www.SynTurf.org

 

 

[No. 148] Diana M. Zuckerman, Ph.D., President, National Center for Health Research, warns the Mayor and City Council of Washington, DC about the danger of an alternative infill and lack of adequate G-max measurements. On 28 August 2017, Diana M. Zuckerman sent a letter to Washington DC mayor and city council outlining her concerns about the safety of synthetic turf that the DC government has used. at artificial turf playing surfaces in the DC area schools. The text of the letter is available at http://www.center4research.org/letter-nchr-dangerous-playgrounds-athletic-fields-mayor-city-council-washington-dc/ or click here.

In her letter, Zuckerman noted that “[w]hether natural grass or synthetic materials, all types of turf have risks and benefits. However, some materials are well known to have substantial risks. For example, DCPS [District of Columbia Public Schools] is installing synthetic turf with Envirofill at Janney Elementary and possibly other schools, even though the Department of Parks and Recreation has already determined that product to be too unsafe to install at city parks. Envirofill was slated for installation at Friendship (Turtle) Park, but after local parents briefed DC officials about problems with the product on June 9th, the District revised its plans and did not install that material. Since children play on school fields five days a week, under the direction of their teachers, this is a particularly questionable decision on the part of DCPS, for safety reasons and in terms of legal liability. How does it make sense that a product is not safe enough for a public park but is safe enough for a school field or playground?”

“I don’t know if you are aware of the number of synthetic turf fields across the District that have been condemned because of failing safety tests, Zuckerman queried. “Gmax is a score that tests for hardness to determine if a surface is safe for playing. A Gmax over 200 is considered extremely dangerous and is considered by industry to pose a death risk. The synthetic turf industry and ASTM suggest that scores should be below 165 to ensure safety comparable to a grass field. It is my understanding that there are at least six fields in the city that are over the 200 level. That information should be made public to all parents, so that they understand why fields are closed and can protect their children’s safety. Since the Gmax score varies with the weather, synthetic fields should be tested at least quarterly, all scores should be posted publicly, and scores over 165 should have warning signs in order to prevent traumatic brain injuries.”

Specifically, “[a]s a result of that controversy, DC officials have recently stated that Envirofill will be used at Janney. Envirofill is basically a type of infill underneath a plastic carpet. It is composed of materials resembling plastic polymer pellets (similar in appearance to tic tacs) with silica inside. Silica is classified as a hazardous material according to OSHA regulations, and the American Academy of Pediatrics specifically recommends avoiding it on playgrounds. The manufacturers and vendors of these products claim that the silica is contained inside the plastic coating. However, sunlight and the grinding force from playing on the field breaks down the plastic coating. For that reason, even the product warranty admits that only 70% of the silica will remain encapsulated. The other 30% can be very harmful as children are exposed to it in the air; here’s a screen grab from a November 2016 Patriots vs. Seahawks game, which shows how the silica sand infill is kicked up when players dive on a synthetic surface with silica sand infill. In addition, the Envirofill pellets are coated with an antibacterial called Microban, which is a trade name for triclosan. Triclosan is registered as a pesticide with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and last year the FDA banned triclosan from soaps because manufacturers did not prove that that the ingredients are safe for long-term use, since it is associated with liver and inhalation toxicity and hormone disruption. In addition to microscopic particles of synthetic turf infill being inhaled by children, visible and invisible particles come off of the field, ending up in shoes, socks, pockets, and hair.”

“I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with several Councilmembers’ staff in the last few weeks,” Zuckerman wrote, “and I commend the Council for banning crumb rubber in FY 2018. Unfortunately, however, Envirofill, ‘poured in place’ rubber (PIP), EPDM, and all the other synthetic materials currently on the market all share some of the same health risks. While the companies that sell these products claim they are safe and meet federal safety standards, the sad truth is that there are currently no federal safety tests required to prove that these products are safe, and as noted earlier, the Gmax safety tests have until recently been ignored by DC officials. Most important, none are proven to be as safe as natural grass in well-constructed fields such as the Maryland Soccerplex. Although a well-respected grass expert offered a free consultation on how to install well-engineered grass designed to withstand rain and play. DGS [Department of General Service] did not respond to his offer.”

SynTurf.org Note: According to a news item on Fox 5 DC (WTTG TV) (18 September 2017) “[a] parents’ group known as Tireless DC [told] FOX 5 that 11 artificial turf fields in the District have failed their most recent round of testing, leading to closures and replacements, and igniting another debate over the safety of synthetic turf. D.C.’s Department of General Services (DGS) maintains and tests the 50 synthetic turf fields in the city. DGS did not make a list of the 11 failing fields available to FOX 5, but a task order from DGS shared with us shows the city is spending nearly $1 million to replace four turf fields at Janney, Eaton, Ross and Tubman elementary schools.” Source: Evan Lambert, “Nearly a dozen artificial turf fields in DC failed last round of safety tests,” on Fox 5, 18 September 2018, at http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/nearly-a-dozen-artificial-turf-fields-in-dc-failed-last-round-of-safety-tests .

[No. 147] University of Stirling (Scotland) study calls for “proper” cumulative health impact assessments to be carried out, looking at the risk of hazardous chemicals, including rubber crumb. According to an article on Medical Xpress (21 September 2017), a study from Stirling University has concluded that “checks on users of crumb rubber pitches is insufficient.” Source: Medical Xpress, “Health checks on users of crumb rubber pitches is insufficient, study finds,” 21 September 2017, at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-09-health-users-crumb-rubber-pitches.html

The author of the study is Professor Andrew Watterson, of Stirling the University’s Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport. The study, titled “Artificial Turf: Contested Terrains for Precautionary Public Health with Particular Reference to Europe?,” was published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (12 September 2017). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14091050. Here is the Abstract of the study - http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1050 (click here for the full report of the study):

Abstract - Millions of adults, children and teenagers use artificial sports pitches and playgrounds globally. Pitches are artificial grass and bases may be made up of crumb rubber from recycled tires or new rubber and sand. Player injury on pitches was a major concern. Now, debates about health focus on possible exposure and uptake of chemicals within pitch and base materials. Research has looked at potential risks to users from hazardous substances such as metals, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including benzo (a) (e) pyrenes and phthalates: some are carcinogens and others may be endocrine disruptors and have developmental reproductive effects. Small environmental monitoring and modelling studies, often with significant data gaps about exposure, range of substances monitored, occupational exposures, types of surfaces monitored and study length across seasons, indicated little risk to sports people and children but some risk to installation workers. A few, again often small, studies indicated potentially harmful human effects relating to skin, respiration and cancers. Only one widely cited biomonitoring study has been done and no rigorous cancer epidemiological studies exist. Unravelling exposures and uptake over decades may prove complex. European regulators have strengthened controls over crumb rubber chemicals, set different standards for toys and crumb rubber pitches. Bigger US studies now underway attempting to fill some of the data gaps will report between 2017 and 2019. Public health professionals in the meantime may draw on established principles to support greater caution in setting crumb rubber exposure limits and controls.

 According to the article on Medical Xpress, “[s]ports stars and amateur players who play on crumb rubber pitches could be at risk from a ‘remarkable’ lack of occupational health checks, according to a new paper from the University of Stirling. The health of some people who work with surfaces made from recycled tyres – such as manufacturers, suppliers, installers and maintainers – may also be jeopardised due to inadequate monitoring, the research suggests. Professor Andrew Watterson … said it appears that risks are being ‘downplayed’ despite well-documented links between rubber production and illness, bans on landfill disposal of used tyres and concerns about the health of sports people and others who use such surfaces. He said: ‘The study has identified a need for more, better and clearer information about hazards and risks linked to some crumb rubber pitches.’ Used by millions of people worldwide, indoor and outdoor pitches made from artificial grass may be filled with crumb rubber, which can contain hazardous chemicals at very low levels. Due to data gaps and limitations of earlier studies, the risks posed by such chemicals are constantly being re-assessed and lower control limits applied. The UK regulatory bodies responsible for health and safety are local authorities for private leisure facilities and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for council-run sports facilities. The regulators did not conduct any checks on the exposure of professional and amateur sports people to dust and fumes when using 3G and 4G pitches. Nor had they apparently received any reports of such investigations. The HSE, which also covers crumb rubber factories, conducted just two checks on occupational health issues of factories – involving noise and dust – in just five visits involving artificial crumb rubber surfaces over a 10-year period. However, many more safety visits occurred in that period. Since 2007, it has carried out no inspections, monitoring or enforcement action on chemicals – covered by EU regulations - present in crumb rubber and artificial turf…  Professor Watterson … said the lack of health monitoring of sportspeople and crumb rubber production and maintenance workers was "remarkable", given well-publicised concerns. He said: ‘The HSE and local authority inspectors clearly have an important role to play here. We hope that our research results in more frequent, independent scrutiny of the industry by HSE and of private leisure facilities by local authorities and encourages the industry and regulators to increase and improve the information available to users along with more extensive health surveillance and monitoring.’ Professor Watterson analysed crumb rubber data sheets, examined HSE information relating to safety and health inspections of crumb rubber plants, gathered information on workers and examined health impact assessments. The study discovered toxicity information included in safety sheets varies significantly depending on the date of installation and the manufacturer, with physical and chemical hazard properties sometimes sparse and, in some cases, not present at all. The analysis also highlighted that, during the lifespan of a surface, crumb rubber is often topped up by different suppliers, with the source of the crumb rubber sometimes missing from data sheets. Anecdotal evidence from those working in the industry indicates serious concerns about the occupational health of workers, and information sheets distributed to sports staff ‘almost exclusively’ seem to focus on maintenance and do not address health and safety issues, it found. Professor Watterson is now calling for ‘proper’ cumulative health impact assessments to be carried out, looking at the risk of hazardous chemicals, including rubber crumb. He said: ‘There have already been calls for tougher controls on some of the chemicals that may be present in crumb rubber and a cautious approach is wise.’” Source: Medical Xpress, “Health checks on users of crumb rubber pitches is insufficient, study finds,” 21 September 2017, at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-09-health-users-crumb-rubber-pitches.html 

 

[No. 146] Amy’s List Update (September 2017).  Amy’s list of athletes with cancer who have played on artificial turf fields has grown to 248 athletes. As a note from www.ehhi.org indicates no one actually knows how many of the cancer cases ever get reported to Amy, however, one cannot discount the number of affected goalies (the most exposed on the soccer team) and the number of blood cancers. The list accessible here.  For earlier posts of Amy’s List, see below at http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Items No. 134, 130, 125, 123, 119, and 109).

[No. 145] More about playing on artificial turf and cancer – this time among baseball players. Based on an article by Jeré Longman, titled “The Brain Cancer That Keeps Killing Baseball Players,” in The New York Times, 14 August 2017, at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/sports/baseball/brain-cancer-phillies-daulton.html  , an article in Rolling Stone reports that “Philadelphia Phillies’ all-star catcher Darren Daulton died of brain cancer at age 55 in early August. Glioblastoma, the aggressive and common form of malignant brain tumor that Daulton had is now giving his team and disease researchers alike pause, the New York Times reports. Daulton was at least the third Philadelphia Phillies baseball player of his era to die of glioblastoma in his mid-50s after 2003. The team lost reliever Tug McGraw at 59, infielder John Vukovich at 59, catcher Johnny Oates at 58 and pitcher Ken Brett at 55, reportedly, to glioblastoma. All of those players, like Daulton, played on the team's old Veterans Field which had artificial turf and was torn down in 2004. As of now, there is no known cause of the disease among the baseball players, but some are speculating whether the stadium's turf was a factor. The same pattern appeared in other former pro baseball players of Daulton's era including Hall of Fame catcher Gary Carter at 57, outfielder Bobby Murcer at 62, reliever Dan Quisenberry at 45 and manager Dick Howser at 51. They played on the same artificial turf in other Major League stadiums around the country. … In 2013, when Daulton was originally diagnosed, The Philadelphia Inquirer analyzed 533 Phillies players who played within 33 seasons at Veterans Field. It was found that the incidence of brain cancer among Daulton, McGraw, Vukovich and Oates was three times higher than the rate of the general male population. …”  Source: Sam Blum, “Phillies Unnerved by Possible Brain Cancer Pattern After Darren Daulton Death -- At least three former Philadelphia Phillies players who competed on same artificial turf died in similar circumstances,” in Rolling Stone, 15 July 2017, at http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/news/phillies-possible-brain-cancer-pattern-after-daulton-death-w497788  .

The New York Times article quotes Dr. Cory M. Franklin, a Chicago internist who has written about the cancer cases in baseball,” as saying that “Major League Baseball and the players’ union should enlist epidemiologists and statisticians to examine whether the malignancies were workplace related. He also said that they should create an extensive registry of players and their causes of death. ‘I think they should be a little more sensitive to this problem,’ Dr. Franklin said. ‘There may be more problems like it.’”

[No. 144] More about the relationship between playing on artificial turf and concussion. 1 August 2017. Since 2008 this site has been talking about the direct connection between playing on artificial turf fields and increased likelihood of concussion. See http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 14). At the time we posited that the surface of an artificial turf field contributes to increased incidents of concussion because the surface allows for faster movement of the ball and also allows athletes to accelerate faster due to the surface’s highly regarded traction qualities –the implication being that faster speeds result in harder collisions and therefore an increase in the likelihood of traumatic micro- or macro-injury to the brain compared to when collisions occur on a natural grass field. In October 2015 we reported on “Concussion and Artificial Turf” based on a report by Jonathan Crowl (on Yahoo! Sports) at http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201410/synthetic-turf-giving-athletes-cancer-soccer-crumb-rubber-goalie-fields in which the author, while looking into the relationship between crumb rubber and cancer, noted tangentially the relationship between greater acceleration brought about by the traction qualities of artificial turf fields resulting in more forceful collision/impact between players, increasing the risk of concussion. See http://www.synturf.org/health.html  (Item No. 95). “Even worse,” Crowl wrote, “a recent report from The American Academy of Neurology suggests that concussions are more prevalent on synthetic turfs, in part because improved traction lets athletes accelerate and collide at higher speeds.” Ibid. Regardless, when it comes to talk about playing on artificial turf and concussion the discussion revolves around data-driven correlation between playing on artificial turf field and likelihood of concussion caused by impact with the surface. We reported on this in an omnibus piece in January 2016 titled “Synthetic Turf and Concussion – a Year’s End Review.” See http://www.synturf.org/health.html  (Item No. 118). Evidence continues to mount on this subject. To quote  Dr. Stuart Shalat, Director of the Division of Environmental Health at Georgia State University School of Public Health, “[b]ecause it is laid over either concrete or compacted earth, artificial turf is a harder surface than grass. This can increase the risk of injuries, particularly concussions.” See http://www.synturf.org/health.html  (Item No. 138).

The measurement unit used to describe the hardness of an artificial turf surface is called G-Max. To assess the hardness of a turf field, technicians perform what is called a GMAX test. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) has recommended fields be kept below a rating of 165. http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 114).

As explained by Bobby Cox, Commissioner of Indiana High School Athletic Association, The G-Max (how hard that surface is when you fall on it) is actually pretty simple.  A human head weighs about 12 pounds. So to calculate G-Max, a portable computerized device drops a 12-pound weight to determine the amount of force between the weight and the field at impact. The harder the surface, the higher the G-Max score and the higher the risk of a concussion. “We definitely want the G-Max level below 200… At 200, there is a danger that there would be a skull fracture.” He said. See  http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html (Item No. 111).

As we reported in 2011, most fields, after installation, have a G-max level between 100 and 140. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, anything reading above 200 is considered unacceptable. According to Dr. Timothy Gay, physics professor at the University of Nebraska and author of the book Football Physics: The Science of the Game, “What's absolutely true is the higher the G-max, the bigger the force the player will sustain. Hence, the bigger chance of concussive injury.” See http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 61). The only way to judge the G-max rating and thus the field’s safety is by conducting a G-Max impact test and to do so upon installation and then annually.

Our round-up of stories from across the country shows that this G-Max test is not a part of any routine maintenance of artificial turf programs. See, e.g., http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 56) (Texas);  http://www.synturf.org/health.html  (Item No. 114) (Ohio); http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html (Items No. 105 and 111) (Indiana).

According to a smash-mouth news report in Idaho Statesman (15 July 2017), the inconsistent application of safety standard artificial turf fields in Treasure Valley in southwesterm Idaho raises the question “How safe are high school athletes on these fields? Public records show Eagle High’s field reached ‘life-threatening’ levels last fall, Dona Larsen Park’s filed failed to meet its contractual safety level [155 instead of 125] at installation and Middleton High hasn’t tested its field since installing it six years ago.” Michael Lycklama, “‘Life-threatening’ turf at an Idaho high school? Lax testing raises safety concerns,” in Idaho Statesman, 15 July 2017, at http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/high-school/prep-football/article161630113.html - for pdf of the report go here.

The report provides a very useful summary of the “standards” applicable to G-Max testing. According to the report: Testers use what's called a G-max test to measure impact on the field. The higher the G-max score, the less impact the field is absorbing. Any G-max scores above 200 "are considered values at which life-threatening head injuries may be expected to occur," according to ASTM. The specifications also state if a single test point exceeds 200, no one should use the field until repairs can lower the score. But some organizations recommend lower scores. The Synthetic Turf Council, an industry trade group, recommends 165 as its G-max limit. And manufacturer warranties for turf fields typically spell out their maximums at well below 200. By comparison, a well-maintained natural grass field typically ranges from 80 to 140 on the G-max scale, depending on soil moisture and weather conditions, according to a brochure from the Sports Turf Managers Association.” However, the report points out, “some experts say adhering to the highest allowable standard misses the point and puts players at risk. ‘I f you run at 10 mph as hard as you can, and you run into a brick wall and hit your head, you could expect to die," said Buzz Splittgerber, who specializes in testing artificial turf. ‘What if I run into that same wall at 9 mph? What do I expect to happen — good things?’”

Robert Ehrlich is a Washington Examiner columnist and former governor of Maryland (2003 – 2007). In an opinion piece published in the Washington Examiner (Washington DC), on 31 July 2017, titled “Don’t punt on football’s concussion issues, but don’t quit the game either,” at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dont-punt-on-footballs-concussion-issues-but-dont-quit-the-game-either/article/2630162 . According to him, a “long history with the sport includes experience as a youth, high school, and college player, graduate assistant college coach, and father of two boys who have played the game since age 7 (the oldest is a freshman college player). This resume by no means qualifies me as a professional coach, but it does provide standing to convey my opinions about the cross-currents attendant to the current debate.

In his piece, Ehrlich references The highly-publicized study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found 88 percent of 202 brains taken from deceased former football players (at all levels) revealed some degree of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (“CTE”). He also mentions an analysis of multi-decade survey data of men who played Wisconsin high school football in 1957, published in the estimable JAMA Neurology and credits its anonymity/obscurity to “its counterintuitive conclusions than anything else: Researchers found that former football players did not have higher incidences of cognitive impairment at age 65 as opposed to non-football players; former players were in fact slightly less likely to suffer from depression.” Ehrlich writes, “Both studies are newsworthy given the tenor of our nascent national conversation about football's future, an issue that has resonated with some (especially on the Left) who want to outlaw what in their eyes is a game grown too violent.” “All involved,” he goes on to say, “must recognize that a collision sport can be dangerous and accordingly is not for every boy, and made more so by the ‘bigger, stronger, faster’ nature of today’s training regimes. The bottom line: Kids susceptible to concussions or those who have suffered numerous concussions should not play.”

“Further,” he adds, “we should all support additional research into the science of brain trauma and further safety measures. (In this respect, I for one would be happy to revisit the issue of artificial turf, an invention borne of convenience, but that has made a fast game faster and more dangerous. Note the Baltimore Ravens made the switch back to grass last year after its players had had enough of the fake stuff.)”. Emphasis added.

SynTurf.org rests its case. 

[No. 143] Children’s Environmental Health Center (Mount Sinai) advisory on Artificial Turf and Children’s Health (Summer 2017). The Children’s Environmental Health Center at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (New York City) has published an advisory warning folks of the harmful effects of artificial turf particularly during the hot summer days. According to the advisory, CEHC scientists are actively studying the potential harmful effects of artificial turf and on the basis if their finding the advisory warns that artificial turf poses a health risk to children through chemical exposure. There are three pathways by which chemicals known to be carcinogenic such as heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are detected in infill from recycled crumb tire rubber expose children to harm: (1) inhalation of off gassed chemicals and particulates; (2) dermal contact and absorption through the skin or open wounds; and (3) ingestion of turf infill particles. The advisory also highlights the non-chemical exposures of concern, such as heat from surface temperatures that can get up to 55° F higher than grass, and turf burn or abrasions which occur more frequently on artificial turf than on grass. The advisory offers a set of tips for play on artificial surfaces. For the text of the advisory click on the thumbnail (left). For CECH’s full Consumer Guide to Artificial Turf (May 2017) go to http://icahn.mssm.edu/files/ISMMS/Assets/Departments/Environmental%20Medicine%20and%20Public%20Health/CEHC%20Consumer%20Guide%20to%20Artificial%20Turf%20May%202017.pdf or click here. For an earlier post about Mount Sinai’s views on artificial turf, see http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Items No. 89 and 137).

