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.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
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
Synthetic turf concerns as EPA veils hazardous substances
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: December 21, 2008 11:52:53 AM PST
To: 60m@cbsnews.com
Subject: Synthetic turf concerns as EPA veils hazardous substances
Dear 60 Minutes,
Below is an article published 12/2/08 in the Milwaukee Sentinel regarding the chemicals in consumer products which the EPA allow companies to hide from the consumers. This seems in keeping with the question of synthetic turf and the lack of transparency around the issue of the chemical make-up of ground tire waste infill and the attendant health concerns . Once again, I implore you to read the information below and begin an investigation on FieldTurf and the use of ground tire waste on playing fields.
Thank you for your time and concern.
Sincerely,
Mary Swan Bell, MS
Marin County, Ca.
415-459-5836
Subject: EPA veils hazardous substances
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Saturday December 20, 2008
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/36514449.html
EPA veils hazardous substances
By Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency routinely allows companies to keep new information about their chemicals secret, including compounds that have been shown to cause cancer and respiratory problems, the Journal Sentinel has found.
The newspaper examined more than 2,000 filings in the EPA's registry of dangerous chemicals for the past three years. In more than half the cases, the EPA agreed to keep the chemical name a secret. In hundreds of other cases, it allowed the company filing the report to keep its name and address confidential.
This is despite a federal law calling for public notice of any new information through the EPA's program monitoring chemicals that pose substantial risk. The whole idea of the program is to warn the public of newfound dangers.
The EPA's rules are supposed to allow confidentiality only "under very limited circumstances."
Legal experts and environmental advocates say the practice of "sanitizing," or blacking out, this information not only strips vital information from the public, it violates the agency's own law.
Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the foundation for all the EPA's toxic and chemical regulations, stipulates that chemical producers may not be granted confidentiality when it comes to health and safety data.
"The EPA has chosen to ignore that," said Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin.
The newspaper's findings are just the latest example of how EPA administrators more often than not put company interests above the needs of consumers. Over the past 18 months, the Journal Sentinel has reported on numerous EPA programs that bow to corporate pressure, frustrating health and environmental advocates and disregarding the agency's own mission to inform the public of potentially dangerous chemicals.
The EPA has the authority to fine companies that fail to fully disclose information about dangerous chemicals. And, in at least one instance, it has done so. But critics say the program has been allowed to flounder, and the agency rarely challenges a company's request for confidentiality.
It's been frustrating to see the program "starved of resources and generally abandoned," said Myra Karstadt, a toxicologist who worked on the EPA's program from 1998 to 2005. "It's a very worthwhile program but only if it's given a chance to work."
Intent was to inform
The program began 30 years ago as a way to help the public avoid contact with dangerous chemicals. The law requires companies that make chemicals to submit any information of potential hazards about their products to the EPA. The EPA, in turn, is supposed to make that information available to communities and consumers.
Companies can claim confidentiality if they are worried that their disclosures will reveal trade secrets. They have to answer 14 questions, including specifics on why disclosing the information would harm the company.
EPA administrators then decide which ones are granted confidentiality.
EPA spokesman Dale Kemery said the agency realizes the claims of confidentiality "do in some instances limit the public's ability to understand the specifics of a particular filing." In those cases, the agency works with the companies to get them to provide more information, which many do, he said.
But the Journal Sentinel examination of the agency's substantial risk program found that large information gaps remain. More than half of the 32 submissions for March 2004, for example, are still missing information necessary for the public to connect the name of the chemical with the information submitted.
Some have no information at all.
Consider File No. 8EHQ-0308-17103A.
The EPA document, filed in March, marks as confidential the names of the chemical and the company that makes it. Even the generic class of chemical has been removed.
What is the information that this unnamed company is submitting about this unnamed chemical so the public can see if it poses a substantial risk? Anxious consumers have no way of knowing.
"No information is provided in the sanitized copy of the submission," the EPA Web site entry reads.
Hazardous if inhaled
One report, posted by an unnamed company about an unnamed chemical, shows that if the substance is inhaled, it produces "foamy macrophages" or diseased cells, in the lungs of rats. The report also indicates the chemical may cause pulmonary fibrosis - a deadly and irreversible disease in people.
