Smoke, Smog, Dust 2016-2017 Chiang Mai

[Konini]

It is looking very, very grim out there this morning, Doi Sutep isn't the only thing I can't see from the balcony. On a brighter note, the forecasts were correct and it is definitely cooler.

[arithai12]

Yes, bad in CM this morning. The worst so far this year.

[MESmith]

Should be clear, soon

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/905547-thai-air-force-to-spray-water-over-haze-cloaked-north/#entry10568027

[keo]

Both CM and CR are quite clear of smog

All the smoke has been reported to come from neighbouring countries.

Are you serious? Take a look outside, the air in Chiang Mai is an absolute disgrace.

And don't be fooled by the Thais pointing their fingers at Burma and Laos. That's just their way of skirting the responsibility of actually doing something about the burning problem here.

[chiang mai]

Both CM and CR are quite clear of smog

All the smoke has been reported to come from neighbouring countries.

Are you serious? Take a look outside, the air in Chiang Mai is an absolute disgrace.

And don't be fooled by the Thais pointing their fingers at Burma and Laos. That's just their way of skirting the responsibility of actually doing something about the burning problem here.

That is not to say that the burning in and the pollution from Myanmar is a small problem, potentially one that could dwarf the local problem at times, as posts 252 and 253 so very clearly show.

[tropico]

According to aqmthai the PM 10 is 230 and PM 2.5 is 130.

The american consulate registered PM 2.5 to be 172, so even worse. The average within 24 hours was registered as 90 micrograms per m3.

This is pure insanity!!!

The world health organization sets limits to 50 and 25 micrograms per m3 respectively of daily average. Beyond that it is very hazardous to be outside.

Somebody should lose their jobs!!

This is criminal negligence, and poisoning of millions of people!

[CNXBKKMAN]

Today must be the worst day so far. All my usual landmarks are barely visible. Visibility must be about 1km. I cycle from the 700 year stadium to Huay Tung Tau regularly. the track through the forest at the base of the mountain. That area has been burned to a crisp on many different days. It must only benefit a very small number of people. The people who run HTT are pro burning but they think it tidys the place up. It looks very ugly and is totally unnecessary.

[Cpkt8]

Can't see Doi Suthep [emoji40]

[tropico]

Today must be the worst day so far. All my usual landmarks are barely visible. Visibility must be about 1km. I cycle from the 700 year stadium to Huay Tung Tau regularly. the track through the forest at the base of the mountain. That area has been burned to a crisp on many different days. It must only benefit a very small number of people. The people who run HTT are pro burning but they think it tidys the place up. It looks very ugly and is totally unnecessary.

A few weeks ago I went to HTT and I noticed the burnt fields inside the area and I asked explanation at the ticket counter. They said that the fire came from outside. Total BS since there was no burnt vegetation beyond that area and the burnt area was square properly managed to stop where they wanted. Its just ridiculous....there is no education and no willingness to change things.

[vivid]

Chiang Mai.....going up.

[chiang mai]

For the very first time this season that I've noticed, despite the abundance of trees, pollution in Mae Rim is looking very very bad.

[Tywais]

I formally declare this the worse pollution day of the year, at least subjectively.

Couldn't even see Doi Suthep from the university and my eyes are not happy. Couple of colleagues at work also complaining about their eyes and stuffy/sniffling noses.

[elephant45]

Chiang Mai Air Quality

By JM

China Hotel Guide

• Tianfu Sunshine Hotel

• Tibet Hotel Chengdu

• Traffic Hotel Chengdu

• Xin Hua International Hotel Chengdu

Is Chiang Mai Habitable by Humans?

Given its famed air pollution levels, is Chiang Mai habitable by humans? I’ll let you read the below and answer the question for yourself.

All urban air is ‘dangerous’ to some degree: civilisation produces air pollutants, and these damage health. However for a significant portion of the year Chiang Mai’s air is more polluted than that of most cities. This is because of the high level of burning around the city and beyond, and the northwestern Suthep Range, which blocks the northwesterly and southeasterly winds – winds which would otherwise wash out air pollution - during the cool and rainy seasons respectively. In addition, a drier dry season in the north means there is less rain to settle pollutants.

Thus, according to one study, in 6 of the 7 categories of air pollution measured in both cities, Chiang Mai had higher concentrations than Bangkok – in most cases far higher concentrations.

More specifically, Chiang Mai’s level of particulates of less than 10 microns (<PM10s – the small particles from burning grass and leaves, and from cooking fires) is usually higher than most other cities in Thailand, including Bangkok.

