Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2008) 18, 600–607; doi:10.1038/jes.2008.55; published online 27 August 2008
Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids
Junfeng (jim) Zhanga, In-Kyu Hana,b, Lin Zhanga and William Crainc
aSchool of Public Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
bJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
cThe City College of New York, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence: Dr. Junfeng (Jim) Zhang, UMDNJ-SPH, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Tel.: +1 732 235 5405; Fax: +1 732 235 4004; E-mail: jjzhang@eohsi.rutgers.edu
Received 19 July 2008; Accepted 4 August 2008; Published online 27 August 2008.
Many synthetic turf fields consist of not only artificial grass but also rubber granules that are used as infill. The public concerns about toxic chemicals possibly contained in either artificial (polyethylene) grass fibers or rubber granules have been escalating but are based on very limited information available to date. The aim of this research was to obtain data that will help assess potential health risks associated with chemical exposure. In this small-scale study, we collected seven samples of rubber granules and one sample of artificial grass fiber from synthetic turf fields at different ages of the fields. We analyzed these samples to determine the contents (maximum concentrations) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and several metals (Zn, Cr, As, Cd, and Pb). We also analyzed these samples to determine their bioaccessible fractions of PAHs and metals in synthetic digestive fluids including saliva, gastric fluid, and intestinal fluid through a laboratory simulation technique. Our findings include:
(1) rubber granules often, especially when the synthetic turf fields were newer, contained PAHs at levels above health-based soil standards. The levels of PAHs generally appear to decline as the field ages. However, the decay trend may be complicated by adding new rubber granules to compensate for the loss of the material.
(2) PAHs contained in rubber granules had zero or near-zero bioaccessibility in the synthetic digestive fluids.
(3) The zinc contents were found to far exceed the soil limit.
(4) Except one sample with a moderate lead content of 53 p.p.m., the other samples had relatively low concentrations of lead (3.12–5.76 p.p.m.), according to soil standards. However, 24.7–44.2% of the lead in the rubber granules was bioaccessible in the synthetic gastric fluid.
(5) The artificial grass fiber sample showed a chromium content of 3.93 p.p.m., and 34.6% and 54.0% bioaccessibility of lead in the synthetic gastric and intestinal fluids, respectively.
Keywords: synthetic turf, PAHs, lead, heavy metals, bioaccessibility
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Subject: UTube report on synthetic turf
Subject: UTube report on synthetic turf
To the synthetic turf e-mail list,
For your information - a film on the hazards of synthetic turf.
Click on the blue type and wait for the ad to play and then it will start
http://www.youtube.com/user/pimento3 .
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
To the synthetic turf e-mail list,
For your information - a film on the hazards of synthetic turf.
Click on the blue type and wait for the ad to play and then it will start
http://www.youtube.com/user/pimento3 .
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
RAISED BILL No. H.B. 5280/S.B 924 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF PLAYING FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF WARNING SIGNS. In CT.
In Connecticut----
The Bill Number is S.B. 924 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON STATE FUNDED ARTIFICIAL TURF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF SIGNS.
RAISED BILL No. H.B. 5280 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF PLAYING FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF WARNING SIGNS.
The Bill Number is S.B. 924 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON STATE FUNDED ARTIFICIAL TURF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF SIGNS.
RAISED BILL No. H.B. 5280 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF PLAYING FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF WARNING SIGNS.
2009-over 1 billion pounds of rubber tire waste to be used in synthetic turf this year!
On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Huang, Albert wrote:
We're still working on the local front here in NYC on getting good legislation passed that would require environmental/health review when selecting, installing, and removing turf. Also want to require monitoring of new and existing turf. Due to our pressure, the NYC Parks Dept is no longer using tire crumb rubber or rubber infill in their turf fields. We're waiting for samplin results from 80 other fields. As you may know, this December, the City shut down a tire crumb field when they found high levels of lead.
Thanks,
Al
From: Mary Swan Bell [mailto:swanbell@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:26 PM
To: Huang, Albert
Subject: Fwd: 2009- over 1 billion pounds of rubber tire waste to be used in synthetic turf this year!
Dear Al,
Knowing that another 124 million square feet of artificial turf to be installed in 2009 is unbelievable. Where is the NRDC on this?
Mary
<1px.gif>
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302883
TOP STORY
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008
Turf wars rage over fake grass
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer
"At the current growth rate, the turf council estimates that more than 124 million square feet of artificial turf will be installed in 2009, as the industry targets athletic fields at the more than 45,000 colleges, high schools and middle schools in the United States. Most of the synthetic turf varieties now being used use crumb-rubber from waste tires, sometimes mixed with sand."
According to fieldturf.com, ten pounds of rubber wasteare in every square foot of synthetic turf. That means a staggering 1,240,000,000 pounds of crushed rubber particulate waste could be placed on playing fields this year alone!
We're still working on the local front here in NYC on getting good legislation passed that would require environmental/health review when selecting, installing, and removing turf. Also want to require monitoring of new and existing turf. Due to our pressure, the NYC Parks Dept is no longer using tire crumb rubber or rubber infill in their turf fields. We're waiting for samplin results from 80 other fields. As you may know, this December, the City shut down a tire crumb field when they found high levels of lead.
Thanks,
Al
From: Mary Swan Bell [mailto:swanbell@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:26 PM
To: Huang, Albert
Subject: Fwd: 2009- over 1 billion pounds of rubber tire waste to be used in synthetic turf this year!
Dear Al,
Knowing that another 124 million square feet of artificial turf to be installed in 2009 is unbelievable. Where is the NRDC on this?
Mary
<1px.gif>
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302883
TOP STORY
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008
Turf wars rage over fake grass
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer
"At the current growth rate, the turf council estimates that more than 124 million square feet of artificial turf will be installed in 2009, as the industry targets athletic fields at the more than 45,000 colleges, high schools and middle schools in the United States. Most of the synthetic turf varieties now being used use crumb-rubber from waste tires, sometimes mixed with sand."
According to fieldturf.com, ten pounds of rubber wasteare in every square foot of synthetic turf. That means a staggering 1,240,000,000 pounds of crushed rubber particulate waste could be placed on playing fields this year alone!
Turf wars rage over fake grass - Eric Kelderman - stateline.org
| |||||||||||||||||||
| COMMENTS (3) |
|
- Most Recent Comments
- Where Do Old Tires Go? By Patricia Taylor on Apr 23, 2008 9:49:57 PM I am one of the Westport mothers who contacted EHHI last spring about crumb rubber in fields that were being installed in Westport. We're not really a group, just several worried moms. I didn't even meet one of the moms who contacted EHHI until I met her at the EHHI press conference in Hartford in August. The last comment in your article really popped out at me - "Jonathan Levy, a lobbyist for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., said his group has "grave concerns" about the moratoriums. About 51 million tires annually are used to make crumb rubber for a variety of products including a mulch substitute and an ingredient in asphalt, as well as the synthetic turf, he said. "In the larger environmental picture, if there is nowhere for these tires to go, what do we do with them?" he asked. Since I began reading about rubber tires, recycling of tires, crumb rubber, rubber dust, and synthetic turf fields last spring, I've come to the conclusion (my opinion only) that these fields are nothing more than a waste disposal scheme for old rubber tires, marketed as recreational fields that are safe, non-toxic, and highly desirable to wealthier communities. Mr. Levy comes close to confirming my opinion with his remark. We have no where to put old tires so someone had the idea to grind them up and spread them on school and town fields and let people play on them and or, perhaps worse, to mix them with soil and use them for mulch for lawns, gardens, and farms?! What a terrible idea in terms of our soil, our water, our food, and our human health. As a mother, my common sense tells me that if tires themselves are regulated waste (all states but 8 have restrictions on where you can dump them), and there are laws keeping flammable and toxic materials away from children and their play spaces, that the last place for them to go is where children play! Should we be growing food in stuff that emits chemicals like benzothiazole, butylated hydroxyanisole, n-hexadecane, and 4-(t-octyl) phenol, and high levels of zinc? These are the chemicals the Connecticut Ag Station conclusively identified with confirmatory tests to be coming off crumb rubber in their lab, under conditions that mirrored a typical Connecticut summer day. My hope is that independent scientists will soon test the components of these fields so we know what our kids are playing on, before too many children are exposed for too much longer. In the meantime, as summer nears, in communities all over the country, food is growing in crumb rubber mulch, lawns are being filled and seeded which contain rubber, synthetic turf is being installed and played upon by hundreds of thousands of children. We are all taking part in a great natural experiment. Report as Offensive
Tires become playing fields because it's expedient, not logical. By Stacy Prince on Apr 23, 2008 3:27:14 PM You've hit the nail on the head. This, really, is why these turf fields exist: Low-cost, "recyclable" tires with nowhere to go. To answer Mr. Levy's question: I don't think the answer is to spread the toxicity around and risk adding zinc, lead, and a host of VOCs to playgrounds, playing fields, rivers, streams, and private drinking wells (not to mention people's dryers, when the pellets come home in clothing). More to the point, shredding the tires up to make questionable compounds easier to release is really dumb. Report as Offensive
Not a reasonable solution By Lauren Wohl-Sanchez on Apr 22, 2008 6:51:00 PM Yes, Jonathan Levy, a lobbyist for the waste tire recycling folks wonders whatever will we do with the millions of waste tires? His answer would be to foist them on our kids in the form of crumb rubber infill in artificial turf installed in schools and parks, regardless of whether or not any reputable studies have been conducted to verify that the surfaces pose no threat to their health. It's called the Precautionary Principle: prove that it won't hurt them first and we'll consider buying it, not the other way around. Legislators should do the prudent thing and wait for the data before throwing their support behind this potential land mine. Who will pay to tear up and dispose of all those miillions of yards of artificial turf if the studies suggest harmful exposures? What do we do with the millions of yards of artificial turf with its waste tire infill that will be hitting our landfills in ten years or less? Who will be liable for exposing kids to lead should the CPSC find the concerns warranted? And at a point when nations around the world are working to reduce greenhouse gasses, who in their right mind would stand behind a product that contributes to the urban heat island effect? FInd another solution to the tires that doesn't create more problems than it solves.
FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids and Our Environment?
From Mary Swan Bell---
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: February 18, 2009 8:00:50 AM PST
To: oaklandoffice@earthjustice.org
Subject: "FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids and Our Environment?
Dear Earthjustice,
Our local Tamalpais Union High School District is currently placing another FieldTurf synthetic turf field at Sir Francis Drake High, in San Anselmo, Marin County, Ca. http://www.tamdistrict.org/ It is doing so despite the knowledge of the chemical make-up of the infill soil, which is recycled crumb rubber tire waste. There are 40,000 tires per field, a number available on the manufacturer's site, http://www.fieldturf.com/ When completed, there will be approximately 120,000 tires worth of crumb rubber tire waste at that one school. That equals ten pounds of crumb rubber per square foot of field. The high school district has placed these expensive fields at all district high schools for costs well into seven figures.
Special permits are required by California for tire facilities with 500 tires or more! http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Tires/Facilities/ Is a tire not a tire if it's been crushed and placed on the Corte Madera Creek in Marin County, California? When is a tire not a tire? Is it no longer a tire when it is crushed into particulate and placed on a playing fields for the school children and communities of Marin? Are public school and community playing fields built with hundreds of thousands crushed tires which blanket tens of acres of animal habitat and public land, legal? Does the mere conversion of tires into particulate form change their toxicity to the water, soil, and human health?
Drake High is only one of thousands of fields that have been sold to school districts across our country by FieldTurf Tarkett, a company based out of Europe and Canada. With each field costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the profit on these fields is staggering. FieldTurf Tarkett also has a home and business company, http://www.fieldturfgreenscapes.com/, for using this product throughout communities. They report on their website that when building one school play field."FieldTurf. . . removes over 40,000 tires from landfill sites." This seems on first glance to be an altruistic venture, however, on closer study it becomes apparent that this is a matter of pure greed and a profound disregard for the health of our children and the environment we are trying so hard to protect. These fields have been sold as the answer to water shortages, pesticide usage and the maintenance cost of grass fields. Of course these are matters of concern for school districts and communities alike, but to come into schools and communities and present FieldTurf as the answer is a case of despicable marketing. Our children are playing on a surface of rubber tires, a product which normally is placed in toxic waste sites. Tires contain California Prop 65 chemicals, such as benzene, a chemical that requires labelling at gas stations. Tires contain PAHs ,(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pahs.pdf) polycyclic aromatics that are listed as a U.S. E.P.A. TOP 31 PRIORITY CHEMICALS (PCs) to be eliminated from consumer products. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/priority.htm Phthalate, also present in tires, is to be banned from products used by children 12 and under beginning next year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-19-phthalate-federalban_N.htm And yet, our school district and FieldTurf are putting down another field at our high school, at many schools at this very time!
