, Airport Parking And Hotels put the report together, DOT just wrote about it.

What difference would doing the report in March have made?

This time of the year in Thailand typically has the cleanest air of the year, temperatures are lower, there is no inversion layer and there is no burning. Come February the burning season will be in full swing in Thailand and the surrounding countries, Myanmar in particular, at that time the PM10 number will soar from a very pleasant 30 or so currently, up to as high as 300 or 350 or higher as farmers and hill tribes burn/clear the land for planting. Watch the numbers from February through May.

The OP is about air quality in Bangkok, don't think you'll find much "burning" here, nor many hill tribesmen.

The OP also made the point that there is no correlation between temperature and air quality.

The burning season in SE Asia affects all parts of the country, based on wind direction, Bangkok is not immune from airborne pollution from Indonesia and Malaysia and from Myanmar, check the AQI site and look at the numbers for Bangkok during that period.

There is a clear and undeniable link between temperature and the inversion layer which is prevalent in Chiang Mai Province and is only present in the hot season.

http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/inversionlayer.htm

[balo]

I believe it. Their air here is much better than HK or Singapore. They are comparing major cities after all. The only thing that gets me here is the buses but I think the topography of BKK means the pollution isn't trapped like a lot of cities.

OB

I have no problems to understand the air quality in BKK is better than in Hong Kong or Singapore. It is the comparison with Amsterdam that is just so wrong. Amsterdam is one of the cleanest cities in Europe , the locals park their cars and do lots of bicycling , fresh breeze coming from the ocean. nice green parks in the centre of the city. It's an eco friendly city , I just don't see Bangkok winning that battle at all .

[lopburi3]

Bangkok AQI: Bangkok Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI).

16

Good

Updated on Thursday 20:00

Temp: 32°C

Amsterdam AQI: Amsterdam Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI).

62

Moderate

Updated on Thursday 13:00

Temp: 8°C

Current readings

[wow64]

What a load of crap... I can smell it also.

[Thian]

Bangkok AQI: Bangkok Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI).

16

Good

Updated on Thursday 20:00

Temp: 32°C

Amsterdam AQI: Amsterdam Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI).

62

Moderate

Updated on Thursday 13:00

Temp: 8°C

Current readings

I bet that if we drive around Bangkok for a day on a motorbike with a mouthmask and do the same in Amsterdam that the mouthmask from Bangkok is much more dirty.

[lopburi3]

But that would likely be a traffic density issue - sure there are dirty areas in Bangkok as in all cities - but overall Bangkok is not Beijing (where just seeing across the street becomes a challenge during the winter months) but in fact Bangkok is quite clean..

[Alration]

This time of the year in Thailand typically has the cleanest air of the year, temperatures are lower, there is no inversion layer and there is no burning. Come February the burning season will be in full swing in Thailand and the surrounding countries, Myanmar in particular, at that time the PM10 number will soar from a very pleasant 30 or so currently, up to as high as 300 or 350 or higher as farmers and hill tribes burn/clear the land for planting. Watch the numbers from February through May.

The OP is about air quality in Bangkok, don't think you'll find much "burning" here, nor many hill tribesmen.

The OP also made the point that there is no correlation between temperature and air quality.

The burning season in SE Asia affects all parts of the country, based on wind direction, Bangkok is not immune from airborne pollution from Indonesia and Malaysia and from Myanmar, check the AQI site and look at the numbers for Bangkok during that period.

There is a clear and undeniable link between temperature and the inversion layer which is prevalent in Chiang Mai Province and is only present in the hot season.

http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/inversionlayer.htm

The OP is about measured air quality, not the inversion layer, in Bangkok and other international cities, nothing to do with Chiang Mai, and it clearly states that there was no correlation between air quality and temperature.

[chiang mai]

This time of the year in Thailand typically has the cleanest air of the year, temperatures are lower, there is no inversion layer and there is no burning. Come February the burning season will be in full swing in Thailand and the surrounding countries, Myanmar in particular, at that time the PM10 number will soar from a very pleasant 30 or so currently, up to as high as 300 or 350 or higher as farmers and hill tribes burn/clear the land for planting. Watch the numbers from February through May.

The OP is about air quality in Bangkok, don't think you'll find much "burning" here, nor many hill tribesmen.

The OP also made the point that there is no correlation between temperature and air quality.

