^This is northern Michigan. It's so clean, you can drink it. This is as clean as any beach water in the world and there is no nasty salt. Michigan has done remarkable things to stop water pollution and the west coast and northern parts of the state have no big pollution or runoff sources. There are giant forests that maintain the land. Huron is really clean too, despite more proximity to farms. The thumb area of Michigan is heavily agricultural (a lot like Ohio), but their water puts us to shame too. The upper lakes are gorgeous and clear. Erie and Ontario are the lakes with the problems.

I do love traverse city. Cleanest mall in the US

We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

 

The Ten Least Green States In U.S.

Ohio ranks fifth in energy consumption, and very little of this demand is met by alternative energy. Only 0.7% of the state's energy comes from renewable sources, the worst rate in the country. The majority of the state's energy comes from coal. Along with this tendency comes a long and poor record of pollution. The state ranks 47th for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 46th for toxic exposure, 47th for developmental toxins released, and 47th for reproductive toxins released. Additionally, the state ranks second worst, just behind Florida, for hazardous waste violations since 2000, as reported by the nonprofit group OMB Watch. Ohio may not rank dead last in an extreme number of subcategories, however its overall extremely poor showing causes it to be ranked as the least environmentally friendly state on our list.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/23/top-ten-least-green-states-us_n_852797.html#s268625&title=1_Ohio_

Nice.... No wonder young people are leaving. Pollution is never cool.

Pollution is NOT the reason young people are leaving.  Most young people won't consider Ohio cities to be more polluted than Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, LA, or Boston anyway.

 

This really is a dumbass list anyway.  We need steel, coal, oil, natural gas, cars, chemicals, plastics etc... and someone will need to make them.  This is just another list to make those on the coasts feel superior because they've pushed the "dirty work" onto the heartland.  That's not to say we can't improve, but it upsets me when industrial states get ostracized because the work performed in that state created more pollution than the financial and tech jobs on the coasts.

^ in some ways true--- BUT the fact that we are basically in last place for alternative energy has nothing to do with the fact that we still have factories-- You can have the dirtiest factory but still power it by wind or solar power!

The crazy thing is they didn't even mention water pollution and our toxic algae. We deserve to rank worst, and if you include water pollution, we don't have any competition these days. Ohio is in a league of its own.

 

Mmmm, Grand Lake St. Marys:

 

Hell, Huffington Post went easy on us!

And the Germans are accelerating their move to renewable energy sources.  Their "environmental" party is polling as the new "second party" in their political system, taking over state government in one state.  You read that about these people, these Germans who used to be so reactionary, and you look at Ohio and how its going, culturally and economically, and you just see a place regressing and getting worse.  "Conservative" as in resistant to change, resistant to the new, embracing the tried-and-true we've-always-done-it-this-way mentality. 

 

It is AMAZING that there is any progress whatsover in this state. 

Grand Lake Saint Marys is a good example of the end-result in the conservative ideology that is so influential here.....  "I can do whatever I want with my land, too hell with the consequences".

Grand Lake Saint Marys is a good example of the end-result in the conservative ideology that is so influential here.....  "I can do whatever I want with my land, too hell with the consequences".

 

That's not fair.  The lake is artificial... it's a fake lake.  It doesn't belong there.  With very little water thru flow and extremely shallow depths (causing high water temps) it is extremely difficult to keep the lake clean.  Especially after heavy storms which wash a lot of fertilizer and other farm runoff into the lake from the relatively large water shed around the lake.  I find it a bit of a stretch to blame "conservatives" for the pollution problems of Grand Lake St. Mary's.  Pollution problems which are being fixed, btw.

Whatever.  Everything is just fine in Ohio and we have excuses for all our problems, which arent really problems are they?  Just the way things just are.

 

I'll sit down and shut up now.

^Never said it wasn't a problem.  It is a problem and it's being fixed, but we need to sprinkle a little reality into this discussion.  Sometimes things are beyond our immediate control.

Grand Lake Saint Marys is a good example of the end-result in the conservative ideology that is so influential here.....  "I can do whatever I want with my land, too hell with the consequences".