As a retired Speech and Language Specialist, concerned parent, and community member, I began researching this product last May. Since that time, there has been a question of lead in old synthetic turf. FieldTurf, while it has little or no lead in the "grass blades, " clearly states on their website that they have been given a clean bill of health by the U.S C.P.S. after studies were completed for lead testing. However, testing for the chemical make-up of the crushed rubber particulate infill was never addressed. In an effort to appear safe for all, FieldTurf is now applying for LEED certification. The FieldTurf company, "Greenscapes" appears on the current U.S. EPA website as a new partner in the environmental program of the EPA titled, interestilngly, "GreenScapes".
Below are two letters and one site I would like to share with you. The first letter (1) from Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health Inc.,EHHI, to the U.S Green Building Council in charge of LEED Certification, which clearly lists chemicals present in ground rubber waste particulate. The second (2)is from Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, Professor of Pediatrics , Director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City to the Journal News. He clearly cites the three major concerns regarding synthetic turf and the health of children. They are extreme heat, MRSA infections, chemical hazards. The site below (3) is the EHHI ejounal report on rubber crumb waste.
Dear Earthjustice, this is a story which requires true legal investigation. I believe Earthjustice would aid the children of this country if you got to the core of this matter, is this material safe? The effects of these chemicals may not be seen for years, and in that time how many children, athletes, families, flora, fauna, soil and water could be affected by these toxicants?
Please read on. Please refer my concerns to the appropriate Earthjustice attorney. I would be very interested in sharing months of research in this matter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Swan Bell, MS
Marin County, California
415-459-5836
(1)
To the Executive Staff and Board of Directors at the U.S. Green Building Council in charge of LEED Certification,
It has come to the attention of Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) that synthetic turf athletic fields can be part of a "LEED" certification process. If true, this is a shocking revelation. Although recycling is good, certain materials should not be recycled. We should not recycle asbestos, we should not recycle lead or used rubber tires where children play. Recycled used rubber tires make-up then in-fill for most artificial fields.
Leed certification indicates that a building is a "green" building. That means, in part, that it is designed and constructed to promote profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being. http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/leed.asp
It is hard to claim that artificial turf fields "improve occupant health and well being" when the fields have in-fill made up of ground-up used rubber tires that contain the following chemicals.
Chemicals found by the CT Agricultural Experiment Station in rubber tire "crumbs".
Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen, suspected endocrine toxicant, gastrointestinal toxicant, immunotoxicant (adverse effects on the immune system), neurotoxicant (adverse effects on the nervous system), skin and sense-organ toxicant. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
n-hexadecane: Severe irritant based on human and animal studies. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
4-(t-octyl) phenol: Corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
Zinc: There is a very large amount of zinc that is added in the manufacturing of tires and therefore there is a great deal of zinc. See North Carolina's Department of Agricultural's study on ground up rubber tire mulch - http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi/pdffiles/rubber.pdf
Other chemicals often found in rubber tires:
Benzene Carcinogen, Developmental Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant
Phtalates Suspected Developmental Toxicant, Endocrine Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant
PAHs Suspected Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant ,Respiratory Toxicant,
Maganese Gastrointestinal or liver toxicants
Carbon Black Carcinogen
Latex Causes allergic reactions in some people
In some states rubber tires are a "Hazardous Waste" and in other states they are a "Special Waste". Whichever the case - one has to get a permit to dispose of rubber tires and there is a cost associated with that disposal. There is the potential for ground water contamination from the chemicals in the ground up rubber tires.
Field Turf, based in Canada, is one of the major manufacturers of synthetic turf with ground-up rubber tire in-fill. Field Turf is now saying it will help these plastic fields get "LEED" certification. These fields consist of a plastic - like material that is dyed green to look like grass - and then the blades of plastic are filled in with used ground-up rubber tire pellets the size of bread crumbs. The end result is that there are yards and yards of dyed green plastic with literally tons of used rubber tires ground up and sprinkled loose over the green plastic synthetic field.
If all that plastic and all those old used tires sprinkled over acres of land lead to a better environment -- and improve occupant health and well-being - then something is definitely wrong. This looks like one more example of industry - with its clever marketing strategies - taking over well meaning and hard fought for environmental progress and turning it inside out for its own uses.
Can you imagine all that plastic and all those old used rubber tires now being considered "Green"? Below is the paragraph from the Field Turf press release found on the Athletic Turf website. Click the blue type if you want their whole article.
"FieldTurf helps organizations earn the necessary points needed for U.S. Green Building Council LEED certification. FieldTurf's reused rubber content and water use reduction, among other factors, can contribute numerous points towards LEED certification. FieldTurf is also a proud member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenscapes program that aims towards providing cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for landscaping."
http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/Artificial+Turf/FieldTurf-trumpets-its-environmental-benefits/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/568972?contextCategoryId=3209
Environment and Human Health, Inc. hopes that you will not allow these fields to be part of "LEED" certification.
Environment and Human Health, Inc. is a nine member, non-profit organization composed of doctors, public health professionals and policy experts. It is dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy.Its website can be found at http://www.ehhi.org
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Best,
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
(2)
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812110386
The Journal News
The Journal News, is a Gannett Company newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in New York.
Letter to the Editor * December 11, 2008
Artificial turf fields pose safety issues
Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, Professor of Pediatrics
I urge the Irvington school district not to adopt the use of artificial turf until further examination.
There are several hundred artificial turf fields on the East Coast. Towns and school districts installed them to improve the quality of playing fields and accommodate sports programs. However, they were pursued without analysis of potential negative consequences. A number of these very expensive fields have been installed and we are suddenly, and belatedly, beginning to realize they may lead to health problems, such as:
1. Extreme heat. On hot summer days, temperatures of over 130 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded a few feet above the surface of synthetic turf fields - the altitude where children play. Vigorous play in these conditions conveys a very real risk of heat stress or heat stroke.
2. MRSA skin infections. Outbreaks of skin infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus have been documented in children who play on synthetic turf fields (New England Journal of Medicine, February 2005).
3. Chemical hazards to human health and the environment. Crumb rubber, a major component of current generation synthetic turf fields, is typically made from ground-up recycled tires containing styrene and 1, 3-butadiene, the major constituents of synthetic rubber. Styrene is toxic to the nervous system, and butadiene is a proven human carcinogen.
Lead was recently found in synthetic turf fields in New Jersey at levels so high that several fields were closed by the state Health Department. Citizens and school boards should question the wisdom of installing synthetic turf until a credible independent study has been conducted and published.
Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc
Professor and Chairman, Department of Community & Preventive Medicine
Professor of Pediatrics
Director, Children's Environmental Health Center
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
17 East 102nd Street, Room D3-145
New York, NY 10029-6574
Tel: 212-824-7018
The writer is professor of pediatrics and director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
(3) http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: February 18, 2009 8:00:50 AM PST
To: oaklandoffice@earthjustice.org
Subject: "FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids and Our Environment?
Dear Earthjustice,
Our local Tamalpais Union High School District is currently placing another FieldTurf synthetic turf field at Sir Francis Drake High, in San Anselmo, Marin County, Ca. http://www.tamdistrict.org/ It is doing so despite the knowledge of the chemical make-up of the infill soil, which is recycled crumb rubber tire waste. There are 40,000 tires per field, a number available on the manufacturer's site, http://www.fieldturf.com/ When completed, there will be approximately 120,000 tires worth of crumb rubber tire waste at that one school. That equals ten pounds of crumb rubber per square foot of field. The high school district has placed these expensive fields at all district high schools for costs well into seven figures.
Special permits are required by California for tire facilities with 500 tires or more! http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Tires/Facilities/ Is a tire not a tire if it's been crushed and placed on the Corte Madera Creek in Marin County, California? When is a tire not a tire? Is it no longer a tire when it is crushed into particulate and placed on a playing fields for the school children and communities of Marin? Are public school and community playing fields built with hundreds of thousands crushed tires which blanket tens of acres of animal habitat and public land, legal? Does the mere conversion of tires into particulate form change their toxicity to the water, soil, and human health?
Drake High is only one of thousands of fields that have been sold to school districts across our country by FieldTurf Tarkett, a company based out of Europe and Canada. With each field costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the profit on these fields is staggering. FieldTurf Tarkett also has a home and business company, http://www.fieldturfgreenscapes.com/, for using this product throughout communities. They report on their website that when building one school play field."FieldTurf. . . removes over 40,000 tires from landfill sites." This seems on first glance to be an altruistic venture, however, on closer study it becomes apparent that this is a matter of pure greed and a profound disregard for the health of our children and the environment we are trying so hard to protect. These fields have been sold as the answer to water shortages, pesticide usage and the maintenance cost of grass fields. Of course these are matters of concern for school districts and communities alike, but to come into schools and communities and present FieldTurf as the answer is a case of despicable marketing. Our children are playing on a surface of rubber tires, a product which normally is placed in toxic waste sites. Tires contain California Prop 65 chemicals, such as benzene, a chemical that requires labelling at gas stations. Tires contain PAHs ,(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pahs.pdf) polycyclic aromatics that are listed as a U.S. E.P.A. TOP 31 PRIORITY CHEMICALS (PCs) to be eliminated from consumer products. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/priority.htm Phthalate, also present in tires, is to be banned from products used by children 12 and under beginning next year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-19-phthalate-federalban_N.htm And yet, our school district and FieldTurf are putting down another field at our high school, at many schools at this very time!
As a retired Speech and Language Specialist, concerned parent, and community member, I began researching this product last May. Since that time, there has been a question of lead in old synthetic turf. FieldTurf, while it has little or no lead in the "grass blades, " clearly states on their website that they have been given a clean bill of health by the U.S C.P.S. after studies were completed for lead testing. However, testing for the chemical make-up of the crushed rubber particulate infill was never addressed. In an effort to appear safe for all, FieldTurf is now applying for LEED certification. The FieldTurf company, "Greenscapes" appears on the current U.S. EPA website as a new partner in the environmental program of the EPA titled, interestilngly, "GreenScapes".
Below are two letters and one site I would like to share with you. The first letter (1) from Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health Inc.,EHHI, to the U.S Green Building Council in charge of LEED Certification, which clearly lists chemicals present in ground rubber waste particulate. The second (2)is from Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, Professor of Pediatrics , Director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City to the Journal News. He clearly cites the three major concerns regarding synthetic turf and the health of children. They are extreme heat, MRSA infections, chemical hazards. The site below (3) is the EHHI ejounal report on rubber crumb waste.
Dear Earthjustice, this is a story which requires true legal investigation. I believe Earthjustice would aid the children of this country if you got to the core of this matter, is this material safe? The effects of these chemicals may not be seen for years, and in that time how many children, athletes, families, flora, fauna, soil and water could be affected by these toxicants?
Please read on. Please refer my concerns to the appropriate Earthjustice attorney. I would be very interested in sharing months of research in this matter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Swan Bell, MS
Marin County, California
415-459-5836
(1)
To the Executive Staff and Board of Directors at the U.S. Green Building Council in charge of LEED Certification,
It has come to the attention of Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) that synthetic turf athletic fields can be part of a "LEED" certification process. If true, this is a shocking revelation. Although recycling is good, certain materials should not be recycled. We should not recycle asbestos, we should not recycle lead or used rubber tires where children play. Recycled used rubber tires make-up then in-fill for most artificial fields.
Leed certification indicates that a building is a "green" building. That means, in part, that it is designed and constructed to promote profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being. http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/leed.asp
It is hard to claim that artificial turf fields "improve occupant health and well being" when the fields have in-fill made up of ground-up used rubber tires that contain the following chemicals.
Chemicals found by the CT Agricultural Experiment Station in rubber tire "crumbs".
Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen, suspected endocrine toxicant, gastrointestinal toxicant, immunotoxicant (adverse effects on the immune system), neurotoxicant (adverse effects on the nervous system), skin and sense-organ toxicant. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
n-hexadecane: Severe irritant based on human and animal studies. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
4-(t-octyl) phenol: Corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
Zinc: There is a very large amount of zinc that is added in the manufacturing of tires and therefore there is a great deal of zinc. See North Carolina's Department of Agricultural's study on ground up rubber tire mulch - http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi/pdffiles/rubber.pdf
Other chemicals often found in rubber tires:
Benzene Carcinogen, Developmental Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant
Phtalates Suspected Developmental Toxicant, Endocrine Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant
PAHs Suspected Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant ,Respiratory Toxicant,
Maganese Gastrointestinal or liver toxicants
Carbon Black Carcinogen
Latex Causes allergic reactions in some people
In some states rubber tires are a "Hazardous Waste" and in other states they are a "Special Waste". Whichever the case - one has to get a permit to dispose of rubber tires and there is a cost associated with that disposal. There is the potential for ground water contamination from the chemicals in the ground up rubber tires.
Field Turf, based in Canada, is one of the major manufacturers of synthetic turf with ground-up rubber tire in-fill. Field Turf is now saying it will help these plastic fields get "LEED" certification. These fields consist of a plastic - like material that is dyed green to look like grass - and then the blades of plastic are filled in with used ground-up rubber tire pellets the size of bread crumbs. The end result is that there are yards and yards of dyed green plastic with literally tons of used rubber tires ground up and sprinkled loose over the green plastic synthetic field.
If all that plastic and all those old used tires sprinkled over acres of land lead to a better environment -- and improve occupant health and well-being - then something is definitely wrong. This looks like one more example of industry - with its clever marketing strategies - taking over well meaning and hard fought for environmental progress and turning it inside out for its own uses.
Can you imagine all that plastic and all those old used rubber tires now being considered "Green"? Below is the paragraph from the Field Turf press release found on the Athletic Turf website. Click the blue type if you want their whole article.
"FieldTurf helps organizations earn the necessary points needed for U.S. Green Building Council LEED certification. FieldTurf's reused rubber content and water use reduction, among other factors, can contribute numerous points towards LEED certification. FieldTurf is also a proud member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenscapes program that aims towards providing cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for landscaping."
http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/Artificial+Turf/FieldTurf-trumpets-its-environmental-benefits/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/568972?contextCategoryId=3209
Environment and Human Health, Inc. hopes that you will not allow these fields to be part of "LEED" certification.
Environment and Human Health, Inc. is a nine member, non-profit organization composed of doctors, public health professionals and policy experts. It is dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy.Its website can be found at http://www.ehhi.org
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Best,
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
(2)
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812110386
The Journal News
The Journal News, is a Gannett Company newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in New York.
Letter to the Editor * December 11, 2008
Artificial turf fields pose safety issues
Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, Professor of Pediatrics
I urge the Irvington school district not to adopt the use of artificial turf until further examination.
There are several hundred artificial turf fields on the East Coast. Towns and school districts installed them to improve the quality of playing fields and accommodate sports programs. However, they were pursued without analysis of potential negative consequences. A number of these very expensive fields have been installed and we are suddenly, and belatedly, beginning to realize they may lead to health problems, such as:
1. Extreme heat. On hot summer days, temperatures of over 130 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded a few feet above the surface of synthetic turf fields - the altitude where children play. Vigorous play in these conditions conveys a very real risk of heat stress or heat stroke.
2. MRSA skin infections. Outbreaks of skin infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus have been documented in children who play on synthetic turf fields (New England Journal of Medicine, February 2005).
3. Chemical hazards to human health and the environment. Crumb rubber, a major component of current generation synthetic turf fields, is typically made from ground-up recycled tires containing styrene and 1, 3-butadiene, the major constituents of synthetic rubber. Styrene is toxic to the nervous system, and butadiene is a proven human carcinogen.
Lead was recently found in synthetic turf fields in New Jersey at levels so high that several fields were closed by the state Health Department. Citizens and school boards should question the wisdom of installing synthetic turf until a credible independent study has been conducted and published.
Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc
Professor and Chairman, Department of Community & Preventive Medicine
Professor of Pediatrics
Director, Children's Environmental Health Center
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
17 East 102nd Street, Room D3-145
New York, NY 10029-6574
Tel: 212-824-7018
The writer is professor of pediatrics and director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
(3) http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Synthetic Turf at Mount Vernon
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: February 7, 2009 8:28:06 AM PST
To: yasinsac@hudsonvalleyruins.org
Subject: synthetic turf use at historic site
Dear Rob,
Just this morning I ran across the 1/22/09 NYT article on Mount Vernon. What wonderful work you do! The preservation of history and our environment is a concern we share. Also of concern to me is the use of modern synthetic turf and the chemical stew of recycled tire which comprises the "soil" infill. Below, please find the email address of Albert Huang of the NRDC, NY branch, who is actively involved in the environmental hazards of synthetic turf. Also find the site of EHHI (Environment and Human Health, Inc.) out of Yale. This is a non-profit organization of physicians and scientists dedicated to preserving health. I believe that these organizations may help you and others in delaying and possibly preserving the Mount Vernon site.
Our local high school district is just completing one of many synthetic fields. This field will hold 40,000 crushed tires as soil. That will bring the amount of tires to a staggering 120,000 at one school site. These are real concerns and ones that are making communities and schools around the country rethink landscape and playing field plans.
Good Luck!
Mary Bell, MS
Marin County, California
albert Huang
http://www.ehhijournal.org/
http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: February 7, 2009 8:28:06 AM PST
To: yasinsac@hudsonvalleyruins.org
Subject: synthetic turf use at historic site
Dear Rob,
Just this morning I ran across the 1/22/09 NYT article on Mount Vernon. What wonderful work you do! The preservation of history and our environment is a concern we share. Also of concern to me is the use of modern synthetic turf and the chemical stew of recycled tire which comprises the "soil" infill. Below, please find the email address of Albert Huang of the NRDC, NY branch, who is actively involved in the environmental hazards of synthetic turf. Also find the site of EHHI (Environment and Human Health, Inc.) out of Yale. This is a non-profit organization of physicians and scientists dedicated to preserving health. I believe that these organizations may help you and others in delaying and possibly preserving the Mount Vernon site.
Our local high school district is just completing one of many synthetic fields. This field will hold 40,000 crushed tires as soil. That will bring the amount of tires to a staggering 120,000 at one school site. These are real concerns and ones that are making communities and schools around the country rethink landscape and playing field plans.
Good Luck!
Mary Bell, MS
Marin County, California
albert Huang
http://www.ehhijournal.org/
http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/
Tests reveal lead in school fields - BOSTON GLOBE
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nancy Alderman
Date: January 19, 2009 8:17:30 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: In fake grass, some see real threat - Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/19/in_fake_grass_some_see_real_threat/
In fake grass, some see real threat
Tests reveal lead in school fields
BOSTON GLOBE JANUARY 19, 2009
The field at Concord-Carlisle High School contained nearly 300 parts per million lead in the Boston Globe-commissioned test.
For two decades, state public health officials have waged a massive campaign to eliminate children's exposure to lead, yet some specialists are concerned that the toxic element may have found its way into schools in the form of artificial turf fields.
While industry officials maintain the fields are safe, the Globe recently commissioned tests of artificial grass at several city and suburban high schools in Massachusetts and found varying amounts of lead in the artificial surfaces.
The fake green grass rolled out in the fall at Concord-Carlisle High School's football field at a cost of $3.8 million tested positive for lead in the Globe's investigation, as did Boston's Saunders Stadium, Lincoln Sudbury High School, and Charlestown High School.
The football field at Concord-Carlisle High contained nearly 300 parts per million lead in the Globe-commissioned test. The US Environmental Protection Agency's standard for bare soil in children's play areas is a maximum of 400 parts per million, though the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long recommended "the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead" because of the potential health hazards it poses.
Stanley Green, the chief executive of Sprinturf, which manufactured the field, said tests his company commissioned on the Concord-Carlisle field by a lab in Tennessee showed it contained .05 parts per million lead, a much lower level than the Globe-commissioned test.
"We've never had anything in the field that has caused harm to anyone," Green said. "There's never been any incident of anyone getting sick or having ill effects associated with artificial turf fields."
With the increasing popularity of the fields in the professional and collegiate ranks, cities and towns across the state have been building artificial turf fields at a rapid clip, because they are durable and can accommodate nearly year-round athletic activity. But some communities are concerned about the possible health problems the fields pose.
Constructed of plastic and a simulated dirt made of discarded old tires (as many as 10,000 in a single field), some fields contain lead in levels higher than communities anticipated. An artificial turf field in East Harlem, N.Y., was slated for removal last month when local health officials determined it contained 500 parts per million lead.
"There's no safe level of lead; let's be clear on that," said Don Mays, senior director of product safety at the Consumer's Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. The Consumer's Union and the CDC called for additional testing of artificial turf fields after lead levels at two older fields in New Jersey forced their closure in the summer.
"What we've seen is lead creeping back into products we assumed didn't have lead in them," Mays said, "like vinyl products and playing fields."
Problems with lead surfaced last year, when public health workers measuring run-off at a landfill in New Jersey found high lead concentrations in two playing fields nearby. Local officials closed both out of fear that athletes were swallowing or inhaling lead dust emanating from worn plastic grass.
The CDC issued an official health advisory in June saying the "potentially unhealthy levels of lead dust" found on the New Jersey fields raised concern and warranted additional testing. The Consumers Union has also advocated for additional testing of the fields.
For years, the CDC has called lead dust one of the biggest known health hazards to children and has funneled millions into reducing it in the environment. The agency has said that age, weathering, exposure to sunlight, and wear and tear can cause dust to form on older or well-used fields.
"At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf," the CDC advisory said. People playing on dusty turf fields should undertake "aggressive hand and body washing" for at least 20 seconds with warm water afterward and launder team uniforms after playing on the fields.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the national agency with the power to recall products found to be dangerous or unhealthy, evaluated the artificial turf in the New Jersey fields and found that "young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields." The commission asked artificial turf manufacturers to voluntarily reduce lead in their product. The leading manufacturers agreed to lower lead used to color synthetic turf to 300 parts per million by the year 2011 and to 100 parts per million or less by the year 2012.
Previously constructed fields, however, would not be affected.
Mary Jean Brown, chief of the CDC's lead poisoning prevention branch in Atlanta, said preschool children are most susceptible to lead poisoning. In recent years, the average lead level in youth blood testing has dropped from 17 micrograms per deciliter in the 1970s to a current level of 1.2 micrograms (The CDC considers a blood lead level of 10 to be of concern.)
Brown said high levels of lead in children's blood in the past have been attributed to paint and the use of the element as an additive in gas (which was banned in 1996). Lead in lower levels might exist in artificial turf and could be ingested or inhaled by children, and while not a dire health threat to children or adults alike, precautions should still be taken, she said.
The American Academy of Pediatricians has said there is no safe level of lead exposure and suggests levels no higher than trace amounts - 40 parts per million - in soil.
"We always have to be concerned about new lead added into our environment," said Helen Binns, a member of the academy who specializes in child lead poisoning. "We need to look seriously at the choices that are made and what they would introduce."
Suzanne Condon, Massachusetts associate commissioner for public health, said it's up to local officials to know what's in artificial turf before they buy it. The state has no plans to test fields.
"If you're a parent and you have concerns, you can ask [local officials] what the artificial turf is made of," Condon said.
In Concord, town manager Christopher Whelan said in the fall that he and other local officials relied on information from consultant, John Amato of Westford, before buying and installing a field manufactured by Sprinturf in Wayne, Pa. After questions arose about the fields in New Jersey, which were not manufactured by Sprinturf, Whelan said he questioned Amato about lead in the school's new field.
"We were assured it wasn't an issue," he said.
Amato, a member of the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, dismissed concerns about lead in an interview. Synthetic turf is an off-shoot of the carpet industry, and carpeting often contains low levels of lead that cause no public health threat. So do other plastics, such as twisting telephone cords. Any lead found in artificial turf grass is inert and encapsulated in plastic, he said.
