Fear of toxic pollution from the recent blazes at a rubbish dump in Samut Prakan's Phraeksa area seem to have disappeared from our collective attention as soon as it disappeared from the headlines. However, the many health risks it poses have not gone away.
The toxic smoke may have died down, but many questions about public health remain unanswered. For example: What is the quality of soil and water like in that area now? What are the effects on residents' health? When will the toxic garbage be removed and which party is going to foot the bill?
The Phraeksa community is one of many others affected by pollution which has been forsaken. Karen villagers in Kanchanaburi have been living with toxic lead contamination in their creek for over two decades.
Villagers in Ron Phibun district in Nakhon Si Thammarat are still living with arsenic residue in soil released from tin mining activities three decades ago. The communities in Loei and Phichit provinces are struggling with toxic contamination, believed to originate from gold mines.
According to research by the faculty of engineering at Naresuan University, there are 50 toxic contamination sites in Thailand yet to be properly cleaned up.
According to Tanapon Phenrat, a researcher on toxic pollution remedies at the university, contamination at those sites results from toxic waste released from factories, mining activities and toxic waste dumping — exactly like the case at Phraeksa.
Illegal dumps are the main sources of pollution. On the eastern seaboard, there are 40 industrial waste dumps, industrial estates and petrochemical facilities. There are another 10 major toxic contamination cases nationwide, including lead contamination in the Klity River in Kanchanaburi and, recently, oil spill residue on Koh Samet of Rayong province.
Mr Tanapon, who received his doctorate degree in pollution remedies from the US, said toxic contamination sites in Thailand are rarely cleaned up properly. One of the reasons for this is that Thailand has no specific laws to deal with toxic waste clean-ups and remedial measures.
Authorities involved, such as the Pollution Control Department (PCD) and Industrial Ministry, often rely on general regulations from the 1992 Environmental Act, Factory Laws, and Public Health Act. These laws, however, do not provide specific and clear directives to deal with toxic substances.
The laws often deal with pollution occurring in soil, water and air, but fall short on the specific measures to deal with complex toxic substances that require scientific and technical knowledge.
These general laws also fail to specify what steps need to be taken, which agency should handle toxic waste clean-ups, what the source of money is for the clean-up, and what the proper measures are for long-term monitoring.
There are good examples and standards that Thailand can follow. Mr Tanapon uses the example of the US Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Cercla) — a federal law that appoints and defines the processes and execution of pollution clean-ups.
The law gives clear directives and guidelines of what to do and where to seek funding. The process starts with immediate toxic risk assessment, through to clean-up and post-clean-up monitoring.
The monitoring process usually takes a few years after the clean-up has ended to ensure the risk from contamination has been removed completely.
In normal circumstances, US authorities do not have to wait for factories or polluters to pay. In emergency cases, money from a "superfund" can be used for immediate clean-up. The authority is required to sue and seek compensation from polluters if polluters avoid paying for costs incurred.
"In Thailand, the authority does not have specific financial resources, or a separate fund for PCD or state agencies to use for toxic waste clean-ups. Laws require polluters to pay for the pollution they generate. Thus, victims or authorities often go to court to sue polluters.
"Most of the lawsuits take a decade or more to complete. Thus, it is common that toxic contamination sites in Thailand are forsaken, simply because the authority did not have the budget to clean-up the site," said Mr Tanapon.
A classic example in Thailand is the toxic lead contamination in Klity creek. The PCD said the agency does not have a budget for cleaning up toxic lead in the community. Meanwhile, the polluter — the lead extracting company — has since closed down.
The PCD and Department of Industrial Works are drafting new laws for toxic waste contamination. It remains unknown when these laws will be promulgated and what these new laws will look like.
According to Mr Tanapon, these laws only deal with toxic risk assessment. There is no mention about financial resources, or long-term monitoring.
The fate of these villagers and the collective fate of the country are intertwined. Policy commitment to environmental clean-ups and compensation involves a deep commitment of responsibility — something that the current system sorely lacks.
Villagers are left to live with toxic contamination in the same way they are left to put up with other perennial problems such as corruption, unscrupulous politicians, and violations of human rights.
Obviously, our consciences are contaminated, like the grounds of the 50 contaminated sites.
In that respect, we are like the villagers who are forced to live with toxicity, stuck in the same hopelessness.
Anchalee Kongkrut is a writer with the Life section, Bangkok Post.