Smoke, Smog, Dust 2016-2017 Chiang Mai

[ecline]

Just because you don't know any sick people in Chiang Mai doesn't mean they don't exist:

Jesus, did you even read what I wrote?

I would not put much stock in what any "associate professor" or "medical lecturer" from Thailand says.

They found that over a six-day period, every additional microgram per cubic meter of PM10 inhaled increases the chance of respiratory, cardiovascular, or eye-related illness by 0.04 to 0.21 percent. Thus when PM10 levels reach 200 points -- a common occurrence in Chiang Mai during the burning season - the chance of catching one of these illnesses ranges from 8 to 42%".

Oh boy...There is so much wrong with this statistically and methodologically that it's not even worth considering.

Oh boy...there's so much wrong with your denial that it's not even worth considering.

Why not point out what is wrong with his "denial" in a reasoned fashion? Supplying counter arguments, references and examples goes a lot farther than assuming the rest of us will automatically subscribe to your point of view.

[blueyeshk]

Just because you don't know any sick people in Chiang Mai doesn't mean they don't exist:

Jesus, did you even read what I wrote?

I would not put much stock in what any "associate professor" or "medical lecturer" from Thailand says.

They found that over a six-day period, every additional microgram per cubic meter of PM10 inhaled increases the chance of respiratory, cardiovascular, or eye-related illness by 0.04 to 0.21 percent. Thus when PM10 levels reach 200 points -- a common occurrence in Chiang Mai during the burning season - the chance of catching one of these illnesses ranges from 8 to 42%".

Oh boy...There is so much wrong with this statistically and methodologically that it's not even worth considering.

Oh boy...there's so much wrong with your denial that it's not even worth considering.

Why not point out what is wrong with his "denial" in a reasoned fashion? Supplying counter arguments, references and examples goes a lot farther than assuming the rest of us will automatically subscribe to your point of view.

If he can't acknowledge the facts and videos of previous post I can't be bothered to get you or him straight

[Thailand]

Call in to a hospital nearby and see/ ask how many local people are suffering from respiratory problems due to the "haze".

[Trujillo]

From the source above:

...Assoc Professor Phongthep Wiwatthanadej said his theory was not supported yet by any research....

That's because his "methodology" is bogus.

What is an "Annual risk rate"? How is this determined? What are the variables and what are the control factors? What is the margin of error and how is it determined?

The annual risk rate for lung cancer among the population in the North is now 40 per 100,000 people - compared to 20 per 100,000 people in other regions, said Assoc Professor Phongthep Wiwatthanadej.
Up to 600 Chiang Mai residents will face lung cancer risk each year, out of a total population of 1.7 million people living in this northern province.

Everyone living has a risk of getting lung cancer, although the likelihood is very small.

Where does he get "up to 600 Chiang Mai residents"? "Up to" means from zero to 600, but even that doesn't explain his figures. You do the math. Show me, given his statistics, how you come up with 600 or less.

Our CMU contact emphasized, however, that there is still not sufficient evidence to prove that crop burning has a causal relationship with lung cancer. Yet public health statistics show that the ratio of lung cancer patients to overall population in Chiang Mai is four times higher than elsewhere in Thailand.

So even though there is "not sufficient evidence to prove that crop burning has a causal relationship with lung cancer," Your post is claiming that it does. If there were a correlation with the higher number of reported lung cancer cases in the North to burning, that first statement could not be made.

Clearly, there are other factors at work here regarding lung cancer.

They found that over a six-day period, every additional microgram per cubic meter of PM10 inhaled increases the chance of respiratory, cardiovascular, or eye-related illness by 0.04 to 0.21 percent. Thus when PM10 levels reach 200 points -- a common occurrence in Chiang Mai during the burning season - the chance of catching one of these illnesses ranges from 8 to 42%".

This is just multiplying numbers. It does not take into account individual resistance or susceptibility, nor does it address exposure times, among other problems.

If you believe this, what it says is that if the PM10 level hits 200, then you and I have a 42 percent chance (or 8 percent, depending on....something?) of "catching" a cardiovascular illness.

If you don't have the ability to distill what you read on the internet (that internet which is NEVER wrong), then you ought to apply yourself more and learn critical reading. It's a skill worth developing.

[chiang mai]

Jesus, did you even read what I wrote?