"It's not a health risk for children," Amato said of the fields. "These things get blown out of proportion."
The Globe independently tested turf samples from area schools after a Newton activist, Guive Mirfendereski offered test results from the turf that showed lead levels at the high school in excess of 13,000 parts per million in the fall. Sprinturf's chief executive Green then conducted tests, which he says showed negligible traces of lead. Faced with the conflicting information, the Globe sent turf samples to a local lead screener and laboratory for independent testing.
Mirfendereski, a Newton lawyer whose son plays soccer, has been an outspoken opponent of artificial turf fields in Newton and elsewhere, calling them "a point of worry and a matter of public health." He has a blog dedicated to the subject, www.SynTurf.org, and said he has asked the state to test the fields.
The lead dust "ends up in the water and soil [and on children] and that ought to be of concern," Mirfendereski said. "Why does this product get a pass?"
Lead in artificial turf can be avoided without any extra cost, industry specialists said. FieldTurf, the largest artificial turf manufacturer in North America, sells lead-free artificial turf. Darren Gill , a company spokesman, said lead helps brighten a field's colors and that many cities and towns order them because they like to see a sports team logo on the field in as brightly colored colors as possible.
"These are custom-made products," he said. "We offer lead-free fields because customers have concerns."
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
From: Nancy Alderman
Date: January 19, 2009 8:17:30 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: In fake grass, some see real threat - Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/19/in_fake_grass_some_see_real_threat/
In fake grass, some see real threat
Tests reveal lead in school fields
BOSTON GLOBE JANUARY 19, 2009
The field at Concord-Carlisle High School contained nearly 300 parts per million lead in the Boston Globe-commissioned test.
For two decades, state public health officials have waged a massive campaign to eliminate children's exposure to lead, yet some specialists are concerned that the toxic element may have found its way into schools in the form of artificial turf fields.
While industry officials maintain the fields are safe, the Globe recently commissioned tests of artificial grass at several city and suburban high schools in Massachusetts and found varying amounts of lead in the artificial surfaces.
The fake green grass rolled out in the fall at Concord-Carlisle High School's football field at a cost of $3.8 million tested positive for lead in the Globe's investigation, as did Boston's Saunders Stadium, Lincoln Sudbury High School, and Charlestown High School.
The football field at Concord-Carlisle High contained nearly 300 parts per million lead in the Globe-commissioned test. The US Environmental Protection Agency's standard for bare soil in children's play areas is a maximum of 400 parts per million, though the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long recommended "the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead" because of the potential health hazards it poses.
Stanley Green, the chief executive of Sprinturf, which manufactured the field, said tests his company commissioned on the Concord-Carlisle field by a lab in Tennessee showed it contained .05 parts per million lead, a much lower level than the Globe-commissioned test.
"We've never had anything in the field that has caused harm to anyone," Green said. "There's never been any incident of anyone getting sick or having ill effects associated with artificial turf fields."
With the increasing popularity of the fields in the professional and collegiate ranks, cities and towns across the state have been building artificial turf fields at a rapid clip, because they are durable and can accommodate nearly year-round athletic activity. But some communities are concerned about the possible health problems the fields pose.
Constructed of plastic and a simulated dirt made of discarded old tires (as many as 10,000 in a single field), some fields contain lead in levels higher than communities anticipated. An artificial turf field in East Harlem, N.Y., was slated for removal last month when local health officials determined it contained 500 parts per million lead.
"There's no safe level of lead; let's be clear on that," said Don Mays, senior director of product safety at the Consumer's Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. The Consumer's Union and the CDC called for additional testing of artificial turf fields after lead levels at two older fields in New Jersey forced their closure in the summer.
"What we've seen is lead creeping back into products we assumed didn't have lead in them," Mays said, "like vinyl products and playing fields."
Problems with lead surfaced last year, when public health workers measuring run-off at a landfill in New Jersey found high lead concentrations in two playing fields nearby. Local officials closed both out of fear that athletes were swallowing or inhaling lead dust emanating from worn plastic grass.
The CDC issued an official health advisory in June saying the "potentially unhealthy levels of lead dust" found on the New Jersey fields raised concern and warranted additional testing. The Consumers Union has also advocated for additional testing of the fields.
For years, the CDC has called lead dust one of the biggest known health hazards to children and has funneled millions into reducing it in the environment. The agency has said that age, weathering, exposure to sunlight, and wear and tear can cause dust to form on older or well-used fields.
"At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf," the CDC advisory said. People playing on dusty turf fields should undertake "aggressive hand and body washing" for at least 20 seconds with warm water afterward and launder team uniforms after playing on the fields.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the national agency with the power to recall products found to be dangerous or unhealthy, evaluated the artificial turf in the New Jersey fields and found that "young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields." The commission asked artificial turf manufacturers to voluntarily reduce lead in their product. The leading manufacturers agreed to lower lead used to color synthetic turf to 300 parts per million by the year 2011 and to 100 parts per million or less by the year 2012.
Previously constructed fields, however, would not be affected.
Mary Jean Brown, chief of the CDC's lead poisoning prevention branch in Atlanta, said preschool children are most susceptible to lead poisoning. In recent years, the average lead level in youth blood testing has dropped from 17 micrograms per deciliter in the 1970s to a current level of 1.2 micrograms (The CDC considers a blood lead level of 10 to be of concern.)
Brown said high levels of lead in children's blood in the past have been attributed to paint and the use of the element as an additive in gas (which was banned in 1996). Lead in lower levels might exist in artificial turf and could be ingested or inhaled by children, and while not a dire health threat to children or adults alike, precautions should still be taken, she said.
The American Academy of Pediatricians has said there is no safe level of lead exposure and suggests levels no higher than trace amounts - 40 parts per million - in soil.
"We always have to be concerned about new lead added into our environment," said Helen Binns, a member of the academy who specializes in child lead poisoning. "We need to look seriously at the choices that are made and what they would introduce."
Suzanne Condon, Massachusetts associate commissioner for public health, said it's up to local officials to know what's in artificial turf before they buy it. The state has no plans to test fields.
"If you're a parent and you have concerns, you can ask [local officials] what the artificial turf is made of," Condon said.
In Concord, town manager Christopher Whelan said in the fall that he and other local officials relied on information from consultant, John Amato of Westford, before buying and installing a field manufactured by Sprinturf in Wayne, Pa. After questions arose about the fields in New Jersey, which were not manufactured by Sprinturf, Whelan said he questioned Amato about lead in the school's new field.
"We were assured it wasn't an issue," he said.
Amato, a member of the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, dismissed concerns about lead in an interview. Synthetic turf is an off-shoot of the carpet industry, and carpeting often contains low levels of lead that cause no public health threat. So do other plastics, such as twisting telephone cords. Any lead found in artificial turf grass is inert and encapsulated in plastic, he said.
"It's not a health risk for children," Amato said of the fields. "These things get blown out of proportion."
The Globe independently tested turf samples from area schools after a Newton activist, Guive Mirfendereski offered test results from the turf that showed lead levels at the high school in excess of 13,000 parts per million in the fall. Sprinturf's chief executive Green then conducted tests, which he says showed negligible traces of lead. Faced with the conflicting information, the Globe sent turf samples to a local lead screener and laboratory for independent testing.
Mirfendereski, a Newton lawyer whose son plays soccer, has been an outspoken opponent of artificial turf fields in Newton and elsewhere, calling them "a point of worry and a matter of public health." He has a blog dedicated to the subject, www.SynTurf.org, and said he has asked the state to test the fields.
The lead dust "ends up in the water and soil [and on children] and that ought to be of concern," Mirfendereski said. "Why does this product get a pass?"
Lead in artificial turf can be avoided without any extra cost, industry specialists said. FieldTurf, the largest artificial turf manufacturer in North America, sells lead-free artificial turf. Darren Gill , a company spokesman, said lead helps brighten a field's colors and that many cities and towns order them because they like to see a sports team logo on the field in as brightly colored colors as possible.
"These are custom-made products," he said. "We offer lead-free fields because customers have concerns."
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF-New Jersey Work Environment Council
http://redstaterebels.org/2008/08/hazards-of-artificial-turf/
HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
Posted by Jeffrey St. Clair on August 14th, 2008
HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
By the New Jersey Work Environment Council
Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards
A small but growing number of school districts, municipalities, and
universities in New Jersey are switching from traditional grass
athletic fields to artificial turf. Changed considerably since 1960s
AstroTurf, newer synthetic grass is touted for advantages like shock-
absorption and durability in varied weather conditions. There is no
need for mowing, watering, pesticides, or fertilizer and therefore the
turf is advertised as environmentally friendly. While these advantages
have powerful appeal, synthetic turf comes with an unfortunate host of
established and potential health and environmental risks.
A modern artificial field surface has three layers — drainage, shock
absorbing, and surface. The surface has polyethylene plastic blades
that simulate grass and a several inch layer of “infill” that keeps
the blades upright. The infill varies by manufacturer and may include
ground-up recycled tires, ground-up soles of athletic shoes, silica
sand, and/or new thermoplastic or rubber material. This “crumb rubber”
has been found to contain toxic materials such as:
Toxic metals including zinc, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium
which have many harmful effects on humans and the environment.
** Carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
** Latex and other rubbers which can cause allergic reactions.
** Phthalates which have adverse effects on the reproductive organs,
lungs, kidneys and liver.
** Crumb rubber can degrade from weather and microbes, producing new
chemicals.
Toxic components can be breathed in, accidentally ingested, contact
the skin, and leach into surface water and groundwater. Besides
toxicity, other problems with artificial turf include:
** Crumb rubber doesn’t stay in place. It can move around on the field
and sticks to the skin, shoes, and clothing of staff and students who
use the fields. It can end up inside schools, vehicles, and homes.
** Excessive heat. Artificial surfaces are dramatically hotter than
natural grass fields, reaching temperatures up to 150 degrees
Fahrenheit and possibly contributing to burns, dehydration, and heat
exhaustion. They may be too hot to play on at times. Watering cools
them down but they heat back up quickly.
** High cost. Artificial fields cost in the range of one-half to two
million dollars.
** Friction. Some types of artificial turf can cause skin abrasion to
a greater extent than natural grass.
** Sanitation. Dog, goose, and other droppings do not decompose on
artificial turf.
** Maintenance. The crumb rubber may need to be raked to maintain a
uniform depth. Solvents and adhesives may be needed to repair seams.
** Leaves, gum, and other debris need to be regularly removed or they
may clog the drainage system.
** Short Life. Artificial turf has a life expectancy, with proper
maintenance, of five to ten years compared to at least 15 years for
grass fields.
** Disposal. One football field contains approximately 120 tons of
crumb rubber or 26,000 recycled tires. Crumb rubber takes more than 25
years to break down completely.
** Unpleasant odor. The odor is especially a problem in indoor
installations.
** Loss of habitat. Artificial turf does not support birds, animals,
or insects.
** Combustibility. While shredded tires will burn at a much lower rate
than chunk tires, crumb rubber can certainly be made to burn by arson,
producing smoke and toxic air, soil, and water pollutants.
Caution Advised
Although the desire to improve access to sports fields is clearly
well-intentioned, the risks that accompany synthetic turf need to be
carefully considered.
Issues of toxicity, movement, heat, cost, friction, sanitation,
lifespan, maintenance, warranty, disposal costs, odor, loss of
habitat, combustibility, should be thoroughly addressed before any
decision to purchase is made. The community should carefully consider
all the options including natural grass.
There are many manufacturers of artificial turf with different
products and advertising claims. It is reasonable to expect vendors to
identify the chemical ingredients of all turf components and provide a
Material Safety Data Sheet on each component, especially the crumb
rubber. If the crumb rubber is of unknown composition, that should
raise a serious warning.
Tires are known to contain over 60 different substances. Typically,
forty-five percent is vulcanized or cross-linked polymer, forty-five
percent is carbon black, and the rest is dispersing oil, sulfur,
synthetic fibers, pigments, processing chemicals and steel or
fiberglass. Tire manufacturers use a variety of formulation recipes
and Ingredients are often kept secret. Therefore the company that
produces the crumb rubber will most likely have to analyze its
composition on a regular basis to provide accurate information on
ingredients, since different batches can be expected to vary in
content.