[No. 142] LA Galaxy soccer club blames artificial turf at Minnesota United for injuries. According to a news story on ESPNFC.com (23 May 2017), “[t]he LA Galaxy blamed the artificial turf at Minnesota United after multiple players were injured during their game at TFC Bank Stadium on Sunday [May 21]. Midfielder Baggio Husidic suffered the worst, breaking his leg while tr[y]ing to slide in the first half. He had to be stretchered off the pitch…. Joao Pedro also tweaked his hamstring in the game, while Jelle Van Damme reported pain in his knee and afterwards blasted the FieldTurf Revolution surface. ‘Honestly, with all respect, this is the worst field I ever played on in this league,’ Van Damme said. ‘It can only cause you injuries. I think soccer needs to be played on grass.’ Minnesota United is playing at the University of Minnesota's football stadium in its first season in MLS while const[r]ucting a soccer-specific stadium that is increasingly unlikely to open before 2019. ‘I don't think the turf helped... and I think that stuff needs to be looked at closer,’ Galaxy coach Curt Onalfo said. ‘The surface doesn't make for a great soccer game and we picked up a pretty nasty injury so we are pretty upset about it.’ ” Source: ESPN staff, “LA Galaxy fault Minnesota United's 'worst field' for injuries on artificial turf,” on ESPNFC.com, 23 May 2017, at http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/3132653/la-galaxy-fault-minnesota-uniteds-worse-field-for-injuries-on-artificial-turf

[No. 141]  Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales – Welsh Premier Division’s Merthyr Rugby Football Club players suffer nasty burns and grazes after playing on 3G (“Third Generation”) surface. According to a news story on WalesOnline (29 March 2017),  “[a] A number of Merthyr RFC players suffered nasty burns and grazes after playing on Pontypridd’s 3G surface. RGC’s Welsh Cup semi-final against Merthyr at Pontypridd has caused a huge stir not just in Welsh rugby, but in the world of artificial pitches. 

Gradually, 3G pitches have become commonplace in grassroots rugby over the past decade or two, but the debacle at Sardis Road last weekend — when seven players came away with near third degree burns — has thrown up a debate about their use…. Many have raised issues complaining that artificial pitches cause injury…. To be passed fit to host a rugby match, an artificial pitch must have an up-to-date certificate that demonstrates compliance with World Rugby rules. World Rugby Regulation 22 is the law that says every pitch must pass tests to ensure there are no problems with energy-sapping, head impact, skin friction or joints damage. RFU guidelines on artificial pitches say: “There is no way to tell if an AGP (artificial grass pitch) is suitable for contact rugby union simply by looking at it.” Source: Dominic Booth, “The big questions about artificial pitches answered as Sardis Road player burns investigation continues,” on WalesOnline, 29 March 2017, at  http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/big-questions-artificial-pitches-answered-12812829

In a related story, WalesOnline reported earlier on 28 March 2017 that A number of Merthyr RFC players are expected to be sidelined for [the March 29-30] weekend’s match after picking up severe burns.” This has led to “Sardis Road’s artificial surface [being] under the microscope…. Martyn Thomas was the first to share a picture of the bloody grazes and it later emerged that around seven Merthyr players picked up abrasions….  As a result, the players have required antibiotics and some are expected to miss ... Welsh Premiership clash at the Wern which is, ironically, against Pontypridd.” Source: Matthew Southcombe, “Investigation into Sardis Road artificial surface launched after several players suffer gruesome burns,” on WalesOnline, 28 March 2017, at http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/investigation-sardis-road-artificial-surface-12811124

[No. 140] Comparing health risks of playing on artificial turf versus on natural grass. According to an article in The Daily Utah Chronicle (20 April 2017), “[s]cientific advancement is a wonderful thing. We’ve come so far within just the past decade or so, making advancements and innovations that were once thought impossible. Within the realm of sports, scientific achievement is at the forefront. Since these advances, especially in medical science, we are learning more about how to treat injuries — from torn ligaments and concussions to broken bones. One place where the science is questioned heartily is the debate between natural and artificial grass, or better known as turf in the sports realm.” “According to a pair of studies that were published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, there are about 4.83 injuries per 1,000 match hours played on artificial turf, and just 2.66 injuries per 1,000 match hours played on grass. So, all things being equal, you are just about twice as likely to get injured playing on turf. When it comes to injuries, while the risk is small, you are still more likely to get hurt playing on turf. That’s because turf is generally stiffer than grass, so there isn’t much give. We also need to take into account that there is generally more friction between shoes and turf than grass, which impacts the body’s muscles and tendons. While injuries typically aren’t serious (except in rare cases), there does seem to be a higher incidence of ankle and lower extremity injuries when playing on turf as compared to grass. Perhaps that is a contributing factor for all the injuries we tend to see in professional sports. But the risk is so small that it makes almost no difference. It simply comes down to what you enjoy playing on. For me, nothing beats the feel and smell of real grass. There’s just something about it that makes the experience more enjoyable.” Source: Jared Walch, “In the Turf War, the Grass is Always Greener, in The Daily Utah Chronicle, 20 April 2017, at http://dailyutahchronicle.com/2017/04/20/turf-war-grass-always-greener/

[No. 139] New Zealand Rugby Sevens players dread returning to the artificial turf surface for the 2018 game in Las Vegas. According to a news report in New Zealand Herald (10 March 2017), “[b]oth New Zealand sevens teams have real concerns about returning to Las Vegas in 2018 after the artificial turf left them with burns, abrasions and infections last weekend [4-5 March 2017].”

“Rugby sevens” is a variety of rugby played by seven players playing seven-minute halves, instead of the usual 15 players playing 40-minute halves. The major international tournament for this sport is the World Rugby Sevens Series, known officially as the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series due to sponsorship from banking group HSBC, and is played under the auspices of World Rugby, the body responsible for Rugby Union worldwide. This series is an annual tournament featuring national sevens teams. In the 2015–16 season, the circuit consisted of 10 tournaments held in 10 countries – Dubai (United Arab Emirates),  Cape Town (South Africa), Wellington (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia), Las Vegas (United States), Vancouver (Canada), Hong Kong (China), Singapore, Paris (France) and London (United Kingdom).

According to the news report, “[t]he All Black Sevens and Black Ferns Sevens had several walking wounded and resorted to various forms of strapping, plaster, tape and vaseline to try and mitigate the coarse surface at Sam Boyd Stadium. All Black Sevens manager Ross Everiss says there were concerns for the newly laid turf after the 2016 Las Vegas event, but little, if any, improvements appeared to have been made.”

The Sam Boyd Stadium surface was natural grass until 2002, when it was changed to Duraplay, which remained the surface through 2015, when it was changed to another synthetic turf (Sprinturf).

According to the news story, the players New Zealand sevens “were wearing plasters on their legs and arms to try and prevent direct contact and Vaseline on the elbows and knees, but there were more bruises and abrasions from the friction of sliding on the turf. Three of the team were on antibiotics for infections leading into the Vancouver tournament, which affected their ability to train with as much contact early in the week…. While not professing to be an expert on turf management, Everiss felt that the Las Vegas surface had not been brushed properly, with the artificial grass quite flat. He said they would need strong reassurances if the team was to return there in 2018. Coach of the Black Ferns Sevens, who won their tournament in fine style, Allan Bunting was even more direct in his criticism of the turf, saying they should be on grass. ‘It’s plain and simple. Artificial turf is made so groundsmen have an easy job. It’s not for rugby and sevens is never going to be good on it. The (girls) all lost skin, so they had to bandage up,’ Bunting says. Michaela Blyde, who scored seven tries, had heavy strapping on her right leg, and that was not due to a dodgy knee. Many players from other teams wore far more strapping and tape than usual. World Rugby was not willing to pull the pin on Las Vegas at this stage. It is believed that a deal to hold the USA Sevens in the city expires after the 2018 event. A World Rugby spokesman issued this statement: ‘Every effort had been made to mitigate the risk of such abrasions taking place, but very dry and unusually windy conditions over the weekend meant that, despite regular watering, the surface dried out more than we would have liked. This is not ideal and we have set in place an action plan to ensure it cannot happen again. Once we receive full reports from everyone involved, including teams, the host organisers and the venue itself, our artificial turf expert will be sent to the stadium to work out exactly what remedial work needs to be carried out for future tournaments.’” Source: Campbell Burnes, “Rugby sevens teams have major concerns over Las Vegas turf,” in New Zealand Herald, 10 March 2017, at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11815668

 

[No. 138] Stuart Shalat: Artificial turf may truly be bad for kids; here is why. Professor Stuart Shalat is Director of the Division of Environmental Health at Georgia State University School of Public Health. With an Sc.D. in Epidemiology-Physiology from Harvard School of Public Health, and a Sc. M. in Physiology-Occupational Health again from Harvard School of Public Health, Shalat is an expert on pollution and its effect on children’s health. While at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, he taught in the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine. He has also taught at Texas A&M University, where he was instrumental in developing its School of Public Health, and at Yale University’s School of Public Health. He is a pioneer in the use of robotics to improve estimation of early childhood exposures. For the abstract of his paper on the development of the pre-toddler inhalable particulate environmental robotic (PIPER) sampler, which more effectively measures the exposure of particulate matter in young children ages 6 months to 3 years, go to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21351766 or here.

The following article – titled “Why artificial turf may truly be bad for kids,” was published in The Conversation accessed on Medical Express, 6 March 2017, at the https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-artificial-turf-bad-kids.html  (hyperlinks within the excerpt reproduced below have been suppressed – for the links please refer the original source):

If you want to get a soccer mom's attention, bring up the subject of artificial turf, the preferred playing surface for children from pre-K to college – or at least preferred by school boards and parks and recreation departments. From concerns about concussions to cancer, parents have become alarmed by reports in the media of increased injuries and illnesses. And there is the further question of who is responsible for assuring the safety of these fields: the Environmental Protection Agency? The Centers for Disease Control? The Consumer Product Safety Commission?

As an environmental health professor who has examined a variety of environmental problems and as a soccer dad who watched my son play on these fields for years, I think it's worth examining the facts and myths about artificial turf fields and what hazards may or may not be associated with playing on them. Based on studies I have reviewed and conducted, I believe there is a potential health risk, because of the chemicals in tires, which are recycled into crumbs to support the plastic blades of synthetic grass.

Just what is it, anyway? Artificial turf is made up of three major parts: Backing material that will serve to hold the individual blades of artificial grass. The plastic blades themselves. The infill, those tiny black crumbs, that helps support the blades. Various pigments are used to provide the green color of the blades. These can include lead or titanium for the white lines and still other metals for school logos on the field. Those little black crumbs are the problems. Tires can be toxic. Modern tires are a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber, carbon black – a material made from petroleum – and somewhere between four and 10 gallons of petroleum products. They also contain metals, including cadmium, lead, which is neurotoxic, and zinc. Some of the chemicals in tires, such as dibenzopyrenes, are known carcinogens.  Also, in addition to chemicals used in the manufacture of the tire, any chemical the tires were exposed to in their use can become absorbed on the carbon black in the tires.

More to the problem than crumbs. Even though artificial turf does not have to be mowed, why artificial turf may truly be bad for kids it turns out that crabgrass and other weeds can start growing in it. To keep its finely manicured appearance, weedkillers need to be applied, a relatively common practice. Unfortunately, a variety of health concerns have been linked to these products. Also, artificial turf is often treated with biocides, as turf has been associated with increased risk of infections from Multidrug Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). More commonly referred to as flesh-eating bacteria, MRSA can occur after skin is scraped or cut, which can occur from sliding on artificial turf. Biocides, however, may have toxic effects of their own. And, they may also contribute to increased resistance of bacteria to the efficacy of these agents.

The list of drawbacks goes on…and on… Fields with artificial turf tend to get far hotter than grass fields. Field surface temperatures can reach as high as 200 degrees Fahrenheit. At these temperatures, even with athletic shoes on, children can get burned feet. It is rare, even on a very hot day, that natural grass exceeds half that (100°F). While manufacturers recommend spraying fields with water to keep the temperature down, this improvement can vanish in as little as 20 minutes.

Because it is laid over either concrete or compacted earth, artificial turf is a harder surface than grass. This can increase the risk of injuries, particularly concussions.

The unit used to describe hardness is Gmax. While different numbers have been reported for the Gmax for artificial turf, ranging from the high 60's to over 125, it is important to keep in mind that these numbers are highly dependent on the substrate, temperature, age and maintenance of the field. The key is that the higher the number, the higher the likelihood of concussion.

Can the tire chemicals get into kids? The key question on exposure is: Do these chemicals get into children playing on these fields? While it is true that the tire crumbs are large, it is easy to show that they don't necessarily remain large over the life of the field. In a New Jersey study we employed a robot we call PIPER (Pretoddler Inhalable Particulate Environmental Robotic) to study if there were inhalable exposures from the artificial turf. We showed the tiny particles from the turf can become suspended in air above the field and inhaled by children playing on the field. What has become apparent is that microscopic carbon black particles break off from the crumb rubber and are small enough to be inhalable. Additionally, the blades of grass can also break down into microscopic particles over years of exposure to sunlight and weather, forming a respirable dust. How do these particles get into a child? Think of the "Peanuts" comic strip character Pig Pen, the child always followed around by a visible cloud. The truth is that all children – indeed, all people – have a cloud around them of microscopic particles. This personal micro-environment of dust particles, invisible to the naked eye, is just as real as Pig Pen’s. These small particles and their chemicals can be inhaled or swallowed by a child.

And if so, do they cause illness? A clear answer on whether artificial turf increases the risk of injury or illness is far more challenging.  Let's consider the two major concerns with regard to artificial turf: cancer and neurologic effects. The question of cancer and artificial turf gained significant national attention in the U.S. with a series of news stories on NBC Nightly News regarding a cluster of cancers in young women soccer players. A cancer cluster is the appearance of an unusually high rate of cancer in one location in a particular time frame. The story, while dismissed by the turf industry, again resurfaced in the fall of 2015.

Information has continued to accrue on this cancer cluster. While as many as 80 percent of suspected cancer clusters are determined not to be true increases in cancer cases and due only to random chance, the problem is that, without detailed and often expensive scientific investigation, whether it is real or not cannot be determined.

Just recently the Washington State Department of Health issued a report on its study of the reported cancer cluster in these soccer players. Their report found no evidence of a causal effect of playing on artificial turf and cancer. As they acknowledge, that does not mean there is no risk, only that this study did not find one. They also suggested there is still room for broader investigation on this question.

What about the potential risk of neurologic impairment from ingestion or inhalation of any lead present in the turf? The lead can be present in both the blades, as a color pigment for logos and white lines, as well as in the infill crumb rubber. For more information on lead, see my earlier article for The Conversation.

What's the bottom line on safety? While the turf industry says it's safe, we know that tires contain established carcinogens. If we considered only what tires are made of, we would think they should be classified as hazardous waste, though currently EPA classifies tires as municipal waste.

The EPA has been conducting research into the question of toxicity of crumb rubber, but the jury is still out.

There is little question in the mind of many scientists that crumb rubber should not be a first choice material for children to play on. Parents should be able to just enjoy watching their children playing sports and not worry that they are being put unnecessarily at risk.

SynTurf.org Note: In the preceding article Dr. Shahlat described an artificial turf as “made up of three major parts: Backing material that will serve to hold the individual blades of artificial grass. The plastic blades themselves. The infill, those tiny black crumbs, that helps support the blades.” Further he wrote, “[b]ecause it is laid over either concrete or compacted earth, artificial turf is a harder surface than grass. This can increase the risk of injuries, particularly concussions.” The picture on the left – of Skagerak Arena in Skien, Norway-  shows the carpet resting on tamped down gravel without any underlayment or cushioning material. Ouch! For Norwegian soccer players’ gripe about artificial turf, see For soccer players artificial turf is an issue of occupational safety and health (2014) at http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 94) and Norwegian Players Union Study (2005) at http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html (Item No. 4). The picture is sourced from https://www.google.com/search?q=skagerak+arena+skien+norway&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHo7zi3vnSAhVQ42MKHUrLAVwQsAQILg&biw=1024&bih=638&dpr=1#spf=1 (page 2) -- or see here.

[No. 137] Connecticut Department of Heath’s 2010 “study” does not prove safety of crumb rubber artificial turf fields nor of other rubberized playing surfaces. In July 2010, Connecticut Department of Health issued a study titled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Artificial Turf Fields Based Upon Results from Five Fields in Connecticut” by Gary Ginsberg and Brian Toal of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Program in Environmental and Occupational Health Assessment, Hartford, Connecticut. According to the nonprofit Environment & Human Health, Inc., North Haven, Connecticut (www.ehhi.org), this study which has been touted by synthetic turf (and also rubberized playground) industry as proving the synthetic turf fields are safe. In truth, this was a flawed study from the beginning and in no way shows that these fields are safe. The study, which can be accessed here, actually raises more questions than it answers.

In its analysis of the study, EHHI noted that the study was peer reviewed but not published and includes a short literature review, a toxicity profile on a rubber-related chemical, benzothiazole (BZT), and original research in the form of a human health risk assessment. The objective of this human health risk assessment (HHRA) was to estimate exposures and risks for children - twelve and older - playing on artificial turf fields with crumb rubber infill. To that end, in July 2009, Connecticut field researchers collected air samples from five artificial turf fields.  They sampled four outdoor fields and one indoor field.  In 2010, Connecticut researchers took this data and analyzed the personal air and stationary air samples to determine their acute or chronic, cancerous or non-cancerous health effects in school-aged children and adults. Results were analyzed for multiple volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and targeted rubber-related and miscellaneous semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs).

According to EHHI’s analysis of the study, the sample data was limited by the plan size, the number of sampling events and the technical difficulties in implementing the collection strategy.  Because air sample collections occurred during warm - not hot - weather, exposures due to extreme heat were not addressed.  Additionally, the researchers chose to exclude dermal and ingestion exposure routes from their assessment; only inhalation exposures were considered.  The human health risk assessment focused on air sample results for multiple VOCs and SVOCs.  Exposures to latex, lead or zinc were not part of this health assessment.

Nonetheless, the researchers identified twenty-seven chemicals of potential concern in the air samples they reviewed. Non-cancer risks were assessed for all of these chemicals.  Cancer risks were assessed for thirteen chemicals. Acute health risks were developed for fifteen chemicals. They calculated cancer and non-cancer risks for acute and chronic exposures to these chemicals in four possible scenarios - children playing on indoor fields, children playing on outdoor fields, adults playing on indoor fields, and adults playing on outdoor fields.

Clearly, as the researchers found, the sample showed the presence of Benzothiazole (BZT) to be field-related. They expressed uncertainty as to whether several PAHs and VOCS may be field-related. Yet, their conclusion was that cancer risks in all scenarios were slightly above de minimis (negligible) but were higher for children than for adults.  They determined there was little concern for chronic, non-cancer risk despite their uncertainty about significantly (two-fold) elevated exposure risks at the indoor field as compared to the outdoor fields, due to air-borne, off-gassed chemicals.  They advised adequate ventilation for indoor fields, that outdoor fields should be installed during cooler months, and that any dermal or respiratory allergic reactions experienced on the fields may be a result of the fields and should be reported to physicians and the local health department.

The study found that two VOCs, benzene and methylene chloride, were the greatest contributors to cancer risk in each scenario with additional small contributions by chloromethane, BZT and PAHs. Some doubt was cast upon the presence of benzene and methylene chloride as contributors because they were found only in the air samples collected in personal air monitors.  The researchers hypothesized the chemicals were a result of the equipment itself or were exuded by the people wearing the personal air monitors. As for BZT, a rubber-related chemical, it was the only targeted SVOC detected above background levels on both the indoor and outdoor fields.  The results for the indoor field were 11.7 times greater than the outdoor results.