 

That's not fair.  The lake is artificial... it's a fake lake.  It doesn't belong there.  With very little water thru flow and extremely shallow depths (causing high water temps) it is extremely difficult to keep the lake clean.  Especially after heavy storms which wash a lot of fertilizer and other farm runoff into the lake from the relatively large water shed around the lake.  I find it a bit of a stretch to blame "conservatives" for the pollution problems of Grand Lake St. Mary's.  Pollution problems which are being fixed, btw.

Are you kidding? This is happening in Lake Erie too. The water is going to hell. You're dead wrong these pollution problems are being fixed. It's quite the opposite- toxic algae is getting worse every year. Parts of Lake Erie will be dead again in no time. This is going to make the pollution of the 60's and 70's seem like a gentle summer breeze by comparison. This is a hurricane of lake destruction.

 

It is a problem and it's being fixed, but we need to sprinkle a little reality into this discussion.

 

It's not being fixed. In fact, state government is doing everything in its power to make sure it doesn't get fixed. The state is increasing phosphorus loading, not decreasing. We're erasing all of our progress. This is the reality:

 

Scientists say the toxic blue-green algae will only get worse on Ohio lakes

Published: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 9:00 PM    Updated: Monday, August 23, 2010, 3:02 PM

 

The simmering summer of 2010 is coughing up a sickly and unprecedented batch of toxic blue-green algae in western Lake Erie and nearly a dozen of Ohio's shallow, inland lakes. Many lake scientists are speculating that it's only going to get worse.

 

"We're going to see a greener and greener lake until changes are made," said John Hageman of Stone Laboratory, Ohio State University's water research station on Gibraltar Island in western Lake Erie. "Everything points to this just getting worse."

 

That might be hard to imagine. But it could help to survey the squalid situation at Grand Lake St. Mary's -- a large, inland lake in western Ohio. The 13,000-acre lake near Celina grabbed the attention of both the public and health officials all summer long because of its toxic, pea-soup waters and foamy surface.

 

"Grand Lake St. Mary's has gone green every summer for decades, that's not new," said EPA spokeswoman Dina Pierce. "But this year, it just exploded -- at times it looked like a science fiction landscape, almost turquoise or swimming pool blue with white foam on top.

 

...The dissolved phosphorus count -- fertilizer runoff from farms in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan -- flowing out of the Maumee River is the highest since records began in 1975, according to records at Heidelberg University.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/scientists_say_the_toxic_blue-.html

 

I guess a big chunk of Ohio still lives in denial. The state's water is going to hell, period. Ohio is a national embarrassment when it comes to water pollution. I'm actually amazed the national media didn't do more coverage on Grand Lake St. Marys and Lake Erie last summer (maybe the media firestorm will come this summer). I guess they just don't care about Ohio anymore. We may not have water catching fire these days, but this new problem is much worse. We have an ecological disaster on our hands, and our state government could care less. Of course conservatives aren't the only ones to blame (there are plenty of pro-environment conservatives in western Michigan- that's how they keep their water clean), but the new government is only making matters worse. We're not talking conservative and liberal politics anymore. The new leadership in Ohio is something much different. They're willing to throw everyone and everything under the bus. The big difference between Ohio and other Great Lakes states is that if this were happening elsewhere, people would be up in arms. There is virtually no reaction in Ohio. "Eh, who cares, I can just vacation in Michigan." The apathy is unbelievable here. People in western Michigan get pissed if a small piece of litter washes up near their beach. They can't even fathom what is happening in Lake Erie.

 

If Ohio wants to realize its potential, cleaning up the water is step number one. Tourists on the islands are noticing more and more each season. We are near the point where the tourism industry could go under if the water gets any worse. All it takes is one big article in the New York Times, and adios Put-in-Bay and Kelleys Island. If a big four network does a special on it, those visuals will destroy the tourism industry in record time. They'll have shots of the Miller Ferry churning up water like that jet ski in the above photo.

Grand Lake Saint Marys is a good example of the end-result in the conservative ideology that is so influential here.....  "I can do whatever I want with my land, too hell with the consequences".

 

Bingo. That's Ohio's core ideology these days. God forbid any regulation is passed to reduce phosphorous loading. You can't have regulation- that's socialist.

