You are here: Home / Thailand Living / Finally: The Truth About Air Pollution in Thailand

Finally: The Truth About Air Pollution in Thailand

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, certain times of the year bring a thick layer of smog and smoke that brings with it a real health threat.

Indeed, in January 2018, Bangkok experienced a smog that caused the government to issue a health warning to “at risk” residents such as children and the elderly.

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.

sources-of-pollution-thailand

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?

Bangkok is the second most polluted province in Thailand, behind Saraburi. Today it is reporting a real-time Air Quality Index (AQI) of 175 (the daily max was 213!), which is very unhealthy.

bangkok-air-pollution

It is worthwhile to note that some areas of Bangkok register much higher on the scale than others. The level of pollution does depend on where you are.

It also depends on the wind factor, because pollution will gather and stick around (smog) if the wind doesn't blow it away from the city.

This is seen clearly here at the Plume website, where some days the advice is that it's good to be out and about, and on other days the advice is to be very cautious.

For example, Samut Prakan and Samut Sakhon, where many factories are based, measured 150 and 160, respectively. Again, both very unhealthy. But Northeastern Bangkok registered at 114 – “unhealthy” for sensitive populations.

There are some areas of Bangkok with more healthy pollution readings, but you have to be careful when looking at the data, because often key data is missing.

For example, Pathum Thani registers a  healthy 32, but don't be fooled: this reading station is not reporting the PM2.5 small air particles, and the PM10 data line has no date in it.  The missing PM2.5 data is exactly what Greenpeace recently called Thailand out for, and branded it “misleading the people”. More on that later.

pathum-thani-pollution

When we look at another reading of Pathum Thani with the PM10 data included, the picture not so healthy. And remember this still doesn't include PM 2.5:

air pollution bangkok

When we look at Bangkok PM10 levels vs. other major cities, Bangkok (overall) is moderate when compared on a global scale, but it is the PM2.5 level in Bangkok that should concern us most. However, PM 2.5 is widely unreported.

bangkok-pollution-vs-the-world

Unfortunately, Bangkok is getting worse. The annual average air quality in 2017 was 72, with a high of over 300: that's twice as bad as London, Paris, Tokyo, Los Angeles and New York but better then Seoul, Shanghai and Beijing.

In the first quarter of 2017 alone, Bangkok registered 300,000 new vehicles, bringing the total to nearly 9.5 million. This rate of expansion will only result in further pollution, unless drastic measures are brought in to combat diesel vehicles and factory emissions.

What's the AQI in Popular Beach Locations?

Surat Thani, provincial home to the likes of Khanom, Samui and Koh Phangan, registered at 21, with a daily high of 41 on PM 10, which is considered ‘good.’

Resort and party paradise Phuket registered at 20, also ‘good' but tends to bounce somewhere between the low twenties and fifties.

But again, these readings are without the PM2.5 metric. It just isn't reliable to base an AQI on a reading without PM 2.5.

However, accounting for an uplift in PM 2.5, on the surface it seems a trip to the beach better for your health than sunbathing next to Bangkok traffic.

In comparison, Los Angeles, California, registered at 50 today (with the PM 2.5). So about the same, probably, when accounting for the missing PM 2.5 in Thailand's readings.

Areas around Chonburi and Pattaya registered at between 110-165 (with PM 2.5) , which is considered ‘unhealthy’ for sensitive groups.

For comparison’s sake, I also looked into the AQIs of New York, Berlin, London and Rome:

Areas around Manhattan, NYC, registered anywhere from 20 to 40, which is considered ‘good’. Berlin was at 36, also considered ‘good'; and London was at 55, considered ‘moderate'. Central Rome, however, was at 104, considered ‘unhealthy for sensitive groups'.

Do note that these are overall statistics, and AQIs will vary for different areas within a city.

surat-thani-pollution

Good but unreliable, because the PM2.5 reading is missing.

How Polluted is Chiang Mai?

Chiang Mai — Thailand’s second largest city, located in the North — is the joint third most polluted city in Thailand. When I last checked, the AQI registered at 108, most definitely ‘unhealthy.’

But look at the 48 hour max (802!?) If that's correct, it certainly wouldn't be safe to go outside.

That said, checking every couple of days or so, as I do, Chiang Mai is generally less polluted than Bangkok – but not far off!

A huge contributor to Thailand’s air pollution is its frequent practice of agricultural burning. This has had a debilitating effect on the air 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, and transboundary haze from Myanmar and 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.

chiang-mai-pollution

Should People Be Concerned About Air Pollution in Thailand?

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.

It is evident that higher populated areas of Thailand are more prone to high levels of air pollution and potential health problems. AQIs in Thailand range from the mid 20s to 200+, so is clear that there are healthier 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.

mortality-rates-air-pollution-thailand

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.

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.

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.

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.

These statistics are in absolute contrast to articles such as that in Coconuts Bangkok which report Bangkok to be one of the ‘cleanest’ cities to live in.

This type of promotional post deceptively looks at overall data, which as it turns out is still worse than London or New York but certainly better than Zabol in Iran, Gwalior in India, or Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, looking at the image below, you'd think air pollution wasn't much of an issue.

overall-air-pollution-thai

Overall, Thailand's air doesn't seem too bad. But this snapshot doesn't give you the information you need.

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.

It's therefore wise not to live in industrial areas. Saraburi is another problem area, today reporting an AQI of 151, and according to Greenpeace the most polluted province in Thailand.

