Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2011, 05:09 PM
 
5,187 posts, read 6,942,015 times
Reputation: 1648

Advertisements

America's Most Toxic Cities, 2011 - Yahoo! Real Estate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2011, 05:19 PM
 
2,419 posts, read 4,724,520 times
Reputation: 1318
Everybodyy knows that Philly has something in the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Louisiana to Houston to Denver to NOVA
16,508 posts, read 26,312,844 times
Reputation: 13293
Baton Rouge is right under New York? Non-sense!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 08:26 PM
 
Location: West Cedar Park, Philadelphia
1,225 posts, read 2,567,337 times
Reputation: 693
Alllright!

I knew we could be #1 at something!

p.s. who pays attention to Forbes' lists anyway? they produce some inane list like every other day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 09:04 PM
 
3,709 posts, read 5,987,701 times
Reputation: 3039
Atlanta went from number one to being completely off the list.

Which brings up three distinct possibilities:

1) Atlanta's 'toxicity' magically improved over the last year
2) The five cities on the list all deteriorated rapidly over the past year
3) The list is complete garbage


I know which way I'm leaning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 09:06 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,051,128 times
Reputation: 10270
We don't trust any air we can't see or water we can't taste!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 07:39 AM
 
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
I would take this list more seriously if it wasn't just another Forbes.com list. That said I've driven along the Deleware river up 495 through Wilmington, DE and seen the Philly/Jersey waterfront and the amount of chemical production does not go unnoticed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,464 posts, read 5,710,417 times
Reputation: 6098
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Baton Rouge is right under New York? Non-sense!
Why not? NY probably only made the list because they count MSAs, and there is lots of chem/petroleum stuff going down in New Jersey + there is always Staten Island.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 08:25 AM
 
1,542 posts, read 6,041,064 times
Reputation: 1705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
NY probably only made the list because they count MSAs, and there is lots of chem/petroleum stuff going down in New Jersey + there is always Staten Island.
don't blame nj and staten island as the "only" (or primary) reason for the nyc metro making this list, as if the rest of the city and region are pristine. without a doubt, jersey and staten island have historically been two of the more infamous contributors to the region's environmental problems, but the other boroughs and suburban areas have plenty of culpability, too. you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise - there are serious water quality issues in places like newtown creek and the gowanus canal (which quite literally has gonorrhea), while numerous places in the boroughs such as the south bronx and upper manhattan have serious air quality problems due to garbage/waste transfer stations, power generator plants, sewage treatment plants, and bus depots that aggravate the locals' breathing/asthma problems. nyc's beaches aren't always the cleanest, either (though they generally get much better in the distant suburbs and exurbs).

besides, i wouldn't worry about nyc being on this list. it's the largest city and region in the nation, and it also has a long and notable industrial history, so it's inevitable that there are going to be some environmental issues. personally, i'm just happy that the city is much more proactive nowadays about curbing environmental abuses and redeveloping old brownfield sites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 7,372,847 times
Reputation: 1450
Wow
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top