I would not put much stock in what any "associate professor" or "medical lecturer" from Thailand says.

They found that over a six-day period, every additional microgram per cubic meter of PM10 inhaled increases the chance of respiratory, cardiovascular, or eye-related illness by 0.04 to 0.21 percent. Thus when PM10 levels reach 200 points -- a common occurrence in Chiang Mai during the burning season - the chance of catching one of these illnesses ranges from 8 to 42%".

Oh boy...There is so much wrong with this statistically and methodologically that it's not even worth considering.

Oh boy...there's so much wrong with your denial that it's not even worth considering.

Why not point out what is wrong with his "denial" in a reasoned fashion? Supplying counter arguments, references and examples goes a lot farther than assuming the rest of us will automatically subscribe to your point of view.

After eleven years of threads on this subject, newbie denials of fact get pretty old after a while hence don't expect too much time to be wasted trying to convert views, it just isn't necessary. You want a reasoned argument on this point, anyone who doesn't believe the link between ill health/death and Chiang Mai's airborne pollution, go talk to a doctor in a hospital in the area, any hospital, any doctor. Over and out.

[Thailand]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

[Trujillo]

I never denied that air pollution can affect health. So does driving in Chiang Mai traffic every day. My point is that while it might be unhealthy, the number of people severely affected by the haze, in Chiang Mai (not Beijing or Delhi), is not that large compared to the total population.

To read some of the posts here, you'd think we were all stuck inside a hazardous chemicals warehouse fire.

I do think the sites cited are crap, with unscientific numbers and conclusions that the author admits has not been supported by any research.

That's commonly known as bar stool philosophy or armchair quarterbacking.

//edit: I am a 10-year newbie, I guess....

Edited February 13, 2016 by Trujillo

[chiang mai]

"The number of people severely affected by the haze is not that large compared to the total population".

How many people is that, what's the percentage?

Not bad compared to where?

Or are these simply more throw away comments without any basis in fact?

And whilst you may or may not be ten year newbie, you are in fact a newbie to the debates on this subject of the past eleven years, a search and review of which may help your understanding of the issues.

[vivid]

What specific url (or more) are you using to get PM<2.5 data for Chiang Mai? Some previous AQI data seems unavailable now.

I'm using the official webby, aqmthai

http://aqmthai.com/public_report.php

[Mapguy]

Thanks Vivid. That's what I used to access. That site has been revamped a bit.

I am rejoining the conversation a bit late, so apologies if I repeat what others already know:

First, my technical issue turned out to be a Flash Player issue. Plug-in is needed. (Old-timers will recall the alarm that security sites sent out on the AQI site earlier, and Flash Player can add vulnerability. Maybe the department finally got annoyed.

More interesting is that the PM<2.5 readings for 35T and 36T have disappeared from this site (and maybe more broadly). Now, for those who haven't done the research, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that PM<2.5 comprises 40 - 60% of PM<10 pollution. When it is agricultural burning (and there is at least one Thai study on that), the percentage is at the upper end. I have not done the research, but it is also my recollection from some source which I can not remember at present, that corn waste is worse than rice straw waste, and corn is apparently the big new challenge now.

For general monitoring of PM<2.5 I suggest computing it at 50% of PM<10 for useful if not rigorously accurate data. That is NOT good news, of course, once you read the data and fit them into the good - hazardous ranges. PM<2.5, for those who might not know this, is the really nasty stuff that can enter the blood stream. Rhetorically speaking, now why would the department stop reporting PM<2.5 !

Now, as I might have missed some reliable PM<2.5 site reporting for Chiang Mai, I'd be glad to know the url.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mapguy

[Mapguy]

Seems to be a lot of weaklings here....

http://aqicn.org/map/thailand/

Try this site.

Handy new site for a quick peek! The older AQI site is not as handy. Regarding PM<2.5, see my post above.

[Mapguy]

Cruising around a bit on http//aqicn.org/map/thailand/ I found the following article regarding Chinese (Beijing) pollution which provides some information about recording and reporting PM pollution that would be quite pertinent to any location.

[vivid]

Yep, I (and a few others) have been using aqicn.org for last year's 2015 thaivisa haze thread.

It probably sources from an API from aqmthai or something. That's what it does for Singapore and Dubai and China etc.