When it comes to synthetic turf, the most sensible approach may be to
follow the precautionary principle of assuming something involving
chemicals is hazardous until scientific evidence proves that it is
not. Some public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on
installing any new fields that use ground-up rubber tires until the
hazards are better understood. Some are also recommending that
exposures to already installed fields that contain rubber-tires should
be limited.
For More Information
Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root, 2008 Environmental Health
Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences.
Artificial Turf: Exposures to Ground-Up Rubber Tires, 2007
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Toxicants in Artificial Turf, 2007 Rachel’s Democracy & Health News
#937 Environmental Research Foundation
(c) 2008 SuperFILL is proudly powered by WordPress
Return to Table of Contents
ShareThis
HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
Posted by Jeffrey St. Clair on August 14th, 2008
HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
By the New Jersey Work Environment Council
Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards
A small but growing number of school districts, municipalities, and
universities in New Jersey are switching from traditional grass
athletic fields to artificial turf. Changed considerably since 1960s
AstroTurf, newer synthetic grass is touted for advantages like shock-
absorption and durability in varied weather conditions. There is no
need for mowing, watering, pesticides, or fertilizer and therefore the
turf is advertised as environmentally friendly. While these advantages
have powerful appeal, synthetic turf comes with an unfortunate host of
established and potential health and environmental risks.
A modern artificial field surface has three layers — drainage, shock
absorbing, and surface. The surface has polyethylene plastic blades
that simulate grass and a several inch layer of “infill” that keeps
the blades upright. The infill varies by manufacturer and may include
ground-up recycled tires, ground-up soles of athletic shoes, silica
sand, and/or new thermoplastic or rubber material. This “crumb rubber”
has been found to contain toxic materials such as:
Toxic metals including zinc, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium
which have many harmful effects on humans and the environment.
** Carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
** Latex and other rubbers which can cause allergic reactions.
** Phthalates which have adverse effects on the reproductive organs,
lungs, kidneys and liver.
** Crumb rubber can degrade from weather and microbes, producing new
chemicals.
Toxic components can be breathed in, accidentally ingested, contact
the skin, and leach into surface water and groundwater. Besides
toxicity, other problems with artificial turf include:
** Crumb rubber doesn’t stay in place. It can move around on the field
and sticks to the skin, shoes, and clothing of staff and students who
use the fields. It can end up inside schools, vehicles, and homes.
** Excessive heat. Artificial surfaces are dramatically hotter than
natural grass fields, reaching temperatures up to 150 degrees
Fahrenheit and possibly contributing to burns, dehydration, and heat
exhaustion. They may be too hot to play on at times. Watering cools
them down but they heat back up quickly.
** High cost. Artificial fields cost in the range of one-half to two
million dollars.
** Friction. Some types of artificial turf can cause skin abrasion to
a greater extent than natural grass.
** Sanitation. Dog, goose, and other droppings do not decompose on
artificial turf.
** Maintenance. The crumb rubber may need to be raked to maintain a
uniform depth. Solvents and adhesives may be needed to repair seams.
** Leaves, gum, and other debris need to be regularly removed or they
may clog the drainage system.
** Short Life. Artificial turf has a life expectancy, with proper
maintenance, of five to ten years compared to at least 15 years for
grass fields.
** Disposal. One football field contains approximately 120 tons of
crumb rubber or 26,000 recycled tires. Crumb rubber takes more than 25
years to break down completely.
** Unpleasant odor. The odor is especially a problem in indoor
installations.
** Loss of habitat. Artificial turf does not support birds, animals,
or insects.
** Combustibility. While shredded tires will burn at a much lower rate
than chunk tires, crumb rubber can certainly be made to burn by arson,
producing smoke and toxic air, soil, and water pollutants.
Caution Advised
Although the desire to improve access to sports fields is clearly
well-intentioned, the risks that accompany synthetic turf need to be
carefully considered.
Issues of toxicity, movement, heat, cost, friction, sanitation,
lifespan, maintenance, warranty, disposal costs, odor, loss of
habitat, combustibility, should be thoroughly addressed before any
decision to purchase is made. The community should carefully consider
all the options including natural grass.
There are many manufacturers of artificial turf with different
products and advertising claims. It is reasonable to expect vendors to
identify the chemical ingredients of all turf components and provide a
Material Safety Data Sheet on each component, especially the crumb
rubber. If the crumb rubber is of unknown composition, that should
raise a serious warning.
Tires are known to contain over 60 different substances. Typically,
forty-five percent is vulcanized or cross-linked polymer, forty-five
percent is carbon black, and the rest is dispersing oil, sulfur,
synthetic fibers, pigments, processing chemicals and steel or
fiberglass. Tire manufacturers use a variety of formulation recipes
and Ingredients are often kept secret. Therefore the company that
produces the crumb rubber will most likely have to analyze its
composition on a regular basis to provide accurate information on
ingredients, since different batches can be expected to vary in
content.
When it comes to synthetic turf, the most sensible approach may be to
follow the precautionary principle of assuming something involving
chemicals is hazardous until scientific evidence proves that it is
not. Some public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on
installing any new fields that use ground-up rubber tires until the
hazards are better understood. Some are also recommending that
exposures to already installed fields that contain rubber-tires should
be limited.
For More Information
Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root, 2008 Environmental Health
Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences.
Artificial Turf: Exposures to Ground-Up Rubber Tires, 2007
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Toxicants in Artificial Turf, 2007 Rachel’s Democracy & Health News
#937 Environmental Research Foundation
(c) 2008 SuperFILL is proudly powered by WordPress
Return to Table of Contents
ShareThis
Eugene District Sues Maker over Artificial Turf Fields. Loss in 'Lift.'
Eugene district sues maker over artificial turf fields.
Publication: The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)
Date: Wednesday, November 19 2003
Byline: Anne Williams The Register-Guard
The state-of-the-art artificial turf fields at the Eugene School District's four high schools have lost some of their lift - and the district is suing the manufacturer to fix the problem.
In a claim filed in Lane County Circuit Court on
Friday, the district alleges that Georgia-based Avery Sports Turf has violated the terms of its contract by failing to repair the 3-year-old fields, which have flattened substantially over time.
"We're asking that they come in and correct the deficiencies in the fields," said Jon Lauch, the district's assistant director of facilities. He estimated the cost to be as high as $65,000.
After noticing exposed fibers and compaction in the fields, the district had an inspection done last summer, Lauch said. Under the terms of the 10-year warranty, the manufacturer is obliged to repair the fields if the "G-max rating" - a measurement of the field's thickness and resiliency - ever exceeds 125.
In readings taken in various portions of all four fields, the G-max rating often was higher, reaching 160 in some places. "We need to add about an inch of rubber over the entire fields," Lauch said, noting that the level is only about half of what it should be.
Any G-max rating below 200, however, is considered safe for play, Lauch noted.
Lauch said he's made repeated attempts to contact George Avery, the company's owner, but has received only one phone call - and Lauch said that was only after prodding from Pacific Sports Surfaces, the Portland-based company that markets and distributes Avery turf.
In that call, on Aug. 7, Avery apologized and said the company would take care of it, Lauch recalled. But the district hasn't heard a word since, he said - not even in response to letters from legal counsel.
Avery did not return phone calls Tuesday from The Register-Guard.
Lauch said the response is puzzling, given that Avery's pre-paid insurance plan covers such repairs for the first eight years of the 10-year warranty. The insurance carrier also is named in the lawsuit.
Unveiled in the fall of 2000, the polypropylene-fiber and crushed-rubber fields were part of an $8.6 million project that also included youth sports parks at Sheldon and Churchill high schools and Cal Young Middle School. The city of Eugene kicked in $4 million to the project - money earmarked for youth athletic facilities in a November 1998 parks bond measure. A school district bond measure in the same election set aside $3.5 million specifically for the fields.
Brent Walsh, athletic director at Sheldon High School, said he knows of no injuries related to the condition of the fields, and that players and coaches have generally been pleased with them - especially in the rainy season, when a natural-turf field would get waterlogged.
However, he said, players and coaches have noticed increasing unevenness on the surface, as well as ruptured seams.
"There's big waves" along the surface, he said - not good for running athletes or bouncing balls.
Lauch said the district fixes the ruptures as they occur, and that the repairs are holding up well.
As for the unevenness, he said that's probably related more to shifting of the ground beneath the fields than it is to the compaction.
"I gotta say, there are high expectations of these fields," he said. "A lot of people feel like they ought to be perfect, but really, it's just carpet over dirt and rock."
Joe Richards, the district's attorney, said Avery has 30 days from the filing to respond.
Publication: The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)
Date: Wednesday, November 19 2003
Byline: Anne Williams The Register-Guard
The state-of-the-art artificial turf fields at the Eugene School District's four high schools have lost some of their lift - and the district is suing the manufacturer to fix the problem.
In a claim filed in Lane County Circuit Court on
Friday, the district alleges that Georgia-based Avery Sports Turf has violated the terms of its contract by failing to repair the 3-year-old fields, which have flattened substantially over time.
"We're asking that they come in and correct the deficiencies in the fields," said Jon Lauch, the district's assistant director of facilities. He estimated the cost to be as high as $65,000.
After noticing exposed fibers and compaction in the fields, the district had an inspection done last summer, Lauch said. Under the terms of the 10-year warranty, the manufacturer is obliged to repair the fields if the "G-max rating" - a measurement of the field's thickness and resiliency - ever exceeds 125.
In readings taken in various portions of all four fields, the G-max rating often was higher, reaching 160 in some places. "We need to add about an inch of rubber over the entire fields," Lauch said, noting that the level is only about half of what it should be.
Any G-max rating below 200, however, is considered safe for play, Lauch noted.
Lauch said he's made repeated attempts to contact George Avery, the company's owner, but has received only one phone call - and Lauch said that was only after prodding from Pacific Sports Surfaces, the Portland-based company that markets and distributes Avery turf.
In that call, on Aug. 7, Avery apologized and said the company would take care of it, Lauch recalled. But the district hasn't heard a word since, he said - not even in response to letters from legal counsel.
Avery did not return phone calls Tuesday from The Register-Guard.
Lauch said the response is puzzling, given that Avery's pre-paid insurance plan covers such repairs for the first eight years of the 10-year warranty. The insurance carrier also is named in the lawsuit.
Unveiled in the fall of 2000, the polypropylene-fiber and crushed-rubber fields were part of an $8.6 million project that also included youth sports parks at Sheldon and Churchill high schools and Cal Young Middle School. The city of Eugene kicked in $4 million to the project - money earmarked for youth athletic facilities in a November 1998 parks bond measure. A school district bond measure in the same election set aside $3.5 million specifically for the fields.
Brent Walsh, athletic director at Sheldon High School, said he knows of no injuries related to the condition of the fields, and that players and coaches have generally been pleased with them - especially in the rainy season, when a natural-turf field would get waterlogged.
However, he said, players and coaches have noticed increasing unevenness on the surface, as well as ruptured seams.
"There's big waves" along the surface, he said - not good for running athletes or bouncing balls.
Lauch said the district fixes the ruptures as they occur, and that the repairs are holding up well.
As for the unevenness, he said that's probably related more to shifting of the ground beneath the fields than it is to the compaction.
"I gotta say, there are high expectations of these fields," he said. "A lot of people feel like they ought to be perfect, but really, it's just carpet over dirt and rock."
Joe Richards, the district's attorney, said Avery has 30 days from the filing to respond.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Turf wars heat up: grass vs. synthetic. Global warming joins list of issues
Older Article--Still Relevant
The Boston Globe
Turf wars heat up: grass vs. synthetic
Global warming joins list of issues
By Connie Paige, Globe Correspondent | March 25, 2007
As Newton and Wellesley prepare to vote on proposals to install artificial turf on school fields, some opponents are adding global warming to their arsenal of arguments for sticking with grass.
Newton is considering spending $4.1 million on artificial turf at Newton South High School; and Wellesley Town Meeting, which starts tomorrow, will be asked to approve a $1.8 million turf project at Sprague Elementary School.
Needham, too, plans to convert several fields to artificial turf, but is relying on private donations for the project.
Synthetic fields are made of polyethylene fibers simulating grass stabilized with rubber pellets. They have been installed in many western suburbs, including Franklin, Waltham, and Westborough , and at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School.
