Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tywais

Smoke, Smog, Dust 2015 Chiang Mai

Recommended Posts

Here is a very good research publication that goes in to great detail of the contributing factors for the smoke season and the primary locations. For those who doubt the contributions from neighboring countries, the details are pretty clear in the document. It is a 67 page paper but you can scan key indicators easily in it. It has pictures too.

I don't know, Tywais... why anyone would call this a "very good research publication"?

Only the first 10 pages pertain to the smog issue and this is a student's homework paper at best. It contains some (poorly visualised) numbers about historical particulate matter measurements, occurrences of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, some numbers about national park acreage, forest cover, and farming. All of this information can be googled and compiled in less than a day and much of it has been presented here. On page 6, the author states ignorantly that "there is no other measure to get rid of corn cobs that is easier and cheaper than burning." Well, burn my ass. There is a whole array of uses for corn cobs, starting from corn meal production, cattle feed, to composting it or simply ploughing it under. One only has to look to what other countries are doing with their corn cobs. Alas, I forgot that this is something that Thai people don't do. In the conclusion of this very good research publication, it is mentioned verbatim that "even though the smog crisis was awared in both local and national level, this problem seem to be uncontrollable and unavoidable due to many internal and external factors."

There we have it! Nothing can be done.

How more apologetic can it get? Basically, this paper is best used for toilet applications.

Cheers, CM-Expat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use the air4thai app or trust any government readings it seems due to the happy Thailand promotion this years air quality readings are a bit inaccurate or how else could one explain the total mismatch while mountains disappear post-183415-14245804909403_thumb.jpgpost-183415-14245805389589_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use the air4thai app or trust any government readings it seems due to the happy Thailand promotion this years air quality readings are a bit inaccurate or how else could one explain the total mismatch while mountains disappear attachicon.gifImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1424580472.167297.jpgattachicon.gifImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1424580513.804259.jpg

The fact that Doi Suthep can't be seen clearly is not necessarily conclusive evidence of heavy pollution, the refractory effect of the inversion layer is another possible cause - given that the pollution readings are what they are suggests that the inversion layer is also a more probable cause. If in doubt on this point, what do your senses tell you, is there a heavy smell of smoke in the air and are your eyes burning/watering, mine certainly are not. And finally, look at the firemaps, the number of fires seen from the NASA satellites are very few by comparison to previous years although I'm unsure why this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving into Chiang Mai from the south yesterday evening, there was a clear change from blue to brown in the colour of the sky around Saraphi. I've always thought it was the forest burning, but the smog created by the heavy Chiang Mai traffix may have more of an impact this time of year than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still going with, (based on my eyes and lungs) that it is a a lot better than last year. I heard that the government put a bounty on chatching the type of firestarters the driver down the road and set anything flammable of fire, so that mushrooms will be great the next year. Truthfully I have not seen alot of side-of-the-road fires going on. BUT...it isn't March yet either. One can only hope and pray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about time to get educated on the subject!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the http://aqmthai.com/public_report.php site now, and noticed it now includes a pm2.5 option also for station 36. Have not seen that before and think this is is nice, as everyone seems to agree pm2.5 is more important and harmful than pm10. Looking at the pm2.5 availability, it looks like pm2.5 was added about a month ago to this station, while station 35 does not have it (yet?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I btw also input the pm10 number for today (average) from http://aqmthai.com/public_report.php into http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=resources.conc_aqi_calc, for converting to the AQI number the mobilephone app uses, which naturally matches the phone app and results in a "moderate" verdict for the air quality.

Using the pm2.5 number instead, which the phone app does not seem to have yet (I will see if I can find out where to send an email, so hopefully they will update the app), the verdict from www.airnow.gov changes to a very bad "unhealthy" unfortunately, with an AQI number of 158.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless PM 2.5 is actually measured its value is assumed, the technology to measure PM 2.5 is not cheap - perhaps they are in the process of upgrading their equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless PM 2.5 is actually measured its value is assumed, the technology to measure PM 2.5 is not cheap - perhaps they are in the process of upgrading their equipment.

I can only guess, but I doubt the value is extrapolated (from e.g. the PM10 value). If it was, it would not make sense to do it only for monitoring station 36, and not station 35, and all other stations.

No, I don't think it makes any sense to think the pm2.5 value is "assumed", while the other values are measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless PM 2.5 is actually measured its value is assumed, the technology to measure PM 2.5 is not cheap - perhaps they are in the process of upgrading their equipment.

I can only guess, but I doubt the value is extrapolated (from e.g. the PM10 value). If it was, it would not make sense to do it only for monitoring station 36, and not station 35, and all other stations.

No, I don't think it makes any sense to think the pm2.5 value is "assumed", while the other values are measured.

As I recall from debates on this subject over many years, it was always said that Thailand did not have technology in place to measure PM 2.5, in fact, up until about three years ago not many countries did, even Canada had only installed this capability in very recent years. Accepted practice for PM 2.5 measurement, prior to the introduction of the newer technology, was to derive a reading from the PM10 element although I have no idea exactly how this was accomplished and whether it was extrapolated or assumed - either way, the reading is not/was not actual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless PM 2.5 is actually measured its value is assumed, the technology to measure PM 2.5 is not cheap - perhaps they are in the process of upgrading their equipment.

I can only guess, but I doubt the value is extrapolated (from e.g. the PM10 value). If it was, it would not make sense to do it only for monitoring station 36, and not station 35, and all other stations.

No, I don't think it makes any sense to think the pm2.5 value is "assumed", while the other values are measured.

As I recall from debates on this subject over many years, it was always said that Thailand did not have technology in place to measure PM 2.5, in fact, up until about three years ago not many countries did, even Canada had only installed this capability in very recent years. Accepted practice for PM 2.5 measurement, prior to the introduction of the newer technology, was to derive a reading from the PM10 element although I have no idea exactly how this was accomplished and whether it was extrapolated or assumed - either way, the reading is not/was not actual.

According to a wikileaks article, Chiang Mai has had the ability to measure pm2.5 for many years: https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09CHIANGMAI38_a.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...