EHHI’s analysis also noted the study’s limitations, which were as follows: (1) The study was narrowed to investigate only inhalation exposures to athletes who play on outdoor and indoor artificial turf fields.  Dermal and ingestion exposure routes were not considered.  Since BZT may be available for skin contact in the crumb rubber infill and rubber dust, the researchers suggested it could cause skin irritations to  players on the fields. (2) Air samples were collected in warm weather, not on hot summer days when VOCs may off-gas in greater amounts from the crumb rubber infill. (3) The study had a small sample size. Samples were only collected from four outdoor fields and one indoor field. (4) The study’s sampling plan was not fully implemented due to technical difficulties with equipment and environmental conditions.  In the case of one field, pesticide spraying took place adjacent to the field on the day samples were collected.  On other fields, field air samples were not collected at all heights as planned. (5)  Play on the indoor field was for less than twenty five minutes - a much shorter period of time than was called for in the plan.  Despite this fact, chemical levels in air samples from this field were the highest collected in the investigation.  There was no ventilation on the day samples were collected at this field.  No attempt was made to collect more samples when the field was ventilated and during a longer play time.  The flawed data was included in the assessment. (6) On all fields sampled there were only two people wearing personal air monitors and two other people on the field.  Sampling ranged from less than twenty-five minutes to two hours.  This simulation did not reflect real play conditions on a synthetic turf field - it is typical for twenty-two athletes to play for about two hours. (7) The exposure scenario was formulated to assess risk to children average age twelve to adult.  Children ages birth to three were not included in this assessment.  Therefore, exposure risks remain unknown for infants and toddlers who are present on the sidelines while their siblings practice and play on artificial turf fields. (8) The report recommended that all indoor synthetic turf fields be adequately ventilated.  They also recommended that dermal or respiratory allergic reactions suffered on the fields should be reported to physicians and local health departments.

With the aforegoing analysis in mind, it is not hard to agree with EHHI’s conclusion that “[d]espite all the limitations, exclusions, and flawed data, the researchers concluded that all cancer risks were negligible, even though the study noted that cancer risks were found to be slightly higher for children ages twelve and older.  The study identified twenty-seven chemicals of potential concern, including thirteen carcinogens - yet they declared the risks were negligible. The study found elevated levels of the chemical BZT which is a serious irritant, yet they declared the fields did not pose any health risk to children. How is this possible?”

The 2010 study as a testament to the safety of crumb rubber playing surfaces raised its ugly head again earlier this year in the context of House Bill 6998 in the Connecticut Legislature. The Bill, titled “An Act concerning the use of tire rubber at municipal and public school playgrounds” seeks to prohibit the installation of ground cover that contains shredded or ground rubber recycled from motor vehicle tires in municipal and public school playgrounds. The bill prohibits, starting October 1, 2017, the installation of crumb rubber ground cover on municipal and public school playgrounds unless a contract for such installation was entered into before July 1, 2017. Under the bill, “crumb rubber” is any material that contains shredded or ground rubber recycled from motor vehicle tires. By law, a ‘municipal playground’ is an outdoor area owned or controlled by any town, city, borough, consolidated town and city, or consolidated town and borough that is designated, dedicated, and customarily used by children for playing, including any such area that contains a swing set, slide, climbing structure, playset, or device or object upon which children play. Playgrounds on school premises (to which the bill’s prohibition also applies) are not considered municipal playgrounds. The bill’s prohibition does not apply to fields or open spaces used primarily for sporting activities (athletic fields).

The opponents of the bill – and the proponents of rubberized playing surfaces - have pointed to the 2010 study as the gospel when it comes to the ‘safety’ of rubberized playgrounds, either poured or mulched.

Sarah Evans, PhD MPH, is a professor of Environmental Medicine & Public Health with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. In a letter addressed to the Legislature’s members of the Committee on Children, dated 1 March 2017, Evans laid out her arguments against the use of 2010 study to also conclude that rubberized surfaces do not pose a heath risk for children. Evans noted that the study “was not designed to assess the safety of recycled rubber playgrounds and makes assumptions about exposure routes in the absence of supporting experimental data. While it contributes to our understanding of chemicals of concern that may be emitted from crumb rubber, the results of this study should not be used to draw conclusions about the safety of recycled rubber playground surfaces for the following reasons: 1. The study does not consider ail potential routes of exposure. … 2.Safety data gaps have been identified by the federal government…. 3. Playground surfaces were not considered.… 4. Exposure to extreme heat is not addressed…. 5. The CT DPH continues to cite uncertainty about safety.” For the full text of the letter, which includes the data in support of Evans’s arguments (points 1-5 above), go here.  

[No. 136] Olympia, Washington – Department of Health’s artificial turf study under fire for its flaws and limitations. Richard W. Clapp, DSc, MPH, is Professor Emeritus, Boston University School of Public Health; Adjunct Professor, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell; former Director, Massachusetts Cancer Registry; former co-Chair of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. David R. Brown, Sc.D. is Public Health Toxicologist and Director of Public Health Toxicology for Environment and Human Health, Inc.; Past Chief of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health at Connecticut's Department of Health; Past Deputy Director of The Public Health Practice Group of ATSDR at the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. In a letter to Washington State Department of Health, dated 9 March 2017, Drs. Clapp and Brown set forth the problems that they see with the department’s recent report, titled Investigation of Reported Cancer among Soccer Players in Washington State (January 2017), as follows:

(1) The report uses an informal, incomplete list of cancer cases. (2) The report’s presents an invalid and misleading calculation of an “observed/expected” ratio. (3) The report considers an inappropriately wide range of ages. The average age of the soccer players on Coach Griffin’s national list is 20-21 years of age. (4) The report does not consider length of exposure, latency period, or other important factors. (5) The report makes a number of misleading and confusing statements about its scope.

According to Clapp & Brown, the investigation of the relationship between artificial turf exposure and cancer risk should be “a valid population-based case-control study. Such a study would use the state cancer registry to identify cases of leukemia and lymphoma diagnosed in individuals aged 15-29 during the time period 2002-2015 or later. Controls would be identified from the school districts or towns of residence of the cases, and interviews would be conducted to gather information about artificial turf exposure as well as other risk factors.”

Clapp & Brown noted that a population-based case-control study “would be time consuming and potentially costly to undertake. However, it would be scientifically valid. This approach was used, for example, to investigate the childhood leukemia cluster in Woburn, Massachusetts and the excess leukemia around the Pilgrim nuclear plant in Southeastern Massachusetts.”

While Clapp & Brown understood that Washington State the Department of Health “may not have had the resources to undertake a study of this kind,” they pointed out nevertheless that “in the absence of such a study, however, the conclusions drawn by the Department in its January 2017 report were inappropriate and irresponsible…. The Washington State Department of Health did not have sufficient data to make any statement regarding the safety of exposure to artificial turf fields containing infill made from recycled tires. The statements in the Executive Summary and in the conclusions are misleading and are likely to be used out of context by decision-makers.” For a copy of the letter, which sets forth greater detail about Clapp & brown concerns and methodology of their proposed population-based case-control study, go here.

According to a news article in the Bainbridge Island Review (18 March 2017), “Washington State Department of Health officials are calling turf fields ‘safe’ despite conducting what some say is a flawed study.  Parents of Bainbridge athletes have long been concerned about the chemicals present in the recycled tire crumb infill used on artificial turf fields….  In a recent report, the Washington State Department of Health stated that it had not found elevated rates of cancer in the soccer players….The investigation came after the University of Washington’s associate head coach for women’s soccer, Griffin, became concerned with the number of soccer players she had encountered who developed some form of cancer. To Griffin, it seemed an inordinate number of goalkeepers had developed or previously been diagnosed with at least one form of cancer. By 2016, Griffin had compiled a list of some 53 current or former Washington residents who had played soccer on artificial turf fields and had been diagnosed with cancer. The new study did not focus specifically on the recycled tire rubber used as infill on artificial turf fields, but instead examined the soccer players from the list provided by Griffin….  The data from the Washington state investigation is likely incomplete, critics maintain, due to the fact that it only took into account the cancer rates among the soccer players from the list provided by Griffin. The Department of Health did not seek out other soccer players in Washington who had been diagnosed with cancer, and the agency also made estimates for the total number of soccer players in Washington for the years observed. Griffin was very surprised to see that the list she provided constituted all of the investigation’s data on soccer players with cancer.” Griffin is quoted in the article saying “The numbers I gave them were from the people that had contacted me or that I had bumped into that had cancer and played soccer. My samples were extremely small and everyone knows it was anecdotal; there was nothing scientific about it. When I realized that this is what they based their entire study on, I became very uncomfortable. It was really disheartening. I think what is a little concerning for most people is the assumption that I have come across every player in the state of Washington that has played soccer and had cancer.” Source: Nick Twietmeyer, “Health study on rubber turf comes under heavy scrutiny,” in Bainbridge Island Review, 18 March 2017, at http://www.bainbridgereview.com/sports/health-study-on-rubber-turf-comes-under-heavy-scrutiny/ . For an earlier post on the health department “study” see Item No. 135 below.

[No. 135] Olympia, Washington – State Department of Health: “Assurances of the safety of artificial turf are limited by lack of adequate information or potential toxicity and exposure.” In January 2017 the Washington State Department of Health issued its Investigation of Reported Cancer among Soccer Players in Washington State  (DOH Pub 210-091 January 2017). The investigation was occasioned by University of Washington Women’s Associate Head Soccer Coach Amy Griffin’s list of soccer players who had played on crumb rubber artificial turf fields who had gotten cancer. At the time of the Department’s inquiry, Amy’s List of the afflicted had 53 people on it, most of whom played soccer. Report at page 1. For updates to Amy’s List, see Item No. 134 below and other preceding posts.

According to the report’s Executive Summary, the main goals of the investigation were to: (1) Compare the number of cancers among soccer players on the coach's list to the number that would be expected if rates of cancer among soccer players were the same as rates among all Washington residents of the same ages; and (2) Describe individuals reported by the coach in terms of their demographics, factors related to cancer, and history of playing soccer and other sports.

The investigation compared cancer types, rates and changes in rates over time among Washington and U.S. residents, ages five to 24 years old, and did not find unusual patterns of cancer in Washington compared to the United States. It also noted that “leukemia and lymphoma [two types of cancer most frequently reported by the coach] are complex diseases that can only rarely be attributed to a single cause or exposure.” The report also noted that seven review articles published [about crumb  rubber] in the last 10 years all concluded that playing on artificial turf fields is unlikely to expose children, adolescents or adults to sufficient levels of chemicals from the fields to significantly affect health. “However,” the report noted, “there are still unanswered questions due to limitations in existing research.”

“These findings are subject to several limitations,” the report noted. For one thing, “[t]he list from the coach likely did not include all soccer players ages six to 24 years old who developed cancer during 2002-2015.” Because of a number of reasons, the report noted, “[o]ther soccer players with cancer were likely missed” by the coach. The report also admitted that there are “potential errors in the computation of the expected number of cancers among soccer players resulting from the need to make several assumptions about the numbers and ages of players each year from 1983-2015.”

Despite its limitations, the report concluded that based on the limited data that the investigators had examined, “[n]one of the limitations are substantial enough to affect our conclusion that the number of cancers reported to us does not, by itself, indicate that soccer players, premier and select soccer players, or goalkeepers are at higher risk for cancer than other Washington residents of the same ages.”

The ultimate takeaway to be hand from the investigation is that “[a]ssurances of the safety of artificial turf, however, are limited by lack of adequate information on potential toxicity and exposure.” Report at page 5.

According to Dr. Barry Boyd, an oncologist with Environment and Human Health, Inc. (www.ehhi.org) cancer takes a long time to develop from exposures to disease. According to EHHI, the Washington State DOH report said the researchers  were “unable to find any studies that investigated the effects of simultaneous exposure to the dozens of chemicals that have been identified in artificial turf crumb rubber” [Report at p. 35] and yet “the analysis done at Yale University found 96 chemicals -- 11 of them carcinogens. And NO ONE knows how these 96 chemicals work together - yet the study declares the fields safe.”

EHHI also points out that “[t]he study compared cancer cases much like you would compare the number of sick apples in a barrel.  When you compare the number of sick apples in a bucket to the number of sick apples in a truck load of apples -- the result will be an inaccurate ratio.” “How is it that the smallest number of soccer players on the field - the goalkeepers - have the highest number of cancers?” EHHI asks rhetorically.  It is obvious – “[a]nyone who has watched soccer knows the goalkeepers are the most heavily exposed.  No weight was given to that in the study.”

SynTurf.org Note: In a news story in The News Tribune (18 January 2017), Dr. Cathy Wasserman, an epidemiologist with the Washington State Health Department is quoted as saying that the investigation’s statistical analysis is “first step.” “Our investigation<” she added, “was not designed to discover the causes of cancer.” Citing Wasserman, the news story stated that “[n]or was it [the investigation] designed to explore crumb rubber exposure as a cause. Instead, its purpose was to look at whether cancer occurred at a higher rate among soccer players than among all Washington residents in the same age group.” Source: Debbie Cafazzo “State analysis finds no increased cancer rates among soccer players,” in The News Tribune, 18 January 2017, at http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article127261669.html .

For news story headlines to scream “State analysis finds no increased cancer rates among soccer players,” or industry exultation of ‘crumb rubber found safe,’ is a dishonest characterization of the result of an investigation that admits its own limitations and flaws. Wasserman herself is quoted in the news story that “[w]e are acknowledging gaps in our knowledge.” What is baffling therefore is for her to then say in the same breath that “we have to make recommendations based on the state of knowledge today.” No, Ms. Wasserman, you do not have to make recommendations.  If you have gap in your knowledge and then you make recommendations based on what you know, then you are in effect recommending in the face of unknowns. You should not have to make recommendations one way or another, especially misleading ones or making ones that can easily be misconstrued by an unsuspecting parent as suggesting ‘go ahead and send your kids to play in the carcinogen-infested toxic crumb rubber turf fields,’ because you trust what you do not as yet know. If ain’t this a textbook case of astroturfing an issue – bureaucratic gobbledygook – we do not know what is!

[No. 134] Amy’s List - update (November 2016) – spread sheet, pie charts and graphs, and online survey information. According to a communication received at SynTurf.org Amy’s List is now up to 234 players with one form of cancer or another who have played on artificial turf fields. The accompanying spread sheet identifies the player by the type of cancer, sport played and other information. The accompanying pie charts and graphs manage the information in a useful comparative way. The authorship of the two documents belongs to Amy Griffin, Collegiate Soccer Coach, and Jean Bryant, Mother of Soccer Goalkeeper. Amy’s List maintains a online survey for the reporting purposes at http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/2584959/Amy-s-List .     

[No. 133] The Netherlands  - Debate over health risks of playing on crumb rubber artificial turf fields garners parliamentary attention. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. 1 December 2016. For a while now we have posted items about the debate in The Netherlands surrounding health risks associated with playing on crumb rubber synthetic fields. See http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 129),  http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html  (Item No. 45), and http://www.synturf.org/crumbrubber.html (Item No. 64). Beginning on Sunday, 27 November 2016, the debate took a predictable turn – while the real health professionals (not mercenaries for the synthetic turf industry) cautioned against the taking risks by paying on artificial turf fields, the politicians took to the dais declaring that it was safe for kids to play on in crumb rubber!

On Sunday, NOS [Nederlandse Omroep Stichting - Dutch Broadcast Foundation, one of the broadcasting organizations making up The Netherlands’s public broadcasting system], reported that 58 out of 60 artificial fields with rubber granules contain carcinogens, and in all the cases the concentration of carcinogens tested higher concentrations allowed than in consumer products. According to the report, the current standard for carcinogens in rubber granules is 1,000 milligrams per kilogram for all carcinogens present together. The standard for consumer products however is 1 milligram per kilogram and for children’s products it is 0.5 per kilogram. NOS compared the results of its study of the sixty field to the the standard for consumer products and found that of the eight proven carcinogens that have been examined, four carcinogens were common in the granules -   Benzo (e) pyrene exceeded the average consumer norm by 3.2 times, with the most polluted fields coming in at 5.9 times.  Benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, and Chrysene on the average exceeded 1.5 times the allowable standard, with the most polluted field exceeding Chrysene by 3.6 times. According to Professor of Toxicology Martin van den Berg, NOS reported, these concentrations are “higher than you should want for reasons of health.” See “Eerste kunstgrasonderzoeken: relatief veel kankerverwekkende,” on NOS, 28 November 2016, at  http://nos.nl/artikel/2145325-eerste-kunstgrasonderzoeken-relatief-veel-kankerverwekkende-stoffen.html (or Google translation at https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://nos.nl/artikel/2145634-dijksma-kinderen-mogen-op-kunstgras-voetballen.html&prev=search . The report was accompanied by a video titled ‘Stop Voetbal op Kunstgras’ [Stop football (soccer) on artificial turf]., with the subtitle “Geen enkel risico nemen met kunstgras” [Take no risk with artificial turf].

The Next day, on 28 November 2016, during the Question Time at The Netherlands House of Representatives, the State Secretary for Infrastructure and the Environment Sharon Dijksma reacted to a recent comment by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport Edith Schippers, who had said that the Dutch did not believe that it was not safe to play football on artificial turf. According to NOS, Dijksma said that there was “no evidence that exercise in these fields is bad, but there is no evidence that there is nothing to worry about.” See “Dijksma: kinderen mogen op kunstgras voetballen” [Dijksma: Children can play football on artificial turf],” on NOS, 28 December 2016, at  http://nos.nl/artikel/2145634-dijksma-kinderen-mogen-op-kunstgras-voetballen.html (or Google translation at https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://nos.nl/artikel/2145634-dijksma-kinderen-mogen-op-kunstgras-voetballen.html&prev=search . The NOS story on Dijksma’s comment also went on to point out that “Almost the entire Chamber is concerned about the artificial turf and also parents of young footballers have many questions.” The video accompanying this piece entitled “Wel of niet sporten dit weekend” [Whether or not to play sports this weekend], with the subtitle “Wel of niet sporten” [To play sports or not] must leave on pondering should there even be a question why playing on crumb rubber artificial turf fields is a very, very bad idea.

In covering the publication of the NOS report and the discussion of its results in The Netherlands’s lower house of parliament, DutchNews.nl reported that “The findings prompted cancer specialist Bob Löwenberg to call for artificial pitches to be replaced. Löwenberg, professor of hematology at Rotterdam’s Erasmus Medical Centre, told NOS: ‘There is absolutely no evidence that artificial grass pitches are bad for you, but we can’t say they are safe. I think there is every reason to be concerned about artificial grass pitches.’” “But Löwenberg said it could take a decade to gather enough information to draw definitive conclusions about the link between artificial pitches and cancer. ‘The question is, do we want to take that risk? Do we really want to experiment on people, including children, and discover later it was the wrong thing to do?’” See “Artificial sports pitches ‘should be torn up’ to prevent risk of cancer,” on DutchNews.nl 28 November 2016, at http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/11/artificial-sports-pitches-should-be-torn-up-to-prevent-risk-of-cancer/ .

[No. 132] Booker and Fox-Rawlings: Children and athletes play on toxic turf and playgrounds. Nyedra W. Booker, PharmD, MPH, and Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, Senior Fellow, National Center for Health Research (http://center4research.org) [not to be confused with the National Institutes of Health], begin their article, titled “Children and Athletes at play on toxic turf and playgrounds,” at http://center4research.org/child-teen-health/early-childhood-development/caution-children-at-play-on-potentially-toxic-surfaces/ with a quizzical reminiscence: “Do you remember when children used to play on tire swings in the backyard or at the park?” but with the added caution that “[t]hose same tires are now being put to a new and possibly hazardous use!” They state that “[t]ere has been increasing evidence that raises concerns about the safety of recycled tire material used on playground surfaces. While tire rubber includes natural rubber from rubber trees, it also contains phthalates (chemicals that affect hormones, see Phthalates and Children’s Products), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other chemicals known or suspected to cause adverse health effects. PAHs, for example, are natural or human-made chemicals that are made when oil, gas, coal or garbage is burned. According to the EPA, breathing air contaminated with PAHs may increase a person’s chance of developing cancer, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that PAHs may increase the risk for cancer and also increase the chances of birth defects.” [footnoting omitted].

They note that “[a] 2015 report analyzed the chemicals found in 5 samples of tire crumbs from 5 different companies that install school athletic fields, and 9 different samples taken from 9 different unopened bags of playground tire mulch. The researchers found 96 chemicals in the samples. A little under a half have never been studied for their health effects, therefore it is not known whether they are harmful. The other chemicals have been tested for health effects, but those tests were not thorough. Based on the studies that were done, 20% of the chemicals that had been tested probably can cause cancer, and a large proportion were irritants – substances cause a body’s reaction. 24% are respiratory irritants that can cause asthma symptoms; 37% can irritate skin; and 27% can irritate eyes.” [Footnoting omitted].