Guive Mirfendereski , a Newton lawyer, says artificial turf gives off much more heat than grass, and, if used widely, could contribute to global warming.
He also expressed concern that materials used to make and clean the turf could leach into local water supplies, and questioned how the turf would be disposed of once it wears out .
"Any one of these on its own poses a danger to the environment and public health," Mirfendereski wrote in a letter last month to the state environmental secretary.
State officials have not taken a position on the issue; neither have Newton's main environmental organizations.
Wellesley's opponents to its turf plans are using similar arguments, as well as questioning the cost.
Meanwhile, athletic officials at schools that have installed artificial turf offer rave reviews of the material.
"I think they're great," said Brad Sidwell , athletic director in Franklin, which installed one field for the schools and another for the town three years ago.
Nancy O'Neil , athletic director for Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High, agreed, saying the artificial turf has "no divots or rough spots," requires little maintenance, and allows a longer playing season.
"It's the best athletic facility decision we have ever made," O'Neil said, adding that school officials are so pleased with two existing artificial fields that a third is due to be completed in August.
But Stuart Gaffin , an atmospheric scientist whose focus is excess heat in urban areas and storm-water runoff, said synthetic turf poses problems on both scores.
Last summer, as part of a study of heat radiation in New York City, Gaffin found the temperature above artificial turf fields measured at 140 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, creating what he described as "heat islands."
Gaffin, with the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University in New York City, wrote in an e-mail to Globe West that the "surfaces are among the hottest possible for urban areas, rivaling dark roofs and fresh asphalt."
Artificial turf is only "a little warmer than grass," countered Darren Gill , marketing director for FieldTurf, a manufacturer of artificial turf. Nor, said Gill, does the turf contribute to global warming.
He also said run off from an artificial field is usually tested by the host communities, and likened the products used to clean it to household fabric softener.
"Nothing we put on the field has any harmful materials in it," Gill said.
Environmental arguments do not weigh as heavily with school athletic officials as the pits, ruts, and puddles they have encountered on grass fields, which require frequent maintenance during playing seasons.
O'Neil said she would consider going back to grass fields if they were "like a golf course, and how many high schools have that? Next to none."
She and Sidwell both said they have noticed the extra heat from their synthetic fields. As a safeguard, they have the fields sprayed with water and make sure the athletes stay hydrated.
Three of Newton's key environmental organizations -- Green Decade Coalition, Newton Conservators, and GreenCAP -- have taken no position on artificial turf.
Dan Ruben , Green Decade vice president, said grass fields pose their own risks. They are treated with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which environmentalists frown on. And the gasoline that fuels mowers contributes to global warming.
Ruben said he had not done enough investigation of the risks and benefits of synthetic turf and grass fields to form an opinion on which is better.
Ruben said Green Decade is split on the issue. The same is true at Newton Conservators, proponents of open space, and GreenCAP, promoters of the use of natural instead of chemical pesticides.
GreenCAP member Lucia Dolan said of artificial turf: "It's very two-sided whether it's a bad thing or a good thing . "
Ruben said he and other environmentalists met last summer with Newton Mayor David B. Cohen , who proposed installing three synthetic fields at Newton South High School.
Ruben said Cohen persuaded them of the city's need for reliable fields and that the environmental risks would be minimal.
Last week, Ruben changed his position slightly, and called on Cohen to have the city perform a study on synthetic turf before the installation.
The request surprised Cohen, who did not commit to it last week.
"I think that I have a great deal of respect for Dan, and I would certainly want to make sure we do everything to make sure this proposal is environmentally sound," Cohen said in a telephone interview.
Cohen's request for funds is bogged down by the Board of Aldermen -- but not over environmental concerns. The aldermen refuse to approve any spending until plans are made to fix the city's long-neglected fire stations.
Still, Kenneth Parker , alderman at large from Ward 6 , predicted that if that dispute is resolved, "the vast majority" of aldermen would vote to spend the money for artificial turf.
The support dismays Mirfendereski, who has rallied only a few around his cause, largely neighbors of the proposed fields.
One of them, while conceding she qualifies as a not-in-my-backyard protester, says her chief objection is environmental.
"We don't have all the facts yet," said Jane Yoffe .
Connie Paige can be reached at cpaige@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
The Boston Globe
Turf wars heat up: grass vs. synthetic
Global warming joins list of issues
By Connie Paige, Globe Correspondent | March 25, 2007
As Newton and Wellesley prepare to vote on proposals to install artificial turf on school fields, some opponents are adding global warming to their arsenal of arguments for sticking with grass.
Newton is considering spending $4.1 million on artificial turf at Newton South High School; and Wellesley Town Meeting, which starts tomorrow, will be asked to approve a $1.8 million turf project at Sprague Elementary School.
Needham, too, plans to convert several fields to artificial turf, but is relying on private donations for the project.
Synthetic fields are made of polyethylene fibers simulating grass stabilized with rubber pellets. They have been installed in many western suburbs, including Franklin, Waltham, and Westborough , and at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School.
Guive Mirfendereski , a Newton lawyer, says artificial turf gives off much more heat than grass, and, if used widely, could contribute to global warming.
He also expressed concern that materials used to make and clean the turf could leach into local water supplies, and questioned how the turf would be disposed of once it wears out .
"Any one of these on its own poses a danger to the environment and public health," Mirfendereski wrote in a letter last month to the state environmental secretary.
State officials have not taken a position on the issue; neither have Newton's main environmental organizations.
Wellesley's opponents to its turf plans are using similar arguments, as well as questioning the cost.
Meanwhile, athletic officials at schools that have installed artificial turf offer rave reviews of the material.
"I think they're great," said Brad Sidwell , athletic director in Franklin, which installed one field for the schools and another for the town three years ago.
Nancy O'Neil , athletic director for Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High, agreed, saying the artificial turf has "no divots or rough spots," requires little maintenance, and allows a longer playing season.
"It's the best athletic facility decision we have ever made," O'Neil said, adding that school officials are so pleased with two existing artificial fields that a third is due to be completed in August.
But Stuart Gaffin , an atmospheric scientist whose focus is excess heat in urban areas and storm-water runoff, said synthetic turf poses problems on both scores.
Last summer, as part of a study of heat radiation in New York City, Gaffin found the temperature above artificial turf fields measured at 140 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, creating what he described as "heat islands."
Gaffin, with the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University in New York City, wrote in an e-mail to Globe West that the "surfaces are among the hottest possible for urban areas, rivaling dark roofs and fresh asphalt."
Artificial turf is only "a little warmer than grass," countered Darren Gill , marketing director for FieldTurf, a manufacturer of artificial turf. Nor, said Gill, does the turf contribute to global warming.
He also said run off from an artificial field is usually tested by the host communities, and likened the products used to clean it to household fabric softener.
"Nothing we put on the field has any harmful materials in it," Gill said.
Environmental arguments do not weigh as heavily with school athletic officials as the pits, ruts, and puddles they have encountered on grass fields, which require frequent maintenance during playing seasons.
O'Neil said she would consider going back to grass fields if they were "like a golf course, and how many high schools have that? Next to none."
She and Sidwell both said they have noticed the extra heat from their synthetic fields. As a safeguard, they have the fields sprayed with water and make sure the athletes stay hydrated.
Three of Newton's key environmental organizations -- Green Decade Coalition, Newton Conservators, and GreenCAP -- have taken no position on artificial turf.
Dan Ruben , Green Decade vice president, said grass fields pose their own risks. They are treated with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which environmentalists frown on. And the gasoline that fuels mowers contributes to global warming.
Ruben said he had not done enough investigation of the risks and benefits of synthetic turf and grass fields to form an opinion on which is better.
Ruben said Green Decade is split on the issue. The same is true at Newton Conservators, proponents of open space, and GreenCAP, promoters of the use of natural instead of chemical pesticides.
GreenCAP member Lucia Dolan said of artificial turf: "It's very two-sided whether it's a bad thing or a good thing . "
Ruben said he and other environmentalists met last summer with Newton Mayor David B. Cohen , who proposed installing three synthetic fields at Newton South High School.
Ruben said Cohen persuaded them of the city's need for reliable fields and that the environmental risks would be minimal.
Last week, Ruben changed his position slightly, and called on Cohen to have the city perform a study on synthetic turf before the installation.
The request surprised Cohen, who did not commit to it last week.
"I think that I have a great deal of respect for Dan, and I would certainly want to make sure we do everything to make sure this proposal is environmentally sound," Cohen said in a telephone interview.
Cohen's request for funds is bogged down by the Board of Aldermen -- but not over environmental concerns. The aldermen refuse to approve any spending until plans are made to fix the city's long-neglected fire stations.
Still, Kenneth Parker , alderman at large from Ward 6 , predicted that if that dispute is resolved, "the vast majority" of aldermen would vote to spend the money for artificial turf.
The support dismays Mirfendereski, who has rallied only a few around his cause, largely neighbors of the proposed fields.
One of them, while conceding she qualifies as a not-in-my-backyard protester, says her chief objection is environmental.
"We don't have all the facts yet," said Jane Yoffe .
Connie Paige can be reached at cpaige@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
New Have, CT--Some want state's turf study reviewed
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nancy Alderman
Date: January 7, 2009 5:37:19 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: New Haven Register - Some want state's turf study reviewed
Some want state's turf study reviewed
NEW HAVEN REGISTER
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
By Randall Beach, Register Staff
Leaders of a North-Haven based public health group are urging state health officials to have independent experts assess its safety study of artificial turf playing fields before releasing it to the public.
Environment and Human Health Inc., a scientific nonprofit group, has been joined in the effort by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who told state health officials, "a peered reviewed analysis is essential for public confidence and credibility."
EHH President Nancy Alderman and its public health toxicologist, David Brown, wrote the letter Monday after last week's announcement by state environmental officials that a year-long study is being undertaken of the controversial playing surface.
Bill Gerrish, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Health, said officials there will "evaluate the need for peer review" but have not decided whether to do it.
There is nationwide debate over whether the recycled crumb rubber used to cushion the fields endangers the kids who play on them.
Opponents of the fields charge that children and others could inhale the chemicals. They also say industrial chemicals from the rubber could be released into air and water runoff.
But supporters of the surface believe they cushion children from impact injuries and note they don't entail using pesticides for maintenance. Turf fields, which can withstand soggy weather, have gained in popularity as more people seek playing time for youth soccer teams.
State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy said the study will be conducted with the state DPH, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and University of Connecticut Health Center.
But Alderman noted that when the DPH issued a "fact sheet" on artificial turf in October 2007, those officials saw the need for additional study but did not think it necessary for towns to stop installing the fields.
The "fact sheet" stated: "It is up to towns to make a case-by-case decision on whether artificial turf is the right choice for a particular setting. While we see no health evidence to stop installations, DPH acknowledges that much of the information is very recent and this area is rapidly evolving. ... Potential exposures and risks have not been fully characterized."
Alderman said that when the "fact sheet" was issued, "We wanted a moratorium (on new field construction) until more studies are done. We believed enough questions had been raised."
"Rubber tires are classified as a hazardous waste in some states," she said. "And we're grinding them up and putting them where children play."
Alderman said Connecticut law classifies rubber tires as "special waste," requiring a permit to dispose of them.
She added, "No state money should be used to build these fields until studies are done and reviewed. In this economic downturn, taxpayer money should not be used for this, until we know more."
Alderman said the cost of installing an artificial turf field is $750,000 to $1 million.
"We wish towns and schools would pay more attention to natural grass," Alderman said. "Whatever happened to grass?"
"Installing acres of plastic with tons of ground-up rubber tires is like teaching nutrition in the classroom and serving students pizza, soda, French fries and doughnuts," she said. "It's not a great lesson in stewardship."
Alderman said the study will need a peer review because of "the potential for continued misuse of technical data by industry and others."
In his letter to state Commissioner of Public Health J. Robert Galvin, Blumenthal said, "The health assessment to be performed afterward is critical. It must be conducted so that its conclusions are sound and persuasive."
Blumenthal also said the results "must withstand unusually critical and penetrating scrutiny, because so many will be reviewing and depending on the study for informed decisions. I urge you to take steps to ensure that qualified independent experts participate in the health assessment process and review your staff's findings."
Randall Beach can be reached at rbeach@nhregister.com or 789-5766.
