No. 09] Turf vs.Grass: A False Choice.The promoters of artificial turf fields often begin their polished presentations to municipalities by saying that 'we all prefer grass a playing surface, but ...' Consultants who are hired by municipalities to advice on what the community ought to do with a deteriorating grass field often sing a similar tune, 'we looked at grass and at turf and ....' The preference for turf is phrased in connection with longevity and more playing time (both good things) and the debasing of grass is often phrased in terms of high cost of maintenance, vulnerability to rain and snow, puddling and mud, attractive to wildlife and wildlife excrement, less playing time, use of fertilizers, pesticides and gasoline operated equipment (all bad things). 'Given a well-maintained grass playing field and turf field,' the sales pitch goes, 'we all would want to have a grass field, but because that is not possible or expensive to achieve, turf is the best choice.' The turf v. grass choice is a false one. If one were honest, one would be comparing a well-maintained grass field with a well-maintained artificial turf field. This is particularly true of situations where a sparckling new turf field is being compared to the run-down, neglected and ill-maintained grass field that it is to replace.While grass field maybe slightly more expensive to maintain, the cost of installation of an artifical turf field and the replacement of the surface are huge. And, there is no way, artificial turf can possibly be made to pass as an environmental improvement over grass! The items appearing below speak to the necessity to preserve and maintain our grass playing fields.
No. 08] Wilmington [High School, Massachusetts] athletes not sold on turf, by Franklin B. Tucker, Thursday, April 12, 2007, 04:48 PM EDT, at http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/homepage/x1107229452Always a lush, deep green, practically indestructible and needing virtually no maintenance, the newest generation of artificial turf – with its grass like feel and remarkably forgiving, bouncy surface – has become all the rage for year-round sports facilities.You can play as well in the rain as on a clear day, if it snows, just brush the white stuff off. Muddy fields, a memory; holes in the ground, what’s that?
So who wouldn’t be enamored playing on, or even just looking at this newest of scholastics sports necessities?
Try more than half of student athletes at Wilmington High School. That was the findings of a three-day survey held last month, its outcome taking many by surprise including the student who conducted the questionnaire. “I didn’t believe that so many people wouldn’t want it,” said Matt Williams, a junior football player.
The results, released at the March 14 School Committee meeting, also brought Williams under the gaze of one of the field’s chief supporters. Williams is the current student representative to the Wilmington School Committee. He became involved when asked by outgoing Superintendent William McAlduff to undertake the survey on students’ thoughts of a new field at Alumni Field.
Not that this generation of high school students is likely to be cutting and weaving on a blanket of synthetic sod.
In fact, fundraisers are being held around town so supporter can hire a firm to conduct a feasibility and cost study.
“We are only in the first steps of a long process,” said Mark Nasiff, a leader of Wilmington Youth Soccer and go to guy for an amalgam of groups – from high school officials to youth sports volunteers and townies – hoping one day to watch mostly young people hit the field.
“We simply want to know what the costs we can expect to face,” said Nasiff. Only then will the supporters present a rough preliminary plan to the School Committee who will have the final say on approving the construction of the field.
“We’re not pushing this forwards until we’re better informed,” he said. [T]he student survey came as a wake up call to many who simply assumed that a new field would find universal enthusiasm and praise.
Williams’ survey asked if the student athletes had played on turf, if they suffered any skin burns on the artificial grass and on what surface they would like to play on. The results took Williams and many others by surprise. On injuries, 55 percent of Wilmington athletes had been cut or suffered burns from contact with the artificial surface. Of roughly 100 student athletes who took the survey, slightly more than half would prefer to play on the real stuff. And asked what the town and school board should do, another small majority said that the grass should stay on Alumni Field. Nathan Clarkin, 17, who puts the shot and throws the discus, said a new playing field would benefit only a small number of athletes – football, soccer and lacrosse players – at the expense of the majority of kids playing sports. “It would be great for them but for other athletes, well, we get left to the side,” said Clarkin, who said putters like him and javelin throwers would be forced to find alternative sites.
Revealing the results also put Williams into the sight of one of the turf’s biggest supporters. A day after the survey’s results were released to the School Committee meeting, Wilmington’s Athletic Director and former football coach Edward Harrison approached Williams during lunch to provide him with addition information supporting the need for a field in town. While Williams described the meeting as quite friendly and non-confrontational, it was a surprise for the student. “I guess this is a big deal for lots of people,” said Williams.
