turf wars

Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids - From The Scientists

2009-03-01T12:56:00.000-08:00

Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2008) 18, 600–607; doi:10.1038/jes.2008.55; published online 27 August 2008

Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids

Junfeng (jim) Zhanga, In-Kyu Hana,b, Lin Zhanga and William Crainc

aSchool of Public Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
bJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
cThe City College of New York, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence: Dr. Junfeng (Jim) Zhang, UMDNJ-SPH, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Tel.: +1 732 235 5405; Fax: +1 732 235 4004; E-mail: jjzhang@eohsi.rutgers.edu

Received 19 July 2008; Accepted 4 August 2008; Published online 27 August 2008.

Many synthetic turf fields consist of not only artificial grass but also rubber granules that are used as infill. The public concerns about toxic chemicals possibly contained in either artificial (polyethylene) grass fibers or rubber granules have been escalating but are based on very limited information available to date. The aim of this research was to obtain data that will help assess potential health risks associated with chemical exposure. In this small-scale study, we collected seven samples of rubber granules and one sample of artificial grass fiber from synthetic turf fields at different ages of the fields. We analyzed these samples to determine the contents (maximum concentrations) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and several metals (Zn, Cr, As, Cd, and Pb). We also analyzed these samples to determine their bioaccessible fractions of PAHs and metals in synthetic digestive fluids including saliva, gastric fluid, and intestinal fluid through a laboratory simulation technique. Our findings include:

(1) rubber granules often, especially when the synthetic turf fields were newer, contained PAHs at levels above health-based soil standards. The levels of PAHs generally appear to decline as the field ages. However, the decay trend may be complicated by adding new rubber granules to compensate for the loss of the material.
(2) PAHs contained in rubber granules had zero or near-zero bioaccessibility in the synthetic digestive fluids.
(3) The zinc contents were found to far exceed the soil limit.
(4) Except one sample with a moderate lead content of 53 p.p.m., the other samples had relatively low concentrations of lead (3.12–5.76 p.p.m.), according to soil standards. However, 24.7–44.2% of the lead in the rubber granules was bioaccessible in the synthetic gastric fluid.
(5) The artificial grass fiber sample showed a chromium content of 3.93 p.p.m., and 34.6% and 54.0% bioaccessibility of lead in the synthetic gastric and intestinal fluids, respectively.

Keywords: synthetic turf, PAHs, lead, heavy metals, bioaccessibility

Subject: UTube report on synthetic turf

2009-03-01T12:53:00.000-08:00

Subject: UTube report on synthetic turf

To the synthetic turf e-mail list,

For your information - a film on the hazards of synthetic turf.

Click on the blue type and wait for the ad to play and then it will start

http://www.youtube.com/user/pimento3 .

--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone) 203-248-6582
(fax) 203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org

RAISED BILL No. H.B. 5280/S.B 924 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF PLAYING FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF WARNING SIGNS. In CT.

2009-03-01T12:43:00.000-08:00

In Connecticut----

The Bill Number is S.B. 924 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON STATE FUNDED ARTIFICIAL TURF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF SIGNS.

RAISED BILL No. H.B. 5280 AN ACT CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF PLAYING FIELDS AND THE POSTING OF WARNING SIGNS.

2009-over 1 billion pounds of rubber tire waste to be used in synthetic turf this year!

2009-03-01T12:37:00.000-08:00

On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Huang, Albert wrote:

We're still working on the local front here in NYC on getting good legislation passed that would require environmental/health review when selecting, installing, and removing turf. Also want to require monitoring of new and existing turf. Due to our pressure, the NYC Parks Dept is no longer using tire crumb rubber or rubber infill in their turf fields. We're waiting for samplin results from 80 other fields. As you may know, this December, the City shut down a tire crumb field when they found high levels of lead.

Thanks,
Al

From: Mary Swan Bell [mailto:swanbell@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:26 PM
To: Huang, Albert
Subject: Fwd: 2009- over 1 billion pounds of rubber tire waste to be used in synthetic turf this year!

Dear Al,

Knowing that another 124 million square feet of artificial turf to be installed in 2009 is unbelievable. Where is the NRDC on this?

Mary

<1px.gif>
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302883
TOP STORY

TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008
Turf wars rage over fake grass
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer

"At the current growth rate, the turf council estimates that more than 124 million square feet of artificial turf will be installed in 2009, as the industry targets athletic fields at the more than 45,000 colleges, high schools and middle schools in the United States. Most of the synthetic turf varieties now being used use crumb-rubber from waste tires, sometimes mixed with sand."

According to fieldturf.com, ten pounds of rubber wasteare in every square foot of synthetic turf. That means a staggering 1,240,000,000 pounds of crushed rubber particulate waste could be placed on playing fields this year alone!

Turf wars rage over fake grass - Eric Kelderman - stateline.org

2009-03-01T12:27:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Turf wars rage over fake grass
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer

Photo courtesy of FieldTurf Tarkett

Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass., home field of the NFL’s New England Patriots, uses synthetic turf from the company FieldTurf USA.

State legislators are used to political turf wars. Now, debates in a handful of states really are about turf, pitting those who back the artificial variety against supporters of natural grass for playgrounds and athletic fields.

Bills in Minnesota, New Jersey and New York would bar the installation of additional artificial turf until those states complete health and environmental studies on the ground-up tires used for the increasingly popular surfaces. Bills in California and Connecticut call for studies to determine the health and environmental effects of synthetic turf. A proposal in New York City would rip out all the existing artificial fields as well as ban new ones.
The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission gave a boost to those concerned with safety when it last week (April 16) announced approval of a study on lead levels released from artificial grass. The study is in response to a request from New Jersey state health regulators who closed fields at The College of New Jersey in Ewing and Frank Sinatra Park in Hoboken on April 14 after samples of synthetic turf showed high levels of lead, a known neurotoxin.
Artificial playing fields have been in use since the 1960s, but began to take off two decades later when improved materials made the surfaces softer and more like real grass. The industry has grown about 20 percent annually since 2001, and the number of new fields doubled from about 400 to 800 between 2003 and 2005, according to the Synthetic Turf Council, a trade group of manufacturers and sellers.
At the current growth rate, the turf council estimates that more than 124 million square feet of artificial turf will be installed in 2009, as the industry targets athletic fields at the more than 45,000 colleges, high schools and middle schools in the United States. Most of the synthetic turf varieties now being used use crumb-rubber from waste tires, sometimes mixed with sand.
While artificial turf can cost twice as much to install as traditional sod, synthetic surfaces require no water, fertilizers or mowing during their average 10-year lifespan. In addition, synthetic playing surfaces hold up better under frequent use and help reduce injuries by providing better traction for athletes, according to industry groups.
But grassroots opponents across the country charge that synthetic turf may cause more environmental damage than real grass, and they raise concerns that children are being exposed to harmful chemicals.
After the New Jersey fields were closed, the Synthetic Turf Council maintained in a press release that the surface poses no risk. The pigment used to color the nylon fibers on the surface contains lead chromate, which the council says is highly insoluble and, even if ingested, could not be absorbed by the body.
In this and other cases, both supporters and opponents of the artificial surface cite scientific studies to back up their differing claims, but both sides agree that more research is needed.
Guive Mirfendereski is among a group of activists that has spent some three years fighting the planned installation of synthetic turf fields at a high school in Newton, Mass., a Boston suburb of about 80,000 residents. Similar fights over synthetic turf have broken out in several nearby suburbs.
Mirfendereski said he became concerned about the crumb rubber used in the artificial turf because there were few independent studies about whether it is harmful.
A group of concerned parents in Westport, Conn., near New York City, last year convinced a local non-profit environmental group to pay for a state laboratory analysis of the crumb-rubber material.
The group, Environment and Human Health Inc.(EHHI), concluded from the study that there should be a moratorium on new synthetic fields because four volatile organic compounds, one of them potentially cancer-causing, could be released from the crumb rubber when it's exposed to high temperatures. The study, completed by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, noted that a section of turf left outside in 88 degrees Fahrenheit reached a temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
The study also found that elements in the crumb rubber, such as lead and zinc, can be released into water that is exposed to the substance. But EHHI acknowledges that much more research is needed to determine the real risks of synthetic turf.
Tuncer Edil, a civil engineering professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a consultant for the company FieldTurf USA, said the concentration of volatile compounds released from crumb rubber is too low to be harmful when inhaled as dust from artificial turf-covered fields. And the body’s digestive system cannot extract any of the toxins if swallowed, Edil has written.
The Synthetic Turf Council also counters that the EHHI study was not done under realistic conditions, and the group points to several other studies and position papers that show a minimal risk from artificial surfaces, including information from the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
“Based upon the current evidence, a public health risk appears unlikely. However, there is still uncertainty, and additional investigation is warranted,” the agency stated in October 2007.
Eventually, the din over artificial turf reached the ears of lawmakers in several states, who are weighing the concerns of parents against the lack of conclusive scientific evidence.
“What we’re trying to find out is if there is something dangerous about the use of (synthetic turf), said John MacDonald, an aide to New Jersey Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R), the author of a bill to bar new artificial turf fields until the state completes a study of health risks.
Similar bills have been introduced in New York and Minnesota. A proposed measure in New York City would not only bar new synthetic turf fields, but also require the removal of all existing fields with those surfaces.
But lawmakers have not yet been swayed by the activists’ concerns as the industry ramps up its lobbying against the measures; none of the bills to ban fake turf has been moved out of committee.
After lobbying by industry groups, a California bill to block new synthetic fields was changed to a measure that calls for a study of the issue, said Terry Levielle, who writes a newsletter on waste-tire recycling issues in the Golden State.
Jonathan Levy, a lobbyist for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., said his group has “grave concerns” about the moratoriums. About 51 million tires annually are used to make crumb rubber for a variety of products including a mulch substitute and an ingredient in asphalt, as well as the synthetic turf, he said.
“In the larger environmental picture, if there is nowhere for these tires to go, what do we do with them?’ he asked.

Contact Eric Kelderman at: ekelderman@stateline.org

COMMENTS (3)

Add a comment

Most Recent Comments: Where Do Old Tires Go? By Patricia Taylor on Apr 23, 2008 9:49:57 PM I am one of the Westport mothers who contacted EHHI last spring about crumb rubber in fields that were being installed in Westport. We're not really a group, just several worried moms. I didn't even meet one of the moms who contacted EHHI until I met her at the EHHI press conference in Hartford in August. The last comment in your article really popped out at me - "Jonathan Levy, a lobbyist for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., said his group has "grave concerns" about the moratoriums. About 51 million tires annually are used to make crumb rubber for a variety of products including a mulch substitute and an ingredient in asphalt, as well as the synthetic turf, he said. "In the larger environmental picture, if there is nowhere for these tires to go, what do we do with them?" he asked. Since I began reading about rubber tires, recycling of tires, crumb rubber, rubber dust, and synthetic turf fields last spring, I've come to the conclusion (my opinion only) that these fields are nothing more than a waste disposal scheme for old rubber tires, marketed as recreational fields that are safe, non-toxic, and highly desirable to wealthier communities. Mr. Levy comes close to confirming my opinion with his remark. We have no where to put old tires so someone had the idea to grind them up and spread them on school and town fields and let people play on them and or, perhaps worse, to mix them with soil and use them for mulch for lawns, gardens, and farms?! What a terrible idea in terms of our soil, our water, our food, and our human health. As a mother, my common sense tells me that if tires themselves are regulated waste (all states but 8 have restrictions on where you can dump them), and there are laws keeping flammable and toxic materials away from children and their play spaces, that the last place for them to go is where children play! Should we be growing food in stuff that emits chemicals like benzothiazole, butylated hydroxyanisole, n-hexadecane, and 4-(t-octyl) phenol, and high levels of zinc? These are the chemicals the Connecticut Ag Station conclusively identified with confirmatory tests to be coming off crumb rubber in their lab, under conditions that mirrored a typical Connecticut summer day. My hope is that independent scientists will soon test the components of these fields so we know what our kids are playing on, before too many children are exposed for too much longer. In the meantime, as summer nears, in communities all over the country, food is growing in crumb rubber mulch, lawns are being filled and seeded which contain rubber, synthetic turf is being installed and played upon by hundreds of thousands of children. We are all taking part in a great natural experiment. Report as Offensive
Tires become playing fields because it's expedient, not logical. By Stacy Prince on Apr 23, 2008 3:27:14 PM You've hit the nail on the head. This, really, is why these turf fields exist: Low-cost, "recyclable" tires with nowhere to go. To answer Mr. Levy's question: I don't think the answer is to spread the toxicity around and risk adding zinc, lead, and a host of VOCs to playgrounds, playing fields, rivers, streams, and private drinking wells (not to mention people's dryers, when the pellets come home in clothing). More to the point, shredding the tires up to make questionable compounds easier to release is really dumb. Report as Offensive
Not a reasonable solution By Lauren Wohl-Sanchez on Apr 22, 2008 6:51:00 PM Yes, Jonathan Levy, a lobbyist for the waste tire recycling folks wonders whatever will we do with the millions of waste tires? His answer would be to foist them on our kids in the form of crumb rubber infill in artificial turf installed in schools and parks, regardless of whether or not any reputable studies have been conducted to verify that the surfaces pose no threat to their health. It's called the Precautionary Principle: prove that it won't hurt them first and we'll consider buying it, not the other way around. Legislators should do the prudent thing and wait for the data before throwing their support behind this potential land mine. Who will pay to tear up and dispose of all those miillions of yards of artificial turf if the studies suggest harmful exposures? What do we do with the millions of yards of artificial turf with its waste tire infill that will be hitting our landfills in ten years or less? Who will be liable for exposing kids to lead should the CPSC find the concerns warranted? And at a point when nations around the world are working to reduce greenhouse gasses, who in their right mind would stand behind a product that contributes to the urban heat island effect? FInd another solution to the tires that doesn't create more problems than it solves.

FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids and Our Environment?

2009-03-01T12:21:00.000-08:00

From Mary Swan Bell---

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: February 18, 2009 8:00:50 AM PST
To: oaklandoffice@earthjustice.org
Subject: "FieldTurf" Carpets Country's Schools- Is it Safe for Our Kids and Our Environment?

Dear Earthjustice,

Our local Tamalpais Union High School District is currently placing another FieldTurf synthetic turf field at Sir Francis Drake High, in San Anselmo, Marin County, Ca. http://www.tamdistrict.org/ It is doing so despite the knowledge of the chemical make-up of the infill soil, which is recycled crumb rubber tire waste. There are 40,000 tires per field, a number available on the manufacturer's site, http://www.fieldturf.com/ When completed, there will be approximately 120,000 tires worth of crumb rubber tire waste at that one school. That equals ten pounds of crumb rubber per square foot of field. The high school district has placed these expensive fields at all district high schools for costs well into seven figures.