They also note that one can protect one’s child at the synthetic playground by “[r]emember[ing] that children are much more likely to be harmed by exposure to chemicals in their environment than adults because they are smaller (so the exposure is greater) and because their bodies are still developing. This is why it’s important to significantly reduce (or try to eliminate) any contact your child may have with substances that are known or suspected to be harmful. If you have more than one playground in your area, choose the one that doesn’t have a recycled rubber play surface.”

 

[No. 131] The Rockwood Files – List of players playing football on synthetic turf and having cancer; temperature recordings in St. Louis area fields. A pictorial montage.

The montage and other items featured below is the work of Rockwood Turf, a grassroots group in the St. Louis, Missouri area that has been and still is combating the proliferation of synthetic fields in the Rockwood School District. For further information about Rockwood Turf and the material reproduced here please contact rockwoodturfrestored@gmail.com.

For an earlier post from Rockwood Turf, see http://www.synturf.org/wrapuparticles.html  (Item No. 22).

Of the lists and pictorials that Rockwood Turf has sent to us in pdf or jpg format, the most significant, in our humble opinion, is the list of football players with cancer who have played on synthetic turf. Click on the pdf icon on the left to access this document.

Rockwood Turf writes: Note: there are many hidden columns in this spread sheet in order to protect victims’ identities. Rockwood Turf, if necessary, can verify the information. Because synthetic turf fields have not been around public schools very long, and because there had been NBC reports of athletes diagnosed with cancer on Amy Griffin’s list, 37 in 2014 and now 217 in 2016, the question remains: Are other athletes such as football players being diagnosed with cancer? Internet search was utilized to determine if there are any.

The results are shocking. There are still gaps in this list, for example, if a school system did not publish when/if it installed a synthetic turf field. So it is possible that the remaining players did play on synthetic turf fields at his school and/or at a recreational synthetic turf field. There are at least 123 football players confirmed who played on synthetic turf before being diagnosed with cancer.” “This list primarily focuses on high school football players, but also includes college and professional football players with cancers diagnosed in 1999 or after, due to the fact that synthetic turf fields were not in heavy use at high schools until that year. A few others are included such as a few older players or football players who got cancer at a very young age, but the cancer came back when they were in high school or shortly after (there is a possibility that synthetic turf may have caused the recurrence of cancer). Also included is a column for athlete's Status, where I marked if a player has passed away.”

Rockwood Turf explanatory note describes the format of the spreadsheet, key/legend, and observations/notes.

Format:

• Current sorting applied is "Played on ST before Diagnosis or Recurrence"

• Numbering in first column was assigned by if Yes to sorting, then by ordering type of cancer, then by age, then most recent year of diagnosis (e.g. Yes, Brain Tumors are first, age 14 at diagnosis, in 2015).

• Yellow shading indicates schools researched, yet unknown if field is synthetic turf or grass.

• Orange shading is to organize the columns into groups.

Key

• G - Grass

• ST - Synthetic Turf

• PF - Playing Fields

• PRF - Practice Fields

• IPF - Indoor Practice Facility

Observations

• Totals

 - 230 football players with cancer

 - 93 linemen with cancer (there are still 22 players whose position I couldn't find)

• Played on synthetic turf before diagnosis or recurrence of cancer

 - 123 football players

 - Of these, 45 are linemen

• There are players from same school with cancer. For example:

* Middle Creek High (2 boys diagnosed within 3 years of each other)

 * Saraland High (2 boys diagnosed same year, same age)

 * St. Charles Catholic High (2 boys diagnosed within 1 year of each other)

 * Wagoner High (2 boys same age, same year).

• There are other players from the same school, but age gap might be wider, or the high school has grass just unknown if the players were exposed to synthetic turf elsewhere in town or growing up, etc. Plus there are other college/NFL same school cancers.

• There is one boy who has a twin brother who also played football. One twin got cancer; the other one didn't (so far).

• Other significant information is included under Notes, a column before Sources.

• Columns kept unknown (yellow) even if a player’s schools have grass fields because he may have played on synthetic turf for another sport, community league, local park synthetic turf, etc. Not everything can be found on the Internet; this spreadsheet just focuses on their football experience.

[No. 130] Amy’s List - update (October 2016). The non-profit Human Health and Environment, Inc. of North Haven, Connecticut (www.ehhi.org) reminds us that in April 2016, University of Washington Associate Soccer Coach Amy Griffin reported 166  soccer players with cancer -- with 102  being goalkeepers. That means 61% of the soccer players that have gotten cancer are the goalkeepers.

In October 2016  (6 months later) Bloomberg reports Amy’s list has grown to 230 players, of which 183 are soccer players with 114 of them being goalkeepers. See Peter Hayes, “2016 Playing Fields and Cancer—An Emerging Mass Tort?” on Bloomberg,  28 October 2016, at http://www.bna.com/playing-fields-canceran-n57982081984/ . According to EHHI that is an increase of 17 cases among soccer players, 62% of them being goalies. “Whether it is 61% or 62% of the soccer players with cancers are the goalkeepers -- that still is a significant figure,” reports EHHI in an email.

For Amy’s List-updates previously posted here scroll down this page or use the “find” function of your browser for “Amy”.

[No. 129] The Netherlands - More sports injuries occur on artificial turf than on grass. Period. According to an article in The Netherlands Times (20 September 2016), [a]thletes have a better chance of getting hurt playing on artificial turf than on natural grass, according to a study done by television program Radar [on NPO - Dutch national television]. Athletes running on grass have a 27 percent chance of getting hurt. On turf there is a 44 percent chance. ‘The biggest difference is in the damping, which is a lot less on artificial turf,’ according to trainer and exercise physiologist Raymond Verheijen. ‘Particularly the joints suffer from that.’ Some 7 thousand people participated in the Radar study. 40 percent of them sustained abrasions or even open wounds while playing their sport and 35 percent sustained muscle injuries. 31 percent of respondents indicated that they sustained abrasions more often on turf than on grass. According to Radar, it amounts to 44 percent of people playing on turf reported such injuries, compared to 27 of people sporting on grass. There was no significant difference between t[h]e number of muscle injuries between the two fields.” [A spokesman for the Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond (Royal Dutch Football Association [KNVB] said that the] ‘studies were done on the abrasion sensitivity of the fields.” “A massive 69 percent of football players indicated they prefer playing on natural grass rather than artificial turf.” Source: Janene Pieters, “Research: More sports injuries occur on artificial turf,” in The Netherlands Times, 20 September 2016, at http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/09/20/research-sports-injuries-occur-artificial-turf/ .

SynTurf.org Note: For a previous post reflecting the attitude of the Dutch players about playing on artificial turf, see http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html  (Item No. 45).

[No. 128] Montreal, Canada - How turf soccer fields are causing devastating injuries to unsuspecting athletes. According to an article in The Concordian (20 September 2016), “[i]njuries are not uncommon for athletes and are especially f[r]equent for soccer players. It seems as though every player has had to endure one type of injury or another during their career. For some, it may be a concussion from an opponent’s heavy hit, for others, it may be a sprained ankle from being stepped on or landing awkwardly.

For other players, however, severe injuries seem to occur at random: a player collapses on the field without anyone or anything around them, leaving referees, coaches, parents and fellow players concerned.”

This was the case for 23-year-old Vanessa Bianchi, a student at Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, sometimes known in English as a General and Vocational College – either way CEGEP for short. According to the article [i]n August, 2010, the [she] attended a tryout for the John Abbott College soccer team. During a scrimmage on the second day of tryouts, Bianchi tried to turn with the ball to avoid her opponent. It was a simple move she had done hundreds of times before. However, this time, it was d different. ‘I had no idea what happened,’ Bianchi said. ‘I’d never felt pain like that in my entire life.’ Bianchi had placed her right foot on top of the ball and planted her left foot onto the artificial field for balance. As she turned, the right half of her body pivoted, while her left leg stayed stuck in the field. ‘As soon as I moved, I felt that my entire foot was stuck— and then I heard the pop,’ Bianchi said. For Bianchi, the turf was the only possible culprit. ‘The other girl wasn’t close to me at all, and I didn’t trip over the ball,’ Bianchi said. ‘I never thought I could have injured myself that badly just by playing.’

After undergoing an MRI on her left knee, doctors concluded she had torn her ACL and needed surgery if she ever wanted to play again — which she did. … ‘Every time I went for physiotherapy, there was some other player there with the same injury as me— some were even worse,” Bianchi said. …

“Dr. Raoul Daoust, a surgeon at the Jewish General Hospital, said links can be drawn between artificial turf and the injuries that have been happening. Playing on turf is very different than playing on grass,’ Daoust said. ‘Grass is much more forgiving on the body, and is a lot softer to land on.’ Pivoting, turning and making quick movements is difficult on turf because of how stiff it is, according to Daoust, and can ultimately lead to severe muscle and ligament damage. … ‘Turf, as we know, is very rigid. So not only do I worry about [my daughter] tearing ligaments and muscles, I also get nervous when she comes home after games all bloody and scratched from sliding on it,’ Daoust said. ‘It can be very painful and lead to some serious infections.’” ….

“As [Bianchi] regained the strength in her leg, she gradually began practicing and playing again. It took less than three months before history repeated itself. A similar incident occurred when, during a game, she attempted to make a quick turn to catch opponent with the ball. ‘I guess I moved too quickly and my knee just totally gave out again,’ Bianchi said, shaking her head. ‘That was the end of my soccer career.’”  Source: Meghan Kelly, “The possible dangers of an artificial soccer field, in The Concordian , 20 September 2016 at http://theconcordian.com/2016/09/the-horrors-of-an-artificial-soccer-field/

[No.  127] Zhejiang Province, China – Government sets standards for emission of volatiles in synthetic fields and playgrounds.  According to a news report in China Daily (reported in East China News Service) (5 July 2016), “[s]afe limits of dangerous chemicals emitted by synthetic running tracks, playgrounds and artificial turf - volatile organic compounds and carcinogenic formaldehyde - have been specified for the first time in new standards for schools in Zhejiang province. The new standards were published on the education department's website over the weekend [July 2-3, 2016]. Students at several primary and middle schools fell ill and the synthetic materials used for the running tracks and artificial grass were suspected culprits. One grass sample taken from the new campus of Hangzhou Foreign Languages School, where students suffered nosebleeds, coughs and delayed menstruation, was found to be giving off hazardous benzene more than 14 times above the national safety limit. The two new benchmarks are not included in the national standards, but are included in provincial standards in order to provide stricter precautions that will better safeguard students' health, according to the education authority. Summer heat has been cited as a possible cause of increased chemical emissions from synthetic materials. Under the standards, a group of five teachers, parents and experts will assess odors at school facilities regularly. The five will rate odors on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no odor and 5 signifying strong, pungent odor. If three of the five reach a consensus at 3 or above, the running track will be closed.

Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen are mulling or have recently published new local standards for the synthetic materials in schools. Under Shenzhen's standards, which were released in May, eight substances are covered, including harmful PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). These are not included in national standards. ‘This is to avoid situations in which some products are qualified under the standards but are still problematic,’ said Ren Jun, chief engineer at Shenzhen Institute of Building Research Co, who helped formulate the standards. Shao Jianhua, executive vice-president of Zhejiang Provincial Sports Venue Facility Construction Association, said one key problem lies in the financial auditing system. ‘Under the current system, a supplier who offers the lowest price in bidding will win a project at a school. But this seems questionable for projects with chemical materials,’ Shao said.” Source: “Safety standards set for school tracks, turf,” in China Daily (Feng Shuang Editor), 5 July 2016, at  http://www.ecns.cn/2016/07-05/216856.shtml

 

 

[No. 126] Beijing, China -  After issues with toxicity of crumb rubber now comes evidence of toxicity of the plastic grass blade fiber . According to a news report in the China Daily (23 June 2016), “[a] number of students from a Hangzhou-based middle school were sickened recently, and synthetic material used for the running tracks and artificial grass at the school were the suspected culprits. When a number of samples were sent to a lab, one of the grass samples was found to be emitting toxic benzene more than 14 times above the national safety limit. A second grass sample was found to be above the limit by about 27 percent…. The students at a new campus of Hangzhou Foreign Languages School in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, suffered illnesses including nosebleeds, coughs and delayed menstruation since the end of May, South Metropolis Daily reported on Wednesday…. The school sent samples from the tracks and artificial grass to a Shanghai-based institute for testing. The samples were collected in the presence of people representing students’ families. ‘There was no problem with the rubber, but the artificial grass was found to emit toxic ingredients more than expected…China has no standards for the toxic ingredients of artificial grass, so we can only judge whether the material is safe according to the standards for synthetic running tracks,’ the school said. Two of the seven artificial grass samples were reported as having benzene concentrations above national standards. One sample measured 63.8 mg/kg, about 27 percent over the national upper safety limit of 50 mg/kg. A second material used in the grass－a compound of methylbenzene and xylene－had benzene emissions at a whopping 733.8 mg/kg. Previous tests conducted in October, after the playground was finished, show that the materials used on the ground were qualified. ‘The high temperature might be the cause of the rise of toxic ingredients,’ the school said.” Source: China Daily, “School’s artificial grass found to be highly toxic,” in China Daily, 23 June  2016, at  http://china.org.cn/china/2016-06/23/content_38726300.htm . For a related story about China’s poisonous tracks, see  Owen Guo, “China Vows to Replace 'Poisonous' Running Tracks at Schools,” in The New York Times (Asia Pacific), 23 June 2016, at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/world/asia/china-running-tracks-poison-toxic.html?_r=1 .

[No. 125] Amy’s List (update: June 2016). Previously at  http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 123) we reported that according to a communication from EHHI (www.ehhi.org), dated 8 April 2016, by April 2016 there were 166 cancer-stricken soccer players on Amy’s List. According to a news report in The Montana Standard (26 June 2016), “[a]Altogether, Griffin’s list numbers 217 athletes from several sports who have gotten cancer. Of those, 171 are soccer players, 108 of whom are former goalies. Their common denominator? All played on artificial turf - specifically crumb rubber.” Source: Renata Birkenbuel  ,”Ex-Carroll goalkeeper beats cancer but worries about kids playing on crumb rubber,” in  The Montana Standard, 26 June 2016, at http://mtstandard.com/news/local/ex-carroll-goalkeeper-beats-cancer-but-worries-about-kids-playing/article_3671f14b-7484-55af-803c-7421454c0a9b.html .

 

[No. 124] Could there be a link between substances of concern in artificial turf and heart disease? An article by David Abel, titled “New evidence of the dangers of living near highways,” in The Boston Globe, 14 April 2016, at https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/13/new-evidence-dangers-living-near-highways/hVyqTnY4iyn9YRoNSwWtGI/story.html reported on a study by researchers at Tufts University School of Medicine and Boston University School of Public Health on the dangers of living near highways. They used mobile labs to analyze the health impact of microscopic pollution on residents of Chinatown, Dorchester, and South Boston. Here are excerpts from the article, with emphasis placed on terms used in the article that are also a part of the vocabulary dealing with crumb rubber and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons associated with artificial turf.

“A new study of Boston residents who live or spend a significant amount of time near Interstate 93 and the Massachusetts Turnpike has found that their exposure to microscopic metals and chemicals spewed from vehicles increases their chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke.”

“The study of so-called ultrafine particles, which expands on previous public health research in Somerville, adds to the growing body of evidence of the dangers of living near highways and other busy roads.”

“The findings suggest that those who live within 1,500 feet of a highway have a greater likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease than those living twice as far away.”

“The authors of the study, which will be published this week in the journal Environment International, said the accumulation of evidence in recent years linking prolonged exposure of ultrafine particles to cardiovascular risks should spur public officials, developers, and others to take action. Even relatively brief exposure — just months or days — can elevate health risks, they said.”

“Boston officials said they have been monitoring the new research on ultrafine particles, which include hydrocarbons and metals such as iron and nickel.

“The researchers found that residents who lived within 1,500 feet of the highway were likely to have 14 percent more C-reactive protein in their blood than those who lived more than a half-mile away. Higher amounts of the protein indicate a higher likelihood of a stroke or heart attack.”

[No. 123] Amy’s List – an update (April 2016). According to a communication from EHHI (www.ehhi.org), dated 8 April 2016, in January of this year, 2016 (just 3 months ago)  there were reported 159 cancers among soccer players - now there are 166. 97 of those in January were  goalkeepers - now 102 are goalkeepers. It remains that 61%. of the cancers among soccer players are the goalkeepers. Thus far: 220 is the total number of athletes who have played on synthetic turf and have cancer. 166 Soccer Players who have played on synthetic turf and have cancer, among them 102 are goalkeepers  (61% are the goalkeepers), 64 with Lymphomas (39 are goalkeepers), 10 with Non Hodgkins Lymphoma  (7 are goalkeepers), 54 with Hodgkins Lymphoma  (32 are goalkeepers), 41 with Leukemias (24 are goalkeepers), 16 with Sarcomas (7 are goalkeepers), 12 with Thyroid (9 are goalkeepers), 11 with brain cancer (5 are goalkeepers), 9 with testicular cancer (6 are goalkeepers), 4 with lung cancer (3 are goalkeepers), and the rest with other rare cancers.

“It is important to remember,” EHHI stated, “the only people counted in the numbers [above] are those who have known to call Amy Griffin.  There is still no government agency tracking the cancers among the athletes who have played on synthetic turf. We know that the actual numbers of athletes who have played on synthetic turf and come down with cancer has to be much greater than those who have known to report their illness to Amy Griffin.”

[No. 122] Something is rotten in state of the Kingdom. Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. 1 March 2016. February saw a host of stories coming out of the United Kingdom pointing to concerns over playing on artificial turf fields. One story added an international dimension to the earlier reports in the US about cancers among athletes who have played on artificial turf fields, particularly with crumb rubber infill. Nigel Maguire, a former executive with the UK’s National Health Service for Cumbria County in Northwest England, believes toxic chemical in artificial surfaces sparked the cancer Hodgkin's Lymphoma in his son Lewis, an 18-year-old goalkeeper. According to a story on The Daily Mail (14 February 2016), the 52-year-old Maguire, “who took early retirement from his job as chief executive of NHS Cumbria to look after Lewis, said his son fell ill halfway through a 12-week trial with Leeds United two years ago. He warned that rubber pellets added to synthetic football pitches to give them bounce are made from old car tyres and contain toxic chemicals including mercury, lead, benzene and arsenic. He believes it is the cause for illness in players, particularly goalkeepers - like his son - who come into closer contact with the plastic playing surface when they dive for the ball. Mr Maguire said: ‘Goalkeepers like Lewis dive dozens of times in training so they breathe it in or swallow it and it gets in their grazes. He used to come home with his kit covered in the stuff. We'd have to scrape it off. The more I look into it, the more horrified I am. Anyone who thinks swallowing half a teaspoon a week of that stuff is a good idea is barking mad.’ It is feared the pellets - known as crumb rubber - may be accidentally swallowed, or become lodged in arm or leg wounds, when players hit the 3G turf. Mr Maguire is now starting a campaign to raise national awareness of the issue. He has called for a moratorium on building new 3G pitches and wants rugby and goalkeeping training on them to be banned until more research is carried out. ‘If people knew where the black rubber pellets came from and were made of they would think twice about letting their kids train there…It is obscene so little research has been done. This multibillion-dollar industry is conducting an industrial-scale experiment on our kids - it's a scandal.’ Last month it was revealed that worried campaigners in the U.S. have linked synthetic pitch use to more than 150 cancer cases. It prompted the wife of former Liverpool and Everton player Gary Ablett [who died in 2012] to voice concern over their use." Source: Emma Glanfield, “My teenage son's cancer was caused by artificial football pitches, says former NHS boss as he launches campaign to halt turf's use over fears they contain dangerous chemicals,” on The Daily Mail, 14 February 2016, at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447336/My-teenage-son-s-cancer-caused-artificial-football-pitches-says-former-NHS-boss-launches-campaign-halt-turf-s-use-fears-contain-dangerous-chemicals.html

Meanwhile in Scotland, according to a news story in The Scotsman  (10 February 2016),  the Professional Footballers’ Association Scotland (Players’ Union) “boss Wishart has called on the game’s ruling bodies to prevent more senior clubs installing plastic pitches until proper research has been done on the damage they can do to players and the game itself. Twelve of the 42 SPFL clubs play on 3G surfaces and many players – in some cases, leading goalscorers – are left out by their managers when they visit certain grounds due to the impact the synthetic turf has on their joints. PFA Scotland wants to find out whether players are more likely to be crocked on artificial pitches than they are on grass and Wishart also worries that artificial pitches produce artificial games. In 2013, the SFA announced that they had asked Wishart to send out a survey of his members on the subject and more than 700 of them replied. The vast majority wanted to avoid Astroturf, but the SFA kicked the results into the long grass, where they have remained… until now.” Source: Ewing Grahame, “Players’ Union demand synthetic pitch research,” in The Scotsman, 10 February 2016, at http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/players-union-demands-synthetic-pitch-research-1-4025893

Quick to back Wishart was the former Scotland international Stephen McManus, a Motherwell defender. According to a news story on EuroSport.com (11 February 2016), Mcmnaus is “a firm opponent of the artificial surfaces used by the likes of Hamilton and Kilmarnock…. McManus insists it should be the players who are listened to when deciding if more plastic pitches are installed in Scottish grounds - and not the money men running clubs….. And he gave his backing to PFA Scotland chief executive Fraser Wishart, who has called for players to have greater say after going public with the results of a damning survey into the matter. Twelve of the SPFL's 42 clubs have 3G pitches installed but, according to the union's survey of 700 players, 73 per cent of professionals would rather play on a deteriorating grass surface than artificial turf….[MacManus said] ‘I don't think Scottish football professionally should be played on it. That's just my opinion. Does it take you longer to recover after playing on an astro? At 33, 100 per cent, trust me. I feel the effects of it when I play on one on a Saturday for a few days after it in comparison to grass. If you ask players, and they are the ones who need to be listened to because they are the ones playing on it week in, week out, it should be grass.” Source: PA Sport, “Stephen McManus backs PFA Scotland artificial pitch concerns,” on n EuroSport.com, 11 February 2016, at http://www.eurosport.com/football/stephen-mcmanus-backs-pfa-scotland-artificial-pitch-concerns_sto5172307/story.shtml .

