Knowing coal fired industry and freeways cause pollution that causes genetic mutation and Alzheimer's-like conditions:
Submitted by Norm Roulet on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 06:40.
NO: Government should not fund new public housing and community development near major pollution sources 56% (10 votes) YES: Government should fund new public housing and community development near major pollution sources 44% (8 votes) I live far away from such pollution sources and couldn't care less about other housing and community development 0% (0 votes) Total votes: 18
|
Printer-friendly version
and if you move to the 'burbs
you have to deal with the consequences of chemical and toxic waste dumping - messed up water... we are a bunch of dumb sonsofbitches arent we?
no where to run........
I found my environment much cleaner in the suburbs
I've lived in many suburbs of Cleveland and I don't recall ever having pollution forced on me and my children in the 'burbs, the way it is done in the city... people may live in shitty, toxic modern houses full of chemicals, and some may still choose to live by freeways, in the 'burbs, but the air tends to be much cleaner, and most well water is free of the toxins we put in our city water... there are no pollution sources like Mittal, MMCO, and Cleveland Thermal in Chagrin Falls, that I know of...
I wonder, for those who think we should put people near pollution, why?
Disrupt IT
Related poll: "pollution shortens Steubenville residents' life"
If you are interested by this poll, see : "pollution probably shortens Steubenville (Ohio) residents' life spans"
Disrupt IT
A Poll for HUD - folks in real NEO seem confused about pollution
A Poll for HUD - folks in real NEO seem confused about living near pollution point sources - and HUD funds that confusion.
How do you vote on this, HUD?
Disrupt IT