Special permits are required by California for tire facilities with 500 tires or more! http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Tires/Facilities/ Is a tire not a tire if it's been crushed and placed on the Corte Madera Creek in Marin County, California? When is a tire not a tire? Is it no longer a tire when it is crushed into particulate and placed on a playing fields for the school children and communities of Marin? Are public school and community playing fields built with hundreds of thousands crushed tires which blanket tens of acres of animal habitat and public land, legal? Does the mere conversion of tires into particulate form change their toxicity to the water, soil, and human health?


Drake High is only one of thousands of fields that have been sold to school districts across our country by FieldTurf Tarkett, a company based out of Europe and Canada. With each field costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the profit on these fields is staggering. FieldTurf Tarkett also has a home and business company, http://www.fieldturfgreenscapes.com/, for using this product throughout communities. They report on their website that when building one school play field."FieldTurf. . . removes over 40,000 tires from landfill sites." This seems on first glance to be an altruistic venture, however, on closer study it becomes apparent that this is a matter of pure greed and a profound disregard for the health of our children and the environment we are trying so hard to protect. These fields have been sold as the answer to water shortages, pesticide usage and the maintenance cost of grass fields.   Of course these are matters of concern for school districts and communities alike, but to come into schools and communities and present FieldTurf as the answer is a case of despicable marketing.   Our children are playing on a surface of rubber tires, a product which normally is placed in toxic waste sites. Tires contain California Prop 65 chemicals, such as benzene, a chemical that requires labelling at gas stations. Tires contain PAHs ,(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pahs.pdf) polycyclic aromatics that are listed as a U.S. E.P.A. TOP 31 PRIORITY CHEMICALS (PCs) to be eliminated from consumer products. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/priority.htm Phthalate, also present in tires, is to be banned from products used by children 12 and under beginning next year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-19-phthalate-federalban_N.htm And yet, our school district and FieldTurf are putting down another field at our high school, at many schools at this very time!

As a retired Speech and Language Specialist, concerned parent, and community member, I began researching this product last May. Since that time, there has been a question of lead in old synthetic turf. FieldTurf, while it has little or no lead in the "grass blades, " clearly states on their website that they have been given a clean bill of health by the U.S C.P.S. after studies were completed for lead testing. However, testing for the chemical make-up of the crushed rubber particulate infill was never addressed. In an effort to appear safe for all, FieldTurf is now applying for LEED certification. The FieldTurf company, "Greenscapes" appears on the current U.S. EPA website as a new partner in the environmental program of the EPA titled, interestilngly, "GreenScapes".

Below are two letters and one site I would like to share with you. The first letter (1) from Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health Inc.,EHHI, to the U.S Green Building Council in charge of LEED Certification, which clearly lists chemicals present in ground rubber waste particulate. The second (2)is from Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, Professor of Pediatrics , Director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City to the Journal News. He clearly cites the three major concerns regarding synthetic turf and the health of children. They are extreme heat, MRSA infections, chemical hazards.   The site below (3) is the EHHI ejounal report on rubber crumb waste.

Dear Earthjustice, this is a story which requires true legal investigation. I believe Earthjustice would aid the children of this country if you got to the core of this matter, is this material safe? The effects of these chemicals may not be seen for years, and in that time how many children, athletes, families, flora, fauna, soil and water could be affected by these toxicants?

Please read on. Please refer my concerns to the appropriate Earthjustice attorney. I would be very interested in sharing months of research in this matter.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mary Swan Bell, MS
Marin County, California

415-459-5836

(1)

To the Executive Staff and Board of Directors at the U.S. Green Building Council in charge of LEED Certification,

It has come to the attention of Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) that synthetic turf athletic fields can be part of a "LEED" certification process. If true, this is a shocking revelation. Although recycling is good, certain materials should not be recycled. We should not recycle asbestos, we should not recycle lead or used rubber tires where children play. Recycled used rubber tires make-up then in-fill for most artificial fields.

Leed certification indicates that a building is a "green" building. That means, in part, that it is designed and constructed to promote profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being.   http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/leed.asp

It is hard to claim that artificial turf fields "improve occupant health and well being" when the fields have in-fill made up of ground-up used rubber tires that contain the following chemicals.

Chemicals found by the CT Agricultural Experiment Station in rubber tire "crumbs".

Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen, suspected endocrine toxicant, gastrointestinal toxicant, immunotoxicant (adverse effects on the immune system), neurotoxicant (adverse effects on the nervous system), skin and sense-organ toxicant. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

n-hexadecane: Severe irritant based on human and animal studies. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

4-(t-octyl) phenol: Corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

Zinc: There is a very large amount of zinc that is added in the manufacturing of tires and therefore there is a great deal of zinc. See North Carolina's Department of Agricultural's study on ground up rubber tire mulch -      http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi/pdffiles/rubber.pdf

Other chemicals often found in rubber tires:

Benzene Carcinogen, Developmental Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant

Phtalates Suspected Developmental Toxicant, Endocrine Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant

PAHs    Suspected Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant ,Respiratory Toxicant,

Maganese    Gastrointestinal or liver toxicants

Carbon Black    Carcinogen

Latex     Causes allergic reactions in some people

In some states rubber tires are a "Hazardous Waste" and in other states they are a "Special Waste".   Whichever the case - one has to get a permit to dispose of rubber tires and there is a cost associated with that disposal. There is the potential for ground water contamination from the chemicals in the ground up rubber tires.

Field Turf, based in Canada, is one of the major manufacturers of synthetic turf with ground-up rubber tire in-fill. Field Turf is now saying it will help these plastic fields get "LEED" certification. These fields consist of a plastic - like material that is dyed green to look like grass - and then the blades of plastic are filled in with used ground-up rubber tire pellets the size of bread crumbs. The end result is that there are yards and yards of dyed green plastic with literally tons of used rubber tires ground up and sprinkled loose over the green plastic synthetic field.

If all that plastic and all those old used tires sprinkled over acres of land lead to a better environment -- and improve occupant health and well-being - then something is definitely wrong. This looks like one more example of industry - with its clever marketing strategies - taking over well meaning and hard fought for environmental progress and turning it inside out for its own uses.

Can you imagine all that plastic and all those old used rubber tires now being considered "Green"? Below is the paragraph from the Field Turf press release found on the Athletic Turf website. Click the blue type if you want their whole article.

"FieldTurf helps organizations earn the necessary points needed for U.S. Green Building Council LEED certification. FieldTurf's reused rubber content and water use reduction, among other factors, can contribute numerous points towards LEED certification. FieldTurf is also a proud member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenscapes program that aims towards providing cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for landscaping."
http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/Artificial+Turf/FieldTurf-trumpets-its-environmental-benefits/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/568972?contextCategoryId=3209

Environment and Human Health, Inc. hopes that you will not allow these fields to be part of "LEED" certification.

Environment and Human Health, Inc. is a nine member, non-profit organization composed of doctors, public health professionals and policy experts. It is dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy.Its website can be found at http://www.ehhi.org

        Thank you for your attention to this issue.

                        Best,
                Nancy Alderman, President
                Environment and Human Health, Inc.

--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone)   203-248-6582
(fax)        203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org

(2)

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812110386

The Journal News
The Journal News, is a Gannett Company newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in New York.

Letter to the Editor * December 11, 2008

Artificial turf fields pose safety issues
Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, Professor of Pediatrics

I urge the Irvington school district not to adopt the use of artificial turf until further examination.

There are several hundred artificial turf fields on the East Coast. Towns and school districts installed them to improve the quality of playing fields and accommodate sports programs. However, they were pursued without analysis of potential negative consequences. A number of these very expensive fields have been installed and we are suddenly, and belatedly, beginning to realize they may lead to health problems, such as:

1. Extreme heat. On hot summer days, temperatures of over 130 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded a few feet above the surface of synthetic turf fields - the altitude where children play. Vigorous play in these conditions conveys a very real risk of heat stress or heat stroke.

2. MRSA skin infections. Outbreaks of skin infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus have been documented in children who play on synthetic turf fields (New England Journal of Medicine, February 2005).

3. Chemical hazards to human health and the environment. Crumb rubber, a major component of current generation synthetic turf fields, is typically made from ground-up recycled tires containing styrene and 1, 3-butadiene, the major constituents of synthetic rubber. Styrene is toxic to the nervous system, and butadiene is a proven human carcinogen.

Lead was recently found in synthetic turf fields in New Jersey at levels so high that several fields were closed by the state Health Department. Citizens and school boards should question the wisdom of installing synthetic turf until a credible independent study has been conducted and published.

Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc
Professor and Chairman, Department of Community & Preventive Medicine
Professor of Pediatrics
Director, Children's Environmental Health Center
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
17 East 102nd Street, Room D3-145
New York, NY 10029-6574
Tel: 212-824-7018

The writer is professor of pediatrics and director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

(3) http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/

Synthetic Turf at Mount Vernon

2009-02-10T07:28:00.001-08:00

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: February 7, 2009 8:28:06 AM PST
To: yasinsac@hudsonvalleyruins.org
Subject: synthetic turf use at historic site

Dear Rob,

Just this morning I ran across the 1/22/09 NYT article on Mount Vernon. What wonderful work you do! The preservation of history and our environment is a concern we share. Also of concern to me is the use of modern synthetic turf and the chemical stew of recycled tire which comprises the "soil" infill. Below, please find the email address of Albert Huang of the NRDC, NY branch, who is actively involved in the environmental hazards of synthetic turf. Also find the site of EHHI (Environment and Human Health, Inc.) out of Yale. This is a non-profit organization of physicians and scientists dedicated to preserving health. I believe that these organizations may help you and others in delaying and possibly preserving the Mount Vernon site.

Our local high school district is just completing one of many synthetic fields. This field will hold 40,000 crushed tires as soil. That will bring the amount of tires to a staggering 120,000 at one school site. These are real concerns and ones that are making communities and schools around the country rethink landscape and playing field plans.

Good Luck!

Mary Bell, MS
Marin County, California

albert Huang

http://www.ehhijournal.org/
http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/

Tests reveal lead in school fields - BOSTON GLOBE

2009-02-10T07:25:00.001-08:00

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: January 19, 2009 8:17:30 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: In fake grass, some see real threat - Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/19/in_fake_grass_some_see_real_threat/

In fake grass, some see real threat

Tests reveal lead in school fields
BOSTON GLOBE JANUARY 19, 2009

The field at Concord-Carlisle High School contained nearly 300 parts per million lead in the Boston Globe-commissioned test.

For two decades, state public health officials have waged a massive campaign to eliminate children's exposure to lead, yet some specialists are concerned that the toxic element may have found its way into schools in the form of artificial turf fields.

While industry officials maintain the fields are safe, the Globe recently commissioned tests of artificial grass at several city and suburban high schools in Massachusetts and found varying amounts of lead in the artificial surfaces.

The fake green grass rolled out in the fall at Concord-Carlisle High School's football field at a cost of $3.8 million tested positive for lead in the Globe's investigation, as did Boston's Saunders Stadium, Lincoln Sudbury High School, and Charlestown High School.

The football field at Concord-Carlisle High contained nearly 300 parts per million lead in the Globe-commissioned test. The US Environmental Protection Agency's standard for bare soil in children's play areas is a maximum of 400 parts per million, though the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long recommended "the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead" because of the potential health hazards it poses.

Stanley Green, the chief executive of Sprinturf, which manufactured the field, said tests his company commissioned on the Concord-Carlisle field by a lab in Tennessee showed it contained .05 parts per million lead, a much lower level than the Globe-commissioned test.

"We've never had anything in the field that has caused harm to anyone," Green said. "There's never been any incident of anyone getting sick or having ill effects associated with artificial turf fields."

With the increasing popularity of the fields in the professional and collegiate ranks, cities and towns across the state have been building artificial turf fields at a rapid clip, because they are durable and can accommodate nearly year-round athletic activity. But some communities are concerned about the possible health problems the fields pose.

Constructed of plastic and a simulated dirt made of discarded old tires (as many as 10,000 in a single field), some fields contain lead in levels higher than communities anticipated. An artificial turf field in East Harlem, N.Y., was slated for removal last month when local health officials determined it contained 500 parts per million lead.
"There's no safe level of lead; let's be clear on that," said Don Mays, senior director of product safety at the Consumer's Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. The Consumer's Union and the CDC called for additional testing of artificial turf fields after lead levels at two older fields in New Jersey forced their closure in the summer.

"What we've seen is lead creeping back into products we assumed didn't have lead in them," Mays said, "like vinyl products and playing fields."

Problems with lead surfaced last year, when public health workers measuring run-off at a landfill in New Jersey found high lead concentrations in two playing fields nearby. Local officials closed both out of fear that athletes were swallowing or inhaling lead dust emanating from worn plastic grass.

The CDC issued an official health advisory in June saying the "potentially unhealthy levels of lead dust" found on the New Jersey fields raised concern and warranted additional testing. The Consumers Union has also advocated for additional testing of the fields.
For years, the CDC has called lead dust one of the biggest known health hazards to children and has funneled millions into reducing it in the environment. The agency has said that age, weathering, exposure to sunlight, and wear and tear can cause dust to form on older or well-used fields.

"At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf," the CDC advisory said. People playing on dusty turf fields should undertake "aggressive hand and body washing" for at least 20 seconds with warm water afterward and launder team uniforms after playing on the fields.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the national agency with the power to recall products found to be dangerous or unhealthy, evaluated the artificial turf in the New Jersey fields and found that "young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields." The commission asked artificial turf manufacturers to voluntarily reduce lead in their product. The leading manufacturers agreed to lower lead used to color synthetic turf to 300 parts per million by the year 2011 and to 100 parts per million or less by the year 2012.

Previously constructed fields, however, would not be affected.

Mary Jean Brown, chief of the CDC's lead poisoning prevention branch in Atlanta, said preschool children are most susceptible to lead poisoning. In recent years, the average lead level in youth blood testing has dropped from 17 micrograms per deciliter in the 1970s to a current level of 1.2 micrograms (The CDC considers a blood lead level of 10 to be of concern.)

Brown said high levels of lead in children's blood in the past have been attributed to paint and the use of the element as an additive in gas (which was banned in 1996). Lead in lower levels might exist in artificial turf and could be ingested or inhaled by children, and while not a dire health threat to children or adults alike, precautions should still be taken, she said.