There is no way to know if this is a chemical coming out of a smokestack in some town or a concern for workers at a factory. The write-up does not say where the chemical is produced or used.
Nor is there any indication in the description of what this chemical is or how it works.
Another filing in May refers to a study that shows a chemical had caused liver abnormalities consistent with cancer. Again, the chemical name and any identifying information are blacked out.
"The public is being denied useful and sometimes critical information on chemical-related health and environmental hazards," said Karstadt, the former EPA toxicologist.
Karstadt said the whole point of the program was to provide the public with information about dangerous chemicals.
"By law, health and safety data is supposed to be kept open," she said.
The EPA's own Web site indicates that studies, letters and accident reports are intended to be viewed by the public so citizens can "understand potential human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to chemical substances."
The EPA posts all reports, redacted or not, on its Web site.
Oversees 28 programs
The law that requires companies to report data on dangerous chemicals is just one of 10 laws that the EPA is supposed to enforce. The office oversees 28 programs that address air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides, among other things.
The EPA is an enormous agency with three headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area and 10 regional offices all over the country. The office that administers the dangerous chemicals program has eight divisions. The overview describing their responsibilities fills 41 pages.
Even Kemery, the spokesman, could not say exactly who or how many people decide what information is allowed to be kept confidential. Nor did he know how many claims of confidentiality have been submitted and how many were granted.
The Environmental Working Group, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., reports that less than 1% of the EPA's enforcement and compliance budget is spent on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Renee Sharpe, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, spent more than a year trying to get information from the EPA about some of the chemicals under the program, only to be denied at every turn.
"It's pretty outrageous, isn't it," she said.
The EPA advises companies on how to keep information confidential. It is less helpful to consumers.
The information on its Web site is difficult to access. You can't look up the chemical by name or by the name of the company that makes it. So, you have to go through the filings month by month to see if there is any information listed on that particular chemical.
There are huge gaps in reporting. The Web site does not have any information on chemicals before 2004. For reasons the EPA does not explain, the Web site does not include the second half of 2004.
That means there is no information at all about more than 16,000 entries.
Enforcement at work
Sometimes, the program works.
In 2004, the EPA fined DuPont de Nemours and Co. $10.25? million for not reporting data on Teflon. The chemical, used as nonstick coating in cookware, was found to be toxic and had been linked to birth defects. The EPA alleged that DuPont had information for more than 20 years that the chemical was harmful but did not disclose the risks.
The company agreed to settle and pay the penalty. It was the largest civil administrative penalty the EPA had ever obtained under any federal environmental statute.
Other times the EPA has encouraged companies to withdraw chemicals found to be dangerous. In 1999, 3M agreed to phase out its use of perfluorinated chemicals after discussions with the EPA. The chemicals, used in furniture coatings and to waterproof clothing, were found to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity in rats.
Still, critics including Karstadt and Wagner say the agency's policies have grown too lax.
The real problem with the program "is a complete lack of commitment," Karstadt said.
Even when companies say they understand the need for transparency, they aren't always willing to provide it, the Journal Sentinel found.
Adam Bickel, manager of the Product Regulatory Center of Expertise at BASF, a major German-based chemical producer, said his company recognizes that toxic law is a "key chemical control and chemical management statute to protect human health and the environment."
BASF is one of the companies that files the most reports to the EPA under the program. Bickel said his company takes its obligations "seriously and complies with the reporting."
BASF submitted 101 reports to the EPA in 2008. It blacked out the chemical name in 85 of those entries.
--
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
Editor Note...See previous Post for reference articles
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: December 21, 2008 11:52:53 AM PST
To: 60m@cbsnews.com
Subject: Synthetic turf concerns as EPA veils hazardous substances
Dear 60 Minutes,
Below is an article published 12/2/08 in the Milwaukee Sentinel regarding the chemicals in consumer products which the EPA allow companies to hide from the consumers. This seems in keeping with the question of synthetic turf and the lack of transparency around the issue of the chemical make-up of ground tire waste infill and the attendant health concerns . Once again, I implore you to read the information below and begin an investigation on FieldTurf and the use of ground tire waste on playing fields.
Thank you for your time and concern.
Sincerely,
Mary Swan Bell, MS
Marin County, Ca.