Moving to the islands would probably be a healthier move as there is less industrialization, fewer people and fewer cars and motorbikes. Indeed, the Southern Islands fair quite well.

There's a mix of moderate and healthy up north: Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai can be problematic with crop burning, and Chiang Mai city can be pretty traffic heavy, but areas further north like Nan and Phrae generally fair in the ‘good-moderate' range.

Careful though, as reporting stations in these areas often lack the PM 2.5 metric in their data.

In the Northeast, expats in Khon Kaen will not be pleased to hear that pollution is getting worse. Between January to June of 2017, the two most critical cities with the highest half-year average concentrations of PM2.5 were Khon Kaen (44 µg/m3) and Saraburi (40 µg/m3) – over four times higher than WHO air quality limits.

Could this be due to the expansion of the city: more flights, more cars on the road, more business, more expats, even?.

Nakhon Ratchasima is also looking unhealthy today at 120 AQI, as is Loei.

Of course, with all areas of the country, time of day and weather are key influencing factors over the pollution numbers; so if you want to get an overall picture of where you live/intend to live I suggest monitoring the area over a month.

Also look to historical data, and research any environmental issues such as crop burning – which is seasonal.

What is Thailand Doing to Combat Air Pollution?

While there has been some regulation through the creation of the Pollution Control Department, initiatives have been slow to take hold.

More monitoring stations have been added to detect hazardous pollution, but the public have been deceived somewhat, because as we've covered many reporting stations in Thailand are reporting AQI without PM 2.5 being included in the figures . Overall, this has made air pollution appear cleaner than it is.

This deception was recently highlighted by Greenpeace at a seminar called “Big Issues about Very Small Particulate Matter” at the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre.

Is this deliberate? I'm not so sure it is. In my research, it always seems to be reporting stations in smaller areas and provinces that lack the PM 2.5 metric; so is this an infrastructure/technology issue?

If Thailand wanted to hide its PM 2.5 for its citizens, surely it would do so in the worst areas of Bangkok.

In light of this, iitiatives from the Air Quality Control Program have pledged to implement emission standards for used and new vehicles, inspection and maintenance programs for cars, and roadside inspections and traffic management.

Currently, the majority of cars, trucks and motorbikes in Thailand meet the national standards for acceptable pollution levels, though AQIs in Thai cities remain far too high.

There is also a phase out of lead in gasoline, ongoing improvements in vehicle emission standards and better control of power plant based sulfur dioxide emissions.

Regardless, hazardous pollution levels are rising faster than initiatives are taking hold, leaving far more to do to counter the country’s continued and largely unrestrained industrial pollution problem.

How Does Thailand Stack Up Against the Rest of the World?

The World Health Organization (2015) reports on ambient air pollution concentration in cities around the globe.

For comparison, below are the emission level figures for the USA, as well as some other well populated European countries:

  • 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.
  • Germany reports at PM2.5 at 16.1 and PM10 at 21.7.
  • Thailand reports annual PM2.5 as 22.4 and PM10 as 41.4.

As you can see, Thailand’s concentrations of particulate matter do not vary immensely from that of Italy, which might surprise residents of both countries.

However, most the UK, USA and Germany 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, Where is the Healthiest Place to Live in Thailand?

Let's start with the worst places to live:

According to a one-year average level of PM2.5 from all 25 PCD monitoring stations in 18 provinces, the five cities with the worst air pollution were Saraburi (36 micrograms per cubic metre of air), Bangkok (31), Samut Sakhon (29), Ratchaburi (25) and Chiang Mai (29). The WHO standard was less than 10 micrograms.

While the coastal and 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 very North, perhaps in the likes of Nan, Phrae or even Pai. Even Lampang is more moderate than Chiang Rai or Chiang Mai, but still not what would be considered low pollution.

Down South, Samui and Phuket are both decent choices, but Phuket will vary like Bangkok, since it is a huge island and the city areas are going to see a more concentrated level of pollution. Chonburi (the province containing Pattaya and Jomtien) is mostly on a par with Bangkok, I'm afraid.

Khon Kaen is getting worse but still considered moderate on most days. Further into Isan, things seemingly 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 more moderate for air pollution and would be safer than Asok or other central areas, but, to be frank, Bangkok air is generally a health hazard.

If you’re interested in checking the AQI in your area, refer to this website.

Last Updated on

Comments Sort by : newest | oldest

  1. Wow Peter. Really great article above. Thanks for sharing. I'm a bit of a stickler on facts and I really like what you wrote.You mentioned 1 year historical data. Can you point me to a source for this?By the way, the most helpful visualization site that I have seen is https://www.airvisual.com/earthI'm sure that it isn't 100% accurate/exact, but it is global and substantially real-time. It allows you to zoom in and see things. Play with it.
    Reply

    • Hi Dave, try plume.com You can look back over the whole year on there. That globe at airvisual is very cool but if it's realtime then it's not accurate, certainly not for Thailand. I checked the PM 2.5 for Bangkok and compared with AQI it was miles out. It may be accurate for some areas and not others, depending on how accessible/compliant local data sources are.
      Reply