The American Academy of Pediatricians has said there is no safe level of lead exposure and suggests levels no higher than trace amounts - 40 parts per million - in soil.
"We always have to be concerned about new lead added into our environment," said Helen Binns, a member of the academy who specializes in child lead poisoning. "We need to look seriously at the choices that are made and what they would introduce."

Suzanne Condon, Massachusetts associate commissioner for public health, said it's up to local officials to know what's in artificial turf before they buy it. The state has no plans to test fields.

"If you're a parent and you have concerns, you can ask [local officials] what the artificial turf is made of," Condon said.

In Concord, town manager Christopher Whelan said in the fall that he and other local officials relied on information from consultant, John Amato of Westford, before buying and installing a field manufactured by Sprinturf in Wayne, Pa. After questions arose about the fields in New Jersey, which were not manufactured by Sprinturf, Whelan said he questioned Amato about lead in the school's new field.

"We were assured it wasn't an issue," he said.

Amato, a member of the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, dismissed concerns about lead in an interview. Synthetic turf is an off-shoot of the carpet industry, and carpeting often contains low levels of lead that cause no public health threat. So do other plastics, such as twisting telephone cords. Any lead found in artificial turf grass is inert and encapsulated in plastic, he said.

"It's not a health risk for children," Amato said of the fields. "These things get blown out of proportion."

The Globe independently tested turf samples from area schools after a Newton activist, Guive Mirfendereski offered test results from the turf that showed lead levels at the high school in excess of 13,000 parts per million in the fall. Sprinturf's chief executive Green then conducted tests, which he says showed negligible traces of lead. Faced with the conflicting information, the Globe sent turf samples to a local lead screener and laboratory for independent testing.

Mirfendereski, a Newton lawyer whose son plays soccer, has been an outspoken opponent of artificial turf fields in Newton and elsewhere, calling them "a point of worry and a matter of public health." He has a blog dedicated to the subject, www.SynTurf.org, and said he has asked the state to test the fields.

The lead dust "ends up in the water and soil [and on children] and that ought to be of concern," Mirfendereski said. "Why does this product get a pass?"

Lead in artificial turf can be avoided without any extra cost, industry specialists said. FieldTurf, the largest artificial turf manufacturer in North America, sells lead-free artificial turf. Darren Gill , a company spokesman, said lead helps brighten a field's colors and that many cities and towns order them because they like to see a sports team logo on the field in as brightly colored colors as possible.

"These are custom-made products," he said. "We offer lead-free fields because customers have concerns."

© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone)   203-248-6582
(fax)        203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org

--
Nancy Alderman, President
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
1191 Ridge Road
North Haven, CT 06473
(phone)   203-248-6582
(fax)        203-288-7571
http://www.ehhi.org

HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF-New Jersey Work Environment Council

2009-02-10T07:21:00.001-08:00

http://redstaterebels.org/2008/08/hazards-of-artificial-turf/

HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

Posted by Jeffrey St. Clair on August 14th, 2008

HAZARDS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

By the New Jersey Work Environment Council

Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards

A small but growing number of school districts, municipalities, and
universities in New Jersey are switching from traditional grass
athletic fields to artificial turf. Changed considerably since 1960s
AstroTurf, newer synthetic grass is touted for advantages like shock-
absorption and durability in varied weather conditions. There is no
need for mowing, watering, pesticides, or fertilizer and therefore the
turf is advertised as environmentally friendly. While these advantages
have powerful appeal, synthetic turf comes with an unfortunate host of
established and potential health and environmental risks.

A modern artificial field surface has three layers — drainage, shock
absorbing, and surface. The surface has polyethylene plastic blades
that simulate grass and a several inch layer of “infill” that keeps
the blades upright. The infill varies by manufacturer and may include
ground-up recycled tires, ground-up soles of athletic shoes, silica
sand, and/or new thermoplastic or rubber material. This “crumb rubber”
has been found to contain toxic materials such as:

Toxic metals including zinc, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium
which have many harmful effects on humans and the environment.

** Carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

** Latex and other rubbers which can cause allergic reactions.

** Phthalates which have adverse effects on the reproductive organs,
lungs, kidneys and liver.

** Crumb rubber can degrade from weather and microbes, producing new
chemicals.

Toxic components can be breathed in, accidentally ingested, contact
the skin, and leach into surface water and groundwater. Besides
toxicity, other problems with artificial turf include:

** Crumb rubber doesn’t stay in place. It can move around on the field
and sticks to the skin, shoes, and clothing of staff and students who
use the fields. It can end up inside schools, vehicles, and homes.

** Excessive heat. Artificial surfaces are dramatically hotter than
natural grass fields, reaching temperatures up to 150 degrees
Fahrenheit and possibly contributing to burns, dehydration, and heat
exhaustion. They may be too hot to play on at times. Watering cools
them down but they heat back up quickly.

** High cost. Artificial fields cost in the range of one-half to two
million dollars.

** Friction. Some types of artificial turf can cause skin abrasion to
a greater extent than natural grass.

** Sanitation. Dog, goose, and other droppings do not decompose on
artificial turf.

** Maintenance. The crumb rubber may need to be raked to maintain a
uniform depth. Solvents and adhesives may be needed to repair seams.

** Leaves, gum, and other debris need to be regularly removed or they
may clog the drainage system.

** Short Life. Artificial turf has a life expectancy, with proper
maintenance, of five to ten years compared to at least 15 years for
grass fields.

** Disposal. One football field contains approximately 120 tons of
crumb rubber or 26,000 recycled tires. Crumb rubber takes more than 25
years to break down completely.

** Unpleasant odor. The odor is especially a problem in indoor
installations.

** Loss of habitat. Artificial turf does not support birds, animals,
or insects.

** Combustibility. While shredded tires will burn at a much lower rate
than chunk tires, crumb rubber can certainly be made to burn by arson,
producing smoke and toxic air, soil, and water pollutants.

Caution Advised

Although the desire to improve access to sports fields is clearly
well-intentioned, the risks that accompany synthetic turf need to be
carefully considered.

Issues of toxicity, movement, heat, cost, friction, sanitation,
lifespan, maintenance, warranty, disposal costs, odor, loss of
habitat, combustibility, should be thoroughly addressed before any
decision to purchase is made. The community should carefully consider
all the options including natural grass.

There are many manufacturers of artificial turf with different
products and advertising claims. It is reasonable to expect vendors to
identify the chemical ingredients of all turf components and provide a
Material Safety Data Sheet on each component, especially the crumb
rubber. If the crumb rubber is of unknown composition, that should
raise a serious warning.

Tires are known to contain over 60 different substances. Typically,
forty-five percent is vulcanized or cross-linked polymer, forty-five
percent is carbon black, and the rest is dispersing oil, sulfur,
synthetic fibers, pigments, processing chemicals and steel or
fiberglass. Tire manufacturers use a variety of formulation recipes
and Ingredients are often kept secret. Therefore the company that
produces the crumb rubber will most likely have to analyze its
composition on a regular basis to provide accurate information on
ingredients, since different batches can be expected to vary in
content.

When it comes to synthetic turf, the most sensible approach may be to
follow the precautionary principle of assuming something involving
chemicals is hazardous until scientific evidence proves that it is
not. Some public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on
installing any new fields that use ground-up rubber tires until the
hazards are better understood. Some are also recommending that
exposures to already installed fields that contain rubber-tires should
be limited.

For More Information

Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root, 2008 Environmental Health
Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences.

Artificial Turf: Exposures to Ground-Up Rubber Tires, 2007
Environment and Human Health, Inc.

Toxicants in Artificial Turf, 2007 Rachel’s Democracy & Health News
#937 Environmental Research Foundation

(c) 2008 SuperFILL is proudly powered by WordPress

Return to Table of Contents

ShareThis

Eugene District Sues Maker over Artificial Turf Fields. Loss in 'Lift.'

2009-02-10T07:16:00.001-08:00

Eugene district sues maker over artificial turf fields.

Publication: The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)
Date: Wednesday, November 19 2003

Byline: Anne Williams The Register-Guard
The state-of-the-art artificial turf fields at the Eugene School District's four high schools have lost some of their lift - and the district is suing the manufacturer to fix the problem.
In a claim filed in Lane County Circuit Court on
Friday, the district alleges that Georgia-based Avery Sports Turf has violated the terms of its contract by failing to repair the 3-year-old fields, which have flattened substantially over time.

"We're asking that they come in and correct the deficiencies in the fields," said Jon Lauch, the district's assistant director of facilities. He estimated the cost to be as high as $65,000.
After noticing exposed fibers and compaction in the fields, the district had an inspection done last summer, Lauch said. Under the terms of the 10-year warranty, the manufacturer is obliged to repair the fields if the "G-max rating" - a measurement of the field's thickness and resiliency - ever exceeds 125.
In readings taken in various portions of all four fields, the G-max rating often was higher, reaching 160 in some places. "We need to add about an inch of rubber over the entire fields," Lauch said, noting that the level is only about half of what it should be.
Any G-max rating below 200, however, is considered safe for play, Lauch noted.
Lauch said he's made repeated attempts to contact George Avery, the company's owner, but has received only one phone call - and Lauch said that was only after prodding from Pacific Sports Surfaces, the Portland-based company that markets and distributes Avery turf.
In that call, on Aug. 7, Avery apologized and said the company would take care of it, Lauch recalled. But the district hasn't heard a word since, he said - not even in response to letters from legal counsel.
Avery did not return phone calls Tuesday from The Register-Guard.
Lauch said the response is puzzling, given that Avery's pre-paid insurance plan covers such repairs for the first eight years of the 10-year warranty. The insurance carrier also is named in the lawsuit.
Unveiled in the fall of 2000, the polypropylene-fiber and crushed-rubber fields were part of an $8.6 million project that also included youth sports parks at Sheldon and Churchill high schools and Cal Young Middle School. The city of Eugene kicked in $4 million to the project - money earmarked for youth athletic facilities in a November 1998 parks bond measure. A school district bond measure in the same election set aside $3.5 million specifically for the fields.
Brent Walsh, athletic director at Sheldon High School, said he knows of no injuries related to the condition of the fields, and that players and coaches have generally been pleased with them - especially in the rainy season, when a natural-turf field would get waterlogged.
However, he said, players and coaches have noticed increasing unevenness on the surface, as well as ruptured seams.
"There's big waves" along the surface, he said - not good for running athletes or bouncing balls.
Lauch said the district fixes the ruptures as they occur, and that the repairs are holding up well.
As for the unevenness, he said that's probably related more to shifting of the ground beneath the fields than it is to the compaction.
"I gotta say, there are high expectations of these fields," he said. "A lot of people feel like they ought to be perfect, but really, it's just carpet over dirt and rock."
Joe Richards, the district's attorney, said Avery has 30 days from the filing to respond.

Turf wars heat up: grass vs. synthetic. Global warming joins list of issues

2009-01-11T13:59:00.000-08:00

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.

New Have, CT--Some want state's turf study reviewed

2009-01-11T13:54:00.000-08:00

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

Mary Swan Bell on Rubber Waste. Mexico, CA, CT

2009-01-11T13:45:00.000-08:00

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

Fwd: EHHI asks for peer review of data before publication of findings

2009-01-11T13:32:00.000-08:00

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

Serious Questions About New-Generation Artificial Turf That Require Answers

2009-01-11T13:23:00.000-08:00

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, 2008
Turfgrass 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.

Significant questions about the validity of these claims deserve answers.
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?

Temperatures on artificial fields have been documented to be upwards of 86.5 degrees (F) hotter than natural grass fields under identical conditions. For example, at one location, when the natural grass surface temperature was 93.5 degrees (F), the measured artificial field temperature was 180 degrees (F).

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?

Synthetic turf concerns as EPA veils hazardous substances

2009-01-11T13:09:00.000-08:00

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

Letter From Mary Swan Bell to 60 Minutes TV Show...inc. Great Articles

2009-01-11T13:00:00.000-08:00

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

Lead Found in Artificial Turf at 2 Texas Stadiums

2008-12-29T07:19:00.000-08:00

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: December 18, 2008 8:49:34 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: Lead found in artificial turf at 2 Texas stadiums

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D954LI6O0.html

Lead found in artificial turf at 2 Texas stadiums

"...... testing at the Birdville stadium also found about twice the EPA limit for lead in drinking water in the runoff from the field, an indication that the lead is being released into the environment."

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS 12/17/2008
By DANNY ROBBINS / Associated Press

Some of the most hallowed ground in Texas - the artificial turf on its high school football fields - may also be toxic.

Fields in two of the state's best-known high school stadiums, including the one made famous by the book and movie "Friday Night Lights," have lead levels far exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency's standard for soil, according to independent tests done within the last month.

The results, obtained by The Associated Press, are the first public indication that Texas' prized high school stadiums have become part of the national controversy over whether artificial turf contains unsafe levels of lead.

Testing commissioned by the Ector County school district on the turf at Odessa's Ratliff Stadium found lead at roughly 14 times the EPA standard. Similar testing by the Birdville school district in the Fort Worth suburb of North Richland Hills discovered a lead level nearly 10 times the EPA standard at that district's stadium, the Fine Arts/Athletics Complex.

Ratliff Stadium, which has a capacity of 19,500, has become part of Texas football lore and national popular culture as the home of the Permian Panthers, winners of six state championships and the team profiled in "Friday Night Lights." The Birdville stadium is also well known in the state, with a seating capacity of 12,000.

Both stadiums have the same brand of turf, a product called AstroPlay. The high lead levels were found in a secondary layer of nylon fiber at the base of the fields called the "root zone."

Neither test found significant lead levels in the uppermost fibers, the portion of the field that athletes are in contact with most often. However, testing at the Birdville stadium also found about twice the EPA limit for lead in drinking water in the runoff from the field, an indication that the lead is being released into the environment.

"Our opinion is that AstroPlay turf could pose a human health risk," wrote Michael T. Abel, project manager at the Lubbock lab that conducted the test.
Quentin Burnett, an associate superintendent in the Birdville school district, said he and other officials are now attempting to learn whether the turf, installed five years ago, can still be safely used.

"We don't have the $300,000 or $400,000 it would take to replace it any more than anybody else does," he said. "But we're not going to have something that's unsafe for our students."

David Finley, the Ector County school district's director of facilities and maintenance, said the district sees no immediate cause for concern. For the time being, he said, it will continue monitoring the field, also five years old.

Elsewhere in the country, school officials have closed facilities that showed lead levels far lower than those measured at the two Texas stadiums.

The Beverly Hills, Calif., school district recently closed an elementary school playground with AstroPlay after discovering that the lead in its "root zone" was more than twice the EPA standard. The playground has been removed as hazardous waste and will be replaced, said Jim Fahey, director of maintenance and operations for the district.

