From: Hak Hakanson , San Sai, Chiang Mai
I was wondering why my eyes were burning. While the outside temperature is reasonable, I’ve just closed up the house and turned on the aircon to try to isolate myself from some of the vile soup. Of course, the aircon draws power coming from the generators east of Lampang which burn soft coal, so I am now contributing to the air pollution.
Following the lead from the article which follows, I calculated the PM-10 average for the last 10 days, when the readings suddenly jumped decisively over 100:
| PM-10 Levels by date | |
| March 6th | 130.9 |
| March 5th | 124.3 |
| March 4th | 126.3 |
| March 3rd | 101.8 |
| March 2nd | 191.4 |
| March 1st | 170.1 |
| February 28th | 116.6 |
| February 27th | 118.4 |
| February 26th | 120.8 |
| February 25th | 105.8 |
Source: http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/QueryAir.cfm?task=findsite
For 25 Feb through 06 Mar, it is 131: well on the way towards the 161.7 average of two years ago. With one day this year already at 191, we’re well on the way to at least matching the 303.9 reading of 14 Mar 2007.
See the following article from 2008:
Air pollution levels in Chiang Mai rising – February 27th, 2008
http://www.earthoria.com/air-pollution-levels-in-chiang-mai-rising.html/comment-page-1
. . . In London, the United States and the European Union as a whole it is considered a serious pollution ‘episode’ if the PM-10 level exceeds 50 – see the London Air Quality Network website.
For some reason, the Thai Pollution Control Department has set the ’safe level’ to be anything less than a PM-10 of 120. Just to illustrate how high the levels can get to in Chiang Mai, on 14th March 2007 PM-10 levels reached 303.9 – catastrophically high by any standards.
By way of comparison, the World Health Organisation came up with a weighted list of average PM-10 concentrations in residential areas of cities larger than 100,000 throughout the world. A selection of these follows:
Sudan 246 Pakistan 180 Iraq 178 Saudi Arabia 106 Indonesia 102 Syria 102 Myanmar 89 China 87 Thailand 76 Israel 52 Greece 47 Spain 40 United States 25 Malaysia 24 Denmark 23 Germany 22 United Kingdom 19 New Zealand 16 France 15 Sweden 13 I decided to work out the daily average for Chiang Mai over the last year from February 2007 to February 2008 and came up with the following:
Chiang Mai 49.85 I then worked out the daily average for March 2007 only and it worked out as the following:
Chiang Mai 161.7 When is the best time to visit Chiang Mai? The answer would depend on the state of your respiratory system – but I’d say avoid March if possible!
Off hand, I’m wondering why any tourist would want to come here — unless perhaps to catch a view of the temples before they are dissolved by air pollution.
I mentioned my impact on the power plant because:
MAE MOH POWER PLANT
Egat loses Lampang pollution case By Ekkapong Praditpong
The Nation
Published on March 5, 2009Chiang Mai – The Chiang Mai Administrative Court yesterday ordered the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) to pay compensation to villagers affected by the pollution caused by its lignite power plant in Lampang’s Mae Moh district.
. . . The court considered the Pollution Control Department’s air-quality report from November 1992 to August 1998 that found the level of ambient sulphurdioxide (SO2) in the area at beyond 1,300 micrograms per cubic meter for 50 out of the 70 months measured.
Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/05/politics/politics_30097191.php
Compare the SO2 pollution rates here today, 2.1, vs the average monthly rate of 1,300 around the Mae Moe power plant. Those folks reallyhave it tough.
My last paragraph is in error: the figures involve different units. The Nation’s figure, 1300 micrograms per cubic meter, converts to 500 parts per billion (ppb) — the unit used elsewhere in the post. Thus, the comparison should have been between the 2.1 ppb in Chiang Mai vs 500 ppb at Mae Moe. Which is, of course, still horrible.
