As the old adage goes: April showers bring May flowers. This, however, is not true for the 67 million people living in the beautiful Kingdom of Thailand.
For those residing and working in the popular centers of this country, April (and preceding months) brings a thick layer of smog and smoke that brings with it a real health threat.
Air pollution is no new phenomenon. It has plagued Western cities like LA, London and New York for years.
But many expats working and living in Thailand’s hubs seem to think these Thai cities experience worse air quality than usual, causing somewhat of a mass migration to other city centers in SE Asia during spring months.
But is there any truth in this? Is air quality bad in Thailand? Is it worse in Bangkok than London, or Rome, Paris or New York?
I want to know if living in Thailand is a recipe for a respiratory disease and poor general health as a result of air pollution. Or is it all roses, as we are often led to believe?
So I decided to investigate: to look at the facts, figures, daily statistics and make comparisons.
Let's get started.
Air Pollution in Thailand
Air pollution is not ugly, it’s downright dangerous. In fact, the World Health Organization estimates that each year, 2 million people die prematurely from the poisonous gases that make up smog.
These include:
- sulfur dioxide: a byproduct of coal burning
- carbon monoxide: which can be found in car exhaust or the byproducts of appliances that burn fuel
- carbon dioxide: found naturally, but has increased due to car exhaust and assisted global warming
- nitrogen oxides: a byproduct of combustion from power plants, integral in the formation of acid rain
- volatile organic compounds: solvents in household products that evaporate and cause health issues
- particulates: the dark soot from air pollution that sticks to buildings
- ozone: in the atmosphere, it protects us- at ground level, toxic
- chlorofluorocarbons: the gas used in aerosol cans that is harmful to the ozone layer
- hydrocarbons: release carbon monoxide when burned or are released in the air, leading to smog
- lead/heavy metals: dispersed into the air through aerosols, fly ash and exhaust fumes
And it’s not just breathing problems that plague those in areas with high air pollution: symptoms can range from chest pain, headaches, nausea and increased sensitivity to allergens to aggravated heart disease, reproductive / neurological disorders and even cancer.
When discussing air quality and air pollution, the amount of particulates in the atmosphere is of the utmost importance, as they generally have the most adverse effects on human health.
The World Health Organization has isolated PM10 and PM2.5 as the most detrimental to human health (PM10 being particulate matter 10 micrometers or less, PM2.5 being particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less). So I'll mostly refer to these two factors in my comparisons.
How Bad is the Air Pollution in Bangkok?
At the time of writing Bangkok was reporting a real-time air quality index (AQI) of 93, which is reported as ‘Moderate.’ In comparison, London’s AQI was listed as 70, which is considered ‘moderate’ as well. Quite a difference in those numbers, but the moderate band is broad.
When I checked back today, however, the AQI was 106, reported as ‘Unhealthy' for sensitive groups.
It is worthwhile to note that areas of Bangkok register much higher on the scale, and much higher. It does depend where you are.
Samut Prakan measured in at a staggering 140. Northeastern Bangkok registered at 114.Both fall into the category of “unhealthy” for sensitive populations. At the other end of the scale, Pathum Thani registered a healthy 32.
When we look at Bangkok PM10 levels vs. other major cities, Bangkok (overall) is quite moderate in the grander scheme of things. This correlates with the first Bangkok AQI graph above, but provides further evidence that it is the PM 2.5 in Bangkok that should concern us most.
What's the AQI in Popular Beach Locations?
Resort and party paradise Phuket was not measured, but nearby neighbor, Surat Thani, home to the likes of Khanom, Samui and Koh Phangan, registered at an impressive ‘38,’ which is considered ‘good.’
It seems that a trip to the beach is most certainly good for your health.
In comparison, Los Angeles, California registered at 50 today, still considered ‘good.’
Areas around Chonburi and Pattaya registered at a very high 112, which is definitely considered ‘unhealthy’ for sensitive groups.
Similarly, Chiang Mai — Thailand’s second largest city, located in the North — registered at 108, most definitely ‘unhealthy.’ So much for it being the home to healthy expat bike riders!