"How do you explain to a parent that it's OK to play in these conditions?" he said, describing the school district's position. "We didn't want to have to explain ourselves or be second-guessed on this."

The lead in artificial turf comes from lead chromate, which until recently was widely used in the pigment that colors the nylon or polyethylene fibers.

Artificial turf manufacturers say the danger is overblown because the lead is largely contained in the fibers. But critics contend that the fields present a risk as they degrade due to use and sunlight.

The topic has generated controversy since two fields in New Jersey were closed in April after testing by state health officials found lead levels eight to 10 times the EPA soil standard.

Those fields were the carpet style of AstroTurf, which has been out of favor for years. But more recent testing in other states has shown high lead levels in the latest generation of turf, which mimics real grass by using longer fibers and rubber or sand "infill."

AstroPlay was the major "infill" product manufactured by Southwest Recreational Industries Inc., a Leander, Texas, company that went out of business in 2004. The company patented the "root zone" and marketed it as a unique feature for stabilizing the rubber granules.

"No field is exempt until you get reliable data to indicate whether there is high lead concentration in the product," said Glenn Pulliam, a New Jersey health official who was involved in analyzing the state's test data.

More than 200 of Texas' 1,154 high school stadiums have artificial turf, according to Bob McSpadden, who has a Web site devoted to the state's stadiums.

Despite the publicity generated by the New Jersey tests, the Ector County and Birdville school districts were the only districts among more than a dozen in Texas contacted by the AP that had tested their fields.

"We're not burying our head in the sand," said Joe Loerwald, athletic director for the Round Rock school district outside Austin, which has an AstroPlay field. "But, at the same time, we don't see it as a prevalent problem."

The fact that so few of the state's school districts have tested their turf for lead is worrisome, said Winifred Hamilton, director of environmental health at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

"It seems to me that we've jumped into something without properly understanding it," she said.
___
On the Web:
http://www.texasbob.com/stadium/

--
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

Dr. Philip Landrigan speaks of Artificial Turf Health Hazards

2008-12-29T07:15:00.000-08:00

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: December 13, 2008 7:29:30 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: Dr. Philip Landrigan speaks of Artificial Turf health hazards

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

Used Tires and Kentucky

2008-12-29T07:11:00.000-08:00

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: December 13, 2008 5:05:50 AM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: Used tires and Kentucky

The article below shows how the state of Kentucky promotes various uses of their used rubber tires - mainly in places where children play. First Kentucky collects a dollar from every new tire sold - and then they give out the money that they collected from new tire sales as grants to be used ONLY for ground up used tire uses. This is a truly horrible practice that Kentucky is engaging in.

The federal government, under EPA, is responsible for the disposal practices of used tires. The states are also responsible for disposal practices of used tires. Used tires have always been a problem for both the federal government and for states. So Kentucky has solved their used tire problem by pushing them on children.

Thank goodness Connecticut does not do any such thing. Read below for what Kentucky does.

Best Nancy

http://www.kypost.com/default.aspx
The KENTUCKY POST December 11, 2008
State Accepts Grant Proposals

The Energy and Environment Cabinet is accepting grant proposals for projects that promote the use of recycled waste tires for athletic fields, playgrounds, and other crumb rubber or mulch applications.

To a limited degree, the cabinet will consider funding research and development proposals for experimental practices or technologies.

For this grant program year, total funding available for all projects is limited to $200,000.
Applications must be received by close of business Feb. 16, at the cabinet's Division of Waste Management central office in Frankfort.

The application and any supporting documentation must be submitted in order for the application to be complete.

For more information, contact Lisa Evans at (502) 564-6716, Lisa.Evans@ky.gov.

Information is also online at the division's Web site - http://www.waste.ky.gov
Grant funding comes from the Waste Tire Trust Fund, a grant program established in 1998 by the Kentucky General Assembly to receive fees collected from new tire sales.
Kentucky Post
--

--
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

Charlie Rose Interview on BioDiversity

2008-12-29T07:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9747

2008-12-04T20:05:00.000-08:00

i have recently received several letters from people who appear to be the makers
and or sellers of field turf.

i want to address a couple of their statements.

the first one: the statement made by field turf proponents that the installation of field turf reduces the use of pesticides. while that may be true IF pesticides are used on playing fields, in marin county and san francisco county they are not. pesticide use on school playing fields has been banned in those counties and many others also. so the pesticide issue is bogus.

2. the issue of watering the fields. this has some merit.
fake fields don't use any water. they don't hold any water either and therefore
increase the runoff from the fake fields into neighboring creeks, streams, culverts and city streets. that run-off water is running off of ground up tires that have been treated with numerous chemicals and running into those creeks carrying those very chemicals. the issue of overwatering also comes to mind. i can recall many times walking past school fields that are
being watered IN THE RAIN! all the sprinklers on full blast in the rain! and i can remember times when the sprinklers were on all weekend. that is a hardware/software issue. a well managed playing field can get by on 2 good soakings a month. furthermore, water sensors are available that will actually measure the moisture in the ground and control the amount of water that is used. much cheaper than astro turf. And natural playing fields provide employment for people.

3. the injury question. are they worse on field turf or better? the subtext of this question is ..injuries are inevitable in high school sports. some doctors have cited field turf as a possible culprit in the spread of msra-the anti-biotic resistant bacteria that is spreading like crazy in hospitals, schools, gyms, etc.

and here is one more issue- you won't like this one either. how about having
schools be about education! just education. and moving sports into a recreational arena so to speak. the students who are interested in sports could do all the track and high jump and soccer and football and basketball they want- after school in appropriate facilities paid for by the athletes. then schools could just be schools and athletes could be athletes. it seems to me that the sports budgets are bankrupting school districts and placing unnecessary parcel tax burdens on homeowners.

ok... i have more, but it will keep till another day.

Field Turf looking to have synthetic turf considered "Green"

2008-12-03T07:12:00.000-08:00

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: December 2, 2008 12:05:12 PM PST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: Field Turf looking to have their synthetic turf considered "Green".

Usually Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) sends out articles or studies that deal with environmental issues that affect health and includes no comments in those e-mails. The purpose of our e-mails is simply to increase all of our information about issues affecting our health. However - the article below from Field Turf calls for more.

Field Turf, based in Canada, is one of the major manufacturers of synthetic turf with ground-up rubber tire infill. 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. Field Turf is now saying it will help these plastic fields to get "Leed" certification.

Leed certification indicates that your 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. You can learn more about Leed Certification at http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/leed.asp

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 the world is definitely up-side down. This is yet 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

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

LA Times - Turf war: California sues artificial-grass makers over lead content

2008-10-26T12:34:00.000-07:00

This Article was referenced in Ford Greene's reponse to the Jolly Roger article in an earlier post

Turf war: California sues artificial-grass makers over lead content
California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and other law enforcement officials allege that three makers of artificial turf deliberately failed to disclose that their products contain lead.

By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 4, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- California's attorney general wants to put a new spin on the old admonition "Don't step on the grass!"

The warning could read "Don't roll on the artificial turf" if Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and local law enforcement officials prevail in a lawsuit filed late Tuesday against three top makers of the green plastic playing fields and grasslike indoor-outdoor carpeting.

The complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court alleges that the three manufacturers violated California's Proposition 65 environmental law by knowingly failing to disclose that their products contain lead.

The lawsuit, which has been joined by Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and Solano County Dist. Atty. David W. Paulson, names Beaulieu Group of Georgia, AstroTurf of Georgia and FieldTurf USA Inc. of Florida.

All three companies said they were working with California officials to settle the lawsuit and stressed that their products were safe.

AstroTurf, an artificial-turf pioneer, said in a statement that it "has demonstrated its industry leadership by proactively developing new products that are below the most stringent standards for lead in consumer products."

Joe Fields, chief executive of FieldTurf's Canadian parent company, said that his artificial turf recently got a clean bill of health from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Lead, which is used to give a natural green hue to the artificial turf, has been identified by state agencies as an ingredient that can cause cancer, damage to male and female reproductive systems, and birth defects in developing fetuses.

Children and other individuals can ingest harmful levels of lead by absorbing it through the skin or by rubbing the ersatz grass and then touching food or their mouths, the suit contends.

The state attorney general's office said it found excessive lead levels in some of the artificial-turf samples tested from the three companies.

Although artificial turf presents little or no danger when it is new, lead levels rise to potentially harmful levels as it gets older, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Dennis A. Ragen, the state's lead attorney on the lawsuit.

"As it ages, it forms more dust," he said, and could contain levels of lead that are more than 20 times what's allowed by Proposition 65.

The state, Ragen said, is negotiating with the three companies and is optimistic that a legal settlement can be reached that requires the products to be reformulated so that no lead is used in the manufacturing.

Most companies targeted by Proposition 65, known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, are eager to change their products rather than be forced to sell them with a warning that they contain chemicals "known to the state of California" to cause cancer or birth defects.

"The bottom line is this is 2008. Why are you making something with lead deliberately put into it?" Ragen said. "You need to find some substitute to make the color stable."

Beaulieu attorney Peter Farley says he hopes to reach a friendly settlement with California. He stressed, however, that his company makes only an indoor-outdoor type of product and does not sell artificial turf used on athletic fields and stadiums.

The state decided to take action against the three companies after it received a legal notice from an advocacy group, the Oakland-based Center for Environmental Health, that it intended to file a private lawsuit on the lead warning issue against Beaulieu and other artificial-turf manufacturers.

"Our testing on products from dozens of companies shows that artificial turf can contain high amounts of lead that can easily come off onto children's hands when they play on turf fields," said Michael Green, the center's executive director.

marc.lifsher@latimes.com

Mary Bell's Exchange with Tamalpais School Dist. Superintendent

2008-10-26T11:38:00.000-07:00

And...the 'Flak' from the School District Superintendent
Are they all on the TAKE, or what?

Subject: Fwd: Article Recommendation (from mary bell): Artificial turf harbors potential health risks, including cancer

Hey folks!
It's not over until. . . . well, it's over!
m
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Swan Bell
Date: October 16, 2008 7:58:07 AM PDT
To: Nancy Alderman
Subject: Fwd: Article Recommendation (from mary bell): Artificial turf harbors potential health risks, including cancer

Hi Nancy,

The following was the response by our new high school superintendent, Laurie Kimbrel, to the editorial on artificial turf, printed yesterday in the Jolly Roger high school newspaper. How interesting that this revelatory response came on the heels of my positive and supportive note to her.

http://www.drakejr.com/all-stories/?currentPage=3

It would appear that this cogent and respectful critique is what has earned Drake High School the title of a California Distinguished School! Or, this response highlights the knee-jerk response that appears to be endemic in our Marin County educational system. It is somewhat disturbing that it is the student, and not the artificial turf company, who is the fall-guy in this matter.

Perhaps, EHHI would be interested in educating the superintendent, principal, teacher and editorial staff as to the inherent risks of placing artificial turf on school and community playgrounds.

Superintendent Laurie Kimbrel, Ed. D lkimbrel@tamdistrict.org

Principal Don Drake ddrake@tamdistrict.org,

Jolly Roger Teacher contact: Amity Hotchkiss ahotchkiss@tamdistrict.org

Student Editorial Staff Contact: http://drakejr.squarespace.com/contact/

Many thanks, Nancy!

Mary

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Kimbrel, Laurie"
Date: October 15, 2008 6:35:33 PM PDT
To: "Mary Swan Bell"
Cc: "Wright, John"
Subject: FW: Article Recommendation (from mary bell): Artificial turf harbors potential health risks, including cancer

Mary,
So interesting that you would send me this article. I just received
word from the teacher quoted in the article that he had been misquoted
and misunderstood. I believe he may even write a rebuttal because
absolutely incorrect information was attributed to him. In fact, he was
referring to an IJ article that relied on poor investigation. I think
we can conclude that this is very poor reporting as well.
Laurie

Laurie Kimbrel, Ed.D

Superintendent

Tamalpais Union High School District

(415) 945-3720

lkimbrel@tamdistrict.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Squarespace Services [mailto:services@squarespace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:55 PM
To: Kimbrel, Laurie
Subject: Article Recommendation (from mary bell): Artificial turf
harbors potential health risks, including cancer

mary bell would like you to see the following article.

I thought you might be interested in this editorial by student
journalists at Drake High in San Anselmo. This is investigative
journalism at its best!

Mary Bell

Title: Artificial turf harbors potential health risks, including cancer
Link:
http://www.drakejr.com/all-stories/artificial-turf-harbors-potential-hea
lth-risks-including-can.html

Artificial turf harbors potential health risks, including cancer - Jolly Roger Editorial - SF Drake HS - San Anselmo, CA

2008-10-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

From The SF Drake HS Paper - The Jolly Roger
The Kids Speak Out
We included S.A. Councilman Ford Greene's response at the end.

Artificial turf harbors potential health risks, including cancer

Opinion: Editorial,

Volume LVIII (58),

Volume 58: Issue 1

“Turf Wars.” “S.F. debating artificial turf on playgrounds.” “Many questions, few answers about artificial turf.”

These are just a few headlines from publications across the country regarding the proliferation of artificial turf fields in public schools and other community hubs.

Naturally, the articles that matched up with these headlines raised concerns among parents of high school students. Worrying that the fields were unsafe because of newspaper stories warning the public about possible health risks posed to athletes, schools on the east coast began to remove the artificial fields.

However, the fields’ flat surfaces are coveted by our athletic department. With a traditional grass field, the surface could never be flat because there are not enough staffers in our maintenance department to concentrate on grooming the field, says Athletic Director Chad Stuart. The turf fields reduce serious injury to athletes and retain more water than regular grass, according to Stuart. This allows games to be played in the rain so game schedules aren’t scrambled based on the weather.

Our fields were installed by FieldTurf, a company based in Montreal. Stuart maintains that our fields are perfectly safe to play on. He referred the Jolly Roger to a press release sent out to schools by the turf manufacturers. He says that the district researched potential problems that could have surfaced as a result of the fields before installing them.

However, science teacher Barton Clark says that the District conducted their research simply by phoning the manufacturer of the fields. Clearly, that was not the right way to gauge the safety of the fields.

Though the District presumably doesn’t realize it, when our fields heat up they become dangerous. Science teachers Clark and Sue Fox say they have smelled gas rising from the field on hot days.

The off-gassing occurs because of those irritating tire crumbs that inevitably wind up in our shoes after P.E. or sports practices. They may be merely viewed as a nuisance, but the gasses they release are carcinogens, according to National Geographic’s online green guide (which referred to any playground or field materials made from recycled tires). Carcinogens are chemicals that cause cancer.