When we talk about the water quality in Lake Erie we have to remember that the lake is very large almost ocean-like.  Where you are in the lake has a lot to do with the water quality.  I have a cottage on the lake near Geneva Beach State Park and the water is extremely clean.  There is little algae and the bacteria count as posted by the State Agency that conducts those test is always very low.  Most times the water bacteria count is lower than what you would expect in a public pool or (!!!) a hotel pool.  People talk about the "Dead Zone" in Lake Erie, but it is a fraction of the size of the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Having said all of this, I hate the fact that runoff continues to add pollutants to the lake!  With over 12 million people living around Lake Erie, I often wonder, what practical solution exists? :wtf:

^The same solutions used in the 70's and 80's which made the lake much cleaner and healthier than it is today. These problems are of course centered in the Western Basin, where the biggest rivers dump their phosphorus into the lake. Population isn't the issue. Farm runoff and a a free-for-all situation is what is causing the big problems of today (though of course Toledo and Cleveland still have overflow issues during storms).

 

And Geneva Beach is cherry picking! That's one of the cleanest spots in the state and should be the goal for every part of the lake. I don't think they have regular beach closing there. The eastern part of Lake Erie is much cleaner and healthier than the other parts of the lake. It doesn't have the runoff or big city storm overflows. Between Mentor Headlands and Buffalo, the lake is still in good shape, but remember these problems spread. What made the dead zone of the 60's and 70's so big in the Central Basin was dying algae from the Western Basin.

 

And I damn well hope the Gulf of Mexico has a larger dead zone. Look how much more water volume it has than Lake Erie. Percentage-wise, Lake Erie in the 60's was one of the deadest bodies of water on earth. That's the future we have to look forward to if we don't make dramatic changes. We probably need a major media outlet in New York to rip this state apart (plus local media needs to do a much better job than they have been doing). That's the only way people will wake up and get serious. Hopefully that softball Huffington Post ranking was just the beginning. If Fox News gets on board, then we'll really see some changes. It could be a big special called "Lake Erie: Dead Again."

We could have news reports of "Lake Erie Dead Again", but it would be sensationalism and not reporting the facts.  I am tired of sensationalism.  I want real solutions.

^Hey, I'm talking a Fox News special, not CBS!  :wink:

The Ohio Valley has always done poorly on this list.

 

10 Cities Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution

 

Bakersfield-Delano, Calif.

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, Ariz.

Visalia-Porterville, Calif.

Hanford-Corcoran, Calif.

Fresno-Madera, Calif.

Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.

Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Ala.

Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.

Louisville-Jefferson County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, Ky.-Ind.

Modesto, Calif

 

http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/state-of-the-air-2011-pr-embargoed.html

Regarding the water quality crisis that we are facing, are there any non-profit or for profit advocacy groups in Ohio working towards solving this? For the next 4 years at least, we are not going to be getting any help from the sate level- that much is clear.  In light of this failure of government, private organizations have to step up to fill the void and raise public awareness.  Water is one of our state's greatest resources, and we absolutely must ensure that we keep our water as an asset and not a liability.

^the counties around Grand Lake St. Marys are planning to try something new this summer (no idea if it will make a significant impact). They're going to dump a bunch of granular aluminum sulfate into the lake to try to stop the spread of phosphorus. Kasich's administration also approved funds for dredging. These are short-term bandaid solutions to a long-term problem that needs to be dealt with at the source.

 

There were numerous task forces on Lake Erie over the past decade that have made clear the problem is directly related to farm runoff. To their credit, Ohio State has been particularly vocal about the toxic algae in the Western Basin of Lake Erie. They have been tracking it for years and their researchers don't mince words in the media. They understand the problem has reached the critical point and changes need to be made immediately. Ohio State's Stone Laboratory is worth its weight in gold. They're up close and personal with all the problems of the lake.

 

The big issue is just the current administration and their stances against regulation. We had much better chances of getting real legislation passed before the last election (but even then, the odds weren't good). The window is probably shut. We need to do a hell of a lot more than is currently being proposed. Granular aluminum sulfate isn't going to work in Lake Erie. Maumee Bay has never looked (or smelled) worse than it does now. All this open water dredge dumping is downright reckless. Not only do we have to reduce farm runoff at is source (buffer strips, different fertilizer practices, etc.), but we need a much better solution on where to put dredge material. I propose another offshore island in the bay, but that probably will cost more than open water dumping (but will be much cheaper in the long run than a dead lake).