For comparison’s sake, I also looked into the AQIs of New York, Berlin and Rome and found some surprising results.
Areas around Manhattan, NYC register anywhere from 20 to 40, which is considered ‘good.’ Central Rome registers at 104 – ‘unhealthy for sensitive groups.’ Berlin comes in at 36, which is also considered ‘good.’
How Polluted is Chiang Mai?
Another huge contributor to Thailand’s air pollution is its frequent practice of agricultural burning. This has a debilitating effect in Northern Thailand, which is home to many agricultural regions, as well as the urban hub of Chiang Mai.
In the Spring months, from February to May, farmers enthusiastically burn fields to make room for new crops, pushing the amount of particulate matter in the air to unacceptable and unsafe levels (> 120 μg/m3).
As farmers continue to burn, haze from Chiang Mai’s agricultural regions, transboundary haze from Myanmar and haze from Indonesia all combine to create the perfect storm for residents of Northern Thailand, who report an increase in hospital visits, respiratory issues, pneumonia and asthma cases.
Should People Be Concerned About Air Pollution in Thailand?
It is evident that higher populated areas of Thailand are much more prone to high levels of air pollution and potential health problems.
Though AQIs in Thailand range from the mid 20s to nearly 150, it is clear that there are more healthy places to live than others.
A study on air pollution and mortality between 1999 and 2008 concluded the following:
We found that all air pollutants had significant short-term impacts on non-accidental mortality. An increase of 10 μg/m3 in PM10, 10 ppb in O3, 1 ppb in SO2 were associated with a 0.40% (95% posterior interval (PI): 0.22, 0.59%), 0.78% (95% PI: 0.20, 1.35%) and 0.34% (95% PI: 0.17, 0.50%) increase of non-accidental mortality, respectively.
O3 air pollution is significantly associated with cardiovascular mortality, while PM10 is significantly related to respiratory mortality.
In general, the effects of all pollutants on all mortality types were higher in summer and winter than those in the rainy season.
The mean values of (A) non-accidental death, (B) PM10, (C) O3, and (D) SO2 in 18 Thailand provinces during 1999–2008.
So the rainy season is actually the best time to be in Thailand, generally. And the over-arching fact is that pollution is affecting mortality rates, particularly in the red and blue areas of the map.
Moving out of the city centers might offer a reprise for those who suffer from pollution related health problems, though some areas off the coast of Thailand are just as, if not more, polluted.
Moving to the islands would probably be a healthier move as there is less industrialization, less people and fewer cars and motorbikes.
It really is hit and miss though. Below the map shows a couple of dangerous areas of Bangkok in red, surrounded by a mix of moderate and healthy areas.
There's a mix of moderate and healthy up north in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, with Nan fairing. You'll see it's low-moderate down there in Surathani, and high moderate over there in Khon Kaen. Of course time of day and weather are key influencing factors over the numbers.
In fact, if we take Thailand overall, we get a very different picture:
Those living in urban centers in Thailand have cause for concern as economic growth in the country has been prioritized over environmental issues, the greatest of which is clean air and water.
Industrial growth has supported the developing nation, but at an enormous cost, particularly to those in the Bangkok metropolitan area, which is where 20% of the country’s pollution is concentrated and where over 65% of the nation’s emissions originate.
Lack of regulation and frequent dumping has led to a rapidly worsening situation. The World Bank estimated that air pollution related deaths in Thailand have risen nearly 20,000 in the past 20 years.
In Bangkok, particulate matter from vehicle emissions is at an all time high and routinely exceeds the national safety standard, which is 50 μg/m3 annually and 120 μg/m3 within a 24-hour period.
Note that this is in absolute contrast to articles such as that in Coconuts Bangkok that report Bangkok to be one of the ‘cleanest’ cities to live in. Provincially speaking, Bangkok is a huge area of land, and perhaps overall it ranks fairly ‘cleanly’ in comparison to others, but certain parts, particularly central Bangkok and the industrial areas like Samut Prakan, are heavily polluted.