"As a former soccer player well acquainted with the hazards of sand-based soccer fields in the rainy Northwest, I can appreciate a soccer club’s frustration and desire to do something to improve playing conditions for its members. I know only too well the taste of a mouthful of muddy water and the sinking feeling of seeing a perfectly timed pass floating in a small pond halfway to its intended destination.
"All across the nation, more and more high schools, colleges, and park districts are installing artificial turf fields with the hope that they will be spared skid marks, puddles, and mudbaths. While improving upon some aspects of the situation, their choice creates other far more serious negative consequences, including potentially adverse health effects. Specifically, artificial turf exposes players, park users, and neighborhood residents to known inhaled carcinogens and dangerous bacteria and introduces the threat of aquifer and water supply contamination to the area." To read more, go to http://www.dianovo.com/blogs/tags/artificial_turf.
No. 06] Study Finds Volatile Organics in Turf Fields, by Judy Benson, TheDay.Com, August 18, 2007 http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=491e8ad8-406e-440d-8670-6f51901cc457 The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station has completed its study on the tire crumbs used in synthetic turf athletic fields, showing significant amounts of four volatile organic compounds are released into the air when the material is under conditions mimicking a hot summer day. The study says that crumb rubber, from ground-up tires, readily heats up under direct sunlight to temperatures 40 degrees or more hotter than the surrounding air temperatures, so subjecting it to testing in temperatures of up to 140 degrees is reasonable. “Based on these data,” the study reads, “further studies of crumb rubber produced from tires are warranted under both laboratory, but most especially field conditions.” The study was posted this week on the experiment station's Web site. The authors, four analytical chemists at the experiment station, characterized it as a “very modest study” due to time and staff limitations. The study was commissioned by the nonprofit group Environment and Human Health Inc. of North Haven for $2,000 after it became concerned about the synthetic turf fields were being installed around the state without adequate testing. Locally, Montville High and Connecticut College have synthetic turf fields. The four compounds identified in the study are benzothiazole, hexadecane, 4-(tert-Octyl)-phenol and butylated hyroxyanisole. According to information provided by Environment and Human Health Friday, benzothiazole is a skin and eye irritant that can be harmful if swallowed or inhaled. Hexadecane is a carcinogen, while 4-(tert-Octyl)-phenol can cause burns and is “very destructive of mucous membranes,” according to the organization. The fourth chemical is an irritant, it said. The information is attributed to the Material Safety Data Sheet for each chemical. Volatile organic compounds are chemicals that release gases into the air that can have short- or long-term health effects, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Nancy Alderman, president of Environment and Human Health, said the report points to the need for towns and schools that are considering installing artificial turf fields to wait until further safety studies are conducted. “These fields get really hot,” she said, citing in a New York Times article last week that included information from Columbia University scientists who concluded the synthetic fields were up to 60 degrees hotter than grass fields in the summertime. “They out-gas at a greater rate when they heat up.” The experiment station's study also found that heavy metals such as zinc, lead and selenium leached from the fields. David Brown, public health toxicologist for Environment and Human Health, said the amounts of compounds emitted from the tire crumbs in the study are significant. All four compounds are used in the manufacture of both natural and synthetic rubber tires. “These are not trivial amounts by any means,” he said. “These are pretty active irritants.” The four chemicals names are not the only ones detected in the study, he said, but the amounts of the others were much lower so the experiment station scientists did not want to identify them. His organization plans to issue recommendations within the next two weeks that schools should limit use of these fields if they already have them, and keep young children away, he said. The experiment station's study can be found at: www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/fact_sheets/examinationofcrumbrubberac005.pdf.