415-459-5836
Subject: EPA veils hazardous substances
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Saturday December 20, 2008
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/36514449.html
EPA veils hazardous substances
By Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency routinely allows companies to keep new information about their chemicals secret, including compounds that have been shown to cause cancer and respiratory problems, the Journal Sentinel has found.
The newspaper examined more than 2,000 filings in the EPA's registry of dangerous chemicals for the past three years. In more than half the cases, the EPA agreed to keep the chemical name a secret. In hundreds of other cases, it allowed the company filing the report to keep its name and address confidential.
This is despite a federal law calling for public notice of any new information through the EPA's program monitoring chemicals that pose substantial risk. The whole idea of the program is to warn the public of newfound dangers.
The EPA's rules are supposed to allow confidentiality only "under very limited circumstances."
Legal experts and environmental advocates say the practice of "sanitizing," or blacking out, this information not only strips vital information from the public, it violates the agency's own law.
Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the foundation for all the EPA's toxic and chemical regulations, stipulates that chemical producers may not be granted confidentiality when it comes to health and safety data.
"The EPA has chosen to ignore that," said Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin.
The newspaper's findings are just the latest example of how EPA administrators more often than not put company interests above the needs of consumers. Over the past 18 months, the Journal Sentinel has reported on numerous EPA programs that bow to corporate pressure, frustrating health and environmental advocates and disregarding the agency's own mission to inform the public of potentially dangerous chemicals.
The EPA has the authority to fine companies that fail to fully disclose information about dangerous chemicals. And, in at least one instance, it has done so. But critics say the program has been allowed to flounder, and the agency rarely challenges a company's request for confidentiality.
It's been frustrating to see the program "starved of resources and generally abandoned," said Myra Karstadt, a toxicologist who worked on the EPA's program from 1998 to 2005. "It's a very worthwhile program but only if it's given a chance to work."
Intent was to inform
The program began 30 years ago as a way to help the public avoid contact with dangerous chemicals. The law requires companies that make chemicals to submit any information of potential hazards about their products to the EPA. The EPA, in turn, is supposed to make that information available to communities and consumers.
Companies can claim confidentiality if they are worried that their disclosures will reveal trade secrets. They have to answer 14 questions, including specifics on why disclosing the information would harm the company.
EPA administrators then decide which ones are granted confidentiality.
EPA spokesman Dale Kemery said the agency realizes the claims of confidentiality "do in some instances limit the public's ability to understand the specifics of a particular filing." In those cases, the agency works with the companies to get them to provide more information, which many do, he said.
But the Journal Sentinel examination of the agency's substantial risk program found that large information gaps remain. More than half of the 32 submissions for March 2004, for example, are still missing information necessary for the public to connect the name of the chemical with the information submitted.
Some have no information at all.
Consider File No. 8EHQ-0308-17103A.
The EPA document, filed in March, marks as confidential the names of the chemical and the company that makes it. Even the generic class of chemical has been removed.
What is the information that this unnamed company is submitting about this unnamed chemical so the public can see if it poses a substantial risk? Anxious consumers have no way of knowing.
"No information is provided in the sanitized copy of the submission," the EPA Web site entry reads.
Hazardous if inhaled
One report, posted by an unnamed company about an unnamed chemical, shows that if the substance is inhaled, it produces "foamy macrophages" or diseased cells, in the lungs of rats. The report also indicates the chemical may cause pulmonary fibrosis - a deadly and irreversible disease in people.
There is no way to know if this is a chemical coming out of a smokestack in some town or a concern for workers at a factory. The write-up does not say where the chemical is produced or used.
Nor is there any indication in the description of what this chemical is or how it works.
Another filing in May refers to a study that shows a chemical had caused liver abnormalities consistent with cancer. Again, the chemical name and any identifying information are blacked out.
"The public is being denied useful and sometimes critical information on chemical-related health and environmental hazards," said Karstadt, the former EPA toxicologist.
Karstadt said the whole point of the program was to provide the public with information about dangerous chemicals.
"By law, health and safety data is supposed to be kept open," she said.
The EPA's own Web site indicates that studies, letters and accident reports are intended to be viewed by the public so citizens can "understand potential human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to chemical substances."
The EPA posts all reports, redacted or not, on its Web site.
