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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.