Because of their size, the <PM10s more readily lodge in the lungs. They carry a potent carcinogen - polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons also cause more severe attacks in asthmatics and heart disease patients.

In 1999, 45% of Chiang Mai residents suffered from respiratory problems, according to Duangchan Charoenmuang, who has long studied Chiang Mai’s air at the Urban Development Institute Foundation.

As for ultra-small particles – the <PM2.5s – an informal, one-day measurement taken by the Unit for Social and Environmental Research found them to be double the US EPA standard. “The effects of breathing air with a high <PM 2.5 concentration,” says the Unit’s Po Garden, “can include premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function particularly in children and individuals with asthma.”

The broader Air Quality Index (AQI) is a measure of most known air pollutants. The AQI is frequently elevated above dangerous levels in Chiang Mai, on and off, for several months of the year – usually the January-March ‘burning season’, but frequently longer. The city’s AQI readings are more often than not higher than those of other Thai cities including Bangkok.

Some of Chiang Mai’s smog is carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide from industrial and vehicle emissions and cooking fires; and dust from building projects. The levels vary across the municipality – e.g. they’re much higher at Wararot Market and in Thapae Road.

But most of the ‘smog’ is smoke, and this comes from the deliberate burning of crops and other vegetation, and of forests (often by villagers to trigger the growth of wild ‘throb’ mushrooms, or by poachers to flush out game); and also from non-deliberate forest and grass fires. These smoke sources are local (Chiang Mai province), regional (northern Thailand) and international (Burma and Laos; but also the ‘Asian Brown Cloud’ stretching from eastern China through Southeast Asia to Pakistan). No-one knows proportionally how much smoke comes from each area.

(As lowland agriculturalists in the north allegedly only burn selectively, and because so many forest fires are raging in the highlands - many deliberately lit - the current theory is that these highland forest fires – coupled with an abnormal cold front from China that is trapping haze in the northern valleys - are the prime source of Chiang Mai’s recent pall of smoke. However there is a certain capacity for denial and misattribution of blame in Thai officialdom, so this theory needs to be taken with a grain of salt for the moment.)

In the short term Chiang Mai’s smoke gives residents coughs, headaches, sore throats, red, streaming eyes, sneezing fits and more serious bronchial illnesses. It caused dozens of heart attacks in 2007.

In 2003 there were 704,800 hospital cases of respiratory disease recorded in Chiang Mai province – roughly twice that of ten years earlier. Dr Duangchan Apawatcharut Jaroenmuang, head of the Chiang Mai-Lamphun Air Pollution Control Project, states that patients with general respiratory diseases in Chiang Mai outnumber those in Bangkok.

Over the three days to March 20, the number of respiratory patients in Mae Hong Son rose from 416 to 3,541; in Chiang Rai, from 1,780 to 11,148; and in Chiang Mai from 1,370 to 4,514.

In the longer term, Chiang Mai’s smoke raises the rates of lung cancer and other chronic or fatal ailments. Chiang Mai has the second-highest lung cancer rates in the world, according to Prof Sumittra Thongprasert from the Medical Ecology Department of Chiang Mai University – and higher than any other region of Thailand. The city’s 139 lung cancer cases per 100,000 population is almost 6 times the world average.

An academic study, and a separate news report citing an academic expert, both claim that Chiang Mai, despite its vastly smaller population, has a higher number of lung cancer patients than Bangkok.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/02/national/national_30028253.php

and

http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?id=625

Other studies have found Chiang Mai’s ‘total suspended particulate’ (TSP) concentrations to be higher than those of Bangkok, Hong Kong and Ho Chi Minh City.

The Public Health Bill of 1992 prescribes that any person who violates the bill by burning their garbage “can be imprisoned for up to six months or fined up to 10,000 baht or both, and will be fined 5,000 baht each day if they continue polluting the environment”.

But the failure of Chiang Mai’s provincial government to attack the problem of air pollution – or even recognise it – has been close to absolute, recent sabre-rattling notwithstanding. Activists and academic experts have been hammering away at the government for nearly a decade, to little avail.

The above-cited Dr Charoenmuang, who has spent a number of years studying air pollution in Chiang Mai, and who has discussed the problem with the Mayor among other civic leaders, believes the city authorities have no intention of doing anything about the problem. Dr Charoenmuang believes politicians are afraid that publicly acting against air pollution might lose the city tourists; but more generally she adds:

“Frankly they are just not clever enough to combat such a vast problem.”

Chiang Mai City Clerk Ken Santitham has commented: “I think that the academics exaggerate… Our air problems are not that severe.” Regarding the action taken to date, Santitham states: “I think that our record has been impressive.”