Comments from John & Peter
Peter, I have some land on the Mae Salong road close to the northern Thai border with Burma. During sporadic visits since January I have witnessed massive burning on the land surrounding our’s, the last date being the 27th February. Excepting our 120 rai patch (we cut firebreaks and prohibited burning) there is almost no unburned land within a ten km radius. Although the neighbouring countries are also to blame, this is very much a home grown problem. Firstly there is no education programme from the local Chiang Rai authorities. There have been no directives on burning from provincial down to village level. There have been no visits from agricultural extension officers to advise the local villagers, mostly Akha, to promote sustainable agriculture. To summarise the government effort to control the problem of the annual haze blanket is zero. Most of the land ‘owners’ in the area are absentees, many from Bangkok, who are purely speculators. The locals have sold their traditional rights to the land for cash. Although there is no formal land title the speculators are still willing to buy the usage rights hoping to either move it on or to get title at some time. They also sometimes rent the land back to the original owners. The crux of the problem is that as long as the locals are not given land rights they see no point in planning long term agriculture since their land can be expropriated at any time. They only plan for the next crop. One can assume the same problem applies to the neighbouring state controlled countries and until it is seriously addressed we will be inflicted with the annual haze. The attempts by western nations to mitigate climate change are a drop in the ocean when put beside the burning, and other uncontrolled emissions, on five continents. John H. —–
Reading the Regional Haze Map & ASEAN Regional Haze Action Plan – by Peter Hoare
Note: Peter has a background of many years work with farmers in Laos & Lanna thanks for this Peter,
To Gum Hak Doi Suthep, The Singapore Meterological website given in this e-mail is a useful tool in understanding the current smog ( haze ?) problem in Chiang Mai at http://www.weather.gov.sg – go to satellite imaging, hotspot maps and haze information. The satellite hotspot maps on 9th March showed the large number of fires in northern Laos to the NE of Chiang Mai yesterday and also along the Myanmar border to the SW of Chiang Mai. Most of these fires are in upland and highland areas, from farmers burning upland fields to grow susbsistence hill rice. From the geographic distribution the ethnic groups are probably mainly Khamu in northern Laos and Karen in Thailand. In the next few weeks we are likely to get winds changing between the NE monsoon to SW so it is likely ( once the winds start to blow ! ) that some of the smoke from these fires will be transported to Chiang Mai. It is likely the air quality PM-10 index will stay in the unhealthy level above 120 in the near future. Research from Darwin in northern Australia shows that smoke from scrub and grass fires can be transported up to 1,000 km by weather systems. What can we do to improve Chiang Mai air quality ? Year round reduction of urban pollution through cleaner vehicle emissions, dust control etc. is necessary. The other part is reducing the smoke from forest fires in the dry season. 1. ASEAN regional cooperation over the long term with sustained funding showing the health and environmental benefits from a reduction in forest fires will need to be an important part as smoke can be transported over long distances by weather systems. 2. Provincial enforcement such as prohibiting burning will have little effect where farmers are burning biomass for subsistence farming. However, a sustained educational programme could over a number of years -:2.1 Reduce the area burnt by strengthening exsiting community rules to keep agricultural fires from spreading to surrounding forest areas2.2 Delay the burning of upland fields to the end of March by strengthening community networks.There are some local initiatives underway in Chaing Mai province in 2009 where lessons could be learnt for planning aproaches in 2010 3. Provincial enforcement could concentrate more on reducing the early burning in the “urhan wastelands ” ( from early February ) – formerly agricultural areas now contained within the ring roads. The owners ( often land speculators ) do not have to slash the wet season weed growth and fires from these areas contribute greatly to the early season smoke pollution. Lessons can also be learnt from some local ( Tambon or sub-district level ) initiatives in 2009 to reduce burning of rubbish in and around Chiang Mai. These Tambon and community initiatives could be important to reducing dry season fires so an evaluation after the fire season ends in May could be helpful for future planning. Peter Hoare