Forbe's Toxic City Rankings - Phoenix #31 (Tucson, Maricopa: pollution, business, cities)

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Here's where they talk about it:
Glossary: OMB-Designated Geographic Areas - Forbes.com

Just so I understand correctly, you believe the study is flawed because it is unfair to compare a large metro area to a small metro area (for example, Chicago metro compared to Portland metro) because the larger metro would naturally have more pollution than the smaller one. Is that correct?

If that is true, you'd think N.Y.C. would be #1 on the list and L.A. #2, but that isn't so. L.A. is #7 and N.Y.C. is #31 (tied). Phoenix should also be much higher (not #31) and places like Detroit (#2), Cleveland (#6), Jacksonville (#8), Portland (#10), Milwaukee (#12), Orlando (#13), Charlotte (#14), Kansas City (#15), etc, etc, should be much, much lower.


But if you notice, they all say "metro". I'm not sure where it doesn't say "metro".

I didn't say I believed the study was flawed, I said I thought it was misleading because it's titled "The Most Toxic Cities" in America but they in fact list the metro areas. The city itself could be much cleaner OR dirtier than the metro area as a whole. Just ask someone from L.A, NY, Chicago, etc.

According to the table on the link the OP provided, when they count the number of EPA responses, they are only counting them within the principle city, whereas when they are measuring the number of pounds of toxins emitted into the atmosphere, they are counting the entire metro area. Why not use just EITHER the principal city OR the metro area, and title the study accordingly?

EDIT: No, I wasn't talking about the the difference in city size even though a per capita estimate of emissions would presumably be more accurate.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Forbes ranks the most toxic cities in America. Phoenix was not even in the top 25. Their rankings include (1) Air Quality (2) # EPA responses (3) #Facilities releasing toxic chemicals (4) Pounds of Toxic Chemicals Released into the Area. I'm pretty impressed. It confirms the idea that Phoenix is one of the cleanest of the major metropolitan cities. Hopefully this information will better enable people to make an educated and informed decision to move here.

America's Most Toxic Cities - Forbes.com

For a quick glance, Here are top 15

1 Atlanta
2 Detroit
3 Chicago
3 Houston
5 Philadelphia
6 Cleveland
7 Los Angelas
8 Jacksonville
9 Baltimore
10 Portland
11 Dallas
12 Milwaukee
13 Orlando
14 Charlotte
15 Kansas City

I would have put Phoenix ahead of at least five of the top 15. The choking pollution was why I moved

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

This is what the "methodology" says:

For our rankings, we used two measures based on the TRI: the total number of facilities in each MSA that reported toxic releases, and the amount, in pounds, of toxic releases in each MSA in 2007.

Interesting. I wonder why it says that on the methodology but the very first item to the right of the table lists a factor (Number of EPA responses in principle city) that apparently wasn't even considered in their rankings.

America's Most Toxic Cities - Forbes.com

[twiggy]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

When did I do that? I think someone needs to calm down a bit....



Yeah.



You can also exaggerate it.



Some of the "lay men" may be more knowledgable with some aspects than others....



Nobody ganged up on you. It's just that more people on here seem to disagree with you than agree with you. Do you have a problem with that? Are we not allowed to express our opinions just as much as you, even if they are opposite opinions? Or should only those who agree with you be allowed to post?
BTW, the only things you've said are "wrong" with the Forbes magazine article is that 1) it comes from a business and 2) it slightly contradicts some other study you hold dear. Other than that, you don't seem to find faults with their actual findings or methodology. If you want to refute it, you'll need to try harder.



Where are your "facts"? Seems like a double standard.....



Same to you.

You three did much more than disagree with me, why don't you re read all your posts about my small comment on the island effect. I wasn't being mean at all, as a matter of fact I was complimentary of Ponds thread. It seems to me you all just took on a fun time for no reason but never the less, that isn't the point. The point is, since you agree with AZriver enough to answer my post to him, then I will answer you back with what I am meaning for him to hear, and that is, what makes you think you are not a lay man, throwing your opinions about Forbes rankings around like fact in just the same way you believe others are doing? My point is we all do it, so, if you intend on having fun bashing others for it, then at least, don't do it yourself in the same thread, I mean, the thread itself is just an opinion laid out as fact. If you don't get this, then I don't know what else I can say, I'm talking to a wall. I clearly stated mine was an opinion, you are the ones portraying yourselves factual, so I don't need the facts, you do. I assume you mean by some are more knowledgeable you mean yourselves but that is also just your opinion.
And I don't have anything to get over, I'm not pretending to be more knowledgeable than anyone else, but if you can't spell it then I wouldn't use that word either. I'm done, have fun, but I still have never received an answer to why on earth should I TAKE THE FORBES RANKING MORE SERIOUSLY THAN ANY OTHER POLLUTION RANKING FOR PHOENIX, but I'm guessing I never will.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by twiggy