Cross-posted from the mass transit section of the UrbanOhio forum.....

 

The 10 Best (and 10 Worst) Cities For Public Transportation

MAY 17 2011, 11:50 AM ET

 

For most of us, the role of public transportation is getting us to work. Every day, Americans make nearly 30 million trips using public transit, and most of these trips are made between home and the office. But what city's public transit does the best job?

 

Last week, the Brookings Institution published a massive effort to measure every possible trip made along 371 transit providers (Amtrak, buses, monorail, metro, etc) in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and the rest of the nation's 100 largest metros. Brookings graded each city according to two criteria -- coverage (the share of Americans within 3/4 miles from a transit stop) and job access (the share of city jobs accessible within 90 minutes of transit) -- to determine the ten best performing cities for public transportation.

 

Here they are.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/the-10-best-and-10-worst-cities-for-public-transportation/238985/

 

 

I'm kind of surprised that the major metropolises of NYC and Chicago are not in the top 10.

Something in the analysis obviously tilts to western cities.  I can't imagine what that thing would be, though.

Brookings graded each city according to two criteria -- coverage (the share of Americans within 3/4 miles from a transit stop) and job access (the share of city jobs accessible within 90 minutes of transit) -- to determine the ten best performing cities for public transportation.

 

By that criteria, how in the world is NYC not #1 by a long shot (let alone not even in the top 10)?

The only thing I can think of is that maybe MSA's in the East cover more sparsely populated areas that don't get transit service? But I don't think that makes any sense.

It doesn't because I think of the east as being much, much more densely populated.

Metro LA is more dense than metro NY.

Metro LA is more dense than metro NY.

 

#1, that is incorrect.  #2, metro LA is not on the list.  #3, metro LA is far more dense than nearly all of the other western MSA's (and especially the inland ones such as Tuscon, Denver, Salt Lake City, etc.).

 

Look at the density of the Salt Lake City MSA and tell me how it possibly could be served better than New York (unless they spend an outrageous amount to run nearly empty buses and trains over long distances).  There's something really strange about these rankings.

San Jose and not San Francisco?  Modesto?  Provo? Provo?!?!

This study is a hot mess.  Pretty sure it's even worth us spending time discussing.

 

EDIT: Poorly chosen words. Should have said that I'm not sure just how much the study's metrics really tell us on their own, so I'm not going to worry too much about the relative rankings.

It's obviously flawed.  But I'm genuinely curious why the study seems to be biased favorably to western towns and unfavorably to southern ones.  What is the characteristic that would so clearly distinguish them?  I always think of Western and Southern metros as being similar.

Makes sense to me. The NY metro is huge. There is no way that the millions in New Jersey could get to the millions of jobs in Connecticut in under 90 mins on public transit and vice versa.

 

The cities on that list are smaller to medium metros that generally  sprawl linearly and not radially. It only takes 10 bus routes spaced every 1.5 miles running north south each hour twice a day to effectively cover most of the jobs and people by that criteria.

 

 

I'd guess that terrain had something to do with it.  The western cities are more likely to have ridges of land that are not ideal for tract/suburban housing, forcing very defined corridors.  It's just the first thing that popped into my mind when I read Hts' question.

Then why the awful numbers in the south? 

Makes sense to me. The NY metro is huge. There is no way that the millions in New Jersey could get to the millions of jobs in Connecticut in under 90 mins on public transit and vice versa.

 

The cities on that list are smaller to medium metros that generally  sprawl linearly and not radially. It only takes 10 bus routes spaced every 1.5 miles running north south each hour twice a day to effectively cover most of the jobs and people by that criteria.

 

 

 

That's probably it. A smaller metro with really good transit coverage will probably rank better than a huge metro area with great transit service in the core but only rail lines and sporadic bus connections farther out.