Indonesian peat fires are "organic" as well. The dangers are well documented esp in 2015. Many deaths are unreported, like in my wife's hometown. But the levels are higher and duration longer.

I dont wanna get into any debates, in a local SG forum i/we did that over several tens of thousands of posts. Lets just say that the old/young/pregnant/heart disease and ischemic stroke risk take care.

Given that CM/northern thailand is a popular location for retirement for some farangs (eldery = those who are > 65), it makes PERFECT SENSE to ve mindful.

My mum has heart arrthymia due to hypothyriodthism, T4 and TSH hormone levels....the cardiologist (supposed to be the best in the region) asked her to be mindful of 2015 haze in Singapore, no joking matter.

PS i have posted the health advisory for 24hr, 8hr and 1hr ezposure on the first page.

PPS. Chiang Mai's annual PM2.5 levels, if i rememeber correctly, is approx 43 ug/m3.

Edited February 14, 2016 by vivid

[elephant45]

I think its personally disappointing for so many here as very few benefit from the burning, and the rest of us seem helpless farang and Thai alike. I also wonder if what these few machines that supposedly register these particulate really tell when all around our area toxic dust is being constantly sprayed into the air from all these construction sites grinding away at metals, fiberboard, concrete etc Crappy old illegal diesel trucks that could never pass an exhaust check but they do some how. I have never lived anywhere where I have so much dust in my house. Oh well. Every where I go now there are individuals burning and even I saw what looks like a city department near the horse racing track burning huge piles of waste a few days ago. Things are slow to change in Asia, if ever.

[chiang mai]

Looking at a combination of the NASA firemaps and the Wind forecast maps; it looks as though northern Thailand is getting hit by airborne pollution from both sides, winds from the NE bring pollution from southern China and North Vietnam whilst winds from the NNW bring bad air from Myanmar, all of which combines with the home grown stuff.

http://www.windfinder.com/weather-maps/forecast/thailand#5/13.149/101.493

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

And as with previous years, Friday/Saturday/Sunday are the really bad days for the sheer volume of fires.

[blueyeshk]

I am so sad this post will die soon - as declared by the government all burning will stop by17th of February

[SundayAfternoon]

http://www.windfinder.com/weather-maps/forecast/thailand#5/13.149/101.493

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

Interesting little tool there! But what do the colors on the map refer to? Some places are red like little hot spots.

[chiang mai]

I am so sad this post will die soon - as declared by the government all burning will stop by17th of February

I note your sarcasm but indeed the situation has improved over the years, albeit very slowly. Ten years ago the issue of pollution was swept under the carpet, there wasn't a lot of recognition that it is a significant problem and it was mostly foreigners who did all the complaining. Today the problem is out in the open and is widely acknowledged by Thai's as well as foreigners. Some steps have been taken to help lessen the impact of burning, staggered sanction burning periods being one, more visibility of the penalties being another (now most serious burning is done at night it seems) and calls for cross border controls to reduce the impact of imported pollution being a third.

But the problem is a cultural and economic one, most burners burn because it is the cheapest and easiest solution to a recurring annual problem, only when the health risks become so evident that they appear to outweigh the benefits will things change and that requires a cultural change that will take decades.

And finally, it's worth remembering that even if Thailand did somehow stop all burning in Thailand, the pollution problem would not go away because we import pollution from our near neighbors, smoke from Myanmar, southern China and Vietnam all ends up in northern Thailand, pollution from Cambodia ends up in central Thailand. So whatever solution is eventually adopted here needs to be adopted region wide, I suspect however that the twenty year hence picture wont look too much different from today, some reduction in pollution levels, a greater range of preventative measures adopted and peoples attitudes slowly being changed. Progress takes time, especially on an issue such as this.

EDIT TO ADD: And before the composters get into the debate, yes indeed, composting the waste would indeed solve some of the problem although it wont do much for rice stubble since that would have to be dug up first and that's massively labour intensive. One point that many posters seem to grasp is the majority of serious burners are usually all poor rural farmers who operate on thin margins and don't have funds available to buy sophisticated (or even simple) mechanized tools. A second aspect is that often, the land being burned is mostly inaccessible by heavy motorized transport such as rotovators and tractors, in the North this is particularly true as a short visit to the Mae Sa valley and Samoeng will confirm.