      • I think AirVisual is pretty accurate. If I am wrong, it would be the first time (not:). The guy that introduced me AirVisual to me was Tara Buakamsri, Thailand Country Director, Greenpeace Southeast Asia at the Air Pollution Conference in BKK (FCCT March 21, 2018). AirVisual is one of his "go to" sites.I compared Plume with AirVisual, UC Berkeley, and AQICN.org. The last three all agree that AQI is 70ish right now and Plume is 41. I'm pretty sure that we are in the 70s now. I also have a Meter.What we really care about is PM2.5 not AQI. They are measured in different ways, but since PM2.5 generally dominates the pollutants in BKK, so PM numbers are found using an "AQI Calculator".Berkeley link is http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/air-quality/local/Thailand/Bangkok/BangkokBerkeley also provides data back to 2016 in easy download format. I like :)If I'm in error, my apologies up front. Just trying to help.
        Reply

        • Hi Dave,By AQI I meant the AQI website. I was comparing the PM 2.5 on there with that of the Airvisual website, and the Airvisual site was showing a very healthy PM 2.5 compared with the AQI website (at the time).There's a guy here in BKK who has a couple of meters and emails me readings now and again, testing inside and outside. It's always pretty concerning. The bottom line is that air pollution is a huge issue here.Thanks for the Berkeley link; I'll check it out.
          Reply

  2. Hello everyone,I can only agree with what is said on this article concerning the consequences of bad air quality! As with many things, children are even more susceptible to respiratory problems due to air pollution. No wonder that air pollution is rising up on the agendas of policymakers here in Thailand, but how do to keep our families safe in the meantime? Like it or not, treating the air of our indoor environments is the best short-term solution to maintaining our family’s health! Some key criteria to help you make your decision: air flow, filter surface area and price, both purchase price and filter replacement costs. Beware of inexpensive air purifiers that require filter replacement every 3 months. And washable air filters means you are dealing with a lower quality product.I am selling high quality HEPA air purifiers from Canada with 3 residential models to chose from. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you are looking for a way to clean the air you breathe at home!Thank you,Anthony
    Reply

  3. Pai and Nan are often the worst hit areas. Pai has had hazardous air fort months, flicking between unhealthy and hazardous anyway. It was well into the purple zone last time I looked www.chiangmaiair.com
    Reply

  4. The air pollution in Bangkok and most of the rest of Thailand north of Phuket, has been very unhealthy for the last 5 months now. We do not go outside very much, wear a mask when we do and run our air purifiers 24/7. Air pollution in Thailand, is a really serious problem and it seems as if nothing is being done to fix it. It just gets worse each year. The only solutions being proposed are 10 years away, at which point it is estimated the number of cars will double, so not really a solution at all.
    Reply

  5. I bought since a few years a sensor which can mesure the concentration of PM10 and PM2.5. I live in Maerim and believe me the air outside cnx isn't better at all. On Wednesday the 22nd of this month I went right to the top of Doi Ithanon about 2400 m. I would expect clean air, there was even a nice breeze. But the concentration of PM2.5 was 33ug/m3 compared to 78 down in Maerim. Much better but still out of tolerance. I live here since 15 years, now I had to make a special room with an air purifier, I bring the PM2.5 concentration down to 4ug. Swiss Alps! Where ever in the North has about the same level of pollution! Even worth, Pai has today an AQI of 427 !! My smile is gone, hidden by a 3M N95 mask!
    Reply

    • It's interesting, because Chang Mai has become a hub for cycling enthusiasts from all over the world, in particular Australia, to come and cycle up Doi Suthep and the other hill climbs that the area has to offer. I've seen a lot of these cycling videos on YouTube and promoting the Chiang Mai healthy lifestyle. But when we look at the air-quality in Chang Mai is probably one of the worst places that you can cycle.
      Reply

  7. Air polution everywhere. Not only in Bangkok. Please help! The oplution from factory release in the night it make a really bad smell and float everywhere. This polution is very light i can see the gas fly high and fast cover around the place all the way i drive to Chantaburi. And its still in the air everywhere. Help!
    Reply

  9. Anyone noticed how Bangkok's 2.5 AQI data miraculously improved beginning Tuesday? This coincided with areas on SE China also suddenly registering 2.5 AQI in the 70's, and I'm not confusing this with 10.0 data. It's as if all monitoring stations have simultaneously de-calibrated themselves.
    Reply

    • Someone else commented before regarding Thailand being affected by pollution blowing in from China, so perhaps this is affecting the AQI. As I write PM 2.5 is 70 in Bangkok and 78 in Beijing, so fairly close.
      Reply

  10. I really hated reading this. I lived in Chiang Mai for the first year I was in Thailand. Hated It!!! I have if emphysema, and the smoke had me coughing all the time. I have since moved to Hua Hin, and love it here. The problem is that I have got a little girl that is going to be going to school in two years. Since the only countries with a lower education ranking than Thailand still have a bone sticking through their nose, going to a public school isn’t even a option. The best school that I’ve found that I can afford is Lanna International School in Chiang Mai. I don’t really have a option, I have got to move back. I had heard a rumor that they were cracking down on the burning there, but I figured it was more jibberish being put out. Since you didn’t mention it, now I know it’s not happening. This really sucks.
    Reply

    • I haven't looked into the air in Hua Hin yet, but from your experience it sounds like it is much better than CM. There is supposed to be a crack down on burning in operation for the last few years, but it doesn't seem to stop. I think there will be more of an effort now though, especially as Greenpeace has pushed this all above the surface. If something like this starts to affect tourism, I'm sure they'll act!
      Reply