The burning season in SE Asia affects all parts of the country, based on wind direction, Bangkok is not immune from airborne pollution from Indonesia and Malaysia and from Myanmar, check the AQI site and look at the numbers for Bangkok during that period.

There is a clear and undeniable link between temperature and the inversion layer which is prevalent in Chiang Mai Province and is only present in the hot season.

http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/inversionlayer.htm

The OP is about measured air quality, not the inversion layer, in Bangkok and other international cities, nothing to do with Chiang Mai, and it clearly states that there was no correlation between air quality and temperature.

Reading and comprehension appear not to be your strengths, read what I wrote again in respect of Bangkok not being immune!

And whilst the report does say that it did not find any link between temperature and pollution levels, the link between the two is an undeniable fact..

[lopburi3]

Actually Bangkok is not near any of the offending fires and does not get much effect from them. Northern and Southern Thailand are the areas suffering most from forest burning in nearby countries. Most Bangkok smoke is from domestic rice field burning.

[chiang mai]

Given that we go through this subject from A - Z every year (since 2006) during burning season I'm not about to reinvent the wheel and have the debate again, if folks are seriously interested in the subject they can search the Chiang Mai forum and read the copious amount of facts and associated discussion surrounding pollution sources, imported pollution, wind directions, inversion layer et al. I'm especially not interested in having the debate when the source of the current layer of facts on this subject is an article from Airports Parking and Hotels who seem to report that the temperature and pollution levels in (all of) Mexico are 12 degrees and 91 respectively, clearly this was in Cabo St Lucas and not Mexico City! And before I'm reminded that the "facts" were prepared by "Nature" I don't see the detailed report anywhere but regardless, I doubt that anything they have produced exceeds what is already understood by modern science.

Now if anyone thinks this is an attempt at Thai bashing you need to go away and rethink things because I'm one of the most fervent defenders of most things Thai and I'm on record as such, although I do look for balance and fact. It is in that spirit that I posted about taking the readings again in March, if folks don't understand that, go do some reading and research.

[chiang mai]

Here's the NASA fires map, interested parties should zoom to SE Asia and set the dates to start on 1 March 2015 and end ten days later.

Next, set the dates to 1 August 2015 and end ten days later.

Based on what you've seen on those maps, try and tell us again that Bangkok doesn't get imported airborne pollution and that August and March air quality numbers are similar!

https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/firemap/

[Alration]

The OP is about measured air quality, not the inversion layer, in Bangkok and other international cities, nothing to do with Chiang Mai, and it clearly states that there was no correlation between air quality and temperature

Reading and comprehension appear not to be your strengths, read what I wrote again in respect of Bangkok not being immune!

And whilst the report does say that it did not find any link between temperature and pollution levels, the link between the two is an undeniable fact..

You really don't want to go down the road of reading and comprehension ability or the lack of it.

The only undeniable fact in the context of this report (and nothing else that you are trying to bring into the discussion is in connection with this report) is that the report in the OP stated that there was no link between air quality and temperature. Keep banging on about other out of context reports if you like though.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Alration

[Alration]

Given that we go through this subject from A - Z every year (since 2006) during burning season I'm not about to reinvent the wheel and have the debate again, if folks are seriously interested in the subject they can search the Chiang Mai forum and read the copious amount of facts and associated discussion surrounding pollution sources, imported pollution, wind directions, inversion layer et al. I'm especially not interested in having the debate when the source of the current layer of facts on this subject is an article from Airports Parking and Hotels who seem to report that the temperature and pollution levels in (all of) Mexico are 12 degrees and 91 respectively, clearly this was in Cabo St Lucas and not Mexico City! And before I'm reminded that the "facts" were prepared by "Nature" I don't see the detailed report anywhere but regardless, I doubt that anything they have produced exceeds what is already understood by modern science.

Now if anyone thinks this is an attempt at Thai bashing you need to go away and rethink things because I'm one of the most fervent defenders of most things Thai and I'm on record as such, although I do look for balance and fact. It is in that spirit that I posted about taking the readings again in March, if folks don't understand that, go do some reading and research.

"...I'm not about to...have the debate again..."

Thank god for that, at last.

"It is in that spirit that I posted about taking the readings again in March..."

I don't think that that is the spirit in which you posted at all, it does seem that what you want is for reports such as this to continue until one is published that shows Bangkok in not so good a light at which stage you may be happy.

[Alration]

Bangkok AQI: Bangkok Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI).