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
From: Nancy Alderman
Date: January 7, 2009 5:37:19 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: New Haven Register - Some want state's turf study reviewed
Some want state's turf study reviewed
NEW HAVEN REGISTER
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
By Randall Beach, Register Staff
Leaders of a North-Haven based public health group are urging state health officials to have independent experts assess its safety study of artificial turf playing fields before releasing it to the public.
Environment and Human Health Inc., a scientific nonprofit group, has been joined in the effort by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who told state health officials, "a peered reviewed analysis is essential for public confidence and credibility."
EHH President Nancy Alderman and its public health toxicologist, David Brown, wrote the letter Monday after last week's announcement by state environmental officials that a year-long study is being undertaken of the controversial playing surface.
Bill Gerrish, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Health, said officials there will "evaluate the need for peer review" but have not decided whether to do it.
There is nationwide debate over whether the recycled crumb rubber used to cushion the fields endangers the kids who play on them.
Opponents of the fields charge that children and others could inhale the chemicals. They also say industrial chemicals from the rubber could be released into air and water runoff.
But supporters of the surface believe they cushion children from impact injuries and note they don't entail using pesticides for maintenance. Turf fields, which can withstand soggy weather, have gained in popularity as more people seek playing time for youth soccer teams.
State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy said the study will be conducted with the state DPH, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and University of Connecticut Health Center.
But Alderman noted that when the DPH issued a "fact sheet" on artificial turf in October 2007, those officials saw the need for additional study but did not think it necessary for towns to stop installing the fields.
The "fact sheet" stated: "It is up to towns to make a case-by-case decision on whether artificial turf is the right choice for a particular setting. While we see no health evidence to stop installations, DPH acknowledges that much of the information is very recent and this area is rapidly evolving. ... Potential exposures and risks have not been fully characterized."
Alderman said that when the "fact sheet" was issued, "We wanted a moratorium (on new field construction) until more studies are done. We believed enough questions had been raised."
"Rubber tires are classified as a hazardous waste in some states," she said. "And we're grinding them up and putting them where children play."
Alderman said Connecticut law classifies rubber tires as "special waste," requiring a permit to dispose of them.
She added, "No state money should be used to build these fields until studies are done and reviewed. In this economic downturn, taxpayer money should not be used for this, until we know more."
Alderman said the cost of installing an artificial turf field is $750,000 to $1 million.
"We wish towns and schools would pay more attention to natural grass," Alderman said. "Whatever happened to grass?"
"Installing acres of plastic with tons of ground-up rubber tires is like teaching nutrition in the classroom and serving students pizza, soda, French fries and doughnuts," she said. "It's not a great lesson in stewardship."
Alderman said the study will need a peer review because of "the potential for continued misuse of technical data by industry and others."
In his letter to state Commissioner of Public Health J. Robert Galvin, Blumenthal said, "The health assessment to be performed afterward is critical. It must be conducted so that its conclusions are sound and persuasive."
Blumenthal also said the results "must withstand unusually critical and penetrating scrutiny, because so many will be reviewing and depending on the study for informed decisions. I urge you to take steps to ensure that qualified independent experts participate in the health assessment process and review your staff's findings."
Randall Beach can be reached at rbeach@nhregister.com or 789-5766.
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
Mary Swan Bell on Rubber Waste. Mexico, CA, CT
Dear 60 Minutes,
The heat is turning up on synthetic turf. Not good when it can run 40 degrees or more hotter than grass turf! http://cahe.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf
The EPA and border states are running through OZ poppy fields if they think putting crumb rubber on playgrounds is the right thing to do! http://www.ehhi.org/turf/
Today, our public schools continue to place suspect crumb rubber waste infill and synthetic turf at the feet of our children. Once again, public school districts are being vetted and brought into a confidence game of sorts. Our school district told me they understood the synthetic turf product was safe because the manufacturer told them so! What century is this? School districts are charmed, in the name of water and maintenance savings, into using products before proper and transparent studies prove beyond a doubt that the public is safe, that our children and environments are safe. Connecticut is planning to fully study these products. The Conn. Synthetic Turf Study needs to put into place a conflicts of interest review of all who touch this research. With the health of this country's children on one side, and on the other, literally hundreds of millions of dollars yearly, riding on the results of this test, any less than complete transparency will put research back to the starting line.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-turf0105.artjan05,0,1463639.
Meanwhile:
U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 has been established to deal with the problems resulting from tire waste along the borders and includes government representatives from Mexico, U.S. Border States government representatives, U.S.EPA members, and tire recycling private concerns. This organization is directly developing plans to encourage more and more synthetic fields with crumb rubber waste in the U.S. along with other uses for recycled tire. This could end up being the mega-superfund clean-up! Just one example of cause for concern is the chemical make-up of tires. Crumb rubber fields contain benzene, a California Prop. 65 chemical and one that must be labeled at gas stations in the state. So, crumb rubber waste, to playgrounds, then back to waste. Synthetic fields, such as fieldturf/Tarkett are only guaranteed to last 8 years! Plus with fieldturf/Tarkett, " FieldTurf infill contains three times more material than any of our competitors. That's 560,000 lbs. more infill per field! " By the time our local high school is carpeted by field turf, there will be approximately 120,000 tires in crumb rubber form at Sir Francis Drake High School, San Anselmo, Marin County, California, Home of the Pirates! I wonder, how many tires constitutes a toxic dump?
http://www.fieldturf.com/product/overview.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/fora/waste-forum/scraptires.html
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/articles/article.asp?ID=7524&AdKeyword=california+tire+recycling
http://www.mexicanlaws.com/SEMARNAT/semarnat.htm
May 5-9, 2008 The Border-Tire Management Partnership International Tire Conference had a busy schedule with speakers educating interested parties on such hot topics as: sales strategies, green building marketing strategies, selling tire-derived products to the government, and my personal favorite, "Doing Business with the State of California"!
http://www.cce.csus.edu/conferences/ciwmb/intertireconf08/agenda.htm
May 8-9, 2008 As part of that same Border-Tire Management Partnership International Tire Conference, , the U.S. - Mexico Border 2012 members met to "emphasize collaboration among stakeholders".
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/fora/pdfs/2008-Meeting-Agenda.pdf
Not one of the six actions taken at this conference concerned to chemical make-up of the crumb rubber in question. Not one of the 23 speakers presented information about the potential toxic nature of crumb rubber waste or the current litigation surrounding the use of synthetic turf. Perhaps it should be noted that the participants of this U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 conference were:
Participants:
Individuals interested in the U.S.-Mexican border scrap tire issue including, but not exclusively, Border 2012 Tire Group members. The Border 2012 Tire Group emphasizes collaboration among stakeholders who have an interest in border scrap tire issues. Stakeholders include U.S. and Mexican federal, state and local governments, other governmental organizations, academia, the private sector, and other non-governmental organizations. Through the concentrated efforts of the Border 2012 Scrap Tire Group, all interested parties can achieve their aims in a mutually beneficial way.
Once again, it appears that our government is a victim or player in the synthetic turf confidence game. No environmentalist, no research scientist, no statistics, no substantive information other than removal and marketing appeared on the agenda. The health and well-being of our children should be of paramount concern to the public education system. The health and well-being of every member of our communty, watershed, environment deserves and has the right of protection by our government. Certainly they do not deserve to be victims of usury.
Thank you for your time and concern in this matter.
Mary Swan Bell, MS
Speech, Language and Hearing
Retired Public Special Education Teacher
The heat is turning up on synthetic turf. Not good when it can run 40 degrees or more hotter than grass turf! http://cahe.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf
The EPA and border states are running through OZ poppy fields if they think putting crumb rubber on playgrounds is the right thing to do! http://www.ehhi.org/turf/
Today, our public schools continue to place suspect crumb rubber waste infill and synthetic turf at the feet of our children. Once again, public school districts are being vetted and brought into a confidence game of sorts. Our school district told me they understood the synthetic turf product was safe because the manufacturer told them so! What century is this? School districts are charmed, in the name of water and maintenance savings, into using products before proper and transparent studies prove beyond a doubt that the public is safe, that our children and environments are safe. Connecticut is planning to fully study these products. The Conn. Synthetic Turf Study needs to put into place a conflicts of interest review of all who touch this research. With the health of this country's children on one side, and on the other, literally hundreds of millions of dollars yearly, riding on the results of this test, any less than complete transparency will put research back to the starting line.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-turf0105.artjan05,0,1463639.
Meanwhile:
U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 has been established to deal with the problems resulting from tire waste along the borders and includes government representatives from Mexico, U.S. Border States government representatives, U.S.EPA members, and tire recycling private concerns. This organization is directly developing plans to encourage more and more synthetic fields with crumb rubber waste in the U.S. along with other uses for recycled tire. This could end up being the mega-superfund clean-up! Just one example of cause for concern is the chemical make-up of tires. Crumb rubber fields contain benzene, a California Prop. 65 chemical and one that must be labeled at gas stations in the state. So, crumb rubber waste, to playgrounds, then back to waste. Synthetic fields, such as fieldturf/Tarkett are only guaranteed to last 8 years! Plus with fieldturf/Tarkett, " FieldTurf infill contains three times more material than any of our competitors. That's 560,000 lbs. more infill per field! " By the time our local high school is carpeted by field turf, there will be approximately 120,000 tires in crumb rubber form at Sir Francis Drake High School, San Anselmo, Marin County, California, Home of the Pirates! I wonder, how many tires constitutes a toxic dump?
http://www.fieldturf.com/product/overview.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/fora/waste-forum/scraptires.html
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/articles/article.asp?ID=7524&AdKeyword=california+tire+recycling
http://www.mexicanlaws.com/SEMARNAT/semarnat.htm
May 5-9, 2008 The Border-Tire Management Partnership International Tire Conference had a busy schedule with speakers educating interested parties on such hot topics as: sales strategies, green building marketing strategies, selling tire-derived products to the government, and my personal favorite, "Doing Business with the State of California"!
http://www.cce.csus.edu/conferences/ciwmb/intertireconf08/agenda.htm
May 8-9, 2008 As part of that same Border-Tire Management Partnership International Tire Conference, , the U.S. - Mexico Border 2012 members met to "emphasize collaboration among stakeholders".
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/fora/pdfs/2008-Meeting-Agenda.pdf
Not one of the six actions taken at this conference concerned to chemical make-up of the crumb rubber in question. Not one of the 23 speakers presented information about the potential toxic nature of crumb rubber waste or the current litigation surrounding the use of synthetic turf. Perhaps it should be noted that the participants of this U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 conference were:
Participants:
Individuals interested in the U.S.-Mexican border scrap tire issue including, but not exclusively, Border 2012 Tire Group members. The Border 2012 Tire Group emphasizes collaboration among stakeholders who have an interest in border scrap tire issues. Stakeholders include U.S. and Mexican federal, state and local governments, other governmental organizations, academia, the private sector, and other non-governmental organizations. Through the concentrated efforts of the Border 2012 Scrap Tire Group, all interested parties can achieve their aims in a mutually beneficial way.
Once again, it appears that our government is a victim or player in the synthetic turf confidence game. No environmentalist, no research scientist, no statistics, no substantive information other than removal and marketing appeared on the agenda. The health and well-being of our children should be of paramount concern to the public education system. The health and well-being of every member of our communty, watershed, environment deserves and has the right of protection by our government. Certainly they do not deserve to be victims of usury.
Thank you for your time and concern in this matter.
Mary Swan Bell, MS
Speech, Language and Hearing
Retired Public Special Education Teacher
Fwd: EHHI asks for peer review of data before publication of findings
EHHI asks for peer review of data before publication of findings
Again, From the Busy Desk of Nancy Alderman
January 5, 2009
Dear CT DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy, Brian Toal, Environmental Health Section, CT Department of Public Health, and CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal,
This letter is to clarify Environment and Human Health, Inc.'s (EHHI) concern with respect to the final analysis of the data that will be collected from the Connecticut Synthetic Turf study. EHHI continues to emphasize the need for peer review of the data analysis and its interpretation prior to the publication of the findings by the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
Two examples of why this peer review is needed are sufficient to illustrate the point.
The first example is the study by the Connecticut Department of Public Health where they said they needed more information in order to "document a hazard" - yet they said there was no reason not to install new fields. This finding is now presented by industry as "Connecticut finds that the synthetic turf fields are safe."