    • I live in CM (moved here 12 January this year) and I can tell you that whatever measures have been put in place, assuming they HAVE been put in place, are totally ineffective. I live in Mae Hia about 2 miles south of the main city and and about the same distance from the mountains. This morning I can see neither the mountains or the city! In fact I can't even see the sky or the sun. Just an orange-brown haze everywhere. I think I may have made a mistake moving here.....
      Reply

      • It is crop burning season, though. It happens between late February and early April each year, so you'll experience better air after that. Coincidentally, I started writing a post about this yesterday.
        Reply

  11. Excellent article and some real good reasoned discussion, hard to find these days so refreshing. I have lived here now for approx. 15 years, 10 Bkk,5 Nongprue. Recently I took a contract in Europe for a few months, first extended duration out of Thailand in all that time. Upon returning in Jan 2018, it became clear to my body the air here is much more polluted, especially now, seems to be the worst I can recall in all my years here. Like to bicycle, and for the first time ever yesterday did so wearing an N95 mask to filter my breathing. Takes getting used to but the difference was very noticeable. Now will buy a Respro as a next step. The earlier post on prevailing wind and the difference between directions of wind at ground level and higher in the atmosphere was interesting. I am thinking if moving from my condo to a piece of land, and have been considering aqi ad I look. In my mind, being on higher ground where the air flow is more constant would be better than a valley scenario, and a rainier area better than dry. Anyone w more knowledge on the subject care to comment? 0i assume seaside would be better as well, bit high ground obviously but lots of wind, often from off the water. Cheers and thanks in advance for any comments, grest forum
    Reply

    • Hi PLA,I'm in touch with a reader of this blog who has an AQI measuring tool for inside and outside in Bangkok. He has been emailing me his findings:Sadly I think the air 150 meters up is not that good after all, but better if just slightly windy. I had a reading of 137 AQI on the balcony two days in a row and that's not too far from the official 150 for outside in general. On the first day it was 153!So I think any height will give you some reduction because the closer your are to traffic the worse it gets. That said, when there is no wind and the city is covered in a smog cloud, the difference will be minimal.
      Reply

    • Great article and discussion. One comments on the max 848 AQI in Chiang Mai. The values seem way off (maximum AQI only get to 500) so I'd think that's an artifact from the raw data that the website grabs from the Thai PCD. One thing to keep in mind when looking at instantaneous AQI is that most data is preliminary.@ PLA, you are pretty spot on about the location. Coastal area generally has better air quality because of better ventilation from sea/land breeze. Higher elevation tends to be better than lower land, but the emission source (like factory, major highway) really plays an important factor. Valley and/or complex terrain tends to have varying concentrations depends on the time of the day because it can either trap pollutants in the area, or the wind can flush out the pollutant thanks to the topography.
      Reply

  12. I'm wondering, what did this article look like before the 2018 update? Most people in Bangkok described this past month's haze as the worst in living memory (or at least the past decade), so it'd be interesting to see if this is actually something new or whether things have been getting gradually worse without most people noticing.
    Reply

    • Hi Paul,Things actually looked much the same, but the problem still remains that a large number of the reporting stations are not reporting PM 2.5, and sometimes missing the PM10 data. This is what Greenpeace recently highlighted at their seminar in Bangkok and has subsequently caused a lot of controversy - because people have suddenly realised that the pollution is twice as bad as they thought.
      Reply

    • Most of Khao Yai lies in the province of Nakhon Ratchasima, but parts stretch into Saraburi, Prachinburi, and Nakhon Nayok. Saraburi is the second most polluted province in Thailand, and Nakhon Ratchasima reports moderate most of the time, but the one reporting station I can see is not reporting PM 2.5 data, so this is misleading. If it did, it would most likely show to be unhealthy.See here: http://aqicn.org/city/thailand/nakhon-ratchasima/municipal-waste-water-pumping-station/ On the map you can see the big green space in the middle - that's Khao Yai.It seems there is no AQI reporting station in the park, so you have to look at the surrounding provinces and try to gage what it might be.
      Reply

    • please more information about Pattaya / jomtien => do you know where the measuring stations are located? is daily measured? at what time, or all the day through? the results are the result of a measurement during an entire year?
      Reply

      • The nearest monitoring station is Laem Chabang Municipal Stadium, Chonburi There are others located in Chonburi.None of these are showing readings at the moment on the AQI website, but you can go to this website and see raw data on readings. http://aqmthai.com/However, make sure that any reading you look at includes PM 2.5, because this is one of the small dangerous particle matters that many of Thai reporting stations have been leaving out to make the air appear cleaner than is.
        Reply

  14. Actually when the air is cool you can be almost guaranteed that the pollution is high though-out the whole of Thailand except for the very south. The primary reason for this is the air stream that flows down the Eastern coast of China then crossing Thailand and heading west. Basically we are getting China's pollution and and adding ours to it. This is the prevailing air stream direction so you can be sitting in the center of Khao Yai and still have very high PMI readings.
    Reply

    • That's interesting Tony, and makes the Southern islands increasingly attractive in terms of expat living. Sadly, some of the Southern provinces suffer from the terrorism threat, otherwise I'm sure they'd be more popular. I linked AQI in the post too.
      Reply

    • I get very confused about your dates...You refer to "today" without a date next to it. Also can you clarify if 2.5 particulates are monitored on Government AQIs?I'm particularly interested in the current situation and future prospects for the 3 provinces earmarked for the EEC deveopponent project; Chonburi, Rayong and Chachoengsao. It seems to me that the large expat population living in places like Pattaya are largely unaware of pollution issues and the potential threat posed by this huge industrial expansion.
      Reply