Oversees 28 programs
The law that requires companies to report data on dangerous chemicals is just one of 10 laws that the EPA is supposed to enforce. The office oversees 28 programs that address air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides, among other things.
The EPA is an enormous agency with three headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area and 10 regional offices all over the country. The office that administers the dangerous chemicals program has eight divisions. The overview describing their responsibilities fills 41 pages.
Even Kemery, the spokesman, could not say exactly who or how many people decide what information is allowed to be kept confidential. Nor did he know how many claims of confidentiality have been submitted and how many were granted.
The Environmental Working Group, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., reports that less than 1% of the EPA's enforcement and compliance budget is spent on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Renee Sharpe, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, spent more than a year trying to get information from the EPA about some of the chemicals under the program, only to be denied at every turn.
"It's pretty outrageous, isn't it," she said.
The EPA advises companies on how to keep information confidential. It is less helpful to consumers.
The information on its Web site is difficult to access. You can't look up the chemical by name or by the name of the company that makes it. So, you have to go through the filings month by month to see if there is any information listed on that particular chemical.
There are huge gaps in reporting. The Web site does not have any information on chemicals before 2004. For reasons the EPA does not explain, the Web site does not include the second half of 2004.
That means there is no information at all about more than 16,000 entries.
Enforcement at work
Sometimes, the program works.
In 2004, the EPA fined DuPont de Nemours and Co. $10.25? million for not reporting data on Teflon. The chemical, used as nonstick coating in cookware, was found to be toxic and had been linked to birth defects. The EPA alleged that DuPont had information for more than 20 years that the chemical was harmful but did not disclose the risks.
The company agreed to settle and pay the penalty. It was the largest civil administrative penalty the EPA had ever obtained under any federal environmental statute.
Other times the EPA has encouraged companies to withdraw chemicals found to be dangerous. In 1999, 3M agreed to phase out its use of perfluorinated chemicals after discussions with the EPA. The chemicals, used in furniture coatings and to waterproof clothing, were found to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity in rats.
Still, critics including Karstadt and Wagner say the agency's policies have grown too lax.
The real problem with the program "is a complete lack of commitment," Karstadt said.
Even when companies say they understand the need for transparency, they aren't always willing to provide it, the Journal Sentinel found.
Adam Bickel, manager of the Product Regulatory Center of Expertise at BASF, a major German-based chemical producer, said his company recognizes that toxic law is a "key chemical control and chemical management statute to protect human health and the environment."
BASF is one of the companies that files the most reports to the EPA under the program. Bickel said his company takes its obligations "seriously and complies with the reporting."
BASF submitted 101 reports to the EPA in 2008. It blacked out the chemical name in 85 of those entries.
--
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
Editor Note...See previous Post for reference articles
Letter From Mary Swan Bell to 60 Minutes TV Show...inc. Great Articles
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: December 19, 2008 11:09:08 AM PST
To: 60m@cbsnews.com
Subject: Full story please! Scientists to EPA: Risks of chemicals that alter male hormones
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: December 19, 2008 11:06:54 AM PST
To: 60m@cbsnews.com
Subject: Fwd: Scientists to EPA: Risks of chemicals that alter male hormones should be analyzed together
Dear 60 Minutes,
Phthalates are one of the chemicals found in crumb rubber waste particulate , The major component part of synthetic turf.
Please, for the health of male reproduction and the health of humanity, investigate the use of synthetic turf on playgrounds and playing fields.
Thank you for your time and interest,
Mary Bell, MS
Marin County, California
Read on:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/scientists-to-epa-risks-of-chemicals-that-alter-male-hormones-should-be-analyzed-together-to-protect-human-health-national-panel-says
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEWS December 18, 2008
Scientists to EPA: Risks of chemicals that alter male hormones should be analyzed together
By Marla Cone
Editor in Chief
Environmental Health News
A national panel of experts says EPA must change its focus and analyze chemicals that endanger male reproduction cumulatively or it will "seriously underestimate" the risks to human health.
Concluding that nearly everybody is exposed to a mix of chemicals that could be damaging male reproductive health, a national panel of scientists on Thursday advised the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to shift its focus and group them together when judging how much of a danger they pose.
