Jump to content

Smoke, Smog, Dust 2016-2017 Chiang Mai


Tywais

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...