      • Referring to "today" meaning the day I update the post. The last major update was mid January 2018. But actually this isn't relevant, because the readings will be different on any given day and dependent on numerous factors, including wind factor, industrial output for the day, humidity, etc.The point of this post, however, is to highlight that generally air pollution is unhealthy, particularly so in Bangkok and Chiang Mai. Indeed, overall Thailand has a major problem on its hands. As another commenter pointed out, Thailand has the added problem of receiving air pollution from China. The point of the post is also to give people a general idea as to where is best to live, particularly those at high risk of respiratory problems.I can only report my findings from the data as best I can, and will continue to update the post when possible.As you can see, I've noted that a couple of the "good" readings for Bangkok do not include PM 2.5, because the reporting stations are not reporting this metric. But others do. And this exactly what Greenpeace recently highlighted: that the people are being deceived because the overall annual air quality report does not include PM 2.5 and therefore makes the air seem cleaner than it is.This isn't entirely true though, as some stations do report that figure.
        Reply

  17. Today´s value was the highest of bad pollution since we moved here Dec 2014. 208 in the morning. It´s terrible and I find it alarming that there is not a single word in the newspapers. No warning to the public to stay indoors and close windows still. People in the park at Benjakiti (we live in Asoke) are out jogging like nothing is the problem. I don´t understand. We live close to the park and this morning we could hardly see across the lake to the tobacco factory behind Benjakiti. Is current bad smog caused by lack of wind or why is it only getting worse each day?????
    Reply

    • Yes, I can see it is still at 166 and 167 over in Thonburi. Like you say, the smog is probably due to the dense humidity today and a lack of wind to clear it.I think the reasons for a lack of media coverage is obvious, but at the same time the department of public health would most likely argue that overall Bangkok shows average PM 2.5 levels not much different from London and other major cities of the world. To be fair, Thailand has a massive task on its hands. The city is well over populated and dense with factories and old diesel polluting vehicles.
      Reply

      • In general, air pollution is much worse in the winter. Starting in Oct, and going into Feb, March or even April in Bangkok the air is always much worse then the rest of the year.Approximately 50% of the year is high (or worse) air pollution, the other 50% is moderate air pollution.The air quality in Bangkok is much much worse then London and many other major cities.Today, the air pollution in Bangkok is approximately 4x to 5x worse then London, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York, Paris and Seoul.The year average air quality in Bangkok is 2x to 3x worse then London, Paris, Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York. However the average is better then Seoul, Shanghai and Beijing.Sadly, Bangkok is quickly becoming one of the most polluted (or perhaps already was) mega cities in the world.The average for 2017 was 72. The low was in the 30s. The high was over 300!Source: https://air.plumelabs.com/en/year/bangkokAdditional source: http://aqicn.org/city/bangkok/
        Reply

  18. Despite this article was recently updated, I think you don't really know about Pai. Pai is victim of its own success, first the hippies in the seventies, then a indy movie called lost in Thailand, big hit in China, changed it all. PAI is now packed with Westerners and Chinese, some Israelis too. That, brought up scooters renting and anyone who went there, knows you need your own vehicle to see around. So when I read Pai is ok for air pollution, I think an update is needed. Pai is a SELL OUT tourist trap. The new scam of northern Thailand.
    Reply

    • While Pai is indeed touristy, which I mentioned in my post here: https://www.thethailandlife.com/pai-thailand Pai's tourist problem is also down to Thais visiting the area. Its popularity also soared after the 'Pai in Love' movie in 2009, and it became a popular get-away break for Bangkokians.Once you get away from the town, it's still very rural and beautiful. Accommodation can still be found very cheaply too.The air pollution numbers are not my assumptions, this is the data as reported by the reporting stations in the respective areas. Just because a place is touristy it doesn't automatically mean the air pollution is bad. Perhaps it's worse than it was 10 years ago, but where isn't?
      Reply

  19. I have been monitoring the development of smoke and other pollutants in Thailand for years. None of the info in the article is new or surprising to me, and some, because the writer is using online AQI monitoring is a bit misleading because these are pinpoint stations in Thai. I lived in Chiang rai for three years, and Khon Kaen for one, and i can tell you that during the burning season in Chiang rai the air is unbreathable and your lucky if you can see a car in front of you on the road. In Khon Kaen there's some kind of chemical pollution in the air, which made exhaling for me difficult and a conscious effort. I have found the perfect place for me in Thai, but I am hesitant to publish here because I want to get away from foreigners and not draw them! Hahahaa - good luck, and your best bet is to spend time at different times of the year to determine the best spot for you.
    Reply

    • Hi Michael, I've mentioned previously that AQI is a tad problematic because of the lack of/unreliability of some monitoring stations. That said, it is generally a good indicator. At times some stations are down, and increasingly we are seeing stations being closed/not working. I check regularly on areas of interest and the air pollution patterns are generally the same; however, the Bangkok reading in the post is pretty conservation to what I've seen lately.No one would disagree on Chiang Rai in the burning season, or Chiang Mai. I've been to Khon Kaen a few times but not stuck around long enough to experience the air fully. Enjoy your splendid isolation!
      Reply

  20. Choburi/Rayong - you might want to read this thread in Thaivisa. - https:// www.thai visa.com/ forum/topic/ 1007520-air-pollution-at-rayong/?page=6 There are several people (foreigners) who live in the area who are adamant there is no pollution in the region
    Reply