Turf fields may have been an excellent way to dispose of our used car tires (which were only ever meant to be under our vehicles) if the chemicals used to make the tires were safe for humans to be exposed to. Ground-up tires release 49 different chemicals as they age and are exposed to heat, seven of which are proven carcinogens, according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Though the fact that we inhale these carcinogens on hot days may not affect us now, in 30 years it could become a problem. Prolonged or excessive exposure to the off-gasses could potentially cause cancer. This cancer may not show up the next day, but the danger of the fields should be recognized by the school district and should not be downplayed by corporations with vested interest in selling their product.

We propose that the district recognize the danger and keep students off the fields when they heat up and release these hazardous fumes. P.E. classes could conduct units that require use of the fields during colder months and athletes could move practices elsewhere or to later in the day.

Unfortunately, our district is currently installing another artificial field in the area behind Safeway, which was formerly a dog park. The Tam Union High School District schools will have priority to use the field, but Stuart expects that there will be time for community members to access it as well. The restrictions for the usage of turf fields on campus should also be applied to the new community field as well.

Chemicals used to manufacture tires are undoubtedly dangerous, but there is a safer way to dispose of our old tires. They can be mixed into asphalt, which according to the State of Arizona Department of Transportation provides an especially smooth riding surface and helps with highway noise reduction. We believe we should put old tires where they belong: back under our cars.

Reader Comments (1)

Good job on your opinion piece. As a member of the San Anselmo Town Council, I was the sole vote against the installation of FieldTurf as the proposed playing surface for the former dog park behind Safeway at Red Hill. When reviewing the packet of materials that Town staff submitted to the Council for consideration of the issue, I was surprised that our staff failed to include or even mention the report on the health hazards arising from the construction of playing field surfaces from recycled tires that California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment published in January 2007, which your piece references. (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/Tires/62206013.pdf ).

As you accurately note, that report found that materials derived from recycled tires implicate 49 chemicals of which several are known carcinogens, but that one time ingestions thereof are thought to pose no health risk (who plays on a field just once?).

In contrast, and apparently following the lead of the Tamalpais School District, town staff provided the Council with a substantial amount of quasi-scientific propaganda (written material that looks scientific but which includes no citations or references by which its one-sided conclusions can be double-checked or verified) that is distributed by the recycled-tire trade organization called the Synthetic Turf Council.

It is worth noting the California Attorney General has sued Field Turf, along with other manufacturers of synthetic turf, because it has failed to disclose that it contains lead, a cause of cancer, reproductive system damage and birth defects. (see http://www.latimes.com/la-fi-turf4-2008sep04,0,439850.story)

Synthetic turf not only poses health risks to humans, but also to the steelhead salmon, the endangered species which inhabit the Corte Madera Creek, into which the poison from the artificial turf drains in the rainy season.

You will get a lot of flak for your story, but that is the unfortunate way of the world when it comes to exposing inconvenient truths. Stick to your guns and keep up the excellent work.

October 16, 2008 |

Ford Greene

Patrice Letter to S.F. Chron - Marisa Lagos

2008-10-26T11:03:00.000-07:00

here is a copy of the letter i sent to the chronicle and the reply i received.

not too inspiring is it? i haven't even touched on the impact on wildlife yet!

that subject is just so big i don't have a clear starting point- i start to sputter and have high blood pressure. p

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Lagos, Marisa"  Date: October 20, 2008 4:48:52 PM PDT

 To: "Patrice Hickox"  Subject: RE: field turf blues  

Thanks for the note, Patrice!

  -----Original Message----- 

From: Patrice Hickox

 Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:18 AM 

To: Lagos, Marisa

 Subject: field turf blues

   dear ms. lagos,

my name is patrice hickox and i have been waging a small   campaign in marin county for several years against the installation of field turf on the   county's playing fields. thank you   for presenting both sides of the argument in today's article. i'm sure   you will get many emails so i will keep mine brief...  in marin county, artificial fields have not become the friendly   neighborhood gathering spots for families.   most of them are surrounded by chain link fences   that are locked to keep out undesirable elements.    these elements are often listed on the   large signs posted at the entrances to these   fields. they begin with the word NO in letters at least six inches high  , and they include dogs, bicycles, tricycles,   strollers, roller skates, skateboards, golf clubs, remote control   vehicles, motorcycles, pogo sticks, barbecues,   picnics, canned or bottled beverages, gum, and yes, even the dreaded   'sunflower seeds.’! it seems that these fields   of rubber and plastic are far less durable than the old fashioned   grass or even a vacant lot. while its certainly true that   grass needs to be mowed and watered, field turf needs to vacuumed,   unless all the surrounding trees are removed.   not very 'green' in the age of green. And, speaking of green, let's   think about that color- never changing, always   one uniform shade of insect and oxygen and worm free green plastic.   how lovely! i could go on... but you get the   picture. field turf is a sad, ugly and unfortunate excuse for a   playing field.  

patrice hickox

fairfax, ca.  

Turf fields Popular Despite Safety Concerns - S.F. Chronicle - Marisa Lagos

2008-10-26T10:55:00.000-07:00

Here's an Article from the S.F. Chroncle from Oct 19th, 2008.
Differing opinions from differing advocates.

The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/10/19/BAKQ13DQ1S.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, October 19, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
Turf fields popular despite safety concerns
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

Scientists have raised concerns about the safety of synthetic turf sports fields, yet officials in San Francisco say their new parks with the artificial grass are being nearly overrun by youth and adult players starved for playfields.

The soccer and baseball fields that have been installed at four city parks since 2006 have exponentially increased the amount of play time available to sports enthusiasts in a city that has too few fields for children, let alone adults.

Children and adults are swarming to the new spots, many of them on the underserved eastern side of the city. The soccer and ball fields at Silver Terrace Playground - once a neglected, weed-covered and pock-marked site- are now among the most-requested facilities in San Francisco. Before the turf was installed, parents and players would ask that their teams not be assigned to the park.

"I have coaches and families begging to get access," Shelli Meneghetti, co-president of the Viking Soccer League, recently told the city's Recreation and Parks Commission. "It's been an amazing experience for the league. The city took crummy fields and converted them into beautiful, fun and safe play areas."

The fields are popular with cash-strapped cities because they reduce maintenance costs, and they're a hit with players because they can be used year-round, rain or shine.

But not everyone is a fan. Some people are angry that their local parks are being taken over by fields regularly reserved by teams. And questions remain about the safety of the fields, which are made from recycled car tires and nylon blades that resemble grass. The safety concerns include questions about whether the fields emit unsafe amounts of lead and chemicals when they heat up, and worries that bacterial infections will spread more easily to players with open wounds.

Last month, the city and its nonprofit partner, the City Fields Foundation, unveiled the latest project -a $10.1 million renovation of Crocker Amazon Playground. Three uneven dirt fields that were previously closed for at least one-quarter of the year had been transformed into five impeccable soccer fields with stadium lighting. Restrooms, bleacher seating, picnic areas, landscaping and a new concession stand were also added. Another three to four parks are in the pipeline to receive the fake grass fields.

Ideally the city would have dozens of perfectly groomed grass fields, said Jill Lounsbury, general manager the San Francisco Nighthawks, an adult women's soccer league.

"But we need fields, and it does rain here," she said. "We've had to cap the (number of teams) in the leagues because it's too hard to find fields. Even as the sport grows, we can't grow ... synthetic fields have alleviated a lot of the burden."

Critics, however, fret that lead and other potentially carcinogenic substances could lead to long-term health problems. Similar questions are being asked in cities across the nation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is investigating if the fields emit harmful chemicals that are being inhaled by players, and whether the materials contain unsafe levels of lead.

California's attorney general, along with an environmental group, filed suit last month accusing six artificial-turf companies of breaking state law by not warning the public of exposure to dangerous amounts of lead.

A task force convened by the city of San Francisco to look at the environmental and health concerns has urged the city to explore alternatives to the rubber granules currently used, and said that the city should not purchase products that contain lead. But they also noted that a federal commission recently determined that the fields do not release harmful levels of the toxin.

This year, neighbors in Potrero Hill successfully blocked the installation of artificial turf at one of their neighborhood parks. Leading the charge was Leah Grant, whose problems with the product ranges from health concerns to worries about the environmental effects of plastic fields such as the loss of oxygen-producing plants and the degradation of ecosystems. She also wonders how the city will dispose of the fields once the turf needs to be replaced.

Grant also said that she and other neighbors who regularly visit Potrero Hill Recreation Center don't want to lose their neighborhood park to athletes who may not even live in the area.

"Neighbors are losing access to neighborhood parks paid for by our taxes," she said. "We're being locked out by the Viking League."

But in a city where officials are fighting to keep families from fleeing to the suburbs, some say it's unfair for a few vocal neighbors to halt a project that could serve thousands of children.

Linda D'Avirro, an activist in the Crocker Amazon area, said neighbors are thrilled with those new fields.

"It's probably the best thing that's happened in the neighborhood in years," she said.

E-mail Marisa Lagos at mlagos@sfchronicle.com

flood control anyone????

2008-10-13T16:04:00.000-07:00

13 october 08
   yesterday's ij website had these 2 items of interest- at least they were interesting to me.
the first item stated that the town of san anselmo has been asked by jerry draper to annex the property
at the end of los angeles and san francisco blvds. 11 acres. it is beautiful land and it would be
a wonderful addition to the town. converseley, the town would then be responsible for providing
town services such as police, fire and paramedics as well as street crews etc. costs?
   #2 was a small paragraph stating that the american legion cabin- vfw people? is seeking a permit
to do work on the creek behind the log cabin which is certainly in terrible shape and presents
a real and constant hazard. the down side there is that they asked to be excused from having to
comply with federal and state and town ordinances having to do with the preservation of ecosystems
alongside and inside the creek, in that particular location the creek is especially degraded and has been for years. it would be great to see that part of san anselmo restored,considering the assault the town is making on red hill. which brings me to....
   flood control! has anyone seen any flood control work being done anywhere in fairfax or san anselmo? it will rain again, and we will be dealing with the runoff from the field turf at red hill as well as the field turf at drake. has anyone seen any storm drain improvements? culverts? drainage ditches?
i wonder how the two costs compare- field turf_ flood control. who benefits from field turf? who loses out when we have the annual confluence of high tides and heavy rains? just wondering.

Links - Synthetic Turf

2008-10-04T11:10:00.000-07:00

http://superfill.net/2008/08/hazard-assessment-of-recycled-tire-crumb-infill-sprague-field-task-force/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/09/03/BAK012MTOM.DTL

http://cahe.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf

EHHI has a new eJourna

2008-10-04T11:05:00.000-07:00

Check this out!

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: October 1, 2008 6:59:33 AM PDT
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: EHHI has a new eJournal -- we would love you to take a look

Dear All,

Environment and Human Health, Inc. is introducing its new communication tool called the eJournal. It is designed to bring new reports and studies that expand on-going information concerning the topics of our published reports. This eJournal will be connected to Environment and Human Health, Inc.'s website very soon so that our 40,000 visitors a month can easily connect to our new on-line publication. Meanwhile the eJournal may be visited at:

http://www.ehhijournal.org/

All the best,
Nancy

--
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

New Study Released by the UMDNJ's School for Public Health on artificial turf pellets

2008-10-04T11:00:00.000-07:00

From: Anat Jacobson [mailto:ajacobson@pubadvocate.nyc.gov]

Subject: New Toxic Turf Study

Did you guys see this? We are thinking of sending out a statement to press saying this is further cause for concern and reaffirms the need for the city to test the fields, as we have been saying for over 1 year. What do you think of this study?

Study Finds Lead in Synthetic Turf Can Be Absorbed into Gastric Fluids

SYNTHETIC TURF LEAD

Description

Newswise — Adding to the growing concerns over the health risks posed by lead and other chemicals in synthetic turf materials, a new study by researchers at the UMDNJ-School of Public Health finds that when children or athletes ingest the tiny rubber granules in synthetic turf, it is likely that a significant portion of the lead in the granules will be absorbed by their bodies’ gastric fluids.

The investigation, led by Junfeng (Jim) Zhang, Ph.D., an associate dean and professor of environmental and occupational health at the UMDNJ-School of Public Health, examined lead levels in rubber granules from four parks in New York and simulated digestive tract absorption in two of the samples. Zhang is also a member of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), a joint institute of the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University.

“Even though the samples had relatively low concentrations of lead in the rubber granules, we observed that substantial amounts of lead – 22.7 and 44.2 percent in the two samples tested – were absorbed into synthetic gastric juices,” Zhang said. “Because we know that even low levels of lead can cause neuro-cognitive problems – such as IQ loss – in children, these absorption fractions are meaningful.”

The findings will appear in the November/December issue of the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. The journal posted the report online on August 27, 2008. The United States currently has about 3,500 synthetic turf fields with new fields being added at the rate of about 1,000 per year.

Concern over synthetic turf intensified earlier this year when high levels of lead were reported in three aged AstroTurf fields in New Jersey, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health advisory. In August, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission gave the plastic fibers in “new generation” turf a clean bill of health, but, in September, a California environmental group reported high levels of lead in the “new generation” synthetic turf, sparking lawsuits against three manufacturers.

The UMDNJ study included just one “new generation” artificial fiber. While the sample had a relatively low level of lead, the absorption fractions into synthetic gastric and intestinal fluids were still high (34.6 and 54.0 percent, respectively).

William Crain, a co-author on the study and a child psychologist at The City College of New York, said the findings are especially worrisome with respect to young children who might pick up granules and ingest them. The granules can also be transported to homes in the shoes of field users, making the granules accessible to young children. “Whenever young children are involved, we need to particularly careful, because they are most vulnerable to toxic chemicals,” Crain adds.

The study also included an analysis of the rubber granules in seven park samples for the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The researchers found that five of the seven samples contained at least two PAHs that exceeded New York State Department of Environmental Conservation safety limits for contaminated soil. The PAHs that were found are possible, probable, or known human carcinogens as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The investigators found that the PAHs seemed not be absorbed into the digestive tract, which should help direct researchers to other potential PAH exposure routes, such as inhalation or skin contact.

The investigators also noted high levels of zinc in rubber granules. High zinc levels present a special danger to non-human species in the environment.

“Our study was on a small scale,” Zhang said. “But I hope it helps give a clearer picture of the health risks that synthetic turf poses. I urge public and private agencies to step up funding for research on this crucial public health issue.”

Media interested in interviewing Jim Zhang should contact Jerry Carey, UMDNJ News Service, at (973) 972?5000.