Also backing the players’ demand is St Johnstone manager Tommy Wright. According to a news story on the BBC Scotland (11 February 2016), Wright “thinks players should have their say on artificial pitches. [He said] ‘[t]he game is about players. If the figures they are talking about are a high percentage that are unhappy with them then it’s quite right that something has to be looked at…It’s always easy to criticise the grass pitches when the weather is bad but pitches then get work done on them and they do improve….Artificial is certainly different but I think it is wrong in a sporting sense. For example, we can’t play [the forward] Steven MacLean on it due to medical advice so there is something that needs to be looked at.” “MacLean is the Perth club’s top scorer this term with 11 goals but does not feature on artificial pitches after suffering two serious injuries while playing on synthetic surfaces….[MacLean said] ‘[a] few years ago I played on AstroTurf, I think I was at Hamilton, and a week or so later I had to go and see the surgeon….I needed an operation as I had a micro-fracture. Then the same happened about a year later. I played on AstroTurf again and I needed another operation. I spoke to the surgeon and he advised me not to play on the AstroTurf. Now when an artificial grass game comes around the gaffer [Wright] just takes it out of my hands and tells me straight away I will not be playing….[it is] a totally different game…You can’t move as well, it’s a lot firmer and it takes your body longer to recover.’” Source: Brian McLauchlin, “Artificial grass: Listen to players, says St Johnstone boss Wright,” on BBC Scotland, 11 February 2016, at http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35551537

[No. 121] Health tips for referees officiating on artificial turf. Randy Vogt is a soccer referee who has officiated at more than 9,000 games during the past three decades, from professional matches in front of thousands to 6-year-olds being cheered on by very enthusiastic parents. Recently he penned an article entitled “Tips for reffing on artificial turf,” which was published on ESPN Wide World of Sports (18 February 2016) at http://www.socceramerica.com/article/67734/tips-for-reffing-on-artificial-turf.html . The following is the health-related excerpts from the piece:

“Approximately half my outdoor games every year are played on synthetic turf. Generally, these are the higher level games such as college, high school and often adult and older youth games. First of all, the corner flag keeps falling in games played on turf on windy days, even if the flag has a base that is supposed to avoid it from falling. There needs to be a hole in the ground so that the flag can be placed and it would not fall….. Unfortunately, it’s a different game on turf as the speed of play is so much quicker, causing me as a ref to run so much more. Recently in a cup final, I was able to stay right near the ball for critical calls in a game played on grass. I would have been out of luck in providing such coverage on turf as the ball moves more rapidly. It’s much more challenging to ref on artificial turf instead of grass during hot days as the turf surface can become searing, although not as bad as how hot the old Astroturf fields became. After I refereed three boys U-15 games on turf during a summer tournament, I lost a lot of weight and was tired for the next two days. The players quickly became fatigued as well but they could be substituted. I was not as fortunate. Maybe the heat of the field is the reason I am replacing many more pairs of socks today (because of holes in them) than in the past. My colleagues report the same issue of socks developing holes rather quickly."

 

[No. 120] New Italian study says polycarbon aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and zinc in crumb rubber exceed Italian National Amateur League (LND) limits and the toxicity equivalent of evaporates from crumb rubber is not negligible and represents a major contribution to the total daily intake of PAHs by different routes. One of the earliest items posted on SynTurf.org was a story about the Italian Minister of Health Francesco Storace’s last act in office to make public on 2 May 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. The study had found levels of PAHs, toluene, and heavy metals to exceed the legal limits, leading to the conclusion that the synthetic turf fields in Italy were potentially cancer-causing. 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. See http://www.synturf.org/warnings.html  (Item No. 1) also http://www.synturf.org/crumbrubber.html (Item No. 15). That was 10 years ago.

Now comes a research study by Letizia Marsili, Daniele Coppola, Nicola Bianchi1 and Silvia Maltese and Maria Cristina Fossi of the Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, at Siena University in Siena, Italy, and Massimo Bianchi of the University’s Department of Political Science and International, entitled “Release of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Heavy Metals from Rubber Crumb in Synthetic Turf Fields: Preliminary Hazard Assessment for Athletes." Published in Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology (Toxicol 5:265. doi: 10.4172/2161-0525.1000265) on 25 January 2015, the study is accessible here . The Abstract od the study, printed below in its entirety, may be accessed at http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/release-of-polycyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbons-and-heavy-metals-from-rubber-crumb-in-synthetic-turf-fields-2161-0525.1000265.php?aid=39265  or here.

Abstract Synthetic turf, made with an infill of rubber crumb from used tyres or virgin rubber, is now common in many sporting facilities. It is known that it contains compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals. We evaluated in nine samples of rubber crumb the total content of some heavy metals (Zn, Cd, Pb, Cu, Cr, Ni, Fe) normally found in tyres by microwave mineralization and the levels of the 14 US EPA priority PAHs by Soxhlet extraction and HPLC analysis. The results showed high levels of PAHs and zinc in all rubber crumb samples compared to rubber granulate limits set by Italian National Amateur League (LND). Following the precautionary principle, a risk assessment at 25°C was done, using the Average Daily Dose (ADD) assumed by athletes, expressed in terms of mass of contaminant per unit of body weight per day (mg/kg day), and the Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) and then evaluating the Hazard Index (HI) and the Cumulative Excess Cancer Risk (ΣECR). In the different rubber granulates samples the HI ranges from a minimum of 8.94×10-7 to a maximum of 1.16×10-6, while the ΣECR ranges from a minimum of 4.91×10-9 to a maximum of 1.10×10-8. Finally, the aim of this study was to estimate the “hazard” for athletes inhaling PAHs released at the high temperatures this synthetic turf may reach. Then a sequence of proofs was carried out at 60°C, a temperature that this rubber crumb can easily reach in sporting installations, to see whether PAH release occurs. The toxicity equivalent (TEQ) of evaporates from rubber crumb is not negligible and represents a major contribution to the total daily intake of PAHs by different routes.

 

[No. 119] Amy’s List – an update. In August 2015 we published an update of “Amy’s List” of players with cancer who’ve had in common playing on artificial turf.  http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 109). In July, 2015, there were 127 cancers among soccer players and 85 of those were goalkeepers.

According to a tabulation communicated by EHHI.org (www.ehhi.org), as of January 2016, there are now 203 athletes who have played on synthetic turf and reported cancers to Amy Griffin and of those 203 — just over 60% (123 players) have blood cancers. 97 of the 159 soccer players with cancer are goalies, constituting 61% of the soccer players. Goalkeepers are the most heavily exposed to the crumb rubber infill. So in the last six months there have been 32 more cancers in soccer players and 12 more cancers among goalkeepers than were reported in July, 2015. Of those 159, 63 cases have lymphoma and 34 cases have leukemia: That means 40% have lymphoma and 20% have leukemia.  This is significant because in the United States among this age group leukemia is almost twice as prevalent as lymphoma -- yet among players on synthetic turf fields it is just the opposite; there are twice as many cases of lymphoma as leukemia.

[No. 118] Synthetic Turf and Concussion – a Year’s End Review. SynTurf.org, Newton, Massachusetts, 31 December 2015). For some time now, since 2008, SynTurf.org has been posting items that have indicated an a priori correlation between playing on synthetic turf and concussion. We have argued that a high school-level physics course alone can teach one that the force of impact that can shock the brain is directly related to the amount of the mass (body weight) of the athlete times the acceleration (reaching higher speed per second). The turf’s excellent traction qualities (!) is responsible for the athletes reaching higher speeds and so the ensuing concussion is the result of the collision of this mass-in-motion with another moving or stationary object/body. The second way in which synthetic turf is responsible for concussion has to do with athlete’s impact with the turf as the head hits the surface, even when helmeted. The hardness of the surface is the culprit here, GMax (surface harness) readings notwithstanding. See http://www.synturf.org/lawsuits.html (Item No. 22); http://www.synturf.org/health.html  (Item No. 84); http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 40); http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 56); http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 115); http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 95); http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 32); http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 14); http://www.synturf.org/process.html (Item No. 76); http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html (Item No. 46); http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html (Item No. 6); http://www.synturf.org/wrapuparticles.html (Item No. 13);  http://www.synturf.org/justwords.html (Item No. 49); and http://www.synturf.org/health.html  (Item No. 116). To quote Nancy Aldermen, President of Environment and Human Health, Inc. www.ehhi.org “If the chemicals and the carcinogens in synthetic turf fields do not bother the coaches, schools and towns that keep installing these fields -- perhaps the concussion issue might make them sit up and pay attention. There is no safer surface for students and athletes to play on than grass.”

Among the year’s literature on the correlation between synthetic turf and concussion is Chris Nowinski, Clifford Robbins, Peter Schade, and Dr. Robert Cantu, contributing authors, The Role of Synthetic Turf in Concussion (Concussion Legacy Foundation --  . ConcussionFoundation.org - White Paper, November 2015). Founded in 2007 by Dr. Robert Cantu and Christopher Nowinski, The Concussion Legacy Foundation, formerly the Sports Legacy Institute, is located in Boston, Massachusetts.

The study looked at head-to-surface type of concussion inducing contact. As the study pointed out, decreased impact attenuation could increase the amount of force transferred to an athlete’s head during a fall, potentially increasing their risk of sustaining a concussion. When one in seven high school sports concussions is caused by surface impacts and one in four concussions in youth soccer and football, the study concluded surfaces deserve the same attention that helmets are getting. The surface includes synthetic turf fields, which as the authors found, when not properly padded and maintained, could lead to decreased impact attenuation.

The study is accessible at http://concussionfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Learning%20Center/The%20Role%20of%20Synthetic%20Turf%20in%20Concussion.pdf and here.

For a news story on the study, see Cam Smith, “Study says more than 15 percent of concussions come from impact with field, as focus turns to synthetic turf,” in USA Today, 30 December 2015, at http://usatodayhss.com/2015/new-report-claims-more-than-15-percent-of-concussions-come-from-impact-with-field-as-focus-turns-to-synthetic-turf or here.

Ken Belson, “Concussion Report Highlights Field Maintenance,” in The New York Times, 29 December 2015, at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/sports/football/concussion-report-highlights-field-maintenance.html .

 

 

[No. 117] If playing on artificial turf is safe then why all this techno-fuss? According to an Associated Press report published in the Bangor Daily News (3 December 2015), “[a]n impact-absorbing helmet, a cushion for artificial turf and a rubberized tether that slows the speed of the head snapping back after a collision were products named winners of a research challenge co-sponsored by the National Football League. The University of Washington, which developed the helmet, Viconic Sporting for their cushion and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory for the tether will receive up to $1 million more in funding from the NFL, Under Armour and GE. ‘This is an opportunity to see what the future is going to look like,’ Jeffrey Miller, senior vice president of Health and Safety for the NFL, told Reuters on Thursday [3 December 2015] after announcing the awards given under its Head Health Challenge initiatives.” According to Jason Kroll, in business development for Viconic, ‘[t]here are about 2,000 new artificial turf surfaces installed in North America annually. An artificial underlayment surface is only installed about 10 percent of the time, so there is a tremendous opportunity for this [cushion]technology.’” “Dave Marver, representing the University of Washington project, said their researchers found that the football helmets they tested were good at protecting against skull fracture but not in mitigating concussion risk.” Source: Larry Fine (Reuters), “New football helmet, turf cushion win research challenge,” in Bangor Daily News (3 December 2015), at http://bangordailynews.com/2015/12/03/sports/new-football-helmet-turf-cushion-win-research-challenge/ .

SynTurf.org Note: With all this technology-in-progress how in good conscience can the artificial turf industry and the EPA and the CPSC claim that playing on this surface is safe? May be it is time to ask the Federal Trade Commission to look into the advertising and marketing practices of the turf industry that claims their product is safe.

[No. 116] Texas physician says 50% of concussions are caused by artificial turf. According to a news item on Fox 29 (14 December 2015), a concussion management physician, Dr. Evan Ratner, “out of all of the athletes he's treated for a concussion on the field, 50 percent of them were on artificial turf.” Source: “Artificial turf vs Natural turf: Which one is safer?,” on Fox 29 (San Antonio, Texas), 14 December 2015, at http://www.foxsanantonio.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/artificial-turf-vs-natural-turf-which-one-safer-18340.shtml#.VnKZPZUo5xB

 

[No. 115] NFL: Seven percent of all concussions are caused by heads slamming into the artificial turf. The television news magazine 60 Minutes (CBS) aired a segment on 15 November 2015 entitled “Football and the Brain.” Steve Kroft was the correspondent and Draggan Mihailovich was the producer on the segment. The segment reported the following: “The NFL is also providing money to develop materials to put underneath the turf to cushion impacts. The league estimates that seven percent of all concussions are caused by heads slamming into the turf. That's what happened with Kansas City’s [wide receiver] Jeremy Maclin in October.” Read the script of the full story here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/football-and-the-brain-nfl-60-minutes/ or here.

[No. 114] Columbus, Ohio: Lack of artificial turf maintenance endangers athletes’ heath and safety. According to a news report on WBNS TV-10 (29 October 2015), “Tommy Horn had a future in football. Hilliard Bradley High School's quarterback played in October 2012's cross-town rivalry game against Hilliard Darby, until a tackle in the 3rd quarter. ‘It wasn’t the guy’s fault that hit me, that landed on me. It wasn't dirty or anything. it was just the way I hit the ground and the impact of it,’ said Horn.

Horn was in the hospital three days. He had a bruised spinal cord, two broken bones in his back and a severe concussion.  Horn believes he suffered these severe injuries because he was being tackled on turf, not grass. Horn recalled, ‘My body kept on going forward. It was just the impact of the turf really that did it.’”…. “To make the turf soft, turf companies scatter crumb rubber across the field. Players regularly kick or carry that crumb rubber off the field - leaving dangerous spots without cushioning. Schools are supposed to regularly distribute this crumb rubber while turf companies do long-term repairs.”

“Retired Columbus Crew midfielder Frankie Hejduk knows first-hand how painful artificial turf impacts can be, ‘When I played on turf, after games, my body hurt a lot more than it did when I played games on grass. You thought about that when you played. You thought about should I go for this tackle because it's a turf.’”

“To assess the hardness of a turf field, technicians perform what is called a GMAX test. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) trade group developed the standard and recommended fields be kept below a rating of 165. 10 Investigates found some schools hadn't been testing their fields until asked. Those who test show a variety of results.  Rated at 170.8, Westerville Central has a level just above the 165 standard and Johnstown Monroe is approaching the recommended GMAX limit. Johnstown Monroe is limiting use of its field and plans to build a new turf field as a result of that test. Industry safety experts say anything above that level leaves athletes in danger of head injuries. Westerville school officials said they too will be putting down extra pellets to soften the field and will conduct another test.”

“Dr. Charles Mancino runs tests for CLC Labs, one of the few independent businesses in the country that test the hardness of artificial turf fields. ‘If you decelerate too quickly, you can suffer a life threatening head or neck injury," Dr. Mancino explained. "There are probably a lot of schools that don't know the value exists.’"

“10 Investigates asked 68 Central Ohio school districts whether they had turf and what their latest GMAX field test results are. Some area schools including almost all the area's private schools, would not disclose to 10 Investigates what their ratings are. Athletes and their parents have no way of knowing.”

“Dr. Pete Edwards at Columbus' Orthopedic One Medical Center explained the potential dangers of artificial turf. ‘10 percent of the concussions are definitely influenced by the hardness of that surface. Hard turf creates more injury mechanisms and more force so players get injured more.’"

“Another issue athletes face on turf is how their footing is impacted.  That's what engineer Chris Sherwood with Biocare research in Charlottesville, Virginia studied for years. Sherwood listed the injuries more common with artificial turf, ‘Either a fracture of ligament tear in the mid foot. Regular ankle sprains, something called high ankle sprains where the ligaments are a little farther up and it can cause a more severe type of injury. The belief is even injuries in the knee, ACL tears, that type of thing.’

Source: Nathan Baca, “The Trouble With Turf: 10 Investigates Uncovers Impact Dangers,” on WBNS TV-10 (CBS affiliate), 29 October 2015, at http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/10/29/columbus-ohio-the-trouble-with-turf-10-investigates-uncovers-impact-dangers.html

 

[No. 113] Chinese news reports eing alarm over link between synthetic playing surfaces and infertility. According to a news report in Hong Kong Free Press (14 October 2015), “[r]Running tracks containing ‘toxic’ plasticisers at schools in eastern China have been making children ill and could leave male students infertile, according to mainland news reports. Unscrupulous contractors hired to install the tracks at multiple primary schools in Jiangsu province stand accused of using ‘sub-standard’ materials to cut costs and boost their profit margins. According to one school in Suzhou, students have been suffering form spontaneous nosebleeds, headaches and rashes since they began exercising on the school's new track in September. Similar claims have since arisen from schools in Nanjing, Wuxi and Changzhou. Prolonged exposure to the materials could even cause ‘severe poisoning’ and lead to male infertility, reports have indicated.

Lead salts and phthalate plasticisers are allegedly among the most harmful materials contained within the tracks. An official with Wuxi's education bureau, however, has admitted that no standards for running track materials actually exist.’” Source: Ryan Kilpatrick, “’Toxic’ running tracks at Chinese schools threaten to leave students infertile, in Hong Kong Free Press, 14 October 2015, at https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/10/14/toxic-running-tracks-at-chinese-schools-threaten-to-leave-students-infertile/

 

 

 

[No. 112] Sadistic coaches discover the virtue of superheated abrasive qualities of synthetic surfaces. SynTurf.org, Newton, Massachusetts. 1 November 2015. Playing on artificial turf surfaces is punishing enough on the body, but for the abrasive carpet to be used as an implement of torture elevates the virtues of the medium to a whole new other level. The infliction of pain and injury by a rap across the open palm with a ruler or a switch, a squeeze of fingers separated by pencils placed between the knuckles, a slap across the face, a cigarette burn on the back of the hand, or a Texas-twister will get a teacher fired on the spot in this country. And yet sadistic form of punishment is alive and well in the testosterone-poisoned culture of the grid iron.  

In December 2009, SynTurf.org posted a story about coach Mark Mangino of Kansas University who resigned his office after the athletic director at the university launched an investigation into the defensive lineman Cory Kipp’s significant injuries as a result of a punishment carried out by the coach. After the afternoon practice in August of 2003 Mangino had Kipp do the “bear-crawl” across the AstroTurf field at Memorial Stadium on his hands and feet as punishment for his failure to weigh-in earlier that day. Kipp began the crawl and, after moving several yards, felt a burning sensation in his hands. On multiple occasions, he stopped to complain that the turf was burning his hands — according to a University of Arkansas report, artificial playing surfaces have been documented at up to 199 degrees in temperature — but was ordered by Mangino, who was walking alongside the crawling player, to keep going.

By the time Kipp had finished, the skin near the heel of his hand had been completely seared, and photos of the injuries depicted blistering and a sizable area of missing skin. Consequently Kipp was forced to undergo extensive treatment on his hand by then-head football trainer Carol Jarosky throughout the next three weeks, but he was told to practice through it. The Birmingham, Alabama-based dermatologist Conway Huang confirmed the injury was either frictional or heat-related; if heat-related, it was consistent with second-degree burns. “Turf-boarding, a new form of torture!” at http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 33).