The City Clerk employs an environment department of one. This employee, Rongrong Duriyapunt, takes a different view: she believes her department’s budget (400,000 baht) is far too small to achieve anything much.

The Thai media are on the case, but are credulous and prone to print wild inaccuracies. The Bangkok Post, at the height of the recent emergency, reported straight-faced a government claim that a major source of the smoke was Korean barbeque restaurants.

No media outlet has yet asked why no fire-starters have been charged, fined or gaoled; or whether there is any science behind the government-ordered practice of spraying water out of planes, or having fire trucks hose the streets to ‘raise humidity and induce rain’. No Thai reporter has answered for us the $64,000 question: exactly where does the smoke come from?

A Chiang Mai resident who relies on media reports to learn the truth about the air he is breathing and what it is doing to his health will only gain partial information, and some wrong information.

In January-March - the same three-month period that firebugs were not arrested, fires were not systematically fought, and Korean restaurants were being ordered to douse their barbeques – www.thaivisa.com posters reported deliberately lit fires all over the north of Thailand. Satellite fire maps showed more than 4000 fires throughout the north in the first half of March.

More than half the time, Chiang Mai’s dangerous levels of air pollution begin in January and end late March or early April. However they have begun as early as August and ended as late as late June.

It’s not clear if the smoke problem is getting worse – 1999 had more ‘dangerous’ <PM10 days than the present year, at least so far - but Chiang Mai’s mid-March 2007 AQI reading of 180 was the highest since records began.

These are the number of days per year <PM10s were above the safe maximum of 120, in Chiang Mai, 1999 to 2007:

1999: 52

2000: 10

2001: 2

2002: 9

[2003: records missing]

2004: 41

2005: 24

2006: 5

2007: 25 (to Mar 25)

(Includes the tail end of the previous year, to keep seasons together. Also, 2007 is not over and there will probably be worse to come.)

4 bad years out of 8 suggests a 2:1 probability of getting a bad year in any given year. But even if there were two or three ‘good’ years in a row, averages assert themselves in time: a Chiang Mai resident will inevitably end up with a higher bodily load of carcinogens and general pollutants than residents of other Thai cities, and of most other places in the world.

We don’t need to guess about this, or extrapolate from the daily pollution readings: it is borne out by the city’s extraordinary lung cancer and respiratory illness rates.

In a nutshell, the Chiang Mai resident faces:

• two of Thailand’s most entrenched cultures - rural burning and government apathy

• no concrete proposal to change either (talk notwithstanding)

• on average, dangerously high pollution levels, on-off, through about 25% of every second year

• an elevated probability of lung cancer, respiratory ailments and other illnesses (children and the elderly being the most vulnerable)

• frequent media misinformation as to the causes and extent of the problem, and a failure to identify wrongdoers

In light of the above, does one keep one’s self and one’s family in northern Thailand, or does one move to somewhere like Surat Thani, which – from a quick scan of ten years of data – has never had a day where <PM10s were above the safe maximum?

That’s up to you.

Notes:

1. The above information is taken from publicly accessible government data, academic studies, and media reports which quoted air pollution experts. (Various dates going back about 8 years.) Apart from the raw government pollution data I studied directly, which I’m fairly sure is accurate, I can only assume the rest is accurate. As no-one is paying me to do this, I haven’t verified most of the claims and quotes with primary sources.

2. The above is written for the ‘average’ resident, who cannot afford to live in Chiang Mai part of the year (the non-burning part) and move elsewhere when the smog mounts.

3. The worst air pollution years previous to this one were 1999 and 2004. If 2007 follows the 2004 pattern, the serious pollution will finish in the next couple of weeks. If 2007 follows the 1999 pattern, we will have dangerous levels of air pollution through till late June.

4. A superb Thai government website where you can monitor air pollution anywhere in Thailand, view past data, bring up tables and graphs, etc, is:

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm

Stickman's thoughts:

Very interesting and real food for thought. Now we can see why our favourite Chiang Mai resident, or at least former Chiang Mai resident, a certain Mr. Kelly, departed the northern capital for the seaside.

The author of this article can be contacted at: johnmac11 at fastmail.us.

The author of this website, NOT this article, can be contacted at: [email protected].

[CNXBKKMAN]

Heres a a photo from 10 am today. The other photo was in August.

[arithai12]

It's easy to predict that the hospitals will be crowded in the next few days.

[tropico]

PM10 is 300 and PM2.5 is 175

This is 10 o clock readings

[blueyeshk]

Good luck guys hang on there it's just another month or so. Don't understand why nobody is protesting , by phone, mail, feets on the street. Instead of just looking out of the window like a cow who will get butchered next.