The UMDNJ-School of Public Health is the nation’s first collaborative school of public health and is sponsored by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in cooperation with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and New Jersey Institute of Technology.

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is the nation's largest free-standing public health sciences university with more than 5,500 students attending the state's three medical schools, its only dental school, a graduate school of biomedical sciences, a school of health related professions, a school of nursing and its only school of public health, on five campuses. Last year, there were more than two million patient visits to UMDNJ facilities and faculty at campuses in Newark, New Brunswick/Piscataway, Scotch Plains, Camden and Stratford. UMDNJ operates University Hospital, a Level I Trauma Center in Newark, and University Behavioral HealthCare, a mental health and addiction services network.

_______________________________________________
Media Director
Public Advocate for the City of New York Betsy Gotbaum
1 Centre Street, Floor 15
New York, NY 10007
O : (212) 669-4813
C : (917) 626-6757
F : (212) 669-2633
www.pubadvocate.nyc.gov/
To subscribe to Betsy Gotbaum's blog, the Public Advocate's Corner, visit www.publicadvocatescorner.com

Now Clorox for artificial turf - Clorox press release below

2008-10-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: May 24, 2008 9:52:36 AM PDT
To: swanbell@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Now Clorox for artificial turf - Clorox press release below

First adults are choosing artificial turf instead of grass and having children play on old rubber tires - then some are finding a need to put antimicrobials on the fields so that the children don't get sick - and now Clorox has just developed a product to put on the fields so that the artificial turf doesn't spread MRSA infections.

Perhaps it is time to rethink this issue instead of piling one exposure on top of another exposure as adults try to fix the original mistake. See below for Clorox press release from today.
Nancy Alderman

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/kd-ncd050508.php

"Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner can be used on a wide variety of hard, nonporous surfaces and in potential CA-MRSA "hot spots, including ....... artificial turf ...... ".

Public release date: 5-May-2008

Contact: Carlisle Campbell
carlisle.campbell@ketchum.com
202-835-9431

New Clorox disinfectant is EPA registered to kill both known types of MRSA

Clorox Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner offers a 1-step germ-killing solution for professionals

OAKLAND, Calif., May 5, 2008 - While MRSA has been an issue in healthcare settings for years, CA-MRSA outbreaks in the community have been on the rise, with the greatest risk in community settings such as fitness clubs, in sports teams, at schools and daycare centers. In May, The Clorox Company will launch Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner, a disinfectant that is EPA registered to kill germs, including Healthcare-associated and Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA).
Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner is a one-step, labor-saving solution for killing both strains of MRSA as well as a variety of other illness causing germs, such as Hepatitis B and C, Avian Influenza A, HIV-1 and HIV-2, SARS-associated Coronavirus, Rotavirus, Salmonella enterica and E. coli. This hospital grade disinfectant is also a powerful cleaner with a no-rinse pH-neutral, bleach free formula.

"This product offers confidence to those professionals who want to help reduce the spread of germs in their environment, particularly those who are vulnerable to a CA-MRSA outbreak," said Jennifer Case, New Business Development Manager, Clorox Away from Home Division. "Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner is EPA registered to kill both healthcare and community associated strains of MRSA, and is also a powerful all-in-one cleaner and disinfectant that gives you peace of mind that you are using the right product to disinfect surfaces and help reduce the risk of exposure."

###
About MRSA
MRSA is a type of staph bacteria that is resistant to some common antibiotics such as methicillin, penicillin and amoxicillin. There are two known types - Healthcare-associated (HA-MRSA or MRSA) and Community-associated (CA-MRSA). CA-MRSA is relatively new and refers to an infection acquired by persons who have not been recently (in past year) hospitalized or had a medical procedure. CA-MRSA can spread in highly-populated community settings where there are shared items or surfaces and person-to-person contact, making disinfecting frequently-touched surfaces crucial. Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner is the first nationally-branded disinfectant with a CA-MRSA kill claim to be available for professional environments, such as:
* Recreational facilities: fitness clubs, gymnasiums/arenas, locker rooms and sporting equipment
* Consumer-facing businesses: restaurants, cruise ships, airplanes and hotels
* Public service facilities: fire stations, police stations and jails
* Schools and childcare facilities: classrooms, cafeterias and playgrounds
*
Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner can be used on a wide variety of hard, nonporous surfaces and in potential CA-MRSA "hot spots," including shower stalls, exercise equipment and mats, whirlpool units, steam rooms, artificial turf and helmets, outdoor play equipment - as well as surfaces in other work environments, such as desks, bathrooms, handles and tables.

Using an EPA-registered disinfectant like Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner is an important step to help prevent the spread of CA-MRSA. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also recommend these steps:
* Proper personal hygiene (do not share personal items, such as towels, water bottles, razors, etc.)
* Cover cuts and abrasions with clean, dry bandages until healed
* Incorporate use of an appropriate EPA-registered disinfectant to properly clean and disinfect surfaces
*
About Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner
Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner has a non-bleach based, pH-neutral formulation with a pleasant, fresh fragrance. The product's kill claims include both known types of MRSA and other common bacteria, viruses and fungi, such as Influenza A2, Rotavirus, Hepatitis B and C, HIV-1 and HIV-2, SARS-associated Coronavirus, Trichophyton mentagrophytes (athlete's foot fungus), Salmonella enterica and E. coli. As a quaternary (bleach free) formula, it can be used to clean and disinfect a wide variety of surfaces such as floors, stainless steel, sealed granite, glazed ceramic tiles, shower stalls and plastic and metal surfaces. The product is offered in a dilutable formula (1oz per gallon of water) and there is no rinsing required. It also meets OSHA's bloodborne pathogen standards for HBV and HIV.
Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner will be available starting May 2008. It can be purchased by contacting an authorized Clorox distributor. Visit www.cloroxprofessional.com or call (888) 797-7225 for more information.
"Quaternary" disinfectants are cleaners formulated with quaternary ammonium compounds that provide excellent cleaning and disinfecting properties.
About The Clorox Company
The Clorox Company, a leading manufacturer of cleaning and disinfecting products for the retail, health care, education, food service and recreational markets, has promoted health and wellness since its founding in 1913. Clorox markets some of consumers' and professionals' most trusted and recognized brand names, including its namesake bleach and cleaning products such as Clorox® Anywhere Hand Sanitizing Spray, Clorox® Pro Quaternary All-Purpose Disinfectant Cleaner, Green Works®, Formula 409®, PineSol® and Tilex®. Clorox also manufactures and markets Armor All® and STP® auto-care products, Fresh Step® and Scoop Away® cat litter, Kingsford® charcoal, Hidden Valley® and K C Masterpiece® dressings and sauces, Brita® water-filtration systems, Glad® bags, wraps and containers, and Burt's Bees® natural personal care products. Fiscal year 2007 revenues were $4.8 billion. For more information, visit www.TheCloroxCompany.com.

--
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

Each full-size soccer field contains 130 tons of infill

2008-10-04T10:55:00.000-07:00

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: May 24, 2008 9:52:56 AM PDT
To: swanbell@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Italian study - synthetic turf

"Each full-size soccer field contains 130 tons of infill"

Italy: Synthetic turf fields will be cleaned up!

Corrado Zunino, Erba sintetica, allarme confermato "Quei campi vanno bonificati," in La Repubblica, May 3, 2006 - reproduced in its entirety below and also available at

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/04/sezioni/cronaca/campi-sintetitici-cancerogeni/conferma-rischi-cancro/conferma-rischi-cancro.html

Translated in part by Elio Branca

The former Italian minister of Health, Francesco Storace's last act in office was to make public on May 2, 2006, the study of a commission that he had set up in order to examine the potential risks associated with use of rubber in artificial turf fields. According to the study, the synthetic turf fields in Italy are potentially cancer-causing. The study found levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toluene (volatile toxic compound), and heavy metals to be higher than the legal limits. The PAHs pose risks to kidneys, liver, and lungs. According to the investigators at the High Institute of Health (Instituto superiore di Sanita), the inhalation of the dust from these substances pose a risk to soccer players. The commission, which also included physicians and lawyers from the ministry of the Environment, urged the adoption of a law to clean up the dangerous fields.

According to Professor Roberto Verna, the president of the commission, "It is clear that PAHs and toluene are a danger to health." "We do not want to spread fear, but it is necessary to find a way to clean up the playing fields," he said. "Let us say, all of the fields in Italy need to be examined, the 350 official ones and the dozens that have been installed without governmental approval," he said.

Accroding to Verna, the inspiration for defining the danger of artificial turf fields comes from the law about greens paces and parklands. The study document will be sent to FIFA, the world governing body for soccer, and to the European Union: the European Union already has prohibited the production of rubber with PAHs after 2007. "This study is the first such work in Europe that has been undertaken by an independent commission," said Varna. "The rubber in the fields," he said, "must be treated like diary products: we must know about the origin of the rubber, the process and how its is made into its final form - to get a seal of approval/label of quality."

According to Carlo Tavecchio, president of national league of amateurs (Lega nazionale dilettanti), "we have to open up 200 fields and take out/vacuum the noxious substances. The cost will be divided among the Federal soccer organization, the producers of the turf and management of the clubs." This will be a titanic undertaking. Each full-size soccer field (11 v. 11) contains 130 tons of infill and costs between 300,000 to 650,000 Euros.

On the heel of the discovery of toxicity of the artificial turf fields, a pitched industrial battle is brewing between the producers of virgin rubber and recycled rubber, the big versus small. There is Olimpico that makes a product that is a mix of artificial grass and natural grass and does not need rubber. Then there are firms that manufacture foundations/underlay for artificial turf fields out of cork.

The commission noticed a great number of children's playgrounds are on rubber surfaces that are produced by the same firms that manufacture the rubber for artificial turf fields. The SBR rubber is considered risky.

According to Giovanni Lolli, undersecretary of Sports, "This is a serious problem. The commission has done diligent work: the next administration should reconvene the commission."

--
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

Turf Field Temperatures

2008-10-04T10:53:00.000-07:00

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: June 9, 2008 5:21:32 PM PDT
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: Synthetic Turf Field in MA reached 161 degrees

From: tsciacca@comcast.net

Subject: Turf Field Temperatures
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:47:55 +0000

I am addressing this note to those who I believe are especially concerned with the issue of temperatures of artificial turf athletic fields, and especially to those who may be concerned with outgassing or leaching issues from such fields.

I have been studying field surface temperatures in the Boston area since last August, and have formulated a qualitative model to explain the reasons for the unusual thermal behavior and predict when it is likely to approach worst case. A paper I wrote on the subject is available on Synturf.org (Sciacca Heat Study).

On Saturday I measured a surface temperature on the Wayland, MA field of 161 degrees F. This is the highest temperature I have noted thus far, and is consistent with the model I postulated.

I predict the highest temperatures will be reached in the Northeast in the next three to four weeks. I urge anyone investigating outgassing or leaching issues to sample in this period. Worst case conditions will be achieved on hot, cloudless, windless days, between one and three PM. (Probably between one and two PM).

You might wonder about my credentials for addressing this issue, since I currently have no relevant organizational affiliation. I am a retired Electrical Engineer (alumni of MIT). Nearly 30 years ago I invented some precision temperature measurement instrumentation which was the key to manufacture of fiber optic cable and used in all the early fiber cable manufacturing plants. You all use the results of my temperature measurement expertise every time you use the Internet, watch TV, or make a phone call.

I hope the comments above help further the understanding of the risks associated with this technology.

Tom Sciacca
Wayland, MA

--
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

What Lies Beneath: Toxic Turf Under Our Toes - J Sorensen

2008-10-04T10:44:00.000-07:00

Healthy Child Times - Summer 2008

HOT BUTTON HEALTH ISSUE
What Lies Beneath: Toxic Turf Under Our Toes

By Janelle Sorensen
http://healthychild.org

Article
What Lies Beneath: Toxic Turf Under Our Toes
Janelle Sorensen
Healthy Child Healthy World
Wednesday, June 18, 2008

In an effort to recycle the growing waste piles of used tires, manufacturers across the country have begun making artificial turf out of the discarded rubber. They are using scrap tires as crumb rubber in-fill on playing fields, as shredded loose fill around playgrounds, as composite solid playing surfaces, and even as landscaping mulch. While it seems an environmentally-friendly option at face value, there is growing concern over the potential impacts these materials may have on children's health. Initial research shows potential chemical and heavy metal leaching depending on a wide variety of external factors, like climate, rainwater pH, and usage. Overall, it's better to be safe than sorry and we should put a moratorium on using recycled tires where our children play until more extensive research has been conducted.
My kids love the first opportunity of the season to kick off their shoes, peel off their socks, and run around outside with bare feet. I admit, my toes appreciate a little dirt in between them now and then, too, but more and more these days, I am wondering about what lies beneath. Not so much in my own yard, but at my neighbors and at the park and the playground. I've worried about pesticides for years now, but recently a new concern has arisen. It all started when I noticed a big truck dumping new ground covering around my daughter's school playground. What the heck was it?

After school I followed her back to the playground and smelled its acrid odor before I saw it (my nose is my initial alarm system for toxic intruders and in this case, the bells were ringing loudly). As we stepped closer I saw that the ground covering was a loose fill of what appeared to be shredded tires. Wait a minute, I thought to myself, aren't tires considered hazardous waste? Isn't that why we can't just toss them in the garbage? Why are we using these where our kids play?

This definitely warranted an eco-mom investigation and what I discovered was confusing to say the least.

The Tale of the Tire
Apparently, tires have been a solid waste issue for many decades now and with an increasing amount of vehicles on the road, the issue continues to grow. At the end of 2003 alone, the US had generated close to 300 million scrap tires. Without government intervention regulating disposal, tires were left to pile up creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes and spontaneously igniting into toxic bonfires. They aren't, as I had initially assumed, hazardous waste. They only necessitate special disposal to avoid the accumulation of tires that prompts the aforementioned breeding grounds and toxic fires.

Fortunately, markets now exist for 80% of scrap tires-up from 17% in 1990. These markets - both recycling and beneficial use - continue to grow. Almost half of the tires are burned for fuel, another 20 percent are used in civil engineering projects, about 8 percent is ground up and recycled into other products and about 4 percent is ground up and used in rubber-modified asphalt. The remainder are exported, retreaded, used "miscellaneously", or land-filled.