In coastal regions of Thailand like Rayong, economic development has spurred the use of over 73 million tons of chemicals (including dangerous volatile organic compounds) each year. The use of VOCs can contribute to severe neurological and reproductive disorders.
What is Thailand Doing to Combat Air Pollution?
While there has been some regulation in the creation of the Pollution Control Department, initiatives have been slow to take hold.
There is a movement to adopt more environmentally friendly cars and a push to improve infrastructure for public transportation.
Initiatives from the Air Quality Control Program attempt to implement emission standards for used and new vehicles, inspection and maintenance programs for cars, roadside inspections and traffic management.
Currently, most cars, trucks and motorbikes in Thailand meet the national standards for acceptable pollution levels, though AQIs in Thai cities are still quite high.
There are a few small wins: the Air Quality Control Program boasts the establishment of the national ambient air quality monitoring network, a phase out of lead in gasoline, ongoing improvements in vehicle emission standards and the control of power plant based sulfur dioxide emissions.
Still, there is more to do to counter the country’s continued and largely unrestrained industrial rat race.
How Does Thailand Stack Up Against the Rest of the World?
Environmentalists often question the stats coming from official Thai sources, so when analyzing this issue it is important to look at the data from as many sources as possible.
The World Health Organization has released a report that reports ambient air pollution concentration in cities.
For comparisons, sake, I’ll review the United States’ emission levels, as well as those of well populated European cities, and of course Thailand.
- The US reports an annual concentration of PM2.5 as 9.7 and PM10 as 16.
- The UK reports an annual concentration of PM2.5 as 13.3 and PM10 as 19.6.
- Italy reports annual concentration of PM2.5 as 22.7, PM10 as 32.
- Thailand reports annual PM2.5 as 22.4 and PM10 as 41.4.
- Germany reports at PM2.5 at 16.1 and PM10 at 21.7.
As you can see, Thailand’s concentrations of particulate matter do not vary immensely from that of Italy, which could sort of surprise residents of both.
However, most American and European based cities report a much lower amount of particulate matter (both PM2.5 and PM10) than Thailand does, meaning that those who immigrate from the West to Thailand’s inviting cities are subject to a much higher level of air pollution than they are probably used to.
So Tell Me TTL, Where is the Healthiest Place to Live in Thailand?
While air pollution levels around Thailand vary greatly, it is undeniable that lack of regulation and wavering commitment to environmental issues are debilitating to those who live in urban centers or who work in industrial occupations.
Springtime in Thailand brings agricultural regeneration, but also immense amounts of smoke and smog that can drive foreigners from cities like Chiang Mai.
While the coastal or island regions in Thailand have much cleaner air, it may only be comparable to levels in major US and European cities. So unfortunately, if you’re looking for a breath of fresh air, Thailand may be the answer – but only metaphorically.
But to put that in context, you won't be any worse off than living back home, if you're from a city that is.
Those seeking to live in the North would do well to live in the likes of Nan or Pai. Even Lampang is more moderate than Chiang Rai or Chiang Mai, but still not low pollution.
Down South, anywhere in Surathani isn't a bad bet. Samui residents will be pleased to hear that, I'm sure. Chonburi (the province containing Pattaya and Jomtien) is on a par with Bangkok I'm afraid.
Khon Kaen is getting worse but still considered moderate. Further into Isaan, things get better in the smaller provinces like Kalasin and Roi Et.
Bangkok-wise, Pathum Thani is a good call. If that's too far out, Huay Kwang, Ratchada or Pharam 9 areas are moderate for air pollution and would be safer than Asok or other central areas. The problem is that many areas fail to report (perhaps they don't have the technology in place) data in Bangkok, so it can be difficult to access information for specific locations.
If you’re interested in checking the AQI in your area, refer to this website.
balthazar says
I’m thinking of moving to one of the southern coastal regions of Thailand, where the air is supposed to be better. But I still worry about all the burning of agricultural fields throughout Asia and Indonesia on a yearly basis and how this practice would adversely affect my health. Do you have any data on this subject? I recently read about Phuket issuing health warnings for weeks at a time due to this problem. That’s not very reassuring.