SynTurf.org’s Note on the foregoing story at the time commented that the coach was wrong to do what he did to Kipp and others. However, more appalling and hardly ever addressed in our sports culture is the players’ reluctance to complain in a timely fashion. This needs to stop—we should be educating our athletes about the difference between discipline and abuse, and how tolerating abuse a hero does not make—it is the coward who dares not speak the truth to power wherever and whenever. As parents we have the burden of raising children who expect respect and will not stand for mistreatment.   

Well, maybe not. According to news story on WFAA (Channel 8, ABC affiliate in Dallas, Texas) (4 June 2015), Jennifer Warren was upset because “her 14-year-old son come home from school with second-degree burns on his hands [with blisters in the palm of his hands].” “Some of the boys during P.E. were apparently horsing around in the bathroom, and that upset the head football coach. So, parents say, he had them come out to the track and do bear crawls…. Nearly a dozen boys' hands were burned, blistered, and bleeding. Some parents from Rains Junior High School in Emory took to Facebook and posted pictures….[T]emperatures were nearly in the 90s, making the track steaming hot….Rains Independent School District “says it’s investigating and has placed the coach on administrative leave.” Source: Rebecca Lopez, “Teens suffer second-degree burns from coach’s punishment,” on WFAA , 4 June 2015, (Channel 8, ABC affiliate, Dallas, Texas), at http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/texas-news/2015/06/05/bearcrawls-emory-rains-heat-burns/28501883/

According to another news report—this from Stratford, Connecticut (WABC, New York City, 10 September 2015), the football coach at Stratford High School was suspended for two games after a drill he ordered allegedly left some of his players with blisters and burn-like injuries. The football players were disciplined by being forced to do a spider crawl across the field—facing the sky with hands and feet touching the ground. The air temperature was above 90 degrees, and because the field was artificial turf, the hot material left some players with blisters or burn-like injuries. Source: Gillian Mohney, “Coach Suspended for Two Games After Drill Left Football Players With Blisters and ‘Burns,’” on WABC, New York City), 10 September 2015, at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/coach-suspended-games-drill-left-football-players-blisters/story?id=33668209

According to a news report out of Falmouth, Virginia (The Free Lane-Star, 9 October 2015), “[a] Stafford High School assistant football coach has been fired for overseeing a punishment drill that left four players with blisters on their hands. Offensive line coach Ken Marshall and Indians head coach Chad Lewis were initially suspended two games for their roles in making players perform bear crawls as punishment for missing practice on Labor Day…. Marshall … was terminated after an investigation by the school system’s director of workforce compliance…. Approximately 20 varsity and junior varsity players at Stafford High missed practice on Labor Day. Lewis assigned them to do extra work before practice the following day. The drills included bear crawls, which involves using both hands and feet to shuffle in a crouched position across the 53-yard-wide stadium field. Marshall, 51, oversaw the drill. After the first trip across the artificial turf field, three players showed him blisters on their hands. According to Marshall and a police report on the incident, the players were immediately sent to the team trainer for treatment and Marshall halted the exercise. Marshall said he immediately informed Lewis of the blisters and told the head coach ‘up-downs’—having players run in place, then drop to the ground and pop back up—would be better because there is no prolonged contact with the turf, which was hot that day…. The Stafford County Sheriff’s Office and Child Protective Services [CPS] both investigated allegations of mental abuse and neglect against Marshall and Chad Lewis. Both were cleared of any wrongdoing. Reports of the investigations list just one alleged victim. The police report states that football practice resulted in ‘unintended’ injuries to players and no charges would be filed. It says three photos were taken of large blisters on the hands of the alleged victim. According to the CPS report, the agency was asked by school officials on Sept. 11 to sit in on a meeting about the incident. The case worker determined CPS intervention was unwarranted and no charges should be filed against Marshall and Chad Lewis because of a lack of criminal intent.… The report states that the blisters were the result of “unusually high” turf temperatures. Stafford installed artificial turf in 2014. There were no heat alerts on Sept. 8—the high recorded at the University of Mary Washington weather station that day was 90 degrees. And there are no signs—like the one at Smith Lake Park in Stafford that states “during hot weather temperature can reach extreme levels”—near the field warning coaches to be cautious of hot turf…. ‘I had no control of the turf or any reason to suspect that the turf temperature could get hot enough to cause blisters,’ Marshall said. Source: Taft Coghill, Jr., “Stafford assistant football coach fired over disciplinary drill,” in The Free Lance-Star, 9 October 2015, at http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/stafford/stafford-assistant-football-coach-fired-over-disciplinary-drill/article_42160221-84cd-5af4-b786-68e2d78508a4.html

If you have not had enough of this barbarity—here is another one, this one from Temecula, California, in the southwestern part of Riverside County (Valley News, 17 October 2015).  The Temecula Valley Unified School Board launched an investigation in October 2015 into claims that “25 Chaparral High School football players, during a September conditioning practice, may have suffered burns on their hands from hot artificial grass. The football players after complaining of the burns were sent to the team athletic trainer John Rentar who provided first aid treatment for their burns. A few days later the school nurse, after examining a few of the player’s blistered hands, called parents to inform them that they needed further medical treatment for possible infections…. One of the football player’s mothers, who chose to remain anonymous for fear her child would be retaliated against, claims that during a school football practice, 25 or more players on the football team were chastised by Coach Jeffrey McCullough for ‘losing their focus and goofing off’ on the field. In an effort to condition the teens, the parent said, the coach ordered the players to perform ‘bear crawls’ on the hot artificial turf field, resulting in burns on the students’ hands and knees…. The mother of the 14-year-old player said she wasn’t aware of the situation or her son’s wounds until a few days later, when the school called and promptly informed her that her son was in need of hospitalization….After the parents began complaining the School Board issued a statement to the parents. In the statement, the school claims that the students were required to perform ‘crab walks,’ but that the injuries were unintended and the coach in question did, in fact, sterilize the equipment used to ‘pop’ the students’ blisters…. Greatly concerned that their children would be retaliated against, none of the parents would allow their names to be used by this writer.” Source: Taryn Murphy, TEMECULA: TVUSD faces football team injury lawsuit,” in Valley News, 17 October 2015, at  http://myvalleynews.com/education/temecula-tvusd-faces-football-team-injury-lawsuit/

[No. 111] Masterson, New Zealand: Artificial turf sidelines star rugby player, as graze (scrape) leads to infection. According to a news article in The Dominion Post (16 September 2015), the “new artificial turf at Masterton’s Trust House Memorial Park has sidelined a star rugby player. In-form South Canterbury winger Rupeni Cokanasiga looks likely to miss his team’s next match with a large, infected graze after a Heartland competition game last weekend against Wairarapa-Bush. South Canterbury manager Cedric Coll questioned whether germs on the pitch, installed as part of a $2.1 million upgrade at the park this season, were to blame. ‘It’s a magnificent-looking venue, but if you’re going to be pulling two or three players out after each game it’s not worth the risk.’ Cokanasiga applied Vaseline to his knees and elbows before the game, cleaned his wound afterwards with antibacterial soap, and treated it with iodine. But despite the precautions, at Tuesday's training he and two team-mates had developed painful infections. Cokanasiga was put on antibiotics for the infected graze, which measured 15 centimetres by five. ‘You could almost fry an egg on it, it was so hot,’ Coll said. The Fijian, who scored his third try of the season in Masterton, was in doubt for Saturday’s game as a result. Wairarapa-Bush coach Josh Syms said the issue would probably resolve itself as the new surface settled down and players got used to dealing with grazes. ‘People spit on rugby fields, and people bleed and people sweat – so all that infectious material goes on it.’ That material would be eliminated through rain and grass-cutting in a way that didn’t happen on ‘plastic; pitches, he said. South Canterbury coach Barry Matthews said the issue needed to be dealt with. ‘I think they need to do something because teams just won't want to play on it ... it looked really clean, but if they're getting infected quite quickly it must be dirty.’ North Otago also had a player miss a game with an infected graze after playing in Masterton, team manager Duncan Kingan said.” Source: Caleb Harris, “Star rugby player sidelined by infected graze from Masterton’s new artificial pitch,” in The Dominion Post, 16 September 2015, at  http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/72116730/star-rugby-player-sidelined-by-infected-graze-from-mastertons-new-artificial-pitch

[No. 110] Ethan Zohn on crumb rubber and cancer. Ethan Zohn is a former professional soccer goalie. He played with Hawaii Tsunami and Cape Cod Crusaders of the United Soccer Leagues. He is considered among the best and most influential players of the 2000s. According to a news article on Huffington Post (16 Augsuet 2015), “[c]ontaining carcinogens and countless chemicals, exposure to crumb rubber causes multiple risks to players’ health. For example, plentiful evidence exists to determine that crumb rubber exposure can lead to cancer.” According to the article, “Ethan Zohn … who was  diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in 2009 has studied the connection between soccer players with cancer to their exposure to turf and crumb rubber. Among the 52 players with cancer he has studied, 46 of them have been goalkeepers, a position that has a higher interaction with turf than others.” Zohn says, “Goalkeepers are on the ground for the most part. Your face is in it, you’re breathing in the dust, eating some of it, your scrapes are getting filled with this [crumb rubber] stuff.” Source: Olivia Roskill, “America’s Wonder Women & The Battle For Equal Green(s),” on Huffington Post, 16 August 2015, at  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/olivia-roskill/americas-wonder-women-the_b_7978004.html

[No. 109] Amy’s List – update. According to Nancy Alderman, President, Environment and Human Health, Inc. (www.ehhi.org), the data collected by Amy Griffin, assistant women’s soccer coach, University of Washington, in February 2015 the reported number of soccer players with cancer was 109  --  now - 5 months later, as of 17 2015 the total number of soccer players who played on synthetic turf with cancer is 127 and of those 85 were soccer goalies. Of the 127 soccer players with cancer the cases are the following:  

Number of soccer players who have played on synthetic turf with Lymphomas: 49

Number of soccer players who played on synthetic turf with Leukemia: 21

Thyroid cancer: 6

Sarcomas: 13

Testicular cancer: 9

[No. 108] Are We Treating Women Athletes Like Guinea Pigs? (Woman’s World Cup 2015). A video presentation of players’ views on crumb rubber, heat, and general nasty qualities of artificial turf as a playing surface. Published by SFParks, 28 June 2015, on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb9uSsdAwjc&feature=youtu.be .

[No. 107] Ramona, California: Old artificial turf fields are health hazards. We are not sure which of the two items is the following is worse and which one is worst. (1) Old field lose the plastic grass blades (Query where does the pulverized plastic and broken pieces migrate to?); and (2) overtime artificial turf fields harden and that makes playing on them dangerous and perhaps illegal. Here is the skinny. According to a news report in Ramona Sentinel (17 June 2015),  “[a]lmost as soon as custodians removed the podium and chairs from Ramona High School graduation ceremonies, workers moved in to yank up the synthetic turf that has been the school field for 10 years…. Ramona Unified Maintenance and Operations Supervisor Ed Anderson and Ramona High Athletic Director Damon Baldwin agree Bulldog stadium needs the new turf. ‘The old field being taken out was as bad as it gets,’ said Baldwin. ‘The field was basically rubber with no blades of grass left. It had become so hard that there was not much life left in it for us to allow kids to be on it.’ When synthetic turf gets too hard, ‘legally you can’t play on it,’ said Anderson.  Some coaches from other districts had voiced concerns about the safety of the field, said Baldwin. Source: Maureen Robertson, “Out with the old, in with the new; School district outlines summer projects,” in Ramona Sentinel, 17 June 2015, at http://www.ramonasentinel.com/news/2015/jun/17/out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new/ .

 

[No. 106] FIFA 2015 Women’s World Cup sheds light on the unforgiving nature of artificial turf. According to a report in Shape (11 June 2015), “120-degree heat, turf burns, and standing water on the field are just a few of the injustices the U.S. women's soccer team is enduring.” “Make no mistake about it: Athletes hate playing soccer on turf. (U.S. forward Abby Wambach summed up the team’s feeling in an interview with NBC, calling the setup ‘a nightmare.’) The problem? Artificial grass is nothing like the real thing—and it has long been thought to negatively impact the way games are played.”

According to Diane Drake, former head women's soccer coach at George Mason University and Georgetown, “[t]he natural surface [grass] is friendlier on bodies and aids in recovery and regeneration. Turf is heavier and much harder on the body. In World Cup play, the amount of time between games is very small, so recovery and regeneration are crucial.” According to Wendy LeBolt, Ph.D., a physiologist specializing in women’s soccer and author, “[artificial t]urf also requires more stamina and athleticism. The artificial surface is ‘more fatiguing,’ which can have consequences beyond one game. Resiliency and weather durability are the primary benefits of turf, and this is why so many fields are being put in. But there is also more give to the surface, which may sap energy.” According to Drake, “[t]he surface also changes how the game is played. There are puddles everywhere with water bouncing into players’ faces. You can see them spraying all over the place. Problems with heavier weighted passes [kicking the ball to where you want the receiving player to be, not where they currently are] for the less technical teams are visible already. Rubber-plastic turf doesn’t allow players to turn, run, and maneuver the way they’re used to, which can lead to injuries. I've had multiple female players hurt themselves on turf, almost always uncontested without contact.”

According to the report, “[w]women have some unique physiologic concerns too—a wider angle between our hips and knees, wider pelvises, and differently shaped femurs—which have all been linked to a greater risk of knee injuries. This means turf play may be even riskier for women than for men.”

According to  Brian Schulz, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon at the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic in Los Angeles, California, “[t]here have been biomechanical studies showing increased frictional forces with artificial turf compared to natural grass. The increased friction increases injury risk because your foot is more likely to stay planted during a change of direction, causing the soft tissues of your leg to take the full impact of the force.”

According to the report, then there is the most notorious injury—the wicked ‘turf burns’ from players sliding or falling on the ground. “This problem is so ubiquitous it's even inspired its own Twitter account and hashtag, making #turfburn synonymous with #FIFAWWC2015.” “And it’s not just skin that’s getting burned! Artificial surfaces heat up much faster (and get much hotter) than regular playing surfaces. This past week, the playing field has been an insane 120 degrees Fahrenheit—a temp which not only makes it difficult to play your best, but also raises the risk of heat stroke and dehydration. Indeed, FIFA’s own published regulations say that modifications should be made if the temp is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit.” Source: Charlotte Hilton Andersen, “Why the USWNT Has to Play on Turf at the World Cup, in Shape, 11 June 2015, at http://www.shape.com/celebrities/celebrity-workouts/why-uswnt-has-play-turf-world-cup .

For a scathing criticism if FIFA’s use of artificial turf fields in the 2015 Women’s World Cup, see Rachel Maddow, “US Women’s soccer objections forces end to FIFA use of artificial,” on The Rachel Maddow Show (9 June 2015), at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/us-womens-soccer-puts-end-to-fifa-turf-use-460951619836  .

 

[No. 105] David R. Brown, Overview of the risks of synthetic turf fields (4 April 2015). David R Brown Sc.D. is a Public Health Toxicologist and Director of Public Health Toxicology for Environment and Human Health, Inc.; Past Chief of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health at Connecticut's Department of Health; Past Deputy Director of The Public Health Practice Group of ATSDR at the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.

If one looks at the number of studies on synthetic turf fields that have attempted to estimate the risk to young students' and athletes' from the exposures to chemicals contained in the fields, you will see the problem. The findings of each of the studies are based on a startling limited number (2 to 12) actual samples of crumb rubber (each weighing a no more than few ounces), on small number of fields most without with any testing of the crumb rubber (4 to 6 fields at most).  There is no study that is comprehensive systematic assessment of the risk.

Instead, a natural experiment is being conducted in which thousands of children are being exposed on playing fields to rubber, 1) known to contain carcinogens and 2) documented to produce cancer in the workers in the tire manufacturing plants.  The results of this human health experiment is to determine whether there is enough exposure to carcinogens in the synthetic turf fields to cause cancer in the children who play on these fields.

Now that there is strong indication that cancer has appeared in one segment of the student groups that have played on synthetic turf, (soccer goalies in particular as well as others) the experiment is allowed to continue with health departments standing by until they can obtain positively statistical confirmation of the cancer hazard.

Crumb rubber infill contains a large number of chemicals known to be toxic to humans. These include chemicals associated with cancer, asthma, and other adverse health effects. There is no "safe" threshold level for exposure to carcinogens. The only way to eliminate cancer risk from these chemicals is to eliminate exposure. No existing study disputes the inherent hazard of these chemicals; the studies simply draw varying conclusions regarding the total amount that these chemicals pose to children who are likely to be exposed when they play on the artificial turf fields.

The bottom line is that nobody knows exactly what the mix of chemicals is in any given field containing crumb rubber made from recycled tires. Tires themselves are manufactured with a wide variety of chemicals. Fields may contain tires from a variety of sources, and there is no source of information to identify exactly what chemicals, and in what quantity, are present in any given field.  No entity providing the crumb rubber provides any quality control, identification of source,  or analytical analysis of the contents of the rubber used.

Children are more susceptible than adults to a variety of environmental hazards, for several reasons.  Children's organ systems are developing rapidly. A toxic exposure during a critical window of development can have life-long consequences. Children's detoxification mechanisms are also immature, so an exposure that might not have an important effect on an adult could have an important effect on a child. In addition, children have many years in which to develop disease. Cancer, in particular, is a disease with long latency: disease can develop many years after exposure. For this and other reasons, it is particularly important to avoid carcinogenic exposures during childhood.

There has been no comprehensive assessment of the data on cancer among athletes exposed to crumb rubber from  artificial turf exposures. However, the evidence collected to date indicates a basis for concern and an urgent need for closer scrutiny. Most notable is the that the ratio of lymphomas and leukemia is the reverse of that expected in the general population for that age group.  Such a reverse in the pattern of cancers present is considered a signal that an active chemical carcinogen is present. Given the high stakes, it is prudent to take action to protect children from this known hazard rather than wait for definitive evidence of harm.

[No. 104] From the looks of it, breathing-in tire dust is perfectly okay: A pictorial testimony. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. 1 April 2015. The picture on the left shows a member of a crew spreading crumb rubber infill on an artificial turf field. The picture appears on page 9 of an industry publication touting the “benign” nature of crumb rubber (SBR) infill from used tires – at  http://ecoachesdirectory.com/pdfs/NIAAA_SBR_Rubber_Infill_Summary.pdf (also here).

If the irony (hypocrisy, perhaps) in all this is lost on you, please take a look at the following panels of pictures of crew sporting similar respiratory attire as they spread the harmless crumb rubber all over the fields. Arranged in reverse chronological order, what the pictures in the following panels tell us is that the “workplace” of the workers installing artificial turf fields includes also the site where they install the fields, and that their work (protected by breathing masks/respirators) is regulated either by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) (https://www.osha.gov) or just by the application of common sense on the part of the contractors/employees engaged in this sort of work. If only one could view with the same degree of concern and care the health of professional, semi-professional, and collegiate athletes for whom the SBR-infilled playing field too is a place of work. See  http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 94). Working (playing) in this toxic and carcinogen-laden crumb rubber infill ought to be considered an unnecessary occupational safety and health hazard and thus the use of the infill ought to be banned by OSHA. See related story at Crumb rubber http://www.synturf.org/crumbrubber.html (Item No. 40).

Panel # 3.  San Francisco (2014). The stills below are from our readers in the San Francisco area and also from a video, “San Francisco tire crumb chemicals health warnings,” courtesy of SF Parks (22 February 2015) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9sAVZazKX4, showing crew installing SBR infill at the Minnie & Lovie Ward Field (2014). 

Panel # 2. Montreal, Canada (2013). The stills below are from a video showing the coming together of the Montreal (Canada) Impact soccer field near Stade Saputo (2013). See the video at http://www.impactmontreal.com/en/news/2013/10/impact-inaugurates-new-synthetic-training-field-next-stade-saputo .

Panel # 1. University of Arizona (Tuscan, 2010). The pictures below were taken by one of our readers on 14 May 2010, during a visit to the University of Arizona, where a crew was expanding the artificial turf practice field.