At least do this even I recommend more one of the above sign, share make public:

https://www.change.org/p/chiang-mai-governor-improve-haze-pollution-information-for-public-health-in-northern-thailand#petition-letter

Edited March 25, 2016 by blueyeshk

[tropico]

Good luck guys hang on there it's just another month or so. Don't understand why nobody is protesting , by phone, mail, feets on the street. Instead of just looking out of the window like a cow who will get butchered next.

Totally agree!!!

But perhaps there should be at least a few hundreds people to make local authorities concerned!!

[blueyeshk]

Good luck guys hang on there it's just another month or so. Don't understand why nobody is protesting , by phone, mail, feets on the street. Instead of just looking out of the window like a cow who will get butchered next.

Totally agree!!!

But perhaps there should be at least a few hundreds people to make local authorities concerned!!

So u wait like everybody does? At least sign the above petition letter (link) it's a start. Sent emails, call local government. Just don't sit. Edited March 25, 2016 by blueyeshk

[tropico]

Good luck guys hang on there it's just another month or so. Don't understand why nobody is protesting , by phone, mail, feets on the street. Instead of just looking out of the window like a cow who will get butchered next.

Totally agree!!!

But perhaps there should be at least a few hundreds people to make local authorities concerned!!

So u wait like everybody does? At least sign the above petition letter (link) it's a start. Sent emails, call local government. Just don't sit.

Things does not resolve if one person complain but if a few hundreds or thousands go down the streets perhaps it could have an impact.

I am a biologist and I work in forest conservation. I act everyday with my work. I am skeptical of internet demonstrations. Going to the streets would be better but it needs support!!

[keo]

Both CM and CR are quite clear of smog

All the smoke has been reported to come from neighbouring countries.

Are you serious? Take a look outside, the air in Chiang Mai is an absolute disgrace.

And don't be fooled by the Thais pointing their fingers at Burma and Laos. That's just their way of skirting the responsibility of actually doing something about the burning problem here.

That is not to say that the burning in and the pollution from Myanmar is a small problem, potentially one that could dwarf the local problem at times, as posts 252 and 253 so very clearly show.

I'm not saying the burning is Burma is not contributing to the problem here. But until the Thai authorities actually start actively tackling the burning problem in Thailand head on, the fingers of Thai citizens should be firmly pointed at Thai authorities, not their neighbouring countries.

You'd think with the estimated loss in tourism revenue of 3 Billion THB, and another 3 Billion on top of that to treat those affected by the pollution, year after year, that Chiang Mai officials would manage more than putting up a few signs and some useless cloud seeding. Not to mention that buffoon of a Mayor and his "burning schedule".

It's a hopeless situation, as it seems to be beyond the scope of Thailand's problem solving capabilities.

[vivid]

36t Chiang Mai

1100h PM10 299ug/m3 PM2.5 194ug/m3

194 ug/m3 is pretty high. Please do not treat such levels lightly.

Edited March 25, 2016 by vivid

[arithai12]

It's a hopeless situation, as it seems to be beyond the scope of Thailand's problem solving capabilities.

I should think that if the burning was affecting Bangkok, the problem would be solved all right.

[Berkshire]

Rain, we need rain!

[chiang mai]

Both CM and CR are quite clear of smog

All the smoke has been reported to come from neighbouring countries.

Are you serious? Take a look outside, the air in Chiang Mai is an absolute disgrace.

And don't be fooled by the Thais pointing their fingers at Burma and Laos. That's just their way of skirting the responsibility of actually doing something about the burning problem here.

That is not to say that the burning in and the pollution from Myanmar is a small problem, potentially one that could dwarf the local problem at times, as posts 252 and 253 so very clearly show.

I'm not saying the burning is Burma is not contributing to the problem here. But until the Thai authorities actually start actively tackling the burning problem in Thailand head on, the fingers of Thai citizens should be firmly pointed at Thai authorities, not their neighbouring countries.

You'd think with the estimated loss in tourism revenue of 3 Billion THB, and another 3 Billion on top of that to treat those affected by the pollution, year after year, that Chiang Mai officials would manage more than putting up a few signs and some useless cloud seeding. Not to mention that buffoon of a Mayor and his "burning schedule".

It's a hopeless situation, as it seems to be beyond the scope of Thailand's problem solving capabilities.

"it seems to be beyond the scope of Thailand's problem solving capabilities".

In fact it's probably beyond the scope of problem solving capabilities of most countries and most people, within around a twenty year time frame at minimum.