Jun 05, 2017 at 5:33 am
John Davis says
If it is possible to switch off monitoring stations to bring down the average then I wonder would powers that be do that?
You saw in January Chula Hospital read more than 200 for the month – very unhealthy – It is the only monitoring station in Silom. Yet suddenly (and after I sent emails to newspapers asking why they don’t report this) the monitoring station stopped working. In fact every monitoring station that showed unhealthy readings has stopped working. Bringing us to this lower average reading which is still not good. My building on a night like this and 30 floors up in Silom has a rotten egg smell to the air on the balcony. I am suffering at the moment from the pollution, London issues warnings when the reading reaches 50ish and the Mayor wants to charge diesel vehicles £20 for just driving in the city. The UK Government is looking at banning all diesel transport too. London estimates 4000 deaths from pollution every year but Bangkok is silent on this. We still have busses belching out thick smoke from oil being burned in unmaintained engines – a thick smog floats over south Bangkok daily. I would urge you to try and get this published by the Thai press. If London admits to 4000 death with half to a third of Bangkok’s pollution problem then how many is it here?
Apr 07, 2017 at 1:06 am
Greg Adkins says
I am a retired welder, so my lungs are not in the best of shape to begin with. I wish I would of checked air quality before deciding on where to move to in Thailand, but that is one thing I didn’t even think about. If I had, I would not have moved to Chiang Mai like I did. Very Bad Mistake!! I have been here one year, and that’s enough. I am Hua Hun bound. Already found a great place right in between Hua Hin and Cha-Am. Should be leaving first of the month.
Feb 23, 2017 at 7:11 am
TheThailandLife says
I can’t get an exact reading for Hua Hin but looking at comparative areas I imagine it is generally healthy and moderate at worst. Overall, Chiang Mai has been moderate for most of today but is edging towards unhealthy as the day goes on.
Feb 23, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Dave Holden says
Hi Guys
How does Hua Hin fair in the clean air department?
Cheers Dave
Feb 22, 2017 at 3:23 pm
TheThailandLife says
Can’t get an exact reading, but judging by location I’d say healthy to moderate. Far better than Bangkok, Pattaya, Chiang Mai.
Feb 23, 2017 at 5:01 pm
Paul says
Great info Phil. Chiang Mai is better this year than 2 years ago but, the burning has just started the last couple of weeks. Allergies are worse than last year… Very sad!
Thanks again!
Feb 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Ken says
Having spent most of my life in a small coastal California city with some of the cleanest air on the planet I never really had to worry too much about air pollution myself. In fact, we are so fanatical about having clean air to breathe that in 1990 we became the first city on the planet to ban smoking in public places, such as restaurants and bars. And way back in 1982 drive through windows were also banned in the city because, after all, its kind of wasteful having your car idling while you wait for your fast food to be made or while doing your banking. Also cars did not run very clean while idling back then.
Anyway, when you get used to always having those clear blue skies and unlimited visibility everyday it can be rather depressing to visit cities like LA or Bangkok on high smog days when the skies are drab and gray and the visibility is not even a mile.
Still, I can honestly say that I have never for even one second worried in the least about my health in these particular cities. Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely cities in the world that I would refuse to live in due to the horrific levels of air pollution they experience, but these cities are mostly in India and China.
Cities in Thailand on the other hand don’t even make it into the top 100 list of most polluted cities on the planet. In fact, where particulates are concerned (PM2.5) even the worst offending Thai city only comes in at 260th on the list. By comparison, Fresno, California is in 160th place on this same list. So, I just can’t really understand anyone having health concerns about living in Bangkok. And personally I think we should all just be thankful that we don’t have to live someplace like 19th century London (or New York). It always looks so quaint and picturesque in the movies but in reality the streets were completely covered in a thick layer of horse shit and urine. Then there were all the cesspools full of human waste everywhere. The stench must have been unbearable. And the air was so polluted and full lung clogging soot that most of us today would find breathing it for even 60 seconds to be completely intolerable. Not that anyone had to put up with these horrors for very long as the average life expectancy was only about 40 back then.
