Smoke, Smog, Dust 2016-2017 Chiang Mai

[Berkshire]

10 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I notice the AQI website has been stuck on Friday for 3 days now.

 

http://aqicn.org/city/thailand/chiangmai/city-hall/

 

Wonder why?

Well this site is back up as of now.  Lots of red....ugh.

[vivid]

On 2/20/2017 at 11:52 AM, cerox said:

I'm curious if anyone has recommendations what to do about the eyes.

 

I only have symptoms with the eyes, so like today, when I go out, my eyes burn. I reckon there is not much one can do apart from limiting time outdoors or leaving? I didn't have that on Saturday/Sunday, so I think it is related to "fresh burning".

 

Unfortunately, you can only do eye drops, so get the cheapest 12-pack or something, you'll need it.   Wearing safety googles would look wierd.  

[jonwilly]

A couple of my standards are if I can see Doi Saket from my condo on Doi Suthep and if on taking breakfast at Sausage King I can see Doi Suthep clear.

Both where OK today.

Neither was good yesterday.

 

john

[LolaS]

Imagination

imagination life is your creation

[tropico]

I just came across this Greenpeace document and I wanted to share it. there is a lot of people that think Chiang Mai air is actually not that bad outside burning season but these data say something else I believe. Just draw your own conclusions!

PM2.5CityRankingsREV.pdf

[ogb]

36 minutes ago, tropico said:

I just came across this Greenpeace document and I wanted to share it. there is a lot of people that think Chiang Mai air is actually not that bad outside burning season but these data say something else I believe. Just draw your own conclusions!

PM2.5CityRankingsREV.pdf

The burning season would bring the Chiang Mai averages up - what is more striking is how bad the air is elsewhere in Thailand!

[user555]

Have been looking at the air quality score http://aqicn.org/map . While the results are not good, I think they are not as bad as one can expect from previous years. At the moment for example the air pollution score is 127, while I expected it to be as high as 250. Can it be related to the activity of the government? 

[ogb]

1 minute ago, user555 said:

Have been looking at the air quality score http://aqicn.org/map . While the results are not good, I think they are not as bad as one can expect from previous years. At the moment for example the air pollution score is 127, while I expected it to be as high as 250. Can it be related to the activity of the government? 

Hope so.

(after building up to quite bad levels in recent weeks there has been a noticeable improvement since the burning ban came into effect - don't know if that is a coincidence or not, but hopefully it holds)

[tropico]

1 hour ago, ogb said:

The burning season would bring the Chiang Mai averages up - what is more striking is how bad the air is elsewhere in Thailand!

sure but you would still breath a certain amount of particulate if you live here all through the year. The numbers say that the average air quality (pm 2.5) is worse than everywhere else in Thailand.

[elephant45]

It will only get worse,. I was near a Military base the other day and they were burning piles pf trash, young army guys, plastic, and whatever they had. Total poison. They just dont get it and they never will.

[keo]

22 hours ago, tropico said:

I just came across this Greenpeace document and I wanted to share it. there is a lot of people that think Chiang Mai air is actually not that bad outside burning season but these data say something else I believe. Just draw your own conclusions!

PM2.5CityRankingsREV.pdf

Thanks for sharing. Makes for a rather depressing read. It's interesting just how much open burning contributes to the PM 2.5 levels. Some low hanging fruit right there, if only the authorities would wake up and actually do something about it.

[LolaS]

On 2/24/2017 at 8:56 AM, tropico said:

I just came across this Greenpeace document and I wanted to share it. there is a lot of people that think Chiang Mai air is actually not that bad outside burning season but these data say something else I believe. Just draw your own conclusions!

PM2.5CityRankingsREV.pdf

 

iff you actually cared to read it you would see that average is in blue and safe level

[JimmyJ]

14 hours ago, LolaS said:

iff you actually cared to read it you would see that average is in blue and safe level

On what page do you see that statement/information?

 

p.3

"...the current AQI is still based on PM10 and vastly
under-reports air pollution levels and underestimates health risks."

 

The average maximum monthly levels of 2.5 in Chang Mai are 188 in 2014.

 

It's a confusing chart as the average daily 2.5 is in "safe" territory but it's not stated how many days per year are up to dangerous levels bringing the average maximum to the unsafe number of 188.

Edited February 25, 2017 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

I don't know if any of us have done the research as to how many dangerous level days have a high percentage chance of doing permanent damage.

(I haven't).

 

Imagine smoking cigarettes 5 days per month but having no tobacco the other 25-26 days. Or smoking for 3 months of the year and not smoking at all the other 9 months.

 

There is still the likelihood it could cause lung cancer but will take longer. The damage from the tobacco is not negated by the fact that most days of the month the lungs aren't inhaling it.

 

 

Cessation of smoking will stop further damage, but I've seen it stated that nothing can undo damage already caused by cigarette smoking.

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by JimmyJ

[tropico]

15 hours ago, LolaS said:

iff you actually cared to read it you would see that average is in blue and safe level

Thailand made their own standards which are double and more than double of the one from WHO. Therefore even though it is green or blue on the Thai AQI tables, it is hazardous anywhere else WHO standards are followed.  Also, this is what is stated on the document: " The 2  current AQI is still based on PM10 and vastly under-reports air pollution levels and underestimates health risks". If you think that the air is good or is much better than many other places that is up to you but I think the air quality is not up to standards and it could pose a risk. And that is why I thought this document could have been interesting.

Thank you for your comment though!