[No. 103] The correlation between certain cancers and crumb rubber infilled artificial turf fields grows stronger (Latest count on Amy Griffin’s list). According to Tracy Stewart, a principal at Turf Grass Forum (Medway, Massachusetts), the list compiled by the coach of University of Washington’s women’s soccer program, Amy Griffin, had grown to more than 120 athletes afflicted with one variety of cancer or another. According to the count received from Griffin on 2 February 2015, the athletes include some 108 soccer players (81 of then goalies), 6 Lacrosse and/or Field Hockey players, and 10 football players (3 of them playing in the NFL). As types of cancer, there are some 51 players with lymphomas, 19 with leukemia, 9 with testicular cancer, 9 with sarcoma, 6 with thyroid cancer, 9 with brain cancer, and others.

The story of teenage cancer patient Teddy Shapiro from western suburbs of Chicao offers a cautionary tale. According to an investigative report by Dave Savini on WBBM TV (CBS 2) (11 February 2015), this Glenbrook North High School soccer player, with  It’s a rare form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma), “wants to know whether little pieces of rubber from recycled tires used on synthetic turf fields led to cancer in his pelvis.” “Shapiro played goalie, since he was eight, on various crumb-rubber fields in Northbrook, Highland Park and Schaumburg. A decade of diving, sliding and burning his skin on crumb rubber and exposing himself to the chemicals they contain. ‘It got in my eyes, in my mouth and then there were cuts and it got in the cuts,’ said Shapiro.”

“The 2 Investigators did some testing of local fields including the Sports Zone in Aurora and a field where Shapiro once played on Schaumburg Park District’s Sports Center. We asked the lab, Microtrace, to test the samples to see what chemicals were being released. Company Vice President, Dr. Chris Palenik, gave us the results. ‘The major components were benzothiazole compound and polyaromatic hydrocarbons,’ said Palenik … Chemicals found in the crumb rubber have the potential to cause health problems. Dr. Robert Cohen, from Northwestern Medicine, says the problem is there has been a lack of significant, long-term testing to find out whether there is a health danger. ‘We know some of these chemicals do cause cancer,’ said Cohen. ‘I think the frightening thing is that we just don’t have the information we need.’ Inadequate testing of products like this is a continual problem in the U.S. says Nancy Cowles, who heads watchdog group Kids In Danger. 'Unfortunately a lot in our product safety system is backward,’ said Cowles. ‘In Europe… you have to prove something is safe before you can use it. Often in the U.S., instead, you get to use it until it’s proven unsafe.’”

Teddy Shapiro and his mother, Juli Shapiro “say with no family history of cancer, they would like to see further crumb rubber testing. ‘There should be more, I think more done. We need to protect these kids. We need to rule out anything that can harm them.’”

Source: Dave Savini, “2 Investigators: Crumb Rubber Turf Could Pose Cancer Risk,” on WBBM TV (CBS 2 - Chicago), 11 February 2015, at http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/02/11/2-investigators-crumb-rubber-turf-could-pose-cancer-risk/  

 

[No. 102] San Francisco, California: Soccer coach on synthetic turf and chemical sensitivities. On 15 January 2015, Susan Gerhard, a San Francisco soccer coach, spoke during the General Public Comment of the meeting of the Recreation & Parks Commission, saying that playing on artificial turf fields has affected her health that of her students. In a You Tube video published by SF Parks on 20 January 2015, Gerhard describes her becoming chemically sensitive to synthetic turf field and her students getting headaches on the fields, some asking for 3 and 4 times the water breaks than normal because of the heat of the fields. Go to Synthetic turf & chemical sensitivities testimonial—San, CA—at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjT7-46bSfk&feature=youtu.be .

“This is the first time we have heard testimony about people becoming chemically sensitive to the fields,” commented Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health (www.ehhi.org), in an e-mail received at www.SynTurf.org . “It is not surprising,” she added, “when you realize how many toxic chemicals people are being exposed to all at once—and in the heat—the exposures are greater.

 

[No. 101] Environmental epidemiology program manager at the Utah Health Department, Sam LeFevre, says we are starting to see evidence of long-term health issues relating to fake turf and its ingredients. According to a news report in Desert News (Slat Lake City, Utah) (5 December 2014), “[i]f your children play football or soccer on an artificial surface, they’ve come in contact with those tiny BB-sized pieces of rubber, used for padding. They’ve probably even swallowed a piece or two during a tackle. In some parts of the country, larger pieces of rubber are used in playgrounds, where small children play in it and roll in it.” According to Sam LeFevre, environmental epidemiology program manager at the Utah Health Department, “[a]ll 50 states have expressed some concern or hope to have better understanding of what the issues are. The negative effects are as the rubber deteriorates it could release particles, gases and possibly heavy metals. It’ll fall apart and become little particles. The glues and adhesives that hold it together start to degrade and becomes a powder that people can breathe in [and some of those compounds could be toxic]… Even the artificial blades of grass in the turf contain metals that can break down over time…. [F]or years, there wasn’t much evidence of long-term health issues relating to fake turf and its ingredients. When it first came out, it was all brand new and we didn’t see any issues. But now that it's starting to age, we're starting to see these types of issues … Our advice would be for parents to realize that the exposures are short term, just the time that the children are on the field, so it’s not a chronic environmental effect.”  Source: Keith McCord, “Toxic turf? What happens when those football and soccer fields deteriorate?,” in Desert News, 5 December 2014, at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865617094/Toxic-turf-What-happens-when-those-football-and-soccer-fields-deteriorate.html

 

[No. 101] Connecting the dots—synthetic turf and developmental challenges. SynTurf.org, Newton Mass. 5 January 2015. The EPA has known about the carcinogens, toxins, and other harmful substances in tires (therefore also in tire crumb) for decades. The public’s awareness about the potential impact of exposure of children to these substances is slowly but surely increasing. As far as SynTurf.org can trace, much is owed to the pioneering work of Drs. William (Bill) Crain, professor of psychology at The City College of The City University of New York, and Junfeng (Jim) Zhang, former professor and acting chair of Department of Environmental and Occupational Health in the School of Public Health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry and Rutgers University. In summer 2006, they published a seminal research paper on the hazardous material found in artificial turf field’s tire crumb infill. Because the granules are much more accessible to children and athletes than they had supposed, they decided to analyze a sample for two possible sets of toxicants—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and toxic metals. The analysis was done at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of Rutgers University; Dr. Crain paid for the analyses. For more details, see http://www.synturf.org/westportbrief.html (Item No. 2). For other references to Crain’s works cited on SynTurf.org, see http://www.synturf.org/warnings.html (Item Nos. 04 and 30), http://www.synturf.org/lead.html (Item No. 25), and http://www.synturf.org/lead.html (Item No. 12).

A few years back, SynTurf.org referenced a video-documentary work by Patrick Barnard of Montreal, Canada— The Pimento Report / Le Piment # 007 Bill Crain: Lead in Synthetic Turf (21 February 2009) on You Tube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlm4UiQEE8Y . In the video, Crain focused on lead’s presence in artificial turf fields. An earlier video-documentary by Barnard focused on general remarks about playing on synthetic turf— Bill Crain Speaks About Synthetic Turf  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pud7WFZr65o – 27 June 2008).

Of course, we now know that there is much more than just lead to which children are exposed when they wallow in the mire that is tire crumb and tire dust. Crumb rubber from used tires contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, furans, hydrogen chloride, benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and metals, such as arsenic, cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury, chromium and vanadium. There are also 26 carcinogens in crumb rubber. According to the EPA, exposure to these can substances can pose significant short-term and long-term health hazards to people, such as irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes, respiratory effects, central nervous system depression, and cancer. See EPA’s list of harmful chemicals in tires at http://www.synturf.org/epa.html (Item No. 18). See also,

EHHI’s analysis discussed at http://www.synturf.org/ehhibrief.html (Item No. 1), and reference to RAMP’s analysis at http://www.synturf.org/crumbrubber.html  (Item No. 37).

There is now another Barnard-production interview with Crain, but in this one he speaks not of synthetic turf; his emphasis is on the developmental challenges that children face in this day and age—and he seems to implicate parents’ wrong set of priorities contributing to the ordeal of growing up healthy. The video is “Pimento Report #88: Bill Crain and Reclaiming Childhood,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16OI4FXPdiI&feature=youtu.be   (20 December 2014). As one watches this, on cannot but wonder why then if we so care about our children should we allow them to wallow in tire crumb and tire dust, whose constituent parts have been known to neurotoxins and carcinogens.

In March 2014, Drs. Philippe Grandjean and Philip J. Landrigan pusblished a research paper entitled “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity,” in LANCET Neurology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 330-338 (March 2014) (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3 ). According to the summary of the paper (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract ) neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, Grandjean, from Environmental and Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, and Landrigan, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had done a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Grandjean and Landrigan now postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, they propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, they propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse. Full text of their paper is available at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext .

The Grandjean & Landrigan paper sets forth 11 harmful chemicals that affect brain development in children. In addition to two other substances of concern—Bisphenol A (BPA), and Phthalates—the eleven are: Lead, Methylmercury, Polychlorinated biphenyls, Arsenic, Toluene, Manganese, Fluoride, Chlorpyrifos and DDT (pesticides), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Tetrachloroethylene (Perchlorethylene), and Polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (flame retardants). Of these, in comparing the EPA’s list of harmful substances in tires (see   http://www.synturf.org/epa.html  Item No. 18), Phenol and Phthalates are found in tires, as are lead, arsenic, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). 

According to an article by Alice G. Walton, “11 Toxic Chemicals Affecting Brain Development In Children,” on Forbes.com, 15 February 2014, at http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/15/11-toxic-chemicals-afffecting-brain-development-in-children/ , Bisphenol A is an endocrine (hormone) disruptor, and, strongly suspected to affect neurodevelopment in children. Phthalates have been routinely linked to shortened attention span and impaired social interactions in children. Lead has been consistently linked to serious deficits, including low IQ; its effects seem to be permanent, leading to the conclusion that there is no safe level of exposure. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) has routinely been associated with reduced cognitive function in infancy and childhood. Arsenic has been linked to reduced cognitive function in schoolchildren. Tires also contain Toluene, which has been linked to brain development problems and attention deficit in the child.

According to Grandjean & Landrigan, as reported by Walton (supra),  “the developing human brain is incredibly vulnerable to chemical exposures, both in utero and in early childhood, and these changes can be lifelong. ‘During these sensitive life stages,’ say the authors, ‘chemicals can cause permanent brain injury at low levels of exposure that would have little or no adverse effect in an adult.’”

It is therefore no surprise that the peril of playing on tire crumb infill should strike a cord with Crain in the summer of 2006. As child development/psychology specialist, he had know already of the impact of lead; the discovery of so many other neurotoxins, in addition to the presence of irritants and carcinogen, in crumb rubber may have come as surprise. One must then wonder what does the government (EPA) know, when did they know it, and why for so long they have kept it under wraps? Would any responsible parent really buy the hype that these fields are safe to play on? Crain—like others in the medical/scientific community—does not think so.

For an excellent article on the mind-numbing policy of emptying out toxic scrap tire landfills and covering playgrounds and playing fills with the crumb and mulch of the same toxic material, see Lynne Peebles,  “Scrap Tire Playgrounds Lighten Landfills, But Raise Cancer Fears,” on HuffingtonPost, 20 December 2014), at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/20/scrap-tires-toxic-playgrounds_n_6356396.html

 

[No. 100] Faster aging curve among baseball players playing on artificial turf. According to a statistical analysis by Chris Teeter, “Does playing on artificial turf affect how players’ age?,” on BeyondtheBoxScore (28 November 2014) at  http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/11/28/7296843/artificial-turf-age-curve-blue-jays-rays-baseball-woba of 655 baseball players who played at least three consecutive seasons on artificial turf fields between 1995 and 2014 on the basis of wOBA (weighted on-base average) shows that “playing on turf a lot early in one’s career can lead to a steeper aging ‘curve.’ This seems to fit the conventional wisdom associated with playing on turf.”  wOBA) is a catch-all offensive statistical methods; it measures a hitter’s overall offensive value based on the relative values of each distinct offensive event.

 

[No. 99] Cautionary tale from the Hicks twins. According to a news report on Lex18 (12 November 2014), an NBC TV affiliate in Lexington, Kentucky, McKenzie Hicks was twice diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the same illness that afflicted the soccer players noted by the NBC report featuring the soccer coach Amy Griffin. When McKenzie needed a bone marrow transplant after the second diagnoses she also discovered that she and her sister Molly “were essentially genetically the same[twins].”

“[This] realization led to more questions—why had McKenzie Hicks gotten sick, and her sister had not?” One difference between the sisters was that McKenzie “was a lifelong soccer player, and a promising one, earning a soccer scholarship to Morehead in 2009. Since middle school, she said, she almost always played and practiced on synthetic turf fields and was well acquainted with the ‘little black dots’ that stick to players’ skin, clothes and hair.” “I’d play just about the whole game, every time, with slide tackles and stuff,’ she said. ‘I remember going into the locker rooms after practice, and just pulling down your socks and you had all those little turf pebble things all in my skin and everywhere. I’ve played soccer my whole entire life, and [Molly] has, too, except I’ve always played select soccer—real competitive soccer—and she took like five to six years off of competitive soccer to do cheerleading and other things,’ she said.” “The Centers for Disease Control lists exposure to chemicals, including Benzene, a chemical found in many tires, as risk factors for lymphoma.” Source: “LEX 18 Investigates: Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf,” on Lex18, 12 November 2014, at http://www.lex18.com/news/lex-18-investigates-crumb-rubber-artificial-turf/

[No. 98] U.S. Congressman asks ATSDR conduct an official study to examine what effects exposure to the chemicals in crumb rubber may have on athletes who play on turf fields and come into contact with crumb rubber on a regular basis. Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) is the top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, whose jurisdiction also includes the Subcommittee on Health.  On 9 October 2014, Pallone sent a letter to Robin Ikeda, Acting Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [U.S. Department of health and Human Services] (ATSDR), to express his concern regarding the use of recycled rubber tire crumbs in synthetic turf fields and the potential health risks that they pose. He asked the agency to conduct an official study to examine what effects exposure to the chemicals in crumb rubber may have on athletes who play on turf fields and come into contact with crumb rubber on a regular basis. “Crumb rubber has been known to contain carcinogens and chemicals, but there is an astounding lack of information on how this product affects our health,” said Congressman Pallone.  “And yet, we send our young kids off to soccer practice and football practice to play on turf fields made of this very substance.  The fact that crumb rubber has become so prevalent and that we still know so little about potential health risks it poses is troubling.  More research must be done to protect the safety of public health.” Pallone stressed the need for more research to be done to determine whether repeated exposure to crumb rubber increases the risk of lymphoma, leukemia and other blood cancers.  Specifically, he called for more data to be made available in order to properly evaluate the adverse health effects that crumb rubber may have on young athletes, who are especially susceptible to chemical exposures.

Full text of the letter is as follows:

October 9, 2014

Robin M. Ikeda

Acting Director

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

4770 Buford Hwy NE

Atlanta, GA 30341

Dear Acting Director Ikeda,

             I write today regarding the usage of recycled rubber tire crumbs in synthetic turf athletic fields in the United States.  A recent report has highlighted that a number of cases of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and other blood cancers have appeared in women athletes who have also played on turf fields containing crumb rubber.

            It is clear that more data is needed to evaluate the risks that exist from exposure to crumb rubber in athletic turf and its effect on human health.  Rubber tires often contain numerous chemicals considered carcinogens, including benzene, arsenic and phthalates, among others.  Another question that remains is whether exposure to these harmful carcinogens could be amplified when tires are ground into tiny particles and athletes come into contact with the material on a regular basis.

Given that children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to chemical exposures because of their size and are predominant users of athletic fields across the country, additional study of this issue is needed.  According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s Principles of Pediatric Environmental Health, “Beginning before conception and persisting throughout childhood, children are often more susceptible to environmental toxicants compared to adults…[and] usually have increased exposures per kilogram of body weight, compared to adults.”

 As the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the co-chair of the Congressional Recycling Caucus, I believe more research must be done to evaluate the risks of exposure to chemicals in crumb rubber and its effect on human health.  As such, I respectfully request that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct a study to determine if human exposure to recycled rubber tire crumbs in synthetic turf athletic fields increases the risk of lymphoma, leukemia and other blood cancers.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response.

                                                                               Sincerely,

                                                                               FRANK PALLONE, JR.

                                                                              Member of Congress

Source: Press Release, “Pallone Calls for Study on Potential Health Risks Posed by Artificial Turf,” 9 October 2014, at pallone.house.gov/press-release/pallone-calls-study-potential-health-risks-posed-artificial-turf .

[No. 97] Amarillo, Texas: Doctors are noticing increase in cancer rate among children; crumb rubber infill on artificial turf fields the culprit? According to news report on KVII (ABC-affiliate, Channel 7 TV) (21 November 2014), “[a]fter Amy Griffin, a soccer coach in Washington state compiled a list of around 30 soccer players who have developed rare types of blood cancer, national attention is now on the issue [of safety of artificial turf fields]. Griffin says around 22 of those diagnosed, are goalies. She says they're the players who spend the most time diving onto the turf.” “Doctors here in Amarillo say they are noticing a trend as well. ‘Over the last three decades the cancer rate in children is increasing and it’s quite a bit, it’s concerning,’ said Dr. Turner, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Tech. But Dr. Turner also says we don’t know why this is happening. He says most types of blood cancer are linked to genetics, or certain viruses like epstein bar, but that environmental factors could be contributing as well. ‘Benzene,’ he said, has been shown to cause cancer.’ Benzene and Butadiene are both volatile organic compounds, or VOC’s, and are used in the production of rubber tires. In large enough quantities, they have been linked to various types of leukemia. It’s not the actual artificial turf grass itself that some think is dangerous, but what they use to fill in the grass to make it softer when athletes fall. It’s called ‘crumb rubber,’ and it’s not just found in stadiums, but also children’s playgrounds…. But, adds Dr. Turner, ‘it’s hard to tell an association vs. being causal.’ The EPA has yet to do a rigorous study on this link and refuses to comment to any news outlets, but studies conducted by the California government showed trace amounts of Benzene and Butadiene in the crumb rubber used in artificial turf. ‘I think it'd be money well spent to do the studies to look for any possible association with these products and leukemias and lymphomas,’ said Dr. Turner. A study done by the California department of resources and recycling says there is added danger for exposure to Benzene when the crumb rubber is exposed to heat, but that it has not been studied thoroughly enough yet.” Source: Solina Lewis, “Artificial turf may be linked to cancer,” on ABC affiliate Channel 7 KVII (Amarillo, Texas), 21 November 2014, at http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1126515#.VHDvhbktBxB.

 

[No. 96] Centennial, Colorado: Mom wonders about artificial turf's cancer risk.  In the aftermath of the NBC investigative report about the possible link between artificial turf’s crumb rubber from used tires and cancer among a cluster of former goalies, the media in local markets reported on the issue as raised at the community level. According to a news report in the Coloradoan (13 October 2014), “[w]hen Lolly Walker’s daughter Faye was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma in high school, her mother was puzzled. The 16-year-old was a healthy, accomplished soccer player. ‘She started having trouble on the field,’ Walker said. ‘She couldn’t breathe, couldn’t keep up with the other kids.’ After a two-year battle which included chemotherapy and radiation treatments Faye’s lymphoma went into remission. But he mother never stopped being curious. This past week, a co-worker sent her a link to an NBC News investigation questioning whether crumb rubber found in artificial turf causes cancer. Crumb rubber is made up of chopped up car and truck tires, which are known to contain carcinogens.” “Walker contacted NBC after the story to share her daughter’s story. Her interview was featured on the Today Show. She said she hasn’t made any conclusions, but agrees more testing should be done. ‘These fields are really nice and it’s a really good opportunity for the kids but if it’s toxic then we need to know,’ she said.” Source: “Colorado mom wonders about artificial turf's cancer risk,” in the Coloradoan, 13 October 2014, at http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2014/10/13/artificial-turf-cancer/17182923/ .

 

[No. 95] Concussion and Artificial Turf. On 24 October 2014, Jonathan Crowl (Yahoo! Sports) asked “Is Synthetic Turf Giving Athletes Cancer?” at http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201410/synthetic-turf-giving-athletes-cancer-soccer-crumb-rubber-goalie-fields . The piece was more or less the same as any other news account following the NBC investigative that featured a college soccer coach who had discovered a cluster of cancer-stricken goalies who had played on artificial turf, possibly connected to them playing on artificial turf and being exposed to toxins and carcinogens present in the crumb rubber.  There was one piece of information that caught SynTurf.org’s eye in particular—relating to the basic notion that greater acceleration brought about by the superb traction qualities of artificial turf fields results in more forceful collision/impact between players, increasing the risk of concussion. See. For example, http://www.synturf.org/health.html (Item No. 85 - October 2013). “Even worse,” Crowl wrote, “a recent report from The American Academy of Neurology suggests that concussions are more prevalent on synthetic turfs, in part because improved traction lets athletes accelerate and collide at higher speeds.”