The point is; we have it pretty damn good these days. And as for the air in Bangkok it doesn’t seem to be much worse than many major cities right here in the USA. I can’t really say if the air in Bangkok is better or worse today than it was 25 years ago (probably worse due to recent and increasing industrialization) but I do know that pollution from motor vehicles at least has decreased substantially in that time. In fact, I remember on my first trip there in 1990 there were still a lot of cars on the road from the 70’s and early 80’s and most seemed to be out of tune and would be spewing either black or blue smoke out into the atmosphere. I also remember that I spent my first day in Bangkok riding around in the back of a Thai friend’s pick-up truck and when I had to blow my nose later that evening I was surprised to see that the tissue was full of black soot, as if I had spent the whole day working in a coal mine. To be fair, I’m not sure if that all came from the air in Bangkok or directly from the exhaust pipe of my friends own very out of tune truck. Pick-up trucks are not exactly the most streamlined vehicles on the road and the turbulent airflow over the back end could conceivably suck air (and exhaust gases) from the rear end of the truck back up into the truck bed.
Either way, the problem is that before electronic ignitions, electronic fuel injection, and computerized engine management systems, you had to tune up your car several times a year to keep it running at optimal performance and burning fuel relatively cleanly. And unfortunately the Thais just didn’t seem to be big on routine car maintenance back then.
Fortunately however modern cars don’t require “tune ups” in the traditional sense of the word in order to keep running at optimal performance levels. In fact even with a badly clogged air filter they will not run rich. And thanks to advances in metallurgy they can now go several hundred thousand miles before they will start burning oil. And of course, the very dirty running 2-cycle motorbike has now pretty much become a thing of the past, which makes a big difference in South East Asian cities where most people still get around on two wheels.
Feb 05, 2017 at 12:18 pm
TheThailandLife says
I have to disagree. PM 2.5 was 175 in Bangkok today (very unhealthy), almost twice that of London and triple that of LA. Sure, there are places in Thailand where the air is very good, but people should think selectively about where they live in the cities. It’s true that we are living much longer, but much of that is down to modern medicine’s ability to keep us alive. Sadly this is causing us to neglect our health, because we just rely on meds when we get sick.
Population and industrial growth and greed is causing cities with little regulation like Bangkok to become more polluted. There are numerous studies on Bangkok, a few on policeman and children.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/16/6/676/587688/Respiratory-symptoms-and-lung-function-in-Bangkok
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655899
– The prevalence of respiratory symptoms and impaired lung function were higher among children living in areas with high pollution than in areas with low pollution.
– Bangkok populations are being adversely affected by air pollution to which they are regularly exposed.
– This has clear implication in public health and regulatory perspectives to protect the vulnerable populations.
Feb 15, 2017 at 5:26 am
Ken says
Sorry it took so long to get back to you but I didn’t get an e-mail notification this time for some reason. Maybe I forgot to check the box.
Anyway I was not saying that the air in Bangkok is great by any means, or even halfway decent for that matter. What I was saying is that no city in Thailand is currently in the top 200 worst polluted cities in the world. Of course even 250th is obviously pretty bad compared to a city like mine which is way down below 1200th place.
I was also saying that Bangkok is not a place in which I would personally be overly worried about the health effects on my own body from air pollution. That does not at all imply however that other should not be worried for their own health. Every individual has a different point at which they find a threat serious enough to personally be concerned about it, and there is no right or wrong place to draw that line. Some will worry when they really don’t have cause to and other might not be worried at all when they really probably should be.
The biggest killer by far in the United States is coronary disease, followed by cancer I believe, yet most people still refuse to cut out foods that could lead to these condition. They just don’t worry about it. And who am I to say they are wrong. I guess they just figure that as long as they are alive they are going to enjoy eating what they want and not be worried about it.
As for the air in Bangkok I don’t really like it one little bit, but if I wanted to live there the air would not necessarily be a deal breaker for me either, as it might be in some cities that are even much more polluted. That was really the gist of what I was saying and I did not mean to imply that others should not be concerned. I’ve always been a “glass is half full” kind of guy so instead of focusing on how much worse Bangkok air is than here on the California coast I prefer to think of it in terms of how much better it is than the really, really, really badly polluted cities in the world.