    • Chonburi overall has a very high average PM 2.5 rating and can go up to as high as 150+, which is seriously unhealthy. Even now, in the dead of night, as I type, Laem Chabang Municipal Stadium monitoring station is reporting 80 (moderate but still not healthy).Rayong is reporting a good 39 at the moment, but come the morning the reading will be in the high moderate zone and may hit 100+. It really depends where in Chonburi you are. One problem we have is poor reporting and a lack of monitoring stations - so we can never be 100 percent sure on the quality of readings. The Siracha Youth Center monitoring station in Chonburi has now shut down, which leaves just 2-3 for the whole province. Rayong (generally) certainly isn't as bad in comparison with central Bangkok ( on a PM 2.5 level), but other areas of Chonburi where traffic and industry are dense are not going to differ much from Bangkok.To put it into context though - as I have done with comparisons in the post - London Marylebone Road is currently reading an unhealthy 112 (pm 2.5)! It is 9pm on a Sunday though, so it will still be quite busy.That said, Rayong has a different issue other than traffic, and that's the chemical factories located there.The problem with Rayong is that the heavy pollution is likely to come in bursts, when the factories offload waste products - so some days will be worse than others. You are by the sea there too, so it depends on the way the wind is blowing as to how affected the locality is. This is where pollution readings are a bit problematic, because in Rayong you might inhale some seriously harmful factory pollutants one day but then nothing for the next week due to the wind blowing it the other way. Personally, I don't think living in an area a high density of chemical factories is a good idea.
      Reply

  21. I have made 6 trips to Thailand in the last two years and have developed a chronic cough each time. I have a Dylos DC1100 Pro air quality monitor which I brought this trip to see how bad the pollution is. I stayed at high rise condos in Bangkok near Ekkamai 28th floor and Udom Suk 3rd floor. Indoor air was a reading of Fair to Poor most of the time while outside was usually twice as bad A bit better at Udom Suk than Ekkamai. I stayed at the Autumn condo in Hua Hin, south of town, close to the water and across from a golf course. Nothing near by, no big road, no factory, I was astonished that over the 7 days this areas reading was twice as bad as Bangkok. It rained most days which helped the readings but they they would shoot back up. I can't explain it, the air certainly seems better than Bangkok if you ignore the readings, but my cough did get worse. Only one day when it rained all night was it a good reading. Outside today in Hua Hin the Dylos reading was 5,000 for small particles and 180 for larger, that would be about 480 in the AQICN reading.
    Reply

    • When I took readings at my hometown North of Detroit i would generally get between 200-800 small particle reading indoors and not far off that outdoors. Very clean air, Probably because our air comes from the North West and there is no industry of any sort North West of Detroit. I've seen this same Dylos device used for reading in China that hit 45,000! So Thailand is way better. I have read that small particles .5-2.5 microns, can travel thousands of miles. The wind currently comes from the North East into Hua Hin, so we're getting air from Bangkok. That might explain why Hua Hin is worse than Bangkok. At least on days when its not raining.
      Reply

  22. Wow! Really impressevie study!!! I have been very interested in this matter by my self but unfortunatelly in many places in Thailand they dont report the 2.5 PM! In my eyes the most dangerous as they are the smallest particles that travel longer distanc and also go deeper down in your body/lungs :(
    Reply

    • Thanks! Yes, PM2.5 is a more serious health concern than PM10 because of the reasons you state. The problem is the lack of PM2.5 data. The one very good study we have, which is the one in the post that shows mortality by area linked to pollution, does not report the effects of 2.5. What it does show is that O3 air pollution is significantly associated with cardiovascular mortality, while PM10 is significantly related to respiratory mortality. So one can only imagine what the effect of 2.5 on lung disease and other health issues is.
      Reply

  23. Thank you so very much for gathering the data and conveying it simply for us. I have been coming back and forth from the US to Chiang Mai for the past few years teaching English and now I just moved here. Right now I am in CM for a couple months to get some teaching credentials and then after that my goal was to find a little village up around Pai to teach. I grew up with pretty bad asthma and still use inhalers weekly. I am hoping that if I am up around Pai and Soppong I will be at least a bit out of the burning season smoke that looms over CM. I know you mentioned that places like Pai and Nan are in better condition than CM regarding air pollution, but can you go into any further details regarding these places from the data you collected? Thanks again!
    Reply

    • I was just looking at that area and the closest reporting station to Pai is Maesai, which is showing an air quality score of 28. You can see more hereIt seems the further you go from Chiang Mai the better it gets, though CM has good and bad spots -- of course the city center at peak times is going to be worse. Nan and Pai seem to have average of around 28-35, and usually under 50, which is great compared to most of Thailand. Just don't live near Saraburi! That's a death wish.
      Reply