Edited February 15, 2016 by chiang mai

[Tywais]

http://www.windfinder.com/weather-maps/forecast/thailand#5/13.149/101.493

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

Interesting little tool there! But what do the colors on the map refer to? Some places are red like little hot spots.

Believe it is the number or concentration of fires in that dotted area.

[SundayAfternoon]

Thanks Tywais,

but it's in the wind app. Not the fire app.

A lot of the concentrations of red are in the ocean!

Edited February 15, 2016 by SundayAfternoon

[SundayAfternoon]

Sorry I've just seen the link there that Chiang Mai posted has two links. (Hence the confusion.) I'm referring to the first one - the wind app.

[Tywais]

Sorry I've just seen the link there that Chiang Mai posted has two links. (Hence the confusion.) I'm referring to the first one - the wind app.

There is a color legend at the bottom border of the map showing wind speed in kts.

[chiang mai]

Sorry I've just seen the link there that Chiang Mai posted has two links. (Hence the confusion.) I'm referring to the first one - the wind app.

With the wind app. the colours represent wind speed, select a time frame at the bottom from -24 to +24 hours and hit run to see wind directions over that period.

[Tywais]

Check Chiang Mai’s PM 2.5 Air Pollution Levels Here

February 15, 2016

CityNews – The Pollution Control Department of Thailand has a website where you can check PM 2.5 levels around Chiang Mai, but it is difficult to get the results you are looking for. Here is a step by step guide on how to find the numbers.

The link to the website: http://aqmthai.com/public_report.php

Changing the site to English will not change the active module.

The station you need to select to have PM 2.5 readings displayed is the Sriphum station. On the list it is coded as 36t next to the name in Thai.

The Chiang Mai Muang readings (code 35t) has no record of PM 2.5 readings.

Report type select as Daily for best results.

More details here - Chiang Mai City News

-- Chiang City News February 15, 2016

[SundayAfternoon]

Sorry I've just seen the link there that Chiang Mai posted has two links. (Hence the confusion.) I'm referring to the first one - the wind app.

There is a color legend at the bottom border of the map showing wind speed in kts.

Ahh. That doesn't show on the app! (I was there trying to work or which is better purple, blue or green! )

[blueyeshk]

Very early very harmful this year.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Rimmer
Forbidden link removed

[Mapguy]

Backtracking, I suggest people re-read Chiang Mai's sensible post (#137) above if they haven't read it before.

But, to expand upon it, If we just focus on the Chiang Mai basin (where the bulk of TV Chiang Mai posters seem to live), then CM's assertion that the bulk of farmers burning are those with small holdings, I suppose, might be true, but I think that we have to recognize two things. One is that there are very, very large holdings outside this valley, particularly to the South in Central Thailand, and there are some vast holdings (and lots of second crops this year!!) north of this valley. Second is that many farmers are tenants. I would like to suggest that if enforcement is ever to be applied effectively (none being applied at present), then you have to go after the large-scale owners and those who contract out the land not the little guys. That, of course, raises a host of difficult practical economic issues locally as well as political problems.

To shift crops --- if I may --- corn production is potentially more insidious, if my understanding of the agricutural waste disposal pollution issues is accurate. In case you haven't been wandering around much lately, you'll see rapidly-increasing corn production, which (without going into much research) is apparently a more insidious pollution problem because burning the waste is more damaging to public health than traditional seasonal rice straw burning. So, in Thailand, that makes CP a big target (or partner) when it comes to resolving pollution issues.

What's your take on the impact of large-scale agricultural crop shifting? In the meantime, don't obsess about daily pollution readings and fire spotting. Sport for some, I suppose, but stress is also a health issue!!!

[Mapguy]

On to another highlight of the local ( and predicably annual) municipal public relations season --- check Chiang Mai News, or Life? or whatever) of the "send-us-a-news-release-and-we'll-print-it" local news media" --- what do you think of the Right Honorable His Nibs Mayor sticking his thing up the tailpipe of various songtaew? Naughty man!!

Edited February 16, 2016 by Mapguy

[chiang mai]

A mixture of thinking aloud, trying to analyze the problem and find some solutions - perhaps useful to evoke thought and to educate new commers to some aspects of the problem:

We can almost rank the types of burning in terms of how dangerous the pollution is: plastic and household waste is probably the top of the list, corn stubble second, rice stubble third and leaves and grass fourth.