Feb 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm
Ken says
I was just doing some more research today on air pollution and I was able to learn that about 5 million people a year supposedly die on this planet from the effects of air pollution, about half of which are in India and China. And then I learned that there are apparently about 200,000 of these pollution related early deaths in the United States (according to a recent MIT study). The statistics in China and India did not really surprise me at all as they have the most polluted cities on the planet by far. The US statistics on the other hand really surprised me because that is more than twice the number of people who die from alcohol related deaths in this country every year. This is also surprising in that, based on our respective populations, this would mean that the pollution related deaths per 100,000 people in the USA are actually about 65 percent of what they are in India and China. This just does not sound right to me.
Anyway, unfortunately I was unable to get any information on pollution related deaths in Thailand to see how they rank with the rest of the world. I did learn however that pollution levels in both Vietnam and parts of Thailand have apparently nearly doubled since 1990, which is MUCH more than I had originally speculated it would have.
Obviously its urgent that we don’t let this trend continue, and we all need to do what we can to stops it – although I’m still not going to personally worry about my own health as there are so many things out there that could kill any of us at any time.
Feb 23, 2017 at 11:33 am
TheThailandLife says
Hey Ken, if you look in the post under the heading “Should People Be Concerned About Air Pollution in Thailand?” you will see a link to a study on Thailand and mortality rates linked to air pollution. Also see the map below that link that shows how air pollution correlates with non-accidental death records.
Feb 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm
John Doha says
The readings at chula Hospital, by Lumpuni park were showing more tham 200 and very unhealth the right through January and into early feb. Then various monitoring stations with very unhealthy reading went off line. Strange isnt it. And yesterday the closest statiin to silom was at 159.
Since feb 20 I have not even been able to see Bangcackoa or Bang Na from my condo on Sathorn due to thick smoky smog.
The readings you are using are way lower than the ones I have been seeing since January 1.
Mar 02, 2017 at 2:26 pm
TheThailandLife says
Hi John, like you I have observed much higher readings. Those I have used I consider to be somewhere close to the average during a given day because there are heavy fluctuations, particularly during rush hours. I actually started research air quality around 3 years ago when a friend piqued my interest; he was doing some comparisons with other cities. I too have noticed how certain areas are either always offline or intermittently reporting. It’s hard to say if this is a cover up or whether it is simply down to lack of resources. Some areas do not even have a reporting station set up, other may be broken, just like many of the health-department web pages — of which a number still show stats from early 2000s.
Mar 02, 2017 at 3:53 pm
Carl says
This place is FULL of indifference in regards to personal behaviour affecting pollution. Everyone open burns waste both organic and man made. Outside of Bangkok two stroke engines are still in use and diesels large and small smoke badly. My Thai relations dont think there’s a problem but it’s because they REFUSE to know any different. But most of them have wet coughs and now I do too. When I saw the police and monks open burn organic waste from landscape maintenance I was very disappointed. Try that as regular behaviour in most of L.A. and you’ll be out some money.
Feb 20, 2017 at 7:28 pm
Ken says
You are definitely right about not being able to get away with that stuff in California. In some cities here you are not even allowed to use your fireplace or wood burning stoves in the winter to keep warm on most days. You actually have to go online to see which days are burn days and which ones are no burn days and you are even supposed to register your wood burning devices because on some days you can only used registered devices. And if you get caught disobeying any of these regulations the fines can be very steep.
Of course, when I was a kid in the 60’s you could burn trash in a 55-gallon drum in your backyard with no problem, and nobody really worried about pollution. In many ways Thailand no different than the USA was 100 years ago and naturally it will take time for it to catch up. As countries mature they all eventually become more environmentally conscious, but all societies also progress at different speeds. Thailand has only recently joined the ranks of industrialized nations so you can’t expect it to be like Japan overnight. And by the way, burning old growth from the fields is still allowed and frequently done in some other parts of the USA so don’t be too hard on those poor monks.
Feb 21, 2017 at 3:48 pm