The committee, assembled by the National Academy of Sciences, looked specifically at phthalates, controversial compounds widely found in consumer products. Phthalates soften plastic to make vinyl for toys, building materials, medical devices and other items, and they also are used in fragrances and other beauty products.
The recommendation to combine the compounds when analyzing their threats to human health would mark a critical change in EPA strategy. It would likely lower the total amount of phthalates the agency considers safe for people and ultimately could lead to strict regulations on their use.
By analyzing each chemical individually, the EPA underestimates the health risks of phthalates, the committee reported. In human bodies, phthalates combine, amplifying the effects on male reproduction.
"By only doing one, we underestimate the risk," said Deborah Cory-Slechta, a professor of environmental medicine at University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry who chaired the National Research Council's phthalates committee.
The recommendations could have far-reaching implications beyond phthalates, transforming how the EPA determines to what degree people will be exposed to a variety of chemicals and pollutants.
The committee said other compounds, such as bisphenol A and pesticides, that also are linked to effects on male hormones should be grouped with phthalates in the EPA's risk analysis.
"A focus solely on phthalates to the exclusion of other antiandrogens would be artificial and could seriously underestimate cumulative risk," the report says.
EPA scientists asked the National Academy of Sciences for advice on how to assess phthalates because they knew many have the same effects.
Peter Preuss, director of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, said his "best guess" is that the agency will conduct the recommended cumulative assessment for phthalates. But he said his staff just received the 160-page report and it must first analyze the technical details of how the committee says to proceed. The EPA had been on a track to finish its assessments of at least two phthalates in 2010.
"The Academy said very clearly that they think there is sufficient information to do this, so that is our next step," Preuss said.
"There are many chemicals that act by many different mechanisms but the final result is a series of impacts on the developing male reproductive system," he said. "The Academy said these things are important-focus on the endpoint, the [health] effect, and work from that. They are trying to simplify this process."
Going even further, the scientists urged the EPA to consider broadening all its assessments to include cumulative effects of compounds with the same health effects.
That, for example, might lead to combined analysis compounds that affect the brain, female reproduction, lung cancer, or heart disease.
The report bolsters a relatively new scientific argument that cumulative exposure of chemicals and pollutants should be considered when setting safe doses for each.
Many environmental groups and public health experts have urged EPA to conduct risk assessments that combine chemicals, so they welcomed the committee's findings.
Shanna Swan, director of the University of Rochester's Center for Reproductive Epidemiology and one of the leading scientific experts on phthalates, called the cumulative approach "the crucial next step" in addressing environmental chemicals that disrupt hormones.
"It is extremely important to conduct cumulative risk assessments to protect public health," added Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, acting assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Washington. "Unlike in scientific experiments, humans are exposed to multiple chemicals everyday," she said, so combining the chemicals "can help identify how these multiple exposures could be leading to health outcomes in the general population."
Swan and Sathyanarayana were not on the panel, but both have studied phthalates. Sathyanarayana's research linked babies' phthalates to baby lotions, powders and shampoos. Swan and her colleagues reported in 2005 that the chemicals were associated with signs of feminized genitalia in newborn boys.
Tests conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that nearly all people carry traces of numerous phthalates in their bodies. Fetuses, infants and children are considered most at risk.
Europe and the United States have restricted phthalates in toys and other children's products, and the EU has banned some in cosmetics. But a variety of phthalates are still in a host of consumer products.
A child may ingest phthalates through chewing on a rubber duck, an infant may be exposed from intravenous tubes in neonatal wards, and a fetus may absorb them through his mother's use of perfumes, lotions, nail polishes and other cosmetics.
Industry groups have argued that there is insufficient evidence to group phthalates together.
But the panel of 13 scientists disagreed.
"Our committee concludes that there are common adverse effects" for many phthalates and "we believe that EPA should go ahead and conduct a cumulative risk assessment," Cory-Slechta said. She said the scientists found sufficient data, primarily from laboratory animal tests, to justify the new approach for phthalates immediately.
"There is a growing body of literature, particularly in rats, showing effects of phthalates on development of the male reproductive system," she said.
Several types of phthalates mimic or block testosterone and other androgens, which are the sex hormones that guide formation of testicles, sperm and other parts of the male reproductive system. In animal tests, exposure leads to infertility, malformed penises and abnormal testicles, which scientists call the "phthalate syndrome."