Of those four categories, household waste burning is opportunistic, it gets burned as a bi-product of something else being burned, usually leaves and grass, it therefore follows that if the primary burning was better controlled, less burning of plastics would occur and we could eliminate the worst offending cause of pollution. But for that to happen we'd need two things, 1) less litter in public areas, and 2) households to make better use of waste disposal services - the first is a hugely difficult problem globally for which I don't have a solution other than rigid enforcement and perhaps prison labour set to work clearing the trash from road sides, both pipe dreams in Thailand at this moment in time. The second, household waste disposal, must be free (not even 10 baht a month else it wont get used) and it must be frequent. Note: over the years this aspect of life here has improved and come a long way, it has much further to go however.

The third category, rice stubble, is only burned sometimes, more often, judging from what I see of the farmers land outside my front door, it gets ploughed under, only once in the past six crops have I seen him try to burn and even that was very limited. But this farm is very large, on flat lowland and the owner has a couple of tractors and ploughs, he's not the average small holder by any means so perhaps slightly unique. The point is however rice stubble can be ploughed under; it doesn't have to be burned.

Leaf and grass burning is the least harmful of the four but is likely to be the catalyst for the burning of household waste, hence in many respects it makes it the most dangerous, if nothing else it is the most prolific, absolutely everyone does it including moi! The sheer volume of leaves that fall and carpet the ground at this time of year is actually quite staggering, phenomena I'd never appreciated whilst living in Muang. I think the only people who burn this category is homeowners wanting to clean up their gardens, estate owners clearing up their roads, government agencies who try to reduce long grass at the sides of roads and freeways, unmechanized small holders wanting to clear land for planting and rural villagers and hill tribes wanting to stimulate growth of mushrooms - essentially everyone is in on this act from national to local government all the way down the chain to mom and pop neighbors!

So the most prolific source of burning is the least harmful, but because it is so prolific it becomes the most harmful as a result of scale and ancillary burning. There’s no easy and simple answer to this although any imitative must start with an example set by national, regional and local government, as long as the army is seen to be burning road side grass, every farmer in the country will believe it’s OK to do the same.

I've left corn stubble until last because it is acknowledged to be so dangerous and because of Mapguys earlier assertion that much of this results from large scale burning (which I don't dispute) plus it links nicely with the subject of crop shifting. I don't know the ratio of land planted under corn versus any other crop in Thailand so it's difficult to quantify the problem in terms of volume or scale. What is known however is the health hazards associated with burning corn stubble are well documented and this is agricultural waste that can't readily be ploughed under, it's simply too large and won’t break down quickly. Incinerate it at high temperatures perhaps, dig it up and haul it away, all labour intensive and potentially expensive. But if corn is the large landowner crop of choice, perhaps government could implement controls governing the crop and the disposal of associated waste, a little action aimed at a handful of landowners could provide big results - likely to happen, extremely doubtful.

And if the cost becomes so great the farmer is likely to switch to a more profitable crop, “the devil you know….” springs to mind here!

So what can we conclude from all of this, assuming the above is largely correct? Well the most obvious point is that rice stubble, long believed to be the major cause of pollution here, doesn’t need to be burned but it does need to be ploughed – free Amphur ploughing services for small holders would go a long way towards reducing this cause of pollution and wouldn’t cost the earth.

We can also conclude that progress has been made with garbage collection, even in rural areas, but again there's a long way to go. When the service becomes so widespread and behaviors altered that make using the service important, pollution rates should fall - the question however of what happens to the collected waste is another story which we wont tackle here just yet, small steps and all that!

Finally, government needs to get serious about the pollution problem and lead by example, it simply isn't good enough that Amphurs and state departments burn road side grasses et al and/or that government resources are used for the task.

[blueyeshk]

A mixture of thinking aloud, trying to analyze the problem and find some solutions - perhaps useful to evoke thought and to educate new commers to some aspects of the problem:

We can almost rank the types of burning in terms of how dangerous the pollution is: plastic and household waste is probably the top of the list, corn stubble second, rice stubble third and leaves and grass fourth.