    • The EEC is coming - it is going to effect YOU! It is going to bring major industrial developments to the 3 Changwats of Chonburi Chachoengsao and Rayong... are you prepared?Lack of clarity and transparency by businesses and authorities mean that it is very hard for local residents to find out about the current state of pollution in the region and the prospects for the future under the EEC project.Two recent reports should raise concerns especially for those living in the Map Ta put hinterland e.g. between Sattahip and Rayong.Firstly a report from the World Resources Institute raises concerns about the authorities preparedness to act on complaints from local residents - http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/08/thailand-unmet-transparency-laws-impede-poor-communities-struggle-environmental... And the second report by Thai organisation EARTH in June 2017 on pollution discusses the effects on Ban Chang and other industrial complexes in Rayong - past, present & future... “There are no assurances that new industrialisation plans will not generate further pollution while existing problems have not been resolved. - http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30317290Under the massive proposed Eastern Economic Corridor plan, the changwats of Chonburi to Chachoengsao to Rayong are about to undergo some major changes - how will the natural environment stand up to this? In particular the little Amphoe stuck right in the thick of it - Ban Chang and its next-door neighbour Map Ta Phut... “One community that has been adversely affected by poor information about water pollution is the Map Ta Phut zone in Rayong Province, Thailand. The area is home to five industrial estates, one deep-sea port, and 151 factories including petrochemical plants, oil refineries, and coal-fired power stations.” - http://www.eco-business.com/news/asians-are-in-the-dark-about-the-regions-water-pollution-crisis/“Despite the high levels of pollution associated with these activities, communities living in the area allege that the authorities are not only allowing pollution violations to occur on their watch, they are also failing to inform people about pollution-related incidents.” - WRI report.For the last 30 years or more, Thailand has been going through the process of moving from an agrarian to an industrial /manufacturing economy. One of the spearheads of this industrialisation has been the setting up of major chemical and manufacturing industrial estates, in particular along the Eastern seaboard south of Bangkok.In an effort to boost prospects for an economy that is quite lackluster compared to some of its neighbors, The Junta has decided to attempt to boost the economy by developing 10 special economic zones around the country and the establishment of the “Eastern Economic corridor” - “the manufacturing paradise of Asia”; basically it is to develop and unite Chachoengsao, Chonburi and Rayong into one massive industrial “paradise” (one can’t help thinking that one man’s paradise is another man’s hell)This involves expanding the Laem Chabang port, high -speed train from Bkk to Rayong and a double track freight rail to Map Ta Phut. A motorway from Pattaya to Map Ta Phut and the expansion of U-Tapao to a major international airport. (From 800,000 to 5 million passengers per year) There will be BOI incentive packages to draw in companies from both home and abroad. - All this will of course generate a lot of new traffic, industry and the ensuing pollution. Among the incentives put forward is “A fast-tracked environmental impact assessment (EIA).” Probably the last thing a country needs when setting up petrochemical plants“ Thailand’s push for growth has raised concerns by local communities about increasing pollution, despite controls and legislation.” - VoAEven before this the region especially Rayong had suffered from excessive pollution... ““The production and use of hazardous substances in the country has caused pollution as hazardous substances were released into the environment and may cause contamination or remain in the environment,”“A European Union funded report with the Thai-based Ecological Alert and Recovery Thailand (EARTH) and Prague-based University of Chemistry and Technology covered eight provinces and the impact on local communities from dangerous heavy metal pollution. The heavy metals examined in the study included arsenic, mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, and lead along with organic contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum products, which medical authorities warn can be potential dangers to health. Key areas of concern were the eastern seaboard industrial areas of Map Ta Phut and the provinces of Samut Sakorn Saraburi and Praeksa — which were affected by leakages from industrial landfills into the local environment.“Greenpeace Thailand country director Tara Buakameri said too often environmental policy depends on “top down” decision making, failing to address the pollution at the source. Tara said policy often compromises the environment to the benefit to industry and development. “It is a compromise situation – the compromise that benefits the polluter, benefits irresponsible companies that pollute the environment. When we can see that the result from the toxic contamination in different regions in Thailand — also affects the community,” - VoA - https://www.voanews.com/a/thailand-pollution/3901468.htmlIt looks now as if in the next few years the region around Ban Chang and Map Ta Phut is going to change beyond recognition. - Massive development is on the way with all its concomitant ills that are so familiar in Thailand.A report released this year by EARTH raises some disturbing points about Thailand’s policies towards development of industry and the ramifications for those living nearby and the environment. http://www.earththailand.org/en/ -Water for domestic and agricultural use is one particular problem here. How do you know if the water is safe? The authorities make it very hard for locals to find out.... ““Without information, you are not able to participate in decision-making or understand whether your water is clean,” she said. “You’re not able to understand how government sets tariffs. You’re not able to understand whether policies are discriminatory against you.”.World Resources Institute said in a report on Southeast Asia’s water challenges it released Aug. 30: “Over 80 percent of global wastewater is discharged back into the environment without treatment, while 300 million to 400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge, and other waste from industrial facilities alone are dumped into the world’s waters each year.”This section is devoted to Map Ta Phut - http://www.earththailand.org/en/earth4 “Map Ta Phut Industrial Estates have currently housed over 90 industrial facilities including oil refineries, petrochemical and chemical facilities and hazardous waste landfills and treatment facility with over 200 stacks emitting toxic pollution into the air of 25 surrounding communities.” “Over two decades of industrial development have turned the area, once rooted by small rural farming and fishing communities, into a number one toxic hot spot in the country”.