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.
hrrm... yes better than it was in nigeria for sure, water quality def worst around in chicago that i have lived in, but certainly not the worst in the u.s., worth using filter systems? Definitely!
... in fl I was on an aquifer, springs and such, not much heavy industry.
Also definitely is not on par with sonoma county/marin, no way. I drink well water with a sulfur filter, but bathe in an unfiltered line (its like spa water). I would also not think twice about eating fish out of Bodega Bay for instance, vs. Lake Michigan.
I would like to think I know a tad about it considering the many conversations I have had with my uncle who managed a city water system for decades, phd in chem.
So yes, not trying to be mean or bash, but great lakes water, not so good...neither are any other areas which have heavy industry though, I just haven't lived by them.
I agree with Texas, and considering they are number two in population to California there could be some shifting of population and power in the future. California has had a rough couple years...
hrrm... yes better than it was in nigeria for sure, water quality def worst around in chicago that i have lived in, but certainly not the worst in the u.s., worth using filter systems? Definitely!
... in fl I was on an aquifer, springs and such, not much heavy industry.
Also definitely is not on par with sonoma county/marin, no way. I drink well water with a sulfur filter, but bathe in an unfiltered line (its like spa water). I would also not think twice about eating fish out of Bodega Bay for instance, vs. Lake Michigan.
I would like to think I know a tad about it considering the many conversations I have had with my uncle who managed a city water system for decades, phd in chem.
So yes, not trying to be mean or bash, but great lakes water, not so good...neither are any other areas which have heavy industry though, I just haven't lived by them.
I would feel better about eating fish from Bodega Bay myself, but the drinking water in NorCal likely comes from groundwater, a lake, or from the mountains. Any of these can also easily be contaminated from agricultural pollution or from surface runoff. Any springs or wells that supply drinking water are also susceptible to groundwater contamination that comes from surface pollutants.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you don’t have to be any more worried about drinking from the Great Lakes water supplies than you would in any other places. Also, the EPA sets treatment standards for these things, so it is a matter of figuring out how to treat the water from the local source contaminates. What comes out after treatment has to fall in line with the standards no matter where it comes from.
Also, if you think getting water from a bottle will save you from taking in contaminates that may or may not be true. Bottled water has standards set by the FDA, which has higher standards that relate to taste but not so much in other areas. The real problem is that the FDA does not police treatment systems like the EPA does nor does it monitor the supply watershed. Here is some info you can read on that topic.
honestly, NYC is as nice as it's ever been. They have done a good job recovering from the bad old days (70's and 80's) and are building for the future (new water main, east side access, ARC, second ave subway, and parks, can't say enough about their parks). I wouldn't count them out. OTOH, the rest of the state is a mess. I think high speed trains to NYC could help, but NYS is so poorly run it seems to crush these smaller cities. I think Rochester could conceivably make a recovery, a high speed train could put it within 4 hours of NYC or less, they have a ton of potential waterfront if they can, and a high speed ferry to thriving toronto could also help. Buffalo I'm less confident in. At any rate, I think Texas will be fine, the business friendly environment and can do attitude goes a long way. Every plae has a weakness. I think the weakness due to the collapse of northeastern economies (manufacturing, mining, railroading) have largely played out and many will begin to recover. Pennsylvania has a relatively mild climate and two cities that seem to be on the rebound which bodes well for them, though the political climate there is a negative. VA will continue to prosper. DC will continue to steal wealth from everyone else as well though it will never be as good a place to live as NY. the north's weakness is winter, the south's weakness is energy costs (AC is more energy intensive than heating). the sun belt's weakness, notably arizona, has both water and energy as problems (though I'd imagine solar can work). California has the coast. to make a long story short, I like Texas, California, Washington (state), NYC, Pennsylvania, NC, VA...I think the chicago region will be fine, not sure about downtstate. Milwaukee will continue to improve. Pittsburgh will continue to be the rust belt's poster child. I think Florida will stagnate and I don't know enough about GA or CO to comment.
Not for long in 2011 New York is going to be passed by Florida and become the 4th most populated state (It's 3rd now)
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.
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.