At the 65^th annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in March 2013, which was held in San Diego, California, the AAN issued a report on Sports Concussion, presenting the public with a Guideline Press Kit - https://www.aan.com/uploadedFiles/Website_Library_Assets/Documents/3Practice_Management/5Patient_Resources/1For_Your_Patient/6_Sports_Concussion_Toolkit/guidelines.pdf  (18 March 2013) (or click here ) entitled “AAN Issues Updated Sports Concussion Guideline: Athletes with Suspected Concussion Should Be Removed from Play.” It provided a “Summary of evidence-based guideline update: Evaluation and management of concussion in sports,” from the Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology  by Christopher C. Giza, and others, approved by the Guideline Development Subcommittee on July 14, 2012; by the Practice Committee on August 3, 2012; and by the AAN Board of Directors on February 8, 2013.

One of the four questions that the report focused on was What factors increase/decrease concussion risk? On page 4, the summary stated: “In football, playing on artificial turf is possibly a risk factor for more severe concussions (1 Class I study, but small numbers of repeat concussions,” citing as authority Guskiewicz KM, Weaver NL, Padua DA, Garrett WE Jr.. “Epidemiology of concussion in collegiate and high school football players,” in Am J Sports Med 2000; 28:643–650. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11032218 . On page 45-46 of the AAN report, the Academy stated a “higher rate of Cantu grade II concussions was reported in a Class I study of injuries sustained on artificial turf (22%) relative to those sustained on natural grass (9%).” 

 

[No. 94] For soccer players artificial turf is an issue of occupational safety and health. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. 12 October 2014. For the last seven years SynTurf.org’s Players’ View page http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html has been cataloguing statements by sportsmen and sportswomen with safety and health concerns about playing on artificial turf fields—not on the mat-on-concrete variety of yore, but on the so-called “third generation” simulated plastic grass with synthetic dirt (infill) like crumb rubber. Two major developments in the past month have now converged to create the perfect time for all involved to discuss in earnest the plight of the professional players who toil on artificial turf.

First: The Women’s 2015 World Cup Lawsuit. After a month or two of threatening the world soccer organization—Fédération Internationale de Football Association/ International Federation of Association Football (FIFA)—and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) with a lawsuit over the playing of the 2015 Women’s World Cup in Canada on artificial turf,[1] a group of world-class elite women soccer players finally made good on their threat and filed suit with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Canada.[2] “The group of players named in the filing consists of national team players from approximately a dozen countries, including the former world players of the year Abby Wambach of the United States and Nadine Angerer of Germany. Nearly every top contender for next year’s World Cup title is represented, although the filing does not name any players from host Canada’s national team.”[3]

The gravamen of their complaint is that no men’s or women’s World Cup has been played on artificial turf—every one has been played on grass[4]—and therefore now by sanctioning artificial turf for the 2015 women’s world cup FIFA and CSA are discriminating against women players because ‘no artificial turf’ remains the policy for men’s world cup play. The relief that they seek is for the Canadian court to order the games to be played on natural grass. The legal issue is whether the decision by the CSA to have the games played on artificial turf at all the five venues set aside for them violates Canadian law and the 1966 international human rights conventions and the convention on the elimination on discrimination against women.

The absence of a Canadian player in the mix of the plaintiffs need not lead to the dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing for the purposes of relief under Canadian law, which includes international conventions to which it is a party. Aside from equal protection of the laws for nationals, residents and transients, there is an economic/fiscal basis for standing by non-Canadians to institute this suit. FIFA will earn millions of dollars in revenue from broadcasters, sponsors, hospitality and licensing deals as a part of the Women’s World Cup in Canada. It will distribute tens of millions of dollars of that revenue to the national federations taking part in the games. The national federations will then compensate the players on their teams. Depending on tax treaty provisions between the host country (Canada) and the country of a particpant-national team, the income that the players will receive is subject to Canadian taxation. If a non-Canadian player can be subject to Canadian tax law then she should be entitled to the protection of Canadian anti-discrimination laws while playing (working) in Canada.

As FIFA is not a country it is not a party to the international conventions and it may have some sort of immunity from Canadian law. But for FIFA the sting comes from a public shaming—one that is piling up every day, especially after its choice of Qatar as the venue for the men’s world cup in the summer of 2022! As the blog on PostStar.com notes,  FIFA is a “chronically misguided international sports organization” and its decision to have women play on artificial turf is “a terrible wrongheaded decision by FIFA, but that is what anyone who pays attention has come to expect from that organization and its fellows in international sports boneheadedness.”[5]

An issue of gender equality and gender discrimination resonates far more with the general public than an issue of workplace safety and health, which is too often ignored by club owners and managers. It is rather well-known that club owners and managers discourage players from openly criticizing artificial turf in their venues. This may be related to the “no disparagement” clause that might be included in the contracts between the vendors of artificial turf and the owners of the venues, or simply it may be a question of labor-management relations/dynamics. Regardless, according to the lawyers who filed the lawsuit in Canada, “the players were given a survey in 2013, which solicited their opinions on various things, including the best playing surface for major tournaments. Many players thought if there was strong support for grass in that survey, it could lead to a change for the 2015 World Cup, but nothing came of it.”[6] The players “also felt some national federations have stifled their players from speaking out publicly.”[7]

Having the English superstar David Beckham lament about artificial turf[8] is one thing—easily dismissible as a personal peeve—but one cannot ignore an issue that involves the voice of one half of humanity. Exhibit 1: As reported by Rachel Brady of the Toronto-based Canadian national daily The Globe and Mail, the National Basketball Association [NBA] stars Kobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers) and Kevin Durant (Oklahoma City Thunder) took to the social media urging FIFA to put the tournament on grass, while “[s]ome of the U.S. men’s soccer team have also tweeted their support for the women, as has actor Tom Hanks. The Women’s Sports Foundation has also joined the cause.”[9] Most significantly, is the position taken by FIFPro, the Fédération International de Footballeurs professional, the World Players’ Union. It has stated that artificial turf is unsuitable for World Cup play.[10] This is not surprising considering that FIFPro’s survey of national teams have consistently found that the players prefer natural grass to artificial turf.[11] 

The issue of gender equality and gender discrimination is not difficult for FIFA to resolve. It can—in its known boneheadedness—ordain that all world cup games can be played on artificial turf—men’s and women’s—thereby assuring equality! What FIFA cannot sidestep is the question of player safety and health.

The human and civil rights issue in the players’ lawsuit aside, artificial turf is an inferior playing surface. Period. If it were equal or superior to grass then the men soccer players would have urged FIFA to mandate it for their world cup games as well. If there is a picture that can paint a thousand words it is perhaps that of Sydney Leroux’s legs after a session on artificial turf [inset above]. It is an ugly reminder of the anguish associated with playing the Beautiful Game on an unforgiving surface.

One of the most interesting side effects of the FIFA/CSA lawsuit story is the number of women players who have spoken publicly about their experiences. For example, Heather O’Reilly, a midfielder on the U.S. National Team, and a plaintiff in the lawsuit: “Turf just changes the game quite a bit. The actual quality of soccer is changed. More importantly is sort of an injury concern. And, as you can imagine, slide tackling on turf—you can’t just get up and wipe off dirt and grass. You’re now talking about wiping off a layer of skin. A lot of male players even refuse to play on artificial turf, even for just friendly matches. And this is the World Cup we’re talking about.”[12] Germany’s goalkeeper and reigning FIFA World Player of the Year Nadine Angerer told the press that “[t]he risk to get injured is very, very high [on artificial turf]. It totally changes the game.” “It’s a fact that, especially in a tournament where you have to play every three days, the recovery after playing on a turf field is not the same as on grass,” according to Verónica “Vero” Boquete Giadans, the Spanish midfielder of the Spanish national team.[13] As Carrie Serwetnyk, the first female player inducted into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame in 2001, has noted: For FIFA/CSA to ask that these games be played on artificial turf is “like asking Olympic athletes, ‘Just go run on that cinder track. It’s no big deal. You can still run faster.’ As a citizen, I expect more from my country.”[14]

The Sports Illustrated senior writer Grant Wahl summed it all up thusly for Bill Littlefield of WBUR/NPR’s Only A Game program: “Players, men’s and women’s, over the years have told me that they prefer playing on grass, that they’re more hesitant to do diving headers on artificial turf surfaces. And when it rains, especially, artificial turf can be tough to watch games on because the ball skids so much. The body has a harder time recovering after the pounding it takes playing on artificial turf surfaces, even the newer surfaces. And in a tournament that’s a month long, where the games come fast and furious, that’s going to affect the quality of the play.”[15]

The women who have brought the lawsuit and their sympathizing colleagues do play on artificial turf, but they do so out of necessity for livelihood and doing what they must in order to build a foundation for their young league.[16] As stated by Zainab Mudallal in the New York City-based Quartz:[17] “[T]the field plays an important role: The ball bounces and rolls around differently on plastic than on grass. The surface temperature of synthetic turf is also significantly hotter than natural turf, which puts athletes at risk of dehydration and overheating. And because the friction of the plastic turf exposes players to scrapes and burns that aren’t an issue with natural grass, players’ cautiousness can also change the way the game is played—reducing the excitement for viewers. A 2013 survey of top female soccer players[18] found that they were 80% less likely …  to attempt slide tackles on plastic turf. A survey of Major League Soccer players found that an overwhelming majority said they felt plastic turf would increase their chances of injury, soreness, and longer recovery times after playing a match.[19] One study …  suggests that playing on artificial turf puts a further strain on your joints and leg muscles than grass does.[20] Another study found the best combination to reduce strain and prevent ACL injuries is natural grass and cleats.”[21]

On a national level—in the United States there has been great progress in moving away from artificial turf to natural grass in “specialized” for professional and semi-pro soccer. There are a number of reasons for this shift by the soccer clubs in the States—such as staying true to the game, preventing injury, player preference—but like all things in the world capital of capitalism it is mostly about money. In the early days of Major League Soccer on artificial turf the venues where the games were being played did not belong to the clubs; they were stadiums to whose owners the clubs paid rent. As the reality set in that MLS will never attract as many fans as these stadiums had the capacity to host the trend began to move away from these top-heavy expensive venues to a more intimate (read: smaller) specialized soccer-only venues that the clubs could build and own on their own—complete with natural grass surfaces that could be sustained because they were not for multi-sport use or non-sports events like concerts and such.

In the world at large however the move away from artificial turf has been slow, if at all. Nevertheless, there is some hopeful signs coming out of Norway. On 21 May 2014 the Norwegian Players Union (NISO) agreed to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that will give the players a voice/influence on playing surfaces. More player influence on choice of playing surface was one of the key topics in the negotiations. Under the new agreement, the players will get to have a say before their clubs move to either replace or repair the playing surface. 8 out of 16 teams in the Norwegian Top Division play on artificial turf. In the last ten years, more and more clubs have changed from natural grass to artificial turf without taking the views of the players into consideration. When asked what surface they prefer, 77 percent of the players chose natural grass.[22] According to Joachim Walltin, the President of NISO, “[t]hese are important points. Several previous processes have shown us that players have not had any real influence. The clarification of the wording strengthens the players’ influence in matters of great importance to their health and safety.”[23]

As reported in SynTurf.org in April 2012, the Dutch and Danish soccer players are on the record for having rejected artificial turf,[24] while according to a 2006 survey by the Swiss Association of Professional Footballers (SAFP) around 88% of the Super League professional soccer players in Switzerland did not like playing on artificial turf.[25] In Canada—“[a]  study done by researchers at York University in Toronto backs up the players’ objections. They interviewed 99 professional players from six Major League Soccer teams during the 2011 season and found that 94 per cent felt it posed more risk of injury than natural grass. They overwhelming reported that the surface feels stiffer, creates more friction, and requires more physical exertion when one plays on it compared to natural grass. Among their responses were descriptive phrases like ‘pounds on joints,’ ‘cleats don’t slide,’ ‘body gets tired faster’ and ‘running in sand.”[26] “’The epidemiological data strongly suggests that the actual number of injuries that occur while playing on artificial turf are greater than while playing on natural grass, particularly noncontact injuries, like a noncontact ACL tear,’ said William Gage, associate dean of research and innovation in York’s faculty of health, and a contributor to the published study.”[27]

Second: The NBC News Investigation Report.  The Women’s World Cup Lawsuit sets forth in paragraphs 28-32 the downside of playing on artificial turf fields. However, the stated downsides are superficial in that they relate to the behavior of the playing surface—hardness, heating, scrape-causing roughness, and bounce of the ball. What the lawsuit lacks is a count based on the exposure of players to the chemicals and substances of concern that artificial turf fields contain.  A 2007 study by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and sponsored by Environment and Human Health, Inc., North Haven, Connecticut (www.ehhi.org) showed that the crumb rubber infill of artificial turf fields contained, among other harmful and toxic substances, benzothiazole,  butylated hydroxyanisole, n-hexadecane, and 4-(toctyl) phenol. Benzothiazole is a skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. Butylated hydroxyanisole is a 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. N-hexadecane is a severe irritant based on human and animal studies. 4-(t-octyl) phenol is a corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes.[28] Add to this group health issues posed by nanoparticles of carbon black and other compounds of concern—like o-toluidine, a known carcinogen[29]—then one need to do more than just ponder whether playing on this surface is not potentially harmful. In Sweden, in 2006, the Chemicals Inspectorate provided the public policy rationale for why crumb rubber had no place in playing fields—it made no public health policy sense that an item (used tires) that was disposed of as hazardous waste should be grounded up and placed in playing fields.[30]  In June of this year (2014), a major European study called for precautionary actions on the assessment of chemicals even in cases where individual toxicants were present at seemingly harmless concentrations.[31]

On 8 October 2014 the US television network NBC [National Broadcasting Company] aired an investigative report—months in the making—entitled “How safe is the artificial turf your child plays on?”[32] Earlier—on 20 May 2014, as reported in SynTurf.org,[33] KOMO News (ABC affiliate in Seattle, Washington) featured Amy Griffin, a former goalkeeper with the United States National Team[34] and now head coach of women’s soccer at the University of Washington, who had noted a troubling connection between the turf and cancer among soccer players, most of them goalies.[35] This was followed on 31 May by an article in the Huffington Post titled “Why These Goalies Are Worried About Unknown Toxins In Artificial Turf,” in which the reporter Lynne Peeples concluded with a quote from David Brown, Sc.D, Director of Public Health Toxicology for Environment and Human Health, Inc. “How did this happen? How did we end up with children playing on fields that we know have carcinogens in them?” One answer is in the article’s own finding that “Many state laws prohibit burning tires, or even disposing them in a landfill, due to potential releases of toxic chemicals.” So, the well-meaning but misguided environmentalists and recyclers decided that perhaps the noxious tire should be “recycled” or “repurposed” (i.e., converted into tiny bits of crumb rubber or made into rubber playing surfaces) and then put down where our children—of all ages—play ball. Here is a sampling of what some sources said and our commentary where one is required.[36]

The NBC report opens in 2009 with the story of Amy Griffin visiting former goalies and other athletes in the Seattle area that were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma when she is told that perhaps their affliction has something to do with those “black dots”—the crumb rubber.  “As any parent or player who has been on them can testify,” the report stated, “the tiny black rubber crumbs of which the fields are made—chunks of old tires—get  everywhere. In players’ uniforms, in their hair, in their cleats.” “But,” the story goes, “for goalkeepers, whose bodies are in constant contact with the turf, it can be far worse. In practices and games, they make hundreds of dives, and each plunge sends a black cloud of tire pellets into the air. The granules get into their cuts and scrapes, and into their mouths. Griffin wondered if those crumbs – which have been known to contain carcinogens and chemicals—were making players sick.” “I’ve coached for 26, 27 years,” she told the reporter. “My first 15 years, I never heard anything about this. All of a sudden it seems to be a stream of kids.” “Since then, Griffin has compiled a list of 38 American soccer players—34 of them goalies—who have been diagnosed with cancer. At least a dozen played in Washington, state but the geographic spread is nationwide. Blood cancers like lymphoma and leukemia dominate the list.” The report is quick to point out that “NBC’s own extensive investigation, which included a review of the relevant studies and interviews with scientists and industry professionals, was unable to find any agreement over whether crumb turf had ill effects on young athletes, or even whether the product had been sufficiently tested.” However, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who performed studies over five years ago, “recently backtracked on their assurances the material was safe, calling their studies ‘limited.’” In a statement to NBC,  the EPA said that “more testing needs to be done.”

As for the toxins found in crumb rubber, the NBC report notes that according to the EPA “mercury, lead, benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and arsenic, among several other chemicals, heavy metals, and carcinogens, have been found in tires.” “Existing research has attempted to measure the risk of exposure to harmful chemicals through the inhalation of gasses and particulate matter, as well as skin contact. Studies have found that crumb rubber fields emit gases that can be inhaled. Turf fields can become very hot -- 10 to 15 degrees hotter than the ambient temperature – increasing the chances that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and chemicals can ‘off-gas,’ or leach into the air. One study performed by the state of Connecticut measured the concentrations of VOCs and chemicals in the air over fields. In addition to VOCs such as benzene and methylene chloride, researchers identified various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The report concluded that ‘the use of outdoor and indoor artificial turf fields is not associated with elevated health risks,’ but that more research was needed to better understand chemical exposures on outdoor fields during hot weekends and in indoor facilities, which showed higher levels of chemicals in the air. Other studies have looked at whether run-off from crumb rubber turf is harmful to aquatic life, or whether the rate of injury on turf is lower than on natural grass. Few studies have looked at the issues unique to goalkeepers—whether ingesting the particles by mouth or absorbing them into the body through cuts and scrapes is dangerous. While many studies conclude that the fields studied do not present acute health risks, they often add the caveat that more research should be conducted.”

Among the studies noted by NBC are one “published in 2013 in the scientific journal Chemospheres, which analyzed rubber mulch and rubber mats, concluded that, ‘Uses of recycled rubber tires, especially those targeting play areas and other facilities for children, should be a matter of regulatory concern.’ [Another is the] 2006 Norwegian study evaluated inhalation, ingestion and skin exposure to crumb rubber in indoor fields. Researchers identified VOCs such as xylene, acetone and styrene, in the air above the fields. The study determined that inhalation of such compounds would not cause ‘acute harmful effects’ to health, but that it was ‘not possible…to carry out a complete health risk assessment.’ Researchers also concluded that oral exposure to artificial turf would not cause increased health risk. [A third is the] 2013 study attempted to measure ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure risk to users, and determined that the fields presented little risk. But researchers identified lead in the turf tested, including a ‘large concentration’ of lead and chromium in one sample. ‘As the turf material degrades from weathering the lead could be released, potentially exposing young children,’ the report states.”

“According to Dr. Joel Forman, associate professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at New York’s Mt. Sinai Hospital,” the report goes on, “in all these studies, data gaps make it difficult to draw firm conclusions.” “None of [the studies] are long term, they rarely involve very young children and they only look for concentrations of chemicals and compare it to some sort of standard for what’s considered acceptable. That doesn’t really take into account subclinical effects, long-term effects, the developing brain and developing kids. It is known that some of the compounds found in tires, even in chronic lower exposures can be associated with subtle neurodevelopmental issues in children. Those are always suspect. If you never study anything, you can always say, ‘Well there’s no evidence that’s a problem,’ but that’s because you haven’t looked. To look is hard. I would like to see some more research,” he concluded.

According to Caroline Cox, research director for Center for Environmental Health, even though “studies haven’t definitively established that crumb rubber turf is harmful the surface contains chemicals known to be hazardous.” “We know they’re there. The point is, let’s go with better alternatives instead of spending years and millions of dollars establishing harm. If there’s a better way to do this, let’s just do it.” Meanwhile, Amy Griffin continues to look for answers. “Now,” the report concluded, “her team collects paper cups of crumb rubber on each field they play on, handing them off to her so she can ship the granules to a lab to be tested. ‘I’m looking for answers, because I’m not smart enough to come up with them on my own,’ Griffin said. ‘I would love someone to say, ‘We’ve done some tests and we’ve covered all of our bases. … And yes, it’s safe.’ That would be awesome. … I would love to be proved wrong.” 

The NBC report ran for 5 minutes and 29 second. The video of it is available at http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-safe-artificial-turf-your-child-plays-n220166  where the reader will find also a scripted version. It is also available on You Tube “NBC News - How Safe is the Artificial Turf on Your Child's Sports Field ?” at http://youtu.be/iSj-QJkDQWw courtesy of SF Parks. It is also on

Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/posts/10152816687383689 .