No. 05] Turf Wars, by Wiliam Crain, Op-Ed Contributor, The New York Times, Nytimes.com, N.Y. Region/Opinions September 16, 2007 at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/nyregionopinions/16NJcrain.html?ref=nyregionopinions [Editor's Note: This op-ed piece appeared in the hard copy of the September 16th edition of The Sunday New York Times edition for the Connecticut region]. THIS summer three women from Westport, Conn., urged a nonprofit group in North Haven to test for hazardous materials in synthetic turf that is being placed on playing fields across their state. The results came back positive, showing that hazardous metals in the turf granules leach into water, and that at 140 degrees Fahrenheit (a temperature that synthetic turf can reach during summer), other toxic chemicals are released into the air. Late last month, in response to the test results, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general, pledged $200,000 of state funds to study the effects of synthetic turf on people and the environment. This issue is not confined to Connecticut, which has at least 30 such fields. Across the country, schools and parks are replacing grass playing fields with the synthetic turf. Last year, 850 synthetic turf fields were installed in the United States — more than 150 exist in New Jersey, for example. Like the women in Westport, a number of residents in several New Jersey towns — including Bernardsville, Flemington, Manalapan and New Providence — want local officials to call off synthetic turf installations. But in the absence of government regulations on the hazards, residents have yet to get any new installations halted. Although synthetic turf is expensive to install, many municipalities and school districts find it appealing. It’s springier than the old AstroTurf and feels more like natural grass. It doesn’t get chopped up by players’ cleats, and it doesn’t get muddy during a rain, so it allows for more practices and games. In many suburbs, parents are raising private funds to help pay for the new turf. But despite its appeal, synthetic turf poses serious physical and developmental problems for children. Schools and towns would be wise to avoid it. For starters, synthetic turf contains highly toxic chemicals. The tiny rubber granules that contribute to the turf’s resiliency are primarily made from recycled tires. Because these granules often lie on the turf’s surface, children and athletes come into frequent contact with them. Junfeng Zhang, a professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, has found that the granules contain worrisome levels of zinc and lead, as well aspolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are likely to be carcinogenic. Some preliminary research by others suggests that it might be difficult for these toxic chemicals in the granules to get into the body through skin contact, ingestion or inhalation, but more research is needed. Physical health risks aside, children increasingly grow up in sterile, artificial environments. After school, they spend much of their time indoors doing homework, watching television and sitting in front of a computer monitor. Two recent nationwide surveys have found that 6- to 12-year-olds average less than an hour a week in unstructured outdoor play. When children do get outside, it is usually to play organized sports. Until recently, sports gave children at least some contact with nature. But now, with the widespread installation of synthetic turf fields, even this contact with nature is being reduced. Children’s alienation from nature is not something to take lightly. A growing body of research suggests that children need contact with greenery for their mental development. Natural settings help them develop their senses and powers of observation. Nature also stimulates children’s creativity; much of their poetry and artwork, for example, is inspired by grass, trees, water, wind, birds and other animals. Furthermore, natural settings have a calming effect on children. Grass playing fields, of course, expose children to nature to only a limited degree. When it comes to stimulating a child’s senses and imagination, playing fields don’t compare to forests. Still, a grass field can be beneficial to children, especially when adults give them time and opportunity to play in their own ways. After informal games, youngsters often relax on the field, fiddling with blades of grass, weeds and dirt. One 11-year-old told me she likes to toss blades of grass into the air and imagine they are “grass angels.” I’ve also had children tell me how much they like lying on the grass and looking up at the sky. Lobbyists for the synthetic turf industry claim that it is natural grass that harms the environment because lawn maintenance frequently involves toxic pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, as well as gas-powered mowers that pollute the air. They have a point, but the solution isn’t to destroy the soil and grass, as synthetic surfaces do, but instead adopt safer methods of grass care. We’ve already sacrificed too much earth and vegetation to real-estate developments, paved roads and parking lots. We need to preserve the little nature that remains. And we need to do it for our children. In our increasingly artificial environment, children need much greater experience with all aspects of living nature. Natural grass fields can help. William Crain, a professor of psychology at the City College of New York, is the author of “Reclaiming Childhood: Letting Children Be Children in Our Achievement-Oriented Society.”
'Although the health implications are unclear, the evidence is sufficient to create a burden of proof of safety before more fields are installed. Therefore, EHHI stands by its recommendation that no new fields that contain ground up rubber tire crumbs be installed until additional research is been done.'