In the past, EPA has done cumulative risk assessments when substances were structurally similar in their chemical makeup or acted in the same way. But the committee says the EPA should instead group compounds according to "what they ultimately do"-the effects on human health, Cory-Slechta said.
The American Chemistry Council, representing industries that produce phthalates, said Thursday that it has "some reservations about how to conduct the cumulative risk assessment on substances" that do not act in the same way.
"This is remarkably ambitious and could be problematic for EPA considering that this essentially could result in a study without limits, financially or otherwise," said Chris Bryant, managing director of the group's Chemical Products & Technology Division.
"Congress has asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct a cumulative risk assessment on phthalates and there is a question as to whether a simultaneous EPA study would be redundant," he added.
The chemical industry also wonders how this would be reconciled with another National Academy report earlier this month that advised EPA to more strongly focus its risk assessments for chemicals.
Cory-Slechta agreed that a cumulative assessment would mean a "real paradigm change for EPA" and "might prove somewhat challenging for them." One obstacle for EPA scientists is that not all phthalates have the exact same effects or the same potency.
"EPA certainly has been moving in the direction of cumulative risk assessment, largely for chemicals structurally similar and ones that act in a similar way. This is the next step-- focusing on adverse outcomes," she said.
"This committee believed very strongly that the conceptual approach should be broadly applicable" to other chemicals, too, she added.
For instance, EPA could evaluate the risk of combined exposures to lead, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls-all of which can damage developing brains and reduce children's IQs, the committee said.
"The question is do we have enough data on the individual chemicals to put into an assessment like this. For something like phthalates, the answer is definitively yes," Sathyanarayana said. But, she added, "for other chemicals that have not been researched as extensively, it may be difficult to find specific information for let's say, fetal effects, and this point is highlighted in the [committee's] summary."
One example where EPA does not have enough data to combine all the compounds is nanoparticles, which is used in sunscreens and a variety of consumer products, she said.
"Even though we may not have the data yet to do this for many classes of chemicals, the recognition that this is necessary should help regulators move towards acquiring the data needed to do this," Swan said.
The EPA's Preuss acknowledged that "there clearly will be challenges to applying this to chemicals beyond the phthalates," even when looking at just male reproduction. His staff will have to resolve questions about how much scientific evidence is needed before including a chemical.
"We sort of have a role in the agency of doing the difficult assessments," he said. "Fitting something in like this with the current staffing we have is one of the challenges, clearly."
Sathyanarayana agreed with the committee's recommendation to group chemicals together according to what they do to the body, not just how they do it.
"I think it is very important," she said. "This shift in focus could lead to a much better assessment of how mixtures affect the development of adverse health outcomes."
Beyond male reproductive health, the committee's report raises interesting questions about how Preuss' staff should determine a safe amount of many chemicals, including a long list of air pollutants that can cause the same respiratory and cardiovascular damage.
"I'm sure there will be a huge amount of discussion following up on this report about how broadly we can apply the principles they recommend," Preuss said. "I think it will be quite interesting and controversial."
bject: "FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids?
Dear 60 Minutes,
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.
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 I would like to share with you. The first letter (1) from Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health Inc., 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.
Dear 60 Minutes, this is a story which requires true journalistic investigation. I believe 60 Minutes would aid the children of this country if you got to the core of this story, is this material safe? The effects of these chemicals may not be seen for years, and in that time how many children, athletes, families could be exposed to and affected by these toxicants?
Please read on. Please feel free to contact me for further information.
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.
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
Date: December 19, 2008 11:09:08 AM PST
To: 60m@cbsnews.com
Subject: Full story please! Scientists to EPA: Risks of chemicals that alter male hormones
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: December 19, 2008 11:06:54 AM PST
To: 60m@cbsnews.com
Subject: Fwd: Scientists to EPA: Risks of chemicals that alter male hormones should be analyzed together
Dear 60 Minutes,
Phthalates are one of the chemicals found in crumb rubber waste particulate , The major component part of synthetic turf.
Please, for the health of male reproduction and the health of humanity, investigate the use of synthetic turf on playgrounds and playing fields.
