Search

I agree that Newark had terrible water but a big issue is the funding to fix the problem... and the artical goes into all the research about the water but neglects to talk about federal and local funding. 

First of all I would like to highlight the first source used in the new. The map with the risk on air polution in Newark.

Now I'll point out the two qutes suggested:

"Air quality was analyzed using proximity to 5 factors: major roads, truck routes, rail lines, Newark airport are all nonpoint sources and facilities that have violated their major permit at least once within the last 3 years are point sources. Point sources were buffered 1 miles for the area of high risk, and 1.5 miles for the area of elevated risk."

(at the begging of the last paragraph)

"This project is an attempt to identify those areas of high risk and the people being affected by poor air quality. It can be used to inform the public about their risk and to influence policy makers and developers."

(the fourth paragraph)

As they sustain in their web page, their goal is: no poverty, zero hunger, good health weel being, quality educational, gender quality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastucture, reduced inequality, sustainable cities, partnership goals, peace, justice, strong institucions, life below water, and much much more.

What is more they divide their focus, though, on three ways: sustainable development, democratic governance and climate and disaster resiliance.

The author is Alex Napoliello, who covers Monmouth and Ocean counties for NJ Advance Media. Also he provide us where to can find his reporting on NJ.com and in The Star-Ledger (also mainlly contact: phone, email...).