Environment and Human Health Inc. is a 10-member, non-profit organization composed of physicians, public health professionals and policy experts. It is dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy. The group has authored this article in response to “Turf testing a waste of time, money,” which appeared in The Day Sept. 6 and was written by assistant sports editor Mike Dimauro. The article shows a misunderstanding of the health issues and the source of EHHI's concern. The “synthetic turf” fields are not turf in any sense of the word, but are large surfaces the size of football fields, covered with material derived from grinding up used rubber tires until they are the size of grains of course sand. In terms of weight, there are tons of ground-up rubber tire crumbs on each field. There is no barrier between the rubber crumbs and the athletes playing on the fields. The rubber crumbs are unstable and get into the shoes, stockings and clothing of those who play on the fields. Dust particles from these crumbs are easily inhaled. Numerous studies have been cited in the past to justify the safety of the rubber tire crumbs that constitute the major portion of synthetic turf fields. The EHHI reviewed the findings of each of these studies in preparation for its health hazard analysis. These studies consistently found that there would indeed be exposures to the components of the tire crumbs. They also found that dusts from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung. Each study indicated that there were serious limitations to their research due to insufficient safety testing of some of the components released from the tire crumbs. Both Norway and Sweden have recommended that there be no further construction of fields with rubber tire crumbs. Norway's concern is that some people are allergic to latex and latex is a component of the ground-up tires. Sweden considers the rubber crumbs to be a hazardous substance. People are asked by the synthetic turf manufacturers to assume that the amount of exposures from the rubber crumbs — as well as exposures from the rubber crumb dust — are insufficient to produce any health effect, irrespective of the age of the child, the number of hours, days or years that a person plays on these fields. Those who promote its safety provide no measurements to support the industry's assumption. It is clear that children will be exposed to these rubber crumbs, their dusts and their vapors on these fields. A simple exercise in arithmetic will show the scale of the number of children/hours of exposure there would be from one synthetic turf athletic field. Each square foot of field surface has 10 or more pounds of tire crumbs. A 300-foot-long field that is 150-feet-wide is 45,000-square-feet, holding more than 450,000 pounds of ground-up rubber tire. The typical athletic game has 25 people playing vigorously on the surface for one hour or more. If a field were used for three hours a day there would be 21 hours of activity a week. That would amount to about 2,000 children/hours of activity a month on each field. It is possible that even on a modestly utilized field, there would be over 10,000 children/hours of use per year. To summarize, children will be exposed to recognized hazardous substances on these synthetic turf fields. Although the health implications are unclear, the evidence is sufficient to create a burden of proof of safety before more fields are installed. Therefore, EHHI stands by its recommendation that no new fields that contain ground up rubber tire crumbs be installed until additional research is been done. The author, David Brown, has a doctor of science degree and is a public health toxicologist. Also contributing to this article were John Wargo, Ph.D. Yale University, and Nancy Alderman, who has a master's degree in environmental studies. All three are active in the group Environment and Human Health, Inc.
No. 03] On Playing Fields, Grass Is an Endangered Species, by David Gonzalez, The New York Times, August 13, 2007, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/nyregion/13citywide.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Brandon Diaz ran across the springy grass infield, stood atop the pitcher’s mound and, with a short windup, let loose with a curveball to his father, John. The hardball zipped through the warm air, landing squarely in his father’s glove with a plop that could barely be heard above the raspy hiss and clang from a high-rise under construction across the street. Gabriela Curbelo Zeidman and her brother, Daniel Zeidman, kick a ball on synthetic turf in Red Hook, Brooklyn. The field is in constant use on weekends. Though Brandon, 13, now plays in a Brooklyn league, he and his father love these fields of thick grass near their apartment in Battery Park City. In fact, a lot of people love the fields, which are home to youth baseball and soccer leagues, as well as adult teams. More young players are on the way, too, judging from the apartment buildings that continue to rise on nearby blocks. The almost unnaturally pastoral feel of these green oases may be a thing of the past, however, because of the area’s continued popularity with families. To avoid the ignominy of being trampled underfoot, the grass fields need to be idle all winter, and once a week the rest of the year. As a result, there is increasing pressure from league coaches to install synthetic turf to allow the fields to be used year-round to meet local demand. Mr. Diaz would like to keep the local fields real. Then again, he has seen nature’s niceties give way to the local building boom. “I used to have a river view in my apartment until they put up another building,” he said. “Look at the shadows on this field. We used to have nice sun in the afternoons until the buildings blocked it off. I’m not crazy about artificial turf, but everything is doable, you know.” A similar need to increase recreational space across the city has led parks officials to rely on synthetic turf to reclaim bleak asphalt yards or extend the life of scraggly soccer fields. Its proponents also cite its cheaper maintenance costs. “New Yorkers expect to play where they want, when they want,” said Adrian Benepe, the commissioner of parks and recreation. “Our biggest need is to make a lot