 

New York rocks, but it still takes 90 minutes just to get from Newark Airport to JFK by a fast all-rail service, let alone to points farther beyond these points. NYC is penalized by its sheer size, not because it doesn't have great transit.

Its hard to describe. But go on a google map and look at the cities in the list to get a feel. While the western cities have sprawl, it goes from grid pattern to nothing, unlike southern cities.

 

Just zoom in on Atlanta and note the continuous blob of cities that go on forever versus Tuscon or Fresno which have distinct edges to the grid with nothing outside.

That's probably where the city waterlines end!

No surprises on this list. Rents are too high for median incomes in these markets. You won't find cities like San Francisco and New York on these lists due to their high incomes. Markets like Detroit, Miami, Toledo, etc. are much harder to survive in. This is a great list that backs everything up with the numbers. This problem is only going to get worse. Rent is expected to skyrocket in coming years due to the major demand shift in Generation Y. Most want to rent, not buy, and vacancy rates are declining across the nation.

 

The housing bust left thousands of empty, unfinished or foreclosed homes laying empty across the U.S. That means that there should be plenty of affordable housing, right? Wrong--not for renters anyway.

 

Over the past few decades, rental affordability has become a widespread problem in the U.S. as rent levels grew faster than renter income. Nearly half of renters pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income for rent, including 26 percent that pay more than 50 percent of income, according to a new report by Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. For this report we identified and ranked the nation's top 10 metropolitan areas by the percentage of tenants spending more than half of their income on rent.

 

And it’s not necessarily the most expensive cities that are to blame. While renters in such high-cost cities as New York and San Francisco grumble about how much they pay their landlords every month, residents in the Miami, McAllen, Tex., and Detroit metro areas are actually more strained, according to the Harvard report.

 

The 10 Worst Cities for Renters

 

10. Bridgeport, CT

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 30.5%

Median gross rent: $1,210  :-o

Median utilities cost for renters: $183

Median household income for renters: $38,900

 

9. Toledo, Ohio

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 30.8%

Median gross rent: $600

Median utilities cost for renters: $140

Median household income for renters: $21,000 :-o

 

8. Orlando, FL

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 30.9%

Median gross rent: $970

Median utilities cost for renters: $165

Median household income for renters: $32,000

 

7. Nashville, TN

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 31.6%

Median gross rent: $750

Median utilities cost for renters: $180

Median household income for renters: $25,000

 

6. Akron, OH

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 31.8%

Median gross rent: $740

Median utilities cost for renters: $160

Median household income for renters: $26,100

 

5. New Orleans, LA

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 31.8%

Median gross rent: $870

Median utilities cost for renters: $160

Median household income for renters: $28,400

 

4. New Haven, CT

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 32.7%

Median gross rent: $1,000  :-o

Median utilities cost for renters: $180

Median household income for renters: $29,100

 

3. Detroit, MI

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 32.8%

Median gross rent: $760

Median utilities cost for renters: $140

Median household income for renters: $25,000

 

2. McAllen, TX

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 33.1%

Median gross rent: $565

Median utilities cost for renters: $160

Median household income for renters: $16,200 :-o

 

1. Miami, FL

Renter households with severe cost burdens: 34.2%

Median gross rent: $1,040  :-o

Median utilities cost for renters: $130

Median household income for renters: $31,900

 

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/the-10-worst-cities-for-renters.html

I haven't looked closely at how the transit rankings were derived.  But there are 3 counties in the Youngstown MSA, and WRTA only serves one of them, Mahoning County.  I don't think either of the other counties, Trumbull or Mercer, have any fixed route transit options.  So, I guess it is reasonable that the Youngstown MSA ranks so low.

 

Unfortunately, the Vindicator is spinning this information to make it look like this is WRTA's fault.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/may/12/wrta-ranks-low-in-job-use/

Cross-posted from "Cleveland general economic/business news...."

 

DIARY OF A RECESSION BABY

June 3, 2011, 9:52 a.m. EDT

Top 10 cities in the U.S. to find a job: Monster

Washington, D.C., is top city for job openings, Monster.com says

 

By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch

 

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Friday’s jobs numbers showed a labor market that’s still struggling, but prospects are brighter for job seekers in some areas, according to new data from jobs site Monster.com.