Many of these applications are indeed a beneficial second life for a product so integral to modern life. Still, I questioned the physical make-up of tires and the initial research I was finding demonstrating toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaching out of tires. Studies basically show the levels to be minimal, but the mom and environmental health advocate in me always questions "safe levels." If there's a safer alternative, why accept even a "minimal" risk? I am a huge proponent of recycling, but why are we using a potentially risky material where our children play?
A Second Life: Tires as Turf for Athletic Fields and Playgrounds
We've been using artificial turf for decades and it takes a variety of forms, including rubberized asphalt, playground surfaces, and landscape mulches. The original AstroTurf fields are beginning to degrade and release alarming amounts of lead into the environment. These fields are being torn up and replaced with the latest fake, partially constituted of old tires. Initially touted as an environmentally responsible way to recycle old tires, more are questioning the logic behind using a material too risky to dispose of in landfills for ground cover where our children play.

While the media is mostly covering the use of what's known as "crumb rubber" as infill on synthetic athletic field coverings, scrap tires can also be recycled into solid surfaces, as well as used as loose fill like in the situation of my daughter's school. In this case, the rubber is simply shredded and dumped around the base of a play structure.

My initial research found that contention over the use of this product is growing across the US. Many states and municipalities are halting the continued use of tire turf until more studies are conducted to ensure the safety of the surface.

There are almost no studies on potential health impacts (especially long-term) from using tire rubber, but preliminary reports have found definitive evidence of potential risk. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), in a January 2007 report Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products, found that 49 chemicals could be released from tire crumbs.

Recycled crumb rubber contains a number of chemicals that are known or suspected to cause health effects. The most common types of synthetic rubber used in tires are composed of ethylene-propylene and styrene-butadiene combined with vulcanizing agents, fillers, plasticizers, and antioxidants in different quantities, depending on the manufacturer. Tire rubber also contains polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Rubber leachates are also complex solutions, some of which are known to be harmful to human health; effects of exposure range from skin and eye irritation to major organ damage and even death. Long term exposure can lead to neurological damage, carcinogenesis, and mutagenesis.

While these findings lead one to believe the material is indeed toxic, it is argued that since the rubber is "vulcanized," the toxins are locked in. Some companies claim the material is indestructible and non-biodegradable, completely safe and non-toxic. Simultaneously, they admit that there is an odor at first (which is evidence of chemicals volatilizing from the materialŠ.not locked in after all).

Every study I have come across has only served to emphasize that the devil is in the details. It depends on what form the recycled rubber takes, what degree of usage is endured, and what climate and other environmental factors may impact degradation. Since there are relatively few studies on leaching and health impacts when using scrap tires in these various ways, I have had to try to examine the evidence already available from other uses and make assumptions about what it means for my daughter.
The State of Evidence (or Lack Thereof)
In 1994, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency found that due to heavy metals and other pollutants in tires there is a potential risk for the leaching of toxins into the groundwater when placed in wet soils. Admitting the almost unpredictable nature of tires, this report stated "research has shown that very little leaching occurs when shredded tires are used as light fill material, however limitations have been put on use of this material; each site should be individually assessed determining if this product is appropriate for given conditions."

A 1998 study from the University of Massachusetts reviewed all of the existing literature in order to assess the safety of using recycled tires as light fill in civil engineering projects. While they concluded that it appeared safe, they also stated that "it would be prudent to perform field studies on these areas over longer periods of time. It is important to recognize that the impact of scrap tires on the environment varies according to the local water and soil conditions, especially pH value."

The 2007 study conducted by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that recycled tires posed minimal risk when used as shredded loose fill, but again reiterated the importance of understanding local climate impacts because the tires may degrade differently in different conditions. They also concluded that they needed further research on the potential toxicity of crumb rubber.

Later in 2007, the Connecticut Department of Analytical Chemistry conducted some of the first experiments on the potential toxicity of crumb rubber. "The laboratory data presented here support the conclusion that under relatively mild conditions of temperature and leaching solvent, components of crumb rubber produced from tires (i) volatilize into the vapor phase and (ii) are leached into water in contact with the crumbsŠBased on these data further studies of crumb rubber produced from tires are warranted under both laboratory, but most especially field conditions."

Each of these studies and others like them have each examined only one small piece of the puzzle. Compiled together, the picture still isn't very clear. We don't know long-term impacts. We don't know how the various heavy metals and chemicals might interact and impact a developing child's system. We don't even know how much or which heavy metals and chemicals might leach in any specific application.
In the Face of Uncertainty
Our gap in knowledge has prompted actions nationwide including a federal investigation of artificial surfaces by the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Unfortunately, the federal focus will be solely on lead and not the plethora of other heavy metals and toxic chemicals comprising crumb rubber, scrap rubber, or solid surface composites.

Luckily, as we've been seeing a lot lately, states are picking up where the feds leave off. New York state assembly members have imposed a moratorium on the purchase and installation of synthetic turf pending further investigation into potential health effects. Separate bills in New Jersey and California legislatures would ban the installation of new fields until the completion of comprehensive health and environmental studies.

Connecticut Senate Minority Leader John McKinney is working with the commissioners of the state's departments of public health and environmental protection to find a way to use existing funds for a study. A bill by Minnesota State Rep. Phyllis Kahn also calls for a health study on the impacts of crumb rubber use. The earliest results from these studies are expected to be public by the end of the year. Still, most of these studies are limited at best, only addressing the use of crumb rubber on athletic fields. It's a legitimate concern, but what about solid surface and loose fill like my daughter's school playground?

While we wait for the jury's verdict, I have a few questions of my own. It's commendable to find alternative uses for old tires, but why where our children play? Why not use old tires for parking lots or industrial building components? Why not just make tires that aren't so toxic to begin with? Michelin is beginning to experiment with new formulations since Europe's new REACH policy will compromise their ability to sell tires there. Will Michelin sell us safer tires, too? And how about creating synthetic turf from safer materials? Or what about nature's standards, like grass (grown without pesticides, of course) and sand? I know abrasion and impact absorption and durability are all factors, but why do we prioritize acute impacts so far above chronic ones?

Aside from my growing list of questions, I'm encouraged by the amazing innovations that address everyone's concerns. According to the March 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, one new alternative is infill made from plant-derived materials. Synthetic turf manufacturer Limonta Sport produces Geo Safe Play, an infill made from coconut husks and cork. Company spokesperson Domenic Carapella says, "There are certainly alternatives to crumb rubber. There is no longer a reason to sacrifice the playing quality and more importantly the health of children [playing on synthetic turf]."

So often we dive into the unknown when we start using new products. We assume that they have been comprehensively tested for safety, but they aren't required to be. When will we learn our lesson? It's better to be safe than sorry, so while I'm still unclear about whether recycled tires are safe or not, I'm advocating for a moratorium on its use until we know more. I'm still looking, I'm still learning. Watch the Healthy Child blog for updates on what I uncover.

Resources:

LEED certifiable synthetic grass?

Serious Questions About New Generation Artificial Turf that Require Answers

The Myth of Rubberized Landscapes

Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf

Synthetic Turf Health Debate Takes Root

Synthetic Turf - Environment and Human Health, Inc

Update on Toxic Turf:

The US Centers for Disease Control announced an official public health alert regarding potential lead exposure from synthetic turf. http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00275

Independent testing commissioned by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has found high levels of lead in artificial turf, including turf and indoor/outdoor grass carpet purchased from major retailers. CEH has initiated legal action against retailers and manufacturers to eliminate lead risks. http://www.cehca.org/press-releases/eliminating-toxics/legal-action-launched-on-lead-in-artificial-turf/

The article above states that NY passed a moratorium, but while one was initiated, it never actually passed. In addition, a bipartisan, two-house toxic turf study bill died in the New York State Legislature on June 23rd. Observers cited pressure from local 'crumb rubber'/recycling companies, and from schools with renovation projects in the pipeline.
Related Articles
The Myth of Rubberized Landscapes
Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf
Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf: Follow-Up Analyses

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

This looks almost illegal - Analysis of USCPSC study on lead in synthetic turf fields

2008-10-04T10:36:00.000-07:00

From: Nancy Alderman
Date: July 31, 2008 1:31:31 PM PDT
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: This looks almost illegal - Analysis of USCPSC study on lead in synthetic turf fields

David Brown, Sc.D. for Environment and Human Health, Inc. evaluation of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC) testing for lead on synthetic turf fields.

David Brown, Sc.D, Public Health Toxicologist, looked at the USCPSC "study".

The USCPSC report sampled only 10 tests on four fields. There were three samples on three fields and one sample on one other field. How many fields are there in the United States? The answer of course is thousands.
The table is padded with other turf data (less than 10) from unspecified sources with no relevancy to the fields in actual use.
They wiped an area 50 cm long and 8 cm wide (18 inches long and 3 inches wide). Your hand is about 4 inches wide and 8 inches long.
Next they divided the amount of lead found by 5 -- because they assumed that the hand is not as efficient at picking up lead as their wipe. They then divided that number obtained again by 2 -- because they assumed that only half of the lead could be taken from on's hand and then becaome ingested.

Their determination of a safe reference exposure:

1.They compared the exposure to a blood level of 10 ug/dl as their level of concern - although current peer reviewed literature clearly demonstrate health effects in children below that level.

2.They than reference a position that chronic ingestion of lead should not exceed 15 ug/day. They then incorrectly assumed that the "not to be exceeded" level was an acceptable exposure level, which it is not.

This rationale makes no sense because of the following incorrect assumptions:

Assumption 1. The child has no other exposures to lead each day. The assumption is clearly incorrect based on population studies published by the centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Assumption 2. During an athletic activity the child only touches the surface with one hand one time each day. This assumption is ludicrous if anyone has observed any athletic activity on any playing field.

Assumption 3. That four fields would be considered adequate to evaluate the safety of the thousands of fields in the United States and then to characterize to the American people that this is a NATIONWIDE evaluation. UNBELIEVABLE

Assumption 4. It is acceptable to ignore the key chemical reaction between the acidity in the moisture on the surface and the release of lead bound in the material. A reading in a basic high school chemistry text shows that highly soluble lead carbonate dust is formed when items containing lead are exposed to air containing carbon dioxide in humid atmosphere such as occurs every morning when dew forms on the surface of the fields

Assumption 5. Most of the lead on the surface is not released on the first pass over the surface. While there may be multiple passes over the surface there is no basis for a division by 5 or any other number, most of the lead is released by the first touch although additional lead is picked up with further wipes. If the CPSC had wiped the field 100 times would they have divided the amount obtains on their sample wipe by 100?

It should be apparent to even the most casual observer that the CPSC test report cannot support any conclusion with respect to the health risk of children to exposure to lead from artificial turf fields. Moreover, lead has never been the only or even major concern from the health scientists.

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

Congresswoman Delauro(CT)--Synthetic Turf and EPA

2008-10-04T09:54:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Adriana Surfas
Friday 8 August 2008 (202) 225-3661

DeLauro Continues to Press EPA for Thorough Investigation of Potential Health Risks of Synthetic Turf

Washington, D.C. - Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) sent a follow-up letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson pressing for the agency to do a thorough, scientific investigation into the potential health risks of synthetic turf. Additionally, DeLauro expressed concern that the EPA, in coordinating with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, could be relying on conclusions based on flawed methodology and less than sound science. (To view DeLauro's April 28, 2008 letter to the EPA, please click here.)

"I commend the EPA for creating workgroup to better understand the nature and extent of potential exposure to hazardous chemicals in fields and playgrounds where synthetic turf is used and look forward to an update on these activities. However, the questions and concerns surrounding synthetic turf warrant a thorough, scientific investigation," said DeLauro. "Additionally, I have significant concerns that the EPA appears poised to rely on a recent report by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that reached its conclusions based on flawed methodology and less than sound science."

Below is the text of the letter.

August 7, 2008

Administrator Stephen L. Johnson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Johnson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 2008, in response to my letter of April 28, 2008, requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study the health and environmental impacts of chemicals in synthetic turf, especially as they relate to children and families. I am writing to request an update on the activities described in your letter, and to reiterate the urgency of thorough scientific investigation of this important issue.

First, I commend your efforts to form a workgroup to better understand the nature and extent of potential exposure to hazardous chemicals in fields and playgrounds where synthetic turf is used. I look forward to receiving an update on the activities of this working group, specifically 1) who the members are and their areas of expertise, 2) how many meetings have been held on this issue and what future meetings are planned, 3) what progress has been made to date, and 4) what conclusions has the group drawn to date with regard to both a) potential hazards, and b) next steps. I understand that EPA is planning a scientific meeting on the topic of tire crumbs and synthetic turf later this month, and I look forward to hearing about the outcome of that meeting.

In your June 4, 2008, letter, you noted that "the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is undertaking work that will add to our understanding about the use of lead in synthetic turf, and it is hoped that this effort will help inform additional steps related to this aspect of the concern with synthetic turf." In light of that statement, I am particularly concerned that the report on lead in synthetic turf grass blades recently issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may have included flawed methodology. As such, the report did not support the conclusion that children are safe from exposure to lead when playing on these fields, let alone the conclusion that the fields are safe overall - given the other toxins and health problems that may be associated with synthetic turf.

The CPSC report itself notes that "this assessment is subject to a number of limitations." Indeed, I am concerned about the following apparent flaws in the study and unresolved issues regarding the health and safety effects of synthetic turf fields:

* All ten of the samples of green synthetic grass that were tested (Table 1, Appendix A) appear to have been taken from four fields manufactured by the same firm (Firm 1). Only the yellow stripes from two other firms (Firms 2 and 3) were tested. There are approximately 3500 synthetic fields currently in use nationally, and 800 additional fields installed each year at high schools, universities, stadiums, and public parks. Even if the other nine non-tested samples are taken into account, it seems questionable for the CPSC to characterize to the American people that all synthetic turf fields in the country are safe.

* Upon close examination, Table 1 in Appendix A contains gaps and unexplained variability in the data presented. For example, for the third entry for "Firm 1, Green; new, 2008" there are no data entered for subsample 3 under the heading "Lead content (%)." Also in Table 1, there appears to be far more variation for the "Wipe Sampling Result (microgram)" than in the "Lead content (%)".

* The CPSC study was titled 'CPSC Staff Analysis and Assessment of Synthetic Turf "Grass Blades"'. However, another key concern regarding the safety of synthetic turf is the recycled tire rubber ("crumb rubber") used in the fields. It is my understanding that a number of chemicals in addition to lead have been found in the crumb rubber, including benzothiazole (a skin and eye irritant), butylated hydroxyanisole (a carcinogen), n-hexadecane (a severe irritant), 4-(t-octyl) phenol (an irritant), phthalates (endocrine and reproductive toxicant, suspected developmental toxicant), and other chemicals.