16

Good

Updated on Thursday 20:00

Temp: 32°C

Amsterdam AQI: Amsterdam Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI).

62

Moderate

Updated on Thursday 13:00

Temp: 8°C

Current readings

I bet that if we drive around Bangkok for a day on a motorbike with a mouthmask and do the same in Amsterdam that the mouthmask from Bangkok is much more dirty.

A hypothetical suggestion from someone so stubborn that he refuses to acknowledge some independent real research that is staring him in the face that will, scientifically, prove nothing.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Alration

[chiang mai]

Here's the NASA fires map, interested parties should zoom to SE Asia and set the dates to start on 1 March 2015 and end ten days later.

Next, set the dates to 1 August 2015 and end ten days later.

Based on what you've seen on those maps, try and tell us again that Bangkok doesn't get imported airborne pollution and that August and March air quality numbers are similar!

https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/firemap/

Bump.

[chiang mai]

Here, I'll save you the trouble. This is Thailand on 1 August 2015, the date of the car parks company pollution "study", each little dot represents a major fire as observed by NASA's telescopes, fires in case you didn't understand, cause airborne pollution.:

Now here's the same shot but taken on 1 March 2015, spot the difference:

Clearly the results would be very different if the tests were done on 1 March rather than on the day of the year that has the cleanest air but hey, that wouldn't be good for business, would it!

[Thian]

At high temperatures there will be ozone in the air which is bad.

So did they also measure for Ozone in this test? And are the airmeasuringstations in BKK maintained properly according the books?

[lopburi3]

Yes they measure ozone (O3) in these tests and there are many recording stations in Bangkok - take a look.

http://aqicn.org/city/bangkok/

[Thian]

Yes they measure ozone (O3) in these tests and there are many recording stations in Bangkok - take a look.

http://aqicn.org/city/bangkok/

So it's a fairy tale that hot weather creates more ozone which is airpollution?

How can BKK have good levels of ozone? There's loads of sun and it's very warm every day.

When it's a warm summerday in Amsterdam the government warns for high ozone levels because of the heat, why i never heard about that in BKK? I just don't understand it.

[chiang mai]

I'm not sure about ozone levels being good:

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/five-districts-bangkok-nonthaburi-listed-unsafe-due-poor-air-quality

"Ozone tests conducted by the PCD have shown that the amounts of ozone in the five districts are beyond the safety standard of not exceeding 100 parts per one billion parts or 100 ppb. The results are: 130 ppb in Bang Kapi; 101 ppb in Intharapitak road in Thon Buri; 112 ppb in Wang Thong Lang;123 bbp and 119 bbp in Nonthaburi’s Bang Kruey and Pakkred districts.

The PCD blamed the poor air quality to high pressure which has been blanketing most parts of the country for keeping the polluted particles from dissipating".

[lopburi3]

Conditions change - so yes they rise to poor and then fall to low levels - the current level in Bangkok is 8 (converted to AQI index) which is in the good range. But the current level of ppm10 in the air is a bit high but the overall score is still a good air quality of 16. As usual with press reports it is talking more about the past than the present. This is the current condition (and you can find for just about any large city with a key click).

http://aqicn.org/city/bangkok/

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[Alration]

Here, I'll save you the trouble. This is Thailand on 1 August 2015, the date of the car parks company pollution "study", each little dot represents a major fire as observed by NASA's telescopes, fires in case you didn't understand, cause airborne pollution.:

Clearly the results would be very different if the tests were done on 1 March rather than on the day of the year that has the cleanest air but hey, that wouldn't be good for business, would it!

Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit... We get it, you don't like the results of the test, now why don't you give it a rest.

Whatever maps or links that we're not interested in that you show will not alter the fact that the OP survey found Bangkok's air quality at the time it was done, obviously, to be better than many other cities.

[chiang mai]

Here, I'll save you the trouble. This is Thailand on 1 August 2015, the date of the car parks company pollution "study", each little dot represents a major fire as observed by NASA's telescopes, fires in case you didn't understand, cause airborne pollution.:

Clearly the results would be very different if the tests were done on 1 March rather than on the day of the year that has the cleanest air but hey, that wouldn't be good for business, would it!

Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit... We get it, you don't like the results of the test, now why don't you give it a rest.

Whatever maps or links that we're not interested in that you show will not alter the fact that the OP survey found Bangkok's air quality at the time it was done, obviously, to be better than many other cities.

You're welcome, I thought you might find it interesting.