If you want to stop the burning in Thailand you have to change the culture, indigenous folk have been farming this way for centuries, to change that culture you need education and need to access lots of very poor rural farmers in a range of mostly inaccessible and often hidden locations.

Then you need to provide an alternative to burning, one that is just as easy to implement, minimally labour intensive and with zero cost overhead. For example, the rural hilltribe farmer who farms a rai on the side of a mountain that has nothing but dirt track access and is in the back of beyond, an area that uses no mechanized tools whatsoever, needs a solution that doesn't cost him anything above a box of matches and a litre of petrol. A government sponsored scheme whereby state owned helicopters hovered overhead whilst the army cut the mans dead grass and trees and loaded it onto nets to be flown away for incineration might work, anything short of that probably wont, not without at least a couple of decades of intense education.

Cue Mr compost, cue Mr rotovator/tractor, cue Mr fine and jail them.

[Cheesekraft]

awful smoke today and yesterday, me and my family have become ill, awful coughs, sore throats, eyes are red and irritated. I wish I could find those 3m filters that seem to be out of stock everywhere. Not worth going outside at this point...

[blueyeshk]

Both CM and CR are quite clear of smog

All the smoke has been reported to come from neighbouring countries.

Are you serious? Take a look outside, the air in Chiang Mai is an absolute disgrace.

And don't be fooled by the Thais pointing their fingers at Burma and Laos. That's just their way of skirting the responsibility of actually doing something about the burning problem here.

That is not to say that the burning in and the pollution from Myanmar is a small problem, potentially one that could dwarf the local problem at times, as posts 252 and 253 so very clearly show.

I'm not saying the burning is Burma is not contributing to the problem here. But until the Thai authorities actually start actively tackling the burning problem in Thailand head on, the fingers of Thai citizens should be firmly pointed at Thai authorities, not their neighbouring countries.

You'd think with the estimated loss in tourism revenue of 3 Billion THB, and another 3 Billion on top of that to treat those affected by the pollution, year after year, that Chiang Mai officials would manage more than putting up a few signs and some useless cloud seeding. Not to mention that buffoon of a Mayor and his "burning schedule".

It's a hopeless situation, as it seems to be beyond the scope of Thailand's problem solving capabilities.

"it seems to be beyond the scope of Thailand's problem solving capabilities".

In fact it's probably beyond the scope of problem solving capabilities of most countries and most people, within around a twenty year time frame at minimum.

If you want to stop the burning in Thailand you have to change the culture, indigenous folk have been farming this way for centuries, to change that culture you need education and need to access lots of very poor rural farmers in a range of mostly inaccessible and often hidden locations.

Then you need to provide an alternative to burning, one that is just as easy to implement, minimally labour intensive and with zero cost overhead. For example, the rural hilltribe farmer who farms a rai on the side of a mountain that has nothing but dirt track access and is in the back of beyond, an area that uses no mechanized tools whatsoever, needs a solution that doesn't cost him anything above a box of matches and a litre of petrol. A government sponsored scheme whereby state owned helicopters hovered overhead whilst the army cut the mans dead grass and trees and loaded it onto nets to be flown away for incineration might work, anything short of that probably wont, not without at least a couple of decades of intense education.

Cue Mr compost, cue Mr rotovator/tractor, cue Mr fine and jail them.

Only partially tru I think that your view is very romantic- we arrived already also in Thailand in big scale agriculture farming and face groups like CP who further promote pollution on a massive scale.

[AlexRich]

awful smoke today and yesterday, me and my family have become ill, awful coughs, sore throats, eyes are red and irritated. I wish I could find those 3m filters that seem to be out of stock everywhere. Not worth going outside at this point...

I bought a 3M 95 mask today from a chemist in the basement of the Maya Shopping Centre. It was not a Boots or a Watsons ... looks like a Body Shop type of shop [but not Body Shop] ... it was next door to a conventional chemist (Boots, I think) close to the doughnut cafe place.

[chiang mai]

It's easy enough to stop the large scale burners such as c p, if indeed they are that and if the will was there, a single edict from up high would solve that problem.

But how do you handle the remaining million plus small burners, the total pollution of which far exceeds anything the large burners can produce, a million edicts from up, each individdually addressed perhaps! You see the problem.

[vivid]

Looks like levels have gone down a bit. But do note, currently the PM2.5 levels are still at ~ 100 ug/m3 mark.

24-hr PM2.5 mean = 138 ug/m3. 5.5X > WHO levels.

2.5 times higher than Unhealthy levels (US EPA and many other countries).