“The rapid industrialization has resulted in deterioration of natural resources and changes in social and economic structure following by numerous social, socio-economic, environmental, and health problems. Accumulated pollution and environmental problems as well as mysterious diseases have been emerging, as very much linked to each other, and drastically affect small locals who are weak in power to negotiate with the powerful industries or bureaucratic agencies.” - EARTHLack of regulation, industrial waste, spills and leaks proliferate as factories are built without supervision or any regard to the local population or environment. Money will be changing hands and some will become fabulously rich - or rather richer - whilst the factories will continue to pay laborers 300 baht a day to work in toxic conditions with the risk of industrial accidents, chemical damage or long term health problems. It seems many both big and small have a vested interest in silencing opinion on this topic. Industry want to continue their activities with as little interference as possible and such people as expats who have brought property there are also concerned about the desirability of their chosen location. (One would think they might also be concerned about their health and that of their families).It seems that many of those foreigners living in the area are remarkably uninformed about the history of pollution in the area and its lasting effects and are also unaware of the massive development just over the horizon. ... It has even been suggested that there were no factories in Ban Chang! Of course there! There are about 30 major factories there including the massive Dow Chemical plant.Ban Chang is actually not as some inhabitants believe to the west of industry, it is in fact totally surrounded. To the North it Pluak Daeng industrial estates and to the east, before Map Ta Phut, Ban Chang has factories itself such as Dow chemicals as well as the Asia Industry Estate. To the West is U-tapau airport, which is to be greatly expanded to take “MICE” traffic as well as air cargo. .... And the Sattahip Naval base which is also planning a big expansion; the Navy is planning a large industrial complex.Many people site “prevailing winds” as if this guarantees protection against pollution in the area.... big misunderstanding of how prevailing winds affect the region also the topographical and geographical location of the town, which has industry on all sides anyway.This “prevailing wind theory” is patently nonsense as firstly wind born is only one form of pollution and they are PREVAILING, not constant winds - in fact they are only the winds at sea level.... higher atmospheric winds often travel in differing directions and are capable of lifting pollutants and then dumping them around the region regardless of where the “prevailing” wind below may appear to be blowing that day. Gases and particles can be carried high into the atmosphere and then returned back into the prevailing winds or whatever and then gently sprinkled back over the region.As said of course wind is only one problem. Pollution is in soil, air, water and sea and is moved around not just by wind but by tides, rivers, rain; in soil that is moved or dug and dust, it is transported by road and rail it enters the food chain via water storage and catchment and is poured over crops and drained into the sea and the seafood farms that proliferate along the coast. Illegally disposed of industrial waste has been well documented in the region too... Toxic trash. Back in 2014 a report found that 75% of all hazardous waste in Thailand dumped illegally. Even legally disposed of industrial waste has to be transported around the region to designated sites. Much of the public is blissfully unaware of what is moving past their house...until health problems years later highlight the situation.The area between Sattahip and Rayong is about to undergo a massive expansion...in involves the existing petrochemical industry and they also hope to attract others and require housing for thousands of workers. It is certainly not in the government’s interest to have a lot of negative publicity as they control the media a lot of this is kept to a minimum. But there have been continues protests by residents about health, fishermen about sudden depletion of fish stocks etc. every year there are oil and chemical leaks, many hardly get a mention in the media.A major report released this year by EARTH a Thai organization has strongly criticized the government plans and their record on dealing with pollution. On World Environmental Day yesterday, EARTH released a report on pollution in Thailand in 2015 and 2016, exposing serious problems at the Map Ta Phut and other industrial areas.“Atthapon Rittichart, a technical officer with EARTH, said people around the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate were suffering from high amounts of toxic substances in the environment, with many pollution-monitoring stations detecting high amounts of volatile organic compounds beyond safe levels, leading to extraordinarily high rates of cancer.” The Nation“Meanwhile, the report showed that over the past two years, there were 35 landfill fires, 22 reported incidents of illegal industrial waste dumping, and 11 oil spills in Thai waters.” - The Nation.There is no reason to believe that this overall culture over rampant unregulated expansion is going to change. It is in reality a “stable door” approach with little or no follow up... ““From the environmental problems we have noticed over the past two years, we have found that the authorities’ end-of-pipe approach to tackle environmental issues is causing problems, as they wrongly believe that the technology can solve every issue and action can be taken only when the problem already exists,” - EARTH director Penchom Saetang.“The Industrial Works Department and the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand had a duty to monitor projects and punish operators who did not follow environmental regulations. However, those entities cared more about promoting investment and often ignored their role to investigate environmental law violations and to punish those who violated the rules. “These issues make our existing problems worse and a lot of people suffer. Not only the original issues remain unresolved, the government also promotes a new wave of industrial investment, which will further harm the environment and people’s wellbeing,” she said.So one hopes that the people living in this area are aware that the industry where decades of pollution from existing industries has been ineffectively addressed by successive authorities is now about to expand exponentially, and they will be sitting, as ever, slap bang in the middle of it.Remember it isn’t just the “spill” or leak” that is the problem - there is a constant build up in the environment from multiple sources - both large and small - and pollution seldom gets completely cleaned up and disappears, it lingers - sometimes for years or decades and the effects are cumulative on both the environment and those who live there. .... And the amount of industry in the region is about to increase dramatically. Without transparency, good regulation and enforcement, monitoring of pollution etc. one has to be concerned about the effects upon those who have invested their savings or decided to retire in the area
      Reply

  24. 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.
    Reply

  25. 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?
    Reply

  26. 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.
    Reply

    • 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.
      Reply

  29. 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.
    Reply

    • 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-Bangkokhttps://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.
      Reply

      • 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.
        Reply

        • 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.
          Reply

          • 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.
            Reply

        • 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.
          Reply

          • 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.
            Reply

    • 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.
      Reply

      • 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.
        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Send this to a friend