* The CPSC press release acknowledged that "staff recognizes that some conditions such as age, weathering, exposure to sunlight, and wear and tear might change the amount of lead that could be released from the turf. As turf is used during athletics or play and exposed over time to sunlight, heat and other weather conditions, the surface of the turf may start to become worn and small particles of the lead-containing synthetic grass fibers might be released." According to the report, the oldest field tested (installed in 1999) was associated with the highest estimated daily ingestion of lead. It is important to determine whether this result is due to aging of the field, differences in the way turf fields were manufactured between the older and newer samples, or other reasons.

* The potential health effects of the chemicals in synthetic turf must also be weighed along with other potential health risks, such as the risk of an overheated playing field and increased risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections.

Clearly, additional study is needed before synthetic turf fields can definitively be declared safe. Parents, schools, parks and recreation departments, and others need accurate answers about the safety and health effects of these fields to make the best possible decisions about where children and others are playing. The severe effects of both childhood and adult obesity on the health of Americans only increase the need for timely, trustworthy information on the health effects of synthetic turf.

Thank you for continuing to examine this urgent issue. Please call me with any questions or concerns, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Rosa L. DeLauro
Member of Congress

Cc: James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator

Update - Red Hill Dog Park - JPA Meeting Oct. 27, 08

2008-10-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

Quick update:

1) The date of the next JPA meeting has been changed to Monday, October 27 @ 7:30 (from Wednesday 10/29) in the San Anselmo Town Council Chambers. I am planning on attending the JPA meeting to introduce our group (the "Red Hill Community Dog Park Alliance"), formally submit the questions/concerns identified at our 9/10 meeting and express our interest in assisting to move forward completion of the Red Hill Community Dog Park. If possible, it would be great to have others attend the meeting as well - as a showing of community support!

2) We scheduled our next Community meeting for November 6 - at which we can report on discussions/actions taken at the JPA meeting. The Vista Room at Isabel Cook Center (same room we met in before) is available @ 7:30 pm.

Question: since the JPA meeting has been moved up, would we rather meet on Wednesday October 29 @ 6:00 in the Vista Room, or leave the meeting as scheduled on Thursday, November 6 @ 7:30 pm.

Synthetic Turf at McInnis Golf Club - Nancy O

2008-10-04T09:41:00.000-07:00

Hi All!

I had a "heads-up" from Wendy (hi Wendy!) that the turf meeting was on Sept. 22. I spent at least an hour searching through the Open Space online stuff, and found a mention in their Fall Newsletter. Followed that up with a phone call this morning to find out if it was happening and where it was noticed. No one knew anything. Diana took my name, said I had to wait until Monday to talk to Steve. I pushed the public noticing aspect, got a gal name Callie Beckler, who said the meeting was changed to Oct. 2, 6:30 - 8 at McInnis Golf Club.

Callie said this is NOT a Brown Act meeting, but the IJ will be sent info on the meeting. She said it is a public workshop to take public comment and preview the alternatives on the McInnis plan. It will NOT have the airport. The McInnis master plan (and updates) is only available by email request:
http://egovwebprd.marinpublic.com/depts/PK/main/index.cfm .
It has NOT been posted on their website (why not?).

Apparently the Golf Club (privately owned, leased from the county, under the Parks division) has already put in a synthetic turf driving range. Decision on the rest of McInnis (after the staff sifts though public comment, etc.) will go to the Board of Supes at some point in the future. She said probably September '09.

When pressed, she said the synthetic turf is the way they plan to go. She said they have been studying alternatives and found environmentally friendly ones, etc. I told her they should not rely on the vendor information, but that even if they read the newspaper they will be more educated on the health and environmental hazards of synthetic turf. She had another call to take.

Patrice, I haven't spent the time to figure out how to post to the blog. Please feel free to post this info.
Thanks Mary for all your forwarded info.

More to come. Thanks again everybody for all your help and concern!

Thanks,
Nancy Okada

High Temps On Turf Fields Spark Safety Concerns - FROM NPR

2008-10-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

High Temps On Turf Fields Spark Safety Concerns
by Allison Aubrey

Morning Edition, August 7, 2008 · Lots of coaches and players love the benefits of artificial fields. There's no practice time or games lost to muddy conditions, and the fields are easy to maintain. They require no pesticides or water. But increasingly, municipalities are raising questions about extremely high temperatures on the playing fields when the weather is hot and sunny.
The first evidence of a "heat island" effect came a few years ago, when Columbia University climate researcher Stuart Gaffin analyzed thermal images generated from NASA satellite maps of New York City. He wanted to figure out how urban trees may help cool down neighborhoods. When Gaffin noticed a bunch of hot spots on the maps, he assumed they were rooftops. But he wanted to know for certain.
"So we picked five or six really hot locations in the Bronx and went to visit them, and two turned out to be turf fields" says Gaffin. In retrospect, he says he should have realized that, because they're a perfect sunlight-absorbing system.
Temperature Check
To understand just how hot the synthetic fields can get, we visited Riverside Park in Manhattan with Geoffrey Croft, founder of NYC Park Advocates.
Carrying a thermometer, Croft stood at the periphery of one of the turf fields that's used for a soccer camp.
In the shade it's 86 degrees. But out in the center of the soccer field where kids are playing soccer, the sun is directly overhead. Holding his thermometer waist-high, he gets a reading of 160.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Croft is surprised. "It's way higher than I thought it would be," he says.
As the coaches call a water break, which they do every 15 minutes or so, a group of 8- and 9-year-olds stands dripping in sweat.
"It's hot," says 8-year-old Michael-Luca Natt. "Very hot." Nearby, two more day-campers, Max Rana and Billy Hurwitz, say it can be hard to keep playing when it's so hot on the field.
Heat-Trapping Recycled Tires
Part of what's trapping the heat are bits of ground-up recycled tires used by the manufacturers to cushion the turf. When Croft bounces a ball on the field, bits of the black rubber bounce back up with it.
"It's getting all over my leg," Croft points out as the ball bounces. The kids attending the camps show me how the crumb rubber gets in their hair and in their shoes.
The Synthetic Turf Council is an industry group that represents manufacturers of the products. The group says using recycled tire rubber is a cost-effective way of making the surfaces more resilient. The group is aware of reports of 160-degree temperatures on the fields.
"I don't think anyone in our industry would suggest it's a good idea to play on a surface that's that hot," says Rick Doyle, president of the council.
Doyle says he knows of no documented cases of people being injured. It's more of a management issue, he says.
"Just as coaches have to reschedule games due to rain when they play on grass fields," he says, so too they need to reschedule or consider an alternative surface to play on when it's hot and sunny.
Concerns Over Chemicals
A number of cities and municipalities, including New York City, have many days of very warm and sunny weather.
Coach Mike Handell has permits to run baseball camps in Riverside Park. He says there are only so many green spaces in New York, and increasingly they're being converted to synthetic turf.
Handell says he likes the fact that the fields don't get dry and dusty. But he knows they're hotter, and he's heard concerns about the chemicals found in the recycled tires.
"If they're unsafe. I want to know. I'm mean I'm personally interested because I have permits for these fields," he says, and kids are playing on them.
Heat Is Primary Concern
The New York City Health Department hired consultants to assess potential health risks associated with crumb-rubber turf fields. The report concludes that the risk of harm from exposure to hazardous chemicals such as lead in the rubber appears to be very low unless the chemicals are basically eaten.
According to the report, another possibility is that players may inhale chemicals that vaporize to form a gas. Health assessments suggest that the exposure levels are likely below a level of concern to human health. But these assessments use conservative estimates of exposure. The report says additional studies measuring chemical exposures of players on turf fields should be conducted "to give more representative data on exposures related to urban field use."
Since crumb-rubber turf absorbs and retains heat, the NYC Health Department report says heat is the primary health concern associated with playing on the fields. It says people can suffer dehydration, heatstroke and thermal burns at field temperatures above 115 degrees.
Based on these concerns, the New York City Parks Department has now decided to move away from using recycled-tire rubber in new turf fields. Commissioner Liam Kavanaugh says decisions have already been made regarding a couple of installations.
"We have two fields in construction where we've actually canceled the black crumb rubber and are actively looking for an alternative," Kavanaugh says.
The state of Connecticut has committed $200,000 to conducting exposure studies, with testing scheduled to begin this fall.
The industry has offered up a couple of options, including a sand-based fill. The Synthetic Turf Council says one company, Mondo, advertises that its Ecofill is "up to 50 percent cooler." And another company that markets a product called "Cool Grass" synthetic yarn says it can reduce surface temperatures on synthetic turf by up to 35 percent.
"Technology is evolving all of the time," says the council's Doyle. Yet many of these new products can be quite a bit more expensive.
Kavanaugh says he's hopeful one will work since, overall, the city likes the low-maintenance artificial turf.
But Columbia University researcher Gaffin says he's skeptical. He says even without any black rubber added, the plastic blades of grass in synthetic turf trap a lot of heat.
"They're spongy and lightweight — and that means the solar energy that's absorbed quickly gets converted to high temperatures," he says.
Without the natural system of evaporation that living grasses have, everything's working in one direction to turn sunlit turf fields into heat islands, he says.

Mothers Against Toxins - Ross Valley Group for GREEN Playgrounds

2008-10-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

Help Us Keep Ross Valley Playgrounds GREEN
Mothers Against Toxins

Please join us in the fight against placing synthetic turf on Ross Valley playgrounds. As Ross Valley students, your children will play on the new Redhill School field. Demand that that field be toxin free. Demand natural GREEN playgrounds for your children! Help stop big business from putting toxins where your Ross Valley children play soccer, lacrosse, and other field games. Write to save this field and the health of the children of Ross Valley. Contact:
Ross Valley School District
Tamalpais Union High School District
Town of San Anselmo
Marin County School District
Keep Redhill School site free from a synthetic grass field that uses 23 tons of toxic recycled rubber tire particulate. This substance contains many EPA confirmed toxins and is a breeding ground for antibiotic resistant staph (MRSA). Abrasion injuries are very common on synthetic turf, making MRSA infection a likely occurance. This artificial turf is known to reach scorching temperatures on sunny days. This field is not good for your children or the community of Ross Valley.
Keep Ross Valley Schools GREEN!

Write your school districts and the Town of San Anselmo . Ask them to create a green playground. Demand a response. This is for the health of your children and your community! Speak out now. Get active before it's too late!

Marin County School District
- Mary Jane Burke
marincoe@marin.k12.ca.us

Tamalpais Union high School District
NEW Superintendent TAM
Dr. Laurie Kimbrel lkimbrel@d127.org
Board of Trustees
johnw@wellsfargo.com
lparrish@tamdistrict.org
sbutler@tamdistrict.org

Town of San Anselmo
twfreeman@ix.netcom.com
fordgreene@comcast.net

Ross Valley School District
Bryce Sumnick
superintendent@rossvalleyschools.org
cc:cstoeckley@rossvalleyschools.org

Board of Trustees
sagarsharon@yahoo.com
donaldwilson@wachoviafinet.com
ginafeiner@comcast.net

Please contact us for updates:
Mothers Against Toxins:
matmothers@yahoo.com

SB NOo. 1277 -- Maldonado - Act Relating to Synthetic Turf

2008-10-04T08:52:00.000-07:00

COMPLETE BILL HISTORY

BILL NUMBER : S.B. No. 1277
AUTHOR
: Maldonado
TOPIC
: Synthetic turf.

TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-UrgencyNon-Appropriations
Majority Vote RequiredNon-State-Mandated Local ProgramFiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2008
Sept. 27 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 398, Statutes of 2008.
Sept. 27 Approved by Governor.

Feb. 19
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To
print.

BILL NUMBER: SB 1277
ENROLLED
BILL TEXT

PASSED THE SENATE MAY 12, 2008
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 14, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 8, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 24, 2008

INTRODUCED BY Senator Maldonado

FEBRUARY 19, 2008

An act relating to synthetic turf.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1277, Maldonado. Synthetic turf.

Existing law requires all new playgrounds open to the public builtby a public agency or any other entity to conform to theplayground-related standards set forth by the American Society forTesting and Materials and the playground-related guidelines set forthby the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

This bill would require, on or before September 1, 2010, theIntegrated Waste Management Board, in consultation with the Office ofEnvironmental Health Hazard Assessment and the State Department ofPublic Health, to prepare and provide to the Legislature and post onthe board's Internet Web site a study on the effects of syntheticturf and natural turf on the environment and public health.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. (a) By September 1, 2010, the Integrated WasteManagement Board, in consultation with the Office of EnvironmentalHealth Hazard Assessment and the State Department of Public Health,
shall prepare and provide to the Legislature and post on the board'sInternet Web site a study that compares the effects of synthetic turfand natural turf on the environment and the public health.

(b) For purposes of this section, synthetic turf means anycomposition material used to cover or surface a field as analternative to grass.

introduction to the issue of the use of artificial turf.

2008-09-16T06:38:00.000-07:00

it has come to my attention that some people don't know what field turf is..so i will describe it. it is a product that is made of ground up tires that are processed to resemble grass. it is used to create 'maintenance free' playing fields for parks and schools. the selling point is that it requires little or no maintenance- not entirely true unless you remove all the deciduous trees near the field- and very little/no water. the water issue is a tricky one. it is true that the fields will stay green forever, but they shed water, they don't hold onto water like a natural field will. so nearby streams and streets receive tons more runoff than they have ever received and they tend to flood. like san anselmo in 2005/6 which flooded after a series of heavy storms and the installation of artificial turf at drake high school. needless to say, the effects on streams and wildlife are incalculable. and the cost of the field turf is staggering. if we put that much money into academics and teachers' salaries, we would have some the best funded public schools in the country. instead, we have field turf. recently a public interest group filed suit against the makers of field turf claiming that the runoff contains high levels of lead and violates the clean drinking water act. prop 69. and the beat goes on.....on.....

more grass more roots

2008-09-15T06:01:00.000-07:00

i started to write this yesterday and lost it all when the program quit. i am trying toenvision what life will be like here in the ross valley when all the open spaces arereduced to field turf. it is already very challenging to find a field to fly a kite with a kid on a spring weekend. every wide flat open green space is used by various school teams. we had to drive to home depot in san rafael last year to teach my grandson how to ride a bike.no bikes on field turf. i wonder how it feels to do tai-chi on field turf? how about picnics onfield turf? cartwheels? where will the kids dig holes?how does it feel to pay parcel taxesfor the installation of field turf that a citizen of ross valley who is not a coach or a memberof a team cannot use? i pay over $600.00 per year for various school district 'improvement'bonds that create spaces that i, and my family are banned from using. how do you feel about this?don't even get me started on the effects on wildlife. p

grass roots

2008-09-14T17:28:00.000-07:00

this blog has been set up to monitor and discuss the effects of artificialturf and other environmental blights.