The second example is the Norwegian Study that found that there were both inhaled dust and the vapor exposures to many toxic chemicals but would not evaluate the health risk of the majority of the chemicals they found. That study is now presented as a study showing that the synthetic turf has not been shown to be hazardous.
All current studies are limited by incomplete explanation of the assumptions and limitations of the data analysis. Three limitations are (1) The failure to characterize the variability of the materials used; (2) The assumption that ones' lifetime exposures to synthetic turf would be only one exposure; and (3) the failure to consider not only cancer but also non-cancerous outcomes.
When the Connecticut Department of Public Health does its "Risk Analysis", the work must be peer reviewed prior to its release - regardless of the outcome. There have been strong positions that have been outlined by nationally recognized experts for serious health concerns from these fields. Moreover there are anecdotal reports of very serious health outcomes in youth who have been exposed to the crumb rubber.
Because of the potential for the continued misuse of technical data by industry and others, and because of the continued health concerns by expert health scientists, the risk assessment derived from the data collected in this study by the CT Department of Public Health must be peer reviewed before the risk analysis is made public. This report must stand up to the scrutiny of many, including industry.
Sincerely,
David Brown, Sc.D., Public Health Toxicologist, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Nancy Alderman, President, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
Again, From the Busy Desk of Nancy Alderman
January 5, 2009
Dear CT DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy, Brian Toal, Environmental Health Section, CT Department of Public Health, and CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal,
This letter is to clarify Environment and Human Health, Inc.'s (EHHI) concern with respect to the final analysis of the data that will be collected from the Connecticut Synthetic Turf study. EHHI continues to emphasize the need for peer review of the data analysis and its interpretation prior to the publication of the findings by the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
Two examples of why this peer review is needed are sufficient to illustrate the point.
The first example is the study by the Connecticut Department of Public Health where they said they needed more information in order to "document a hazard" - yet they said there was no reason not to install new fields. This finding is now presented by industry as "Connecticut finds that the synthetic turf fields are safe."
The second example is the Norwegian Study that found that there were both inhaled dust and the vapor exposures to many toxic chemicals but would not evaluate the health risk of the majority of the chemicals they found. That study is now presented as a study showing that the synthetic turf has not been shown to be hazardous.
All current studies are limited by incomplete explanation of the assumptions and limitations of the data analysis. Three limitations are (1) The failure to characterize the variability of the materials used; (2) The assumption that ones' lifetime exposures to synthetic turf would be only one exposure; and (3) the failure to consider not only cancer but also non-cancerous outcomes.
When the Connecticut Department of Public Health does its "Risk Analysis", the work must be peer reviewed prior to its release - regardless of the outcome. There have been strong positions that have been outlined by nationally recognized experts for serious health concerns from these fields. Moreover there are anecdotal reports of very serious health outcomes in youth who have been exposed to the crumb rubber.
Because of the potential for the continued misuse of technical data by industry and others, and because of the continued health concerns by expert health scientists, the risk assessment derived from the data collected in this study by the CT Department of Public Health must be peer reviewed before the risk analysis is made public. This report must stand up to the scrutiny of many, including industry.
Sincerely,
David Brown, Sc.D., Public Health Toxicologist, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Nancy Alderman, President, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org
Serious Questions About New-Generation Artificial Turf That Require Answers
An Article From 'Healthy Child, Healthy World'
Here's the Link to this Article:
http://healthychild.org/index.php/resources/article/serious_questions_about_new_generation_artificial_turf_that_require_answers/
Serious Questions About New-Generation Artificial Turf That Require Answers
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 16, 2008Turfgrass Producers International
In order to make fiscally and environmentally sound decisions regarding the potential purchase and installation of artificial turf in their communities, decision makers must consider all short- and long-term issues and concerns.
Artificial turf is being widely promoted as a cost-efficient, environmentally- and user-friendly product that can replace natural grass on sports fields and home lawn areas.
Unfortunately a large number of unsubstantiated claims are being made by promoters of the new-generation artificial turf products (particularly those that incorporate ground rubber as part of their base). Claims made by many artificial promoters include some or all of the following:
- Artificial surfaces have a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years.
- Initial purchase and installation costs are quickly offset by the absence of on going, maintenance costs.
- Safety of the artificial playing surface is un-matched by natural turfgrass.
Of equal or greater concern are questions that typically will not arise during the normal artificial turf sales presentation process, in particular issues related to the health and safety of our children and serious threats to our environment.
These issues require answers.
In a world where we all want the best for our children and where professional or even high school level coaches want the best for their athletes, we search for solutions that on the surface may seem the perfect answer. As experience has proven time and again, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is," is an adage worthy of contemplation when consideration is being given to constructing an artificial turf area.
While "fraud" is a highly charged word, some claims made by some artificial turf companies may fall within the legal definition of that term, while other claims may only be deceptive, over-statements, misstatements or misunderstandings.
The issues raised by the following questions are intended to assist in the decision-making process by focusing on real and serious areas of concern.
Insist on answers to these concerns.
HEALTH CONCERNS
Health and safety are two major principles that guide many of the decisions individuals, parents, athletes and coaches as well as appointed and elected officials must make on a daily basis. When decisions impact children or the environment, ignorance is no excuse, neither is falling under the guile of an agenda- or commission-driven salesperson.
Ground tire rubber is used in some artificial fields as an impact-softening base. The toxic content (including heavy metals) of tires prohibits their disposal in landfills or through ocean dumping. Yet, this toxic material is being allowed (in large quantities) where children and professional athletes come into direct contact with it.
- Should the presence of potentially toxic ground rubber on a sports field or home lawn be a concern to decision-makers, athletes, coaches, spectators and parents?
- For those firms who make claims of using shredded athletic shoes, what percentage of this type of rubber is being used (if any), versus ground tire rubber?
- What is the heavy-metal and/or toxic material analysis of the ground rubber?
- What are the short- and long-term health effects for athletes and spectators to the inhalation of the ground rubber dust?
- What are the health concerns related to the ingestion of ground rubber particlesthat takes place from sliding face-first on the surface or dropping and re-inserting a particle-covered mouth-piece onto the field?
- What length of time can players of different ages (particularly the very young and/or very old) be safely exposed to this heat level?
- If watering artificial turf reduces the field temperature, what is the length of time the temperature is reduced, and by how many degrees?
- Does the requirement to have a field-watering system negate some of the projected cost-savings of artificial turf?
- Although artificial fields are sold on a basis of being able to utilize the field 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, what outdoor temperature levels will cause the field to be closed because of potential health concerns to participants? Similarly, what lesser temperatures will cause participants to be so uncomfortable as to not enjoy playing on the surface?
Field sanitation that includes removal of bodily fluids (spittle, blood, sweat, vomit, urine), and/or bird or animal droppings may present a unique problem for artificial fields.
- Will the use of antiseptic cleaners properly sanitize the area? How frequently must the field be sanitized?
- Will the use of these sanitizing cleaners invalidate the surface's product warranty?
- Do the sanitizing cleansers or the scrubbing process damage the artificial fibers and lessen the projected life expectancy of the product?
- How much time, equipment and manpower must be budgeted to ensure a reasonably sanitary playing surface?
Abrasive surfaces can result in difficult-to-heal injuries, particularly in the presence of bacterial or viral pathogens.
- What standards of abrasiveness have been established for artificial products?
- Are parents, coaches and sports medical personnel trained to recognize the potential seriousness of abrasive wounds caused by artificial surfaces and
prepared to treat them properly?
Field hardness (either too hard or too soft a surface) can result in serious chronic or immediate athletic injury.
- What standards of artificial turf installation and maintenance have been developed to ensure field-wide, season-long uniformity and consistency, particularly when different field uses (i.e., soccer, football, marching bands, concerts, etc.) are allowed or encouraged?
- What is the correlation between the potential for increased on-field players' speed and the incidence of serious injuries?
- If additional ground tire rubber is periodically added to the field are potential health and environmental concerns about the toxicity of this material also renewed?
Athlete Health and Career-Longevity can be seriously jeopardized by exposure to extreme temperatures, overly hard or overly soft surfaces, greater speed at point of impact (with the field or other players) and staphylococcus (staph) infections caused by parasitic bacterium present on the playing surface.
- What specific sports injury studies have been conducted to document the safety or artificial sports surfaces?
- What specialized equipment, particularly footwear and padding, is recommended or required to address sports injury concerns that occur frequently on artificial fields?
- Has the health-care profession developed hydration guidelines for athletes at different ages, performing on hot artificial fields to reduce or avoid serious or even life threatening dehydration situations?
- What field maintenance practices are recommended or required to address the abnormally high presence of staphylococcus bacterium that can develop on an artificial surface?
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Ground rubber and artificial turf particulates are present on the playing field and in the surrounding spectator stands. Pesticides and cleansing products may be routinely applied to the surface, with unknown consequences to the environment.
- What levels of these materials is a health concern? Has the EPA established maximum exposure levels to these materials? Has OSHA established exposure limits for workers in tire shredding operations?
- Because of the presence of ground rubber and various man-made or plastic components in and on artificial surfaces, will environmentally safe disposal of a large amount of this material be possible when replacement of the field becomes necessary?
- What gases would be released into the atmosphere in the event of a fire on the artificial surface?
- How would an artificial turf fire be fought so as to extinguish the fire as quickly as possible, minimize danger to the fire fighters and/or reduce the
release of toxic fumes into the atmosphere? - What scientific testing has been completed to document that run-off or lechate from an artificial area is not polluting surface or groundwater?
- What impact does an artificial surface have on the area's capacity to recharge groundwater or an aquifer?
- What products are available to safely control weeds, algae or other conditions that develop on artificial surfaces, particularly when large amounts of water are applied in an effort to reduce the surface's heat build-up?
Herbicides, fungicides or algaecides are not now labeled by the USEPA for application on artificial surfaces because of fears of runoff and contamination, similar to applying pesticides to a driveway or other hard surface. - Given the fact that artificial turf surfaces absorb radiant heat (sunlight) and are therefore hotter than the surrounding area, how serious of a heat-island effect can be expected after installation of such a field?
- What will be the overall environmental impacts to an area when artificial turf is used to replace natural grass? (Natural grass reduces temperatures, traps and bio-degrades airborne pollutants, filters rainwater and facilitates therecharge of groundwater and aquifers. Artificial turf performs none of these environmental benefits and may cause damage, as noted above.)
COST CONCERNS
The initial purchase price of an artificial surface (sports field or home lawn) is many times greater than a natural grass area; however, promoters of the artificial products maintain that tremendous costs savings will be forthcoming because of reduced maintenance costs, as well as the product's warranty.
Because many of the artificial products are relatively new and not tested over time and use, no- or low-cost maintenance requirement claims that are consistently made by promoters of artificial surfaces may prove to be highly exaggerated.
- Will the artificial turf manufacturing and installation company provide a warranty specifying the expected life of the product?
- Given the fact that several artificial turf manufacturing companies have gone bankrupt, will the selling firm provide a warranty bond for the life of the product, ensuring that the buyer has some legitimate recourse in the event of failure?
- What is the longest period of time the artificial field being specified has been in use (at a level of use at least as great as the area being considered)?
- What conditions or maintenance practices will void the field's warranty?
- Does a single warranty cover all aspects of the artificial field's soil-base preparation, base materials, artificial turf materials, top-dressing, irrigation system, etc., or will there be separate warranties and warranty voiding conditions for each elementŠsome of which could contravene each other?
- What is the minimum and maximum financial investment in specialized capital equipment that must be purchased to maintain the artificial field at a level that will provide maximum playing conditions and maintain the warranty?
- What level of manpower (ground crew) is required to maintain an artificial field, compared to a natural grass field? Has any crew size or man-hour requirements been reduced with the installation of an artificial turf area?
- What level of technical training is supplied, recommended or required for the ground crew in order to properly maintain the area and the warranty conditions?
- What are the warranty required or recommended processes to address each of the following repair or replacement requirements of the artificial surface:
a. Damage caused by cigarette burns? Burns to larger areas?
b. Discoloration of areas caused by wear pattern differences?
c. Replacement of areas caused by wear or other physical or weather-related
damage?
Related Articles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)