You three did much more than disagree with me, why don't you re read all your posts about my small comment on the island effect. I wasn't being mean at all, as a matter of fact I was complimentary of Ponds thread. It seems to me you all just took on a fun time for no reason but never the less, that isn't the point. The point is, since you agree with AZriver enough to answer my post to him, then I will answer you back with what I am meaning for him to hear, and that is, what makes you think you are not a lay man, throwing your opinions about Forbes rankings around like fact in just the same way you believe others are doing? My point is we all do it, so, if you intend on having fun bashing others for it, then at least, don't do it yourself in the same thread, I mean, the thread itself is just an opinion laid out as fact. If you don't get this, then I don't know what else I can say, I'm talking to a wall. I clearly stated mine was an opinion, you are the ones portraying yourselves factual, so I don't need the facts, you do. I assume you mean by some are more knowledgeable you mean yourselves but that is also just your opinion.
And I don't have anything to get over, I'm not pretending to be more knowledgeable than anyone else, but if you can't spell it then I wouldn't use that word either. I'm done, have fun, but I still have never received an answer to why on earth should I TAKE THE FORBES RANKING MORE SERIOUSLY THAN ANY OTHER POLLUTION RANKING FOR PHOENIX, but I'm guessing I never will.

Most Forbes lists appear to be written by first year journalism students working from an alamanac

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by twiggy

I still have never received an answer to why on earth should I TAKE THE FORBES RANKING MORE SERIOUSLY THAN ANY OTHER POLLUTION RANKING FOR PHOENIX, but I'm guessing I never will.

I will answer your question. The Forbes ranking accounts for the American Lung Association ranking, the ranking you hold dear. If you examine the Forbes ranking you will note Phoenix ranks 1st in air pollution which comes from the American Lung Association ranking. The ranking you adhere to only accounts for air pollution whereas the Forbes ranking accounts for ALA air pollution ranking in addition to other categories. Forbes is not contradicting the American Lung Association's study. Forbes is not ranking cities with the highest air pollution. It's ranking the most toxic cities and accounts for the American Lung Association study so I fail to see why you think it's a "Forbes vs ALA" when Forbes is paying respect to the ALA by including it's study in its ranking. Why wouldn't you take the Forbes ranking more seriously if it accounts for the study you respect in addition to polls that rank other categories of pollution? It's including more information aside from just air pollution when assessing a city's pollution status. If you desire more clarification, please let us know.

And this has already been stated a couple of times now so I'm a little confused why you think no one have given you an answer on this. Maybe you missed reading these responses but here they are again.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/15430830-post12.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/15448091-post24.html

[Ritchie_az]

Why wouldn't you take the Forbes ranking more seriously if it accounts for the study you respect in addition to polls that rank other categories of pollution?

Well, see this post:

so I don't need the facts, you do.

"We" have to supply the facts, because twiggy apparently isn't interested in them. When several of us on here disagreed with something, we were accused of several different things and twiggy tried to make him or herself appear to be some victom. This is a logical fallacy used when there is no logical arguement.
There are some who believe Phoenix is a horrible place because of the "chocking pollution". They see a brown cloud and think the worst. I say, go spend some time in Bakersfield and then tell me that Phoenix is horrible....

[twiggy]

It's not called "uninterested", it's called "ignore list". AZriver answered my question, he does believe that we rank high in "air pollution", but he want's us to look at the whole picture from his perspective, that being "Forbes". I understand, just don't agree with Forbes version of it, I think they have to please big business or they would turn off their readers. AZriver believes it enough to post it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just keep in mind, thats what it is, oh, and, you don't have many facts, you just point to AZriver and say "yea, what he said". So, I answer both of you with one post. Now, your going back on ignore so I can read in peace. Any further questions just pm me. lol

[Ritchie_az]

I don't agree with high "air pollution" ranking, because of the Haboobs. We have them, not many other cities do. When ever one comes blowing through, our "air quality standards" gets exceeded and we (Maricopa County) receives a fine from the Feds. If every city has Haboobs, the study would be accurate. But most don't, so the study is flawed. If you factor in the Haboobs and what that does to our "air pollution" then you'd see that Phoenix's "air pollution" isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior

I said I thought it was misleading because it's titled "The Most Toxic Cities" in America but they in fact list the metro areas. The city itself could be much cleaner OR dirtier than the metro area as a whole. Just ask someone from L.A, NY, Chicago, etc.

Fair enough but then why would you apply that principle to L.A., NY and Chicago but not Phoenix? Based on your argument that the suburbs could be considerably cleaner, the same argument can be applied to Phoenix.

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is misleading since any study that compares cities with regards to any topic includes the metropolitan area and is rarely if ever limited to the principle city alone. Why pick and choose and call this study misleading because it included metro areas when other studies do the same thing? For the sake of convenience, they will use the term "cities" in their title instead of saying "Rankings of Toxic Cities and it's Metropolitan Areas" I think it's fairly understood that city includes the metropolitan area.