Thank you for your time and interest,
Mary Bell, MS
Marin County, California
Read on:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/scientists-to-epa-risks-of-chemicals-that-alter-male-hormones-should-be-analyzed-together-to-protect-human-health-national-panel-says
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEWS December 18, 2008
Scientists to EPA: Risks of chemicals that alter male hormones should be analyzed together
By Marla Cone
Editor in Chief
Environmental Health News
A national panel of experts says EPA must change its focus and analyze chemicals that endanger male reproduction cumulatively or it will "seriously underestimate" the risks to human health.
Concluding that nearly everybody is exposed to a mix of chemicals that could be damaging male reproductive health, a national panel of scientists on Thursday advised the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to shift its focus and group them together when judging how much of a danger they pose.
The committee, assembled by the National Academy of Sciences, looked specifically at phthalates, controversial compounds widely found in consumer products. Phthalates soften plastic to make vinyl for toys, building materials, medical devices and other items, and they also are used in fragrances and other beauty products.
The recommendation to combine the compounds when analyzing their threats to human health would mark a critical change in EPA strategy. It would likely lower the total amount of phthalates the agency considers safe for people and ultimately could lead to strict regulations on their use.
By analyzing each chemical individually, the EPA underestimates the health risks of phthalates, the committee reported. In human bodies, phthalates combine, amplifying the effects on male reproduction.
"By only doing one, we underestimate the risk," said Deborah Cory-Slechta, a professor of environmental medicine at University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry who chaired the National Research Council's phthalates committee.
The recommendations could have far-reaching implications beyond phthalates, transforming how the EPA determines to what degree people will be exposed to a variety of chemicals and pollutants.
The committee said other compounds, such as bisphenol A and pesticides, that also are linked to effects on male hormones should be grouped with phthalates in the EPA's risk analysis.
"A focus solely on phthalates to the exclusion of other antiandrogens would be artificial and could seriously underestimate cumulative risk," the report says.
EPA scientists asked the National Academy of Sciences for advice on how to assess phthalates because they knew many have the same effects.
Peter Preuss, director of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, said his "best guess" is that the agency will conduct the recommended cumulative assessment for phthalates. But he said his staff just received the 160-page report and it must first analyze the technical details of how the committee says to proceed. The EPA had been on a track to finish its assessments of at least two phthalates in 2010.
"The Academy said very clearly that they think there is sufficient information to do this, so that is our next step," Preuss said.
"There are many chemicals that act by many different mechanisms but the final result is a series of impacts on the developing male reproductive system," he said. "The Academy said these things are important-focus on the endpoint, the [health] effect, and work from that. They are trying to simplify this process."
Going even further, the scientists urged the EPA to consider broadening all its assessments to include cumulative effects of compounds with the same health effects.
That, for example, might lead to combined analysis compounds that affect the brain, female reproduction, lung cancer, or heart disease.
The report bolsters a relatively new scientific argument that cumulative exposure of chemicals and pollutants should be considered when setting safe doses for each.
Many environmental groups and public health experts have urged EPA to conduct risk assessments that combine chemicals, so they welcomed the committee's findings.
Shanna Swan, director of the University of Rochester's Center for Reproductive Epidemiology and one of the leading scientific experts on phthalates, called the cumulative approach "the crucial next step" in addressing environmental chemicals that disrupt hormones.
"It is extremely important to conduct cumulative risk assessments to protect public health," added Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, acting assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Washington. "Unlike in scientific experiments, humans are exposed to multiple chemicals everyday," she said, so combining the chemicals "can help identify how these multiple exposures could be leading to health outcomes in the general population."
Swan and Sathyanarayana were not on the panel, but both have studied phthalates. Sathyanarayana's research linked babies' phthalates to baby lotions, powders and shampoos. Swan and her colleagues reported in 2005 that the chemicals were associated with signs of feminized genitalia in newborn boys.
Tests conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that nearly all people carry traces of numerous phthalates in their bodies. Fetuses, infants and children are considered most at risk.
Europe and the United States have restricted phthalates in toys and other children's products, and the EU has banned some in cosmetics. But a variety of phthalates are still in a host of consumer products.
A child may ingest phthalates through chewing on a rubber duck, an infant may be exposed from intravenous tubes in neonatal wards, and a fetus may absorb them through his mother's use of perfumes, lotions, nail polishes and other cosmetics.