 

Washington, San Francisco and Baltimore are among the top 10 areas with the most online job ads per labor-force participant, which includes both the employed and the unemployed, according to Monster.

 

Among the top 10 markets, which may include the city plus surrounding areas, the average rate of jobs posted per participant is about double the national rate.....

 

 

Here’s Monster’s list of top 10 hottest areas for jobs:

 

Washington

 

San Francisco

 

Baltimore

 

Minneapolis

 

Cleveland

 

Boston

 

Seattle

 

Orlando

 

Pittsburgh

 

Kansas City

 

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-cities-in-the-us-to-find-a-job-monster-2011-06-03?pagenumber=2

^Not surprising. Cleveland is having a fast recovery and could end up with Ohio's strongest economy.

Check the overpriced rent list above. Now check the housing price list here. The smartest thing to do in places like Toledo and Akron is buy a house and convert it into rentals.

 

America's Dirt-Cheap Housing Markets

By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com

Jun 6, 2011

 

No. 1 - Youngstown, Ohio

Median price: $55,400

 

Want something even nicer? There is a seven bedroom, 4,800 square foot home -- 19 rooms total -- well kept and in the historic district on the market for $150,000. That's not a misprint. Take your time house hunting: That could save you some dough. Fiserv, the provider of real estate information and analysis, is forecasting a further home price decline in 2011 totaling nearly 12% for the year.

 

No. 2 - Lansing, Michigan

Median price: $64,400

 

No. 3 - Toledo, Ohio

Median price: $64,900

 

There are still vestiges of this city's heavily industrial past with auto plants building Jeeps and General Motors products. There are fewer of these high-paying factory jobs, however, as many plants have closed and the others have reduced their workforce through automation. As a result, population growth in the metro area has almost stalled, rising only about 2% during the 2000s. The central city has shrunk in each of the past four decades, losing about a quarter of its residents in the process. With growth so stagnant, there's a large stock of existing homes with many on the market, which has kept a lid on prices. They will continue to fall most of 2011 before beginning a modest upturn next year.

 

No. 4 - South Bend, Ind.

Median price: $68,700

 

No. 5 - Akron, Ohio

Median price: $74,900

 

As the "Rubber Capital of the World," Akron rode the explosion in auto manufacturing early in the 20th century to a "boomtown" level, with the core city tripling its population from 1910 to 1920. Rubber still represents a big part of the economy with Goodyear headquartered there and Polymer Valley, a center of plastics manufacturing, centered there. Like many Rust-Belt industrial areas, Akron was buffeted by the recession and the decline in the auto industry; unemployment jumped into double digits. Hiring has picked up lately and unemployment now roughly mirrors the national rate. LeBron James was not the only Akron native to leave his hometown: The central city has lost population every decade since 1960. The number of residents in the surrounding suburbs has grown slowly.That has left a lot of underused real estate and home prices reflect the weak demand. A three-bedroom, two-bath in Goodyear Heights is for sale for just over the area's median home price of $74,900.

 

FULL ARTICLE

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-dirt-cheap-housing-markets.html

^ At $20k, I overpaid for my 4 bedroom fixer overlooking Wick Park. (The house next door--which needs MUCH more work--is for sale for <$8,000)  But, because of the house's character, and its location, I don't care.  When prices are this low to start with, a few percentage points don't matter as much; it's still a better investment than a comparably priced new car.

Yahoo had "Youngstown #1" on their homepage but had a picture of the Columbus skyline.

Interior of the Youngstown house looks like some '80s pornos were filmed in it. I like it.

^Are you sure it was Columbus?  Kinda looked like Toledo to me but I could be wrong.

On mine it was Akron.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110720.asp

 

Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida Lead List of "Toxic 20" States with Most Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants

 

Worst States: OH, PA, FL, KY, MD, IN, MI, WV, GA, NC, SC, AL, TX, VA, TN, MO, IL, WI, NH, IA

 

 

^The Ohio Valley is still pretty bad. It's better than it used to be, but I always had more asthma problems down there than on the Great Lakes (even with the milder winters in southern Ohio). I actually breathe better in Michigan, especially the Lake Michigan coast or northern Michigan where the air is really clean.