of places where kids can play so we can address health risks like obesity.” But the use of turf has also prompted other health concerns, about the possible dangers posed by the materials used to make it, as well as its ability to soak up so much sunlight that it heats up to extreme temperatures. Scientists at Columbia Univeristy who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City the past two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60 degrees hotter than grass fields. They attributed the difference to the pigments used in making the turf, as well as the turf’s reliance on filaments that increase the surface area that soaks up heat. More important, the turf lacked grass’s ability to vaporize water and cool the air. Stuart Gaffin, an associate research scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, said the synthetic fields get almost as hot as a tar rooftop. “I’ve been telling everybody that turf is among the hottest surfaces in the city,” said Dr. Gaffin, who is publishing the study later this year. “With the scale we are talking about here, I think they are going to be hazardous places to be during heat waves in the city. I know the public wants these spaces. My position is: Can we engineer a lower temperature?” Even without the heat, some opponents of turf have raised questions about the recycled tire rubber that is ground up and sprinkled on the turf to give it added cushion and springiness. William Crain, a psychology professor at City College who paid to have the rubber analyzed, said it contained “worrisome” levels of a known carcinogen, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, or P.A.H. The manufacturer said the chemical could not be absorbed by the skin or stomach, but Dr. Crain insisted further study was needed. His objections to turf go beyond any possible physical effects it may have. As a psychologist who has studied children and play, he insisted that natural fields stimulated children’s mental development by increasing their curiosity and their powers of observation. In a city where there is very little nature left, kids are already living in a synthetic indoor setting,” he said. “When they go outside, they should feel grass and soil. Instead, we’re putting artificial surfaces outside, too.” Similar arguments are found in Battery Park City, as a task force studies the pros and cons of synthetic and natural fields. The group, whose members said they were leaning toward synthetic turf, will make its recommendation to the Battery Park City Authority, which oversees the area’s development. A final decision may come by the year’s end. James F. Gill, the authority’s chairman, said he wanted to be sure that his concerns about adverse effects on health were addressed to his satisfaction. At the same time, he understands the unceasing pressure to provide recreational spaces in an area that has seen its population double in the last 10 years. While the area was built on landfill, some from the construction of the original World Trade Center, many residents are now proud of its environmentally friendly reputation. “We have been on point with respect to being green and protecting the environment here,” Mr. Gill said. “I know artificial turf is not in keeping with that, but it is always a balancing thing. You get something, but you give something up.” Mark Costello, a parent who is the president of the Downtown Little League, said synthetic turf would double the available playing time. “The alternative for me is sports fields or my kid in front of a computer playing video games,” he said. “I would love my kids to play on grass for aesthetic reasons. That is just not the reality we are facing. Artificial turf serves urban leagues better.” The prospect of losing the grass fields at Battery Park City has alarmed Christian DiPalermo, the executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, an advocacy group that last year issued a report urging caution on installing the fields. “That would be a sin,” he said. “To take away grass in an area with a dearth of parkland just for a few more games? That does not make sense.” The local support for the fields was typical, Mr. DiPalermo said, of other communities in the city where the turf is seen as a quick fix, rather than part of a long-term strategy. “We know the problem is overcapacity,” he said. “But where is the vision? We don’t even know how long this turf will last.” Yet the city keeps installing the synthetic fields wherever possible. Commissioner Benepe said that while he was not aware of any hazards posed by turf, he had asked the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to review the current research on synthetic turf and make recommendations if necessary. He added that his department was trying to see if changing the color or consistency of the rubber used for the fields would result in lower temperatures, too. “There is nothing inherently dangerous to these fields,” Mr. Benepe said. “What is dangerous is letting kids play touch football on asphalt. There is a greater likelihood of head injuries in a fall than any danger from ingesting the rubber crumbs.” A few days ago in Red Hook, Brooklyn, a handful of young people kicked soccer balls and ran drills on a smooth synthetic field. At a grass pitch across the street, only pigeons pecked though the scraggly blades that ringed the large bald spot between the goal posts. The area is so popular that both fields are in nonstop use on the weekends. John Triana, a trainer and coach, said he kept his players off the grass field because it had too many rocks and sometimes even glass shards. He admitted that the synthetic field sometimes looked like a desert in the summer, with shimmering waves of heat rising from its surface. On hot days, he makes his players take water breaks every six minutes. Sometimes they get blisters on their feet. Still, he said, most players liked it. “You can run faster,” he said. “It’s like playing on a pool table.” Personally, he preferred playing on grass. It gave him a visceral kick back to his college days. “You smell the grass and it reminds you of competition,” he said. “Dewy grass in the morning is like, wow, the preseason. It sends chills up my spine like nothing else. Artificial turf doesn’t give you that.”