Industry groups have argued that there is insufficient evidence to group phthalates together.
But the panel of 13 scientists disagreed.
"Our committee concludes that there are common adverse effects" for many phthalates and "we believe that EPA should go ahead and conduct a cumulative risk assessment," Cory-Slechta said. She said the scientists found sufficient data, primarily from laboratory animal tests, to justify the new approach for phthalates immediately.
"There is a growing body of literature, particularly in rats, showing effects of phthalates on development of the male reproductive system," she said.
Several types of phthalates mimic or block testosterone and other androgens, which are the sex hormones that guide formation of testicles, sperm and other parts of the male reproductive system. In animal tests, exposure leads to infertility, malformed penises and abnormal testicles, which scientists call the "phthalate syndrome."
In the past, EPA has done cumulative risk assessments when substances were structurally similar in their chemical makeup or acted in the same way. But the committee says the EPA should instead group compounds according to "what they ultimately do"-the effects on human health, Cory-Slechta said.
The American Chemistry Council, representing industries that produce phthalates, said Thursday that it has "some reservations about how to conduct the cumulative risk assessment on substances" that do not act in the same way.
"This is remarkably ambitious and could be problematic for EPA considering that this essentially could result in a study without limits, financially or otherwise," said Chris Bryant, managing director of the group's Chemical Products & Technology Division.
"Congress has asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct a cumulative risk assessment on phthalates and there is a question as to whether a simultaneous EPA study would be redundant," he added.
The chemical industry also wonders how this would be reconciled with another National Academy report earlier this month that advised EPA to more strongly focus its risk assessments for chemicals.
Cory-Slechta agreed that a cumulative assessment would mean a "real paradigm change for EPA" and "might prove somewhat challenging for them." One obstacle for EPA scientists is that not all phthalates have the exact same effects or the same potency.
"EPA certainly has been moving in the direction of cumulative risk assessment, largely for chemicals structurally similar and ones that act in a similar way. This is the next step-- focusing on adverse outcomes," she said.
"This committee believed very strongly that the conceptual approach should be broadly applicable" to other chemicals, too, she added.
For instance, EPA could evaluate the risk of combined exposures to lead, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls-all of which can damage developing brains and reduce children's IQs, the committee said.
"The question is do we have enough data on the individual chemicals to put into an assessment like this. For something like phthalates, the answer is definitively yes," Sathyanarayana said. But, she added, "for other chemicals that have not been researched as extensively, it may be difficult to find specific information for let's say, fetal effects, and this point is highlighted in the [committee's] summary."
One example where EPA does not have enough data to combine all the compounds is nanoparticles, which is used in sunscreens and a variety of consumer products, she said.
"Even though we may not have the data yet to do this for many classes of chemicals, the recognition that this is necessary should help regulators move towards acquiring the data needed to do this," Swan said.
The EPA's Preuss acknowledged that "there clearly will be challenges to applying this to chemicals beyond the phthalates," even when looking at just male reproduction. His staff will have to resolve questions about how much scientific evidence is needed before including a chemical.
"We sort of have a role in the agency of doing the difficult assessments," he said. "Fitting something in like this with the current staffing we have is one of the challenges, clearly."
Sathyanarayana agreed with the committee's recommendation to group chemicals together according to what they do to the body, not just how they do it.
"I think it is very important," she said. "This shift in focus could lead to a much better assessment of how mixtures affect the development of adverse health outcomes."
Beyond male reproductive health, the committee's report raises interesting questions about how Preuss' staff should determine a safe amount of many chemicals, including a long list of air pollutants that can cause the same respiratory and cardiovascular damage.
"I'm sure there will be a huge amount of discussion following up on this report about how broadly we can apply the principles they recommend," Preuss said. "I think it will be quite interesting and controversial."
bject: "FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids?
Dear 60 Minutes,
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.
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 I would like to share with you. The first letter (1) from Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health Inc., 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.
Dear 60 Minutes, this is a story which requires true journalistic investigation. I believe 60 Minutes would aid the children of this country if you got to the core of this story, is this material safe? The effects of these chemicals may not be seen for years, and in that time how many children, athletes, families could be exposed to and affected by these toxicants?
Please read on. Please feel free to contact me for further information.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)