[LolaS]

6 hours ago, tropico said:

Thailand made their own standards which are double and more than double of the one from WHO. Therefore even though it is green or blue on the Thai AQI tables, it is hazardous anywhere else WHO standards are followed.  Also, this is what is stated on the document: " The 2  current AQI is still based on PM10 and vastly under-reports air pollution levels and underestimates health risks". If you think that the air is good or is much better than many other places that is up to you but I think the air quality is not up to standards and it could pose a risk. And that is why I thought this document could have been interesting.

Thank you for your comment though!

 

care to provide any reference for your fake claim?

[tropico]

5 hours ago, LolaS said:

care to provide any reference for your fake claim?

here it is from WHO guidelines publication. 

[JimmyJ]

5 hours ago, LolaS said:

care to provide any reference for your fake claim?

Earlier, also to tropico - " iff you actually cared to read it you would see that average is in blue and safe level"

 

 

In Post 733 above I quoted from the Greenpeace report:

 

p.3

"...the current AQI is still based on PM10 and vastly
under-reports air pollution levels and underestimates health risks."

 

 

 

Why so hostile?

 

Do you own a hotel or other business in Chang Mai?

Edited February 26, 2017 by JimmyJ

[tropico]

6 hours ago, LolaS said:

care to provide any reference for your fake claim?

On top of that, on the Greenpeace document I attached first, they stated what I thought I wrote about!

[LolaS]

And now compare with other coutries and you will see how they are far far from WHO guidlines. and truth will be in front of your eyes.

[tropico]

27 minutes ago, LolaS said:

And now compare with other coutries and you will see how they are far far from WHO guidlines. and truth will be in front of your eyes.

Dear Sir/Madame

 

I did not say that other countries are much better off in fact I did not make any comparison at all. But i just wanted to indicate the fact that the data might not tell all the truth and that the air might be worse than what you think and perhaps it is good to take precautions!

In asserting this, I included the Greenpeace report as a reference!

 

But again is up to you and your understanding. You make your own decision on how to deal with this issue (if it is an issue for you).

 

From what I read, I felt compelled to know a bit more and I thought that I should be cautious about the air quality. If it was not that bad I don't think there would be thousands and thousands of people hospitalized for breathing problems during the burning season, and also there would not be so much attention to the problem if there was no problem.

 

For me it is important to know what is the level of the problem and perhaps discuss with others that might have an even better understanding of this issue and perhaps contribute to this "debate".

 

Thank you

 

 

[canopy]

Sorry LolaS I don't know how you can sit there and pretend the air in northern thailand is similar to elsewhere in the world. It isn't. In plenty of other countries rural areas enjoy clean air all year round that meets WHO standards for good air. There is no burning season--forests, fields, and trash are not methodically burned by everyone. Visibility is good year round because there isn't smoke shrouding the views. Hospitals don't become full of people with respiratory problems due to bad air. Governments don't need to hand out masks and warn people to stay inside with windows and door closed and warned not to exercise. Planes don't have to abort landings due to excessive smoke. And in other countries, real improvements have been made to air quality that work and it gets better and better. In this country all they have done is artificially change the scale of what constitutes clean air to include unhealthy air and do little to nothing to combat the source of the problem no matter how much the poor people are suffering from it.

 

[LolaS]

I am not debating, I am claiming what I feel and see with my eyes, and lungs.

I am glad that you agree that air is 100 times worst in western cities. 

why are you all spreading this senseless information out of context and reality?

[tropico]

1 hour ago, LolaS said:

I am not debating, I am claiming what I feel and see with my eyes, and lungs.

I am glad that you agree that air is 100 times worst in western cities. 

why are you all spreading this senseless information out of context and reality?

The reality is that there is smoke in the air and people have been getting sick from it. There is plenty literature out there talking about the health hazards caused by smoke in Chiang Mai and some other northern provinces.

 

This year seems a bit better but I am not sure it would last!...I hope it will!

 

If you have hard facts about your own belief please do provide it. And i dont want to know how bad is the air in London or another western city because I don't live there!

 

attached here some more from: "The Asian correspondent" 2016,  which you can find online, and like this many more!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LolaS]

again, high exageration comapring to rest of world and comparing to whole year.

[canopy]

19 minutes ago, LolaS said:

again, high exageration comapring to rest of world and comparing to whole year.

 

[tropico]

2 hours ago, LolaS said:

again, high exageration comapring to rest of world and comparing to whole year.

which rest of the world? China and india are definitely worse!

 

Any data for your claims? 

 

[LolaS]

in europe is 500, what is your point? take a look by yourselff. exageration and faulse data from one day, comparing to rest of year.

[tropico]

1 hour ago, LolaS said:

in europe is 500, what is your point? take a look by yourselff. exageration and faulse data from one day, comparing to rest of year.

what is 500?

 

look at the table chart below. the worst country in Europe is Bulgaria with annual average concentrations of about 35 micrograms/m3. 

 

Chiang Mai averages 54 micrograms/m3

 

show me some data. first you accused me of making fake claims and i provided you with some references ....i haven't seen anything that proves your theory and that would suggest Chiang Mai air is healthy.

 

 

 

[tropico]

2 hours ago, LolaS said:

in europe is 500, what is your point? take a look by yourselff. exageration and faulse data from one day, comparing to rest of year.

of course there are other parameters to take into consideration beside pm2.5 therefore there is more to know before giving conclusions. However because of the data and the nature of the pollution I believe that CM air is not healthy. If you believe otherwise than good for you