No. 02] Delay on turf decision provides opportunity for analysis,by Kevin Dutt and Brooke K. Lipsitt, in NewtonTAB, June 27, 2007 (print), available online on Tue Jun 26, 2007, 03:36 PM EDT, at http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinions/x595658227 . The Board of Aldermen has yet to act on [Newton, Massachusetts] Mayor Cohen’s request for funds to install synthetic turf at Newton South High School and, at this point, seems unlikely to act before fall. We hope that members of the Programs & Services Committee, to whom this item has been assigned, will take advantage of the summer to initiate a comprehensive assessment of synthetic versus natural turf options to ensure a sustainable solution for the NSHS fields — one which will address economic, environmental and community concerns. The economic analysis should include a life cycle assessment of all costs that will be incurred with each option. We recommend analysis over a period of 50 years, in order to take fully into account the need for replacement or restoration of the fields. This must include not only the initial costs, but also the maintenance, drainage and replacement costs of each option. It should also clearly identify areas where projected costs may vary widely or have great uncertainty. Even if the financial analysis shows no difference over the period of study, both options have environmental — ecological, health and safety — impacts that must be closely examined. Examination of these issues should include both site-specific and neighborhood impacts. The community needs to know whether the challenges presented by the geology and hydrology at this site, a filled wetland, are being fully taken into account. There is a long history of problems relating to surface water management with the current grass fields. Any successful new site design must include a comprehensive drainage plan to provide for well-drained fields and also ensure that stormwater can and will be controlled on site so as not to burden city storm sewers and to ameliorate or, at least, have no negative effect on adjacent properties. For users, we need to know the facts, not just the rumors, about the level and type of injury associated with each surface and whether or not there exists a legitimate hazard related to inhaling particulates from artificial turf. We must also be sure that synthetic turf will not leach contaminants into soils and groundwater. These concerns must be weighed carefully against health issues related to the use of pesticides and fertilizers if needed to maintain natural fields. We must know whether and the extent to which there may be significant heat island effects. Finally, it is important to consider whether there are additional costs or benefits associated with installing synthetic turf on multiple fields covering several acres. A carefully prepared landscape plan for the fields should include provisions for maintenance access and may become a factor in the decision depending on the limits on layout due to distances between fields that are required. The city should review examples of multiple-field installations in other locations before making a final decision, learning from the experience and actual data collected by other communities that have installed synthetic turf. It is not immediately clear that this needs to be an all-or-none decision; it may be appropriate to have a combination of natural and synthetic turf fields. We urge the mayor and Board of Aldermen to take this opportunity to gather and critically review all of the information on maintenance requirements, costs, performance, player injuries, microclimate, etc., that has been assembled, being careful to compare the relative site conditions in the process. The fact that synthetic turf is the current fashion does not mean that it is necessarily a superior or inferior choice for our particular application. Newton deserves a smart, sustainable solution for its athletic fields just as it does for its buildings, and we urge the board to move deliberately and thoughtfully in your consideration of this item. Kevin Dutt and Brooke K. Lipsitt are co-chairmen of the High Performance Building Coalition.
No. 01] Picture this ... An overwhelming majority of footballers (soccer players) in the world play in most adverse terrain conditions -- grasslands, dirt streets and dirt fields, paved or semi-paved streets, in sand, and - o, yes, if we are lucky, on grass fields -- and now on fake grass! If playing on turf is the life's quest, then we must be in heaven!