Of those four categories, household waste burning is opportunistic, it gets burned as a bi-product of something else being burned, usually leaves and grass, it therefore follows that if the primary burning was better controlled, less burning of plastics would occur and we could eliminate the worst offending cause of pollution. But for that to happen we'd need two things, 1) less litter in public areas, and 2) households to make better use of waste disposal services - the first is a hugely difficult problem globally for which I don't have a solution other than rigid enforcement and perhaps prison labour set to work clearing the trash from road sides, both pipe dreams in Thailand at this moment in time. The second, household waste disposal, must be free (not even 10 baht a month else it wont get used) and it must be frequent. Note: over the years this aspect of life here has improved and come a long way, it has much further to go however.

The third category, rice stubble, is only burned sometimes, more often, judging from what I see of the farmers land outside my front door, it gets ploughed under, only once in the past six crops have I seen him try to burn and even that was very limited. But this farm is very large, on flat lowland and the owner has a couple of tractors and ploughs, he's not the average small holder by any means so perhaps slightly unique. The point is however rice stubble can be ploughed under; it doesn't have to be burned.

Leaf and grass burning is the least harmful of the four but is likely to be the catalyst for the burning of household waste, hence in many respects it makes it the most dangerous, if nothing else it is the most prolific, absolutely everyone does it including moi! The sheer volume of leaves that fall and carpet the ground at this time of year is actually quite staggering, phenomena I'd never appreciated whilst living in Muang. I think the only people who burn this category is homeowners wanting to clean up their gardens, estate owners clearing up their roads, government agencies who try to reduce long grass at the sides of roads and freeways, unmechanized small holders wanting to clear land for planting and rural villagers and hill tribes wanting to stimulate growth of mushrooms - essentially everyone is in on this act from national to local government all the way down the chain to mom and pop neighbors!

So the most prolific source of burning is the least harmful, but because it is so prolific it becomes the most harmful as a result of scale and ancillary burning. There’s no easy and simple answer to this although any imitative must start with an example set by national, regional and local government, as long as the army is seen to be burning road side grass, every farmer in the country will believe it’s OK to do the same.

I've left corn stubble until last because it is acknowledged to be so dangerous and because of Mapguys earlier assertion that much of this results from large scale burning (which I don't dispute) plus it links nicely with the subject of crop shifting. I don't know the ratio of land planted under corn versus any other crop in Thailand so it's difficult to quantify the problem in terms of volume or scale. What is known however is the health hazards associated with burning corn stubble are well documented and this is agricultural waste that can't readily be ploughed under, it's simply too large and won’t break down quickly. Incinerate it at high temperatures perhaps, dig it up and haul it away, all labour intensive and potentially expensive. But if corn is the large landowner crop of choice, perhaps government could implement controls governing the crop and the disposal of associated waste, a little action aimed at a handful of landowners could provide big results - likely to happen, extremely doubtful.

And if the cost becomes so great the farmer is likely to switch to a more profitable crop, “the devil you know….” springs to mind here!

So what can we conclude from all of this, assuming the above is largely correct? Well the most obvious point is that rice stubble, long believed to be the major cause of pollution here, doesn’t need to be burned but it does need to be ploughed – free Amphur ploughing services for small holders would go a long way towards reducing this cause of pollution and wouldn’t cost the earth.

We can also conclude that progress has been made with garbage collection, even in rural areas, but again there's a long way to go. When the service becomes so widespread and behaviors altered that make using the service important, pollution rates should fall - the question however of what happens to the collected waste is another story which we wont tackle here just yet, small steps and all that!

Finally, government needs to get serious about the pollution problem and lead by example, it simply isn't good enough that Amphurs and state departments burn road side grasses et al and/or that government resources are used for the task.

Very clear thoughts put in words most of it I can sign except :

Of course household burning is the most hazardous but I can follow their thoughts as well they know where it will end up anyway. As everywhere in Asia waste-to-Energy Or similar technologies are not in place most of the household waste will be burned in uncontrolled burning sites anyway the rest they dig in on dumpsites only a fraction will be recycled. So why not burn it directly? It's a disgusting thought but except some trial facilities there is no other solution than above. Massive investments which generate employment and return of investment is needed fast and now. Do you know exactly where your household waste ends up? I do and I don't feel good about it so I do my best on a personal level to reduce my impact. And here we are besides rising the topic again and again and sharpen awareness that's exactly what everybody can do on a daily bases reduce and avoid at your home.