Editor’s Note: Here at SynTurf.org, every now and then we come across an eloquent expression of grassroots feelings about natural grass playing fields. This is very much on contrast with the often as-a-matter-of fact presentation an individual promoting artificial turf. Often the proponents of turf ridicule the opponents and call them names. Of late, the purveyors of plastic fields have taken to calling the mounting evidence against turf fields as “junk science.” Our guess is that they use a term like “junk” because they probably cannot spell “pseudo.” The only junk in this debate, ladies and gentlemen, is the used tires and plastic trash that is recycled from landfill into our playing fields and playgrounds.

This corner of SynTurf.org is dedicated to just words of grassroots opponents of artificial turf; words to counter the commercial puffery employed by polluters.  

 

[No. 28] Kyle Rogers explains why he voted against artificial turf. Kyle Rogers is city councilor from Ward 3 in Bath, Maine. As reported in SynTurf.org in June past, the voters in Bath voted down a controversial artificial turf plan. See http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html (Item No. 70, below). In the following statement printed in The Times Record (June 25, 2010), available at http://www.timesrecord.com/articles/2010/06/25/opinion/commentaries/doc4c24ea9fd624d886172448.txt , Rogers explains why he voted against the plan: 

I would like to respond to Sophie Sreden’s letter, which appeared in the June 17 edition.

I applaud and commend her on being active in school sporting programs. I agree with her assessment of what being involved in sports can do for a young student. I encourage all of our students to get involved with athletics.

I would like Sreden to know that the artificial field “Turf Field” bond was rejected by the citizens of Bath because the Field For Our Future committee did not get public support for the project.

Let me explain: The Fields For Our Future Committee stood before the people of Bath at a City Council meeting and asked if they could have the city’s blessing to go out and raise the money needed to install an artificial turf field. Never did they mention coming back to the city to ask for money if their efforts fell short. The City Council at that time voted unanimously to allow them to move forward with their project.

Let’s move ahead three years: Just after Christmas, I learned that the Fields For Our Future Committee wanted to come back before the City Council to ask the citizens of Bath to take a loan out to make up their fundraising shortage. When I began asking why they fell short of their goal, I was told that they hit a wall and couldn’t raise the rest of the money.

In the weeks following the January City Council meeting, I and two other city councilors met with the recreation director and some members of the Field For Our Future committee. During that meeting the question was asked, “Have you gone out and knocked on doors or held bake sales or sold T-shirts to raise the necessary funds to complete the project?”

One of the committee members said, “This project is too large” to solicit $15 donations. I responded that the Fields For Our Future Committee did not have public support and very few people actually knew what their cause was.

I would hate to think what the United Way would do without each and every $15 donation.

Imagine if Sreden’s class wanted to go on a field trip that cost $500. They set out in good faith to raise the money, but through all of their efforts they could only raise $250.

If the class then asked school administrators for the remaining $250, their response would be “no” because it was not in the budget.

That doesn’t mean that they don’t want the class to go on the trip. It just means they can’t afford it and if the class would like to go, it is up to class members to raise all of the money.

I am not opposed to improvements at McMann Field. My opinion is that there are much better types of fields that could be installed, such as a solid sand-based sod field, which would last 25-35 years and at two-thirds the cost of the artificial turf field.

There were never any other options discussed throughout the process. When public money is being spent, all options have to be looked at.

To me it boils down to cost-effectiveness. Would you spend $100 on a baseball glove that you would have to replace in six months or $66 on a glove that will last three years?

[No. 27 David Zena says “Entitlement crowd spends others' money.” The following appeared in Asbury Park Press (March 28, 2010). It is written by David Zena of Toms River, New Jersey, available at http://www.app.com/article/20100328/OPINION04/3280324/Entitlement-crowd-spends-others--money :

I am now truly convinced we have lost our way. A quote from the March 16 letter "Malevolence mounts over artificial turf" read, "Lost in all the rhetoric are the needs of thousands of children, coaches and parents and their right to play on safe, usable fields in the town where they live."

Ah, another entitlement. Since when is spending the town's collective monies on a field that will be utilized by only a small percentage of the population not subject to opposing opinion?

Where have these feelings of entitlement that pervade our society come from?

I do not reside in Middletown and have no skin in the game, but the thought that someone believes children in what appears to be a recreation league have some kind of God-given right to expensive artificial turf fields in our current economy just makes me shake my head.

If those involved in the league think repair or installation of artificial turf is so important, why don't they pay for it? Why is the entitlement crowd so good at spending everyone else's money?

In good times, sure, go ahead and give the kids a better place to play; but right now, we need to take care of our most vulnerable citizens (children with disabilities come to mind), and not waste our dollars so someone has a better place to play games. After all that's all it is, a game.

[No. 26] Alex Kos: “Do Turf Soccer Fields Perpetuate Poor Soccer?” Alex Kos blogs at Improving Soccer in the United States. He is also the inventor of Loopball, a soccer training device that teaches ball control by using the inside-of-the-foot. The following article appeared on his blog http://improvesoccerus.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/do-turf-soccer-fields-perpetuate-poor-soccer/  (March 2010) and has been reprinted in Potomac Soccer Wire (April 6, 2010) at  http://www.potomacsoccerwire.com/news/5322/10681 :

Do turf soccer fields perpetuate poor soccer?

I remember the first time I ever touched a turf field. My first reaction was how incredibly soft it was. My next reaction was where was this technology 20 years ago when I missed two field goals against the University of Pennsylvania because I could not get ‘under the ball enough’ on the old artificial field? (Brown lost the game 17-14 and I lost my starting position … but really, I’m over it.)

In all seriousness though, despite some of its disadvantages (turf fields can get extremely hot and I hate seeing rubber pellets in someone’s open scab … that can’t be healthy), I think the modern turf fields are fantastic.

However, watching my daughter’s team play an away game on grass (her home field is turf) got me thinking. Are turf fields perhaps doing the sport of soccer a disservice? I know many people, especially soccer purists, would agree with me wholeheartedly (most likely though not for the same reason).

If you have visited my blog or have seen or used my soccer training device called Loopball, you know I am obsessed with ball control and the first-touch, specifically with the inside-of-the-foot. I believe that poor ball control and poor first-touches is the United States’ #1 problem in youth soccer today. Among other things, it results in a much more physical game as is evident in most high school and college games.

Where the turf fields may be doing soccer a disservice is that it may take the challenge out of learning how to receive the ball with the inside-of-the-foot. On turf fields, balls kicked on the ground always roll true. There will never be any unexpected bounces or blips. When the ball is kicked in the air and bounces, unless there is some weird spin on the ball, a player will always know how the ball will rebound off the turf. Essentially, turf fields make it easier to receive and control the ball. My concern is that since it is easier to learn to receive the ball, players and coaches will not spend the necessary time needed to become comfortable with this skill.

This is not a problem on natural grass fields (unless players should be lucky enough to have access to a professional team’s field). On grass fields, players are forced to learn and prepare for the unexpected bounces. As a result, they must spend more time on developing this skill and in all likelihood, will have a better first-touch.

What players and coaches don’t realize is that the skill of receiving a ball can never be mastered. Professional players work on ball control and the first-touch all the time. With the ever-increasing popularity of turf fields, I just hope that players and coaches realize that while it may be easier to control the ball on turf, this skill still needs to be worked on continuously, preferably on grass and preferably on a field that is not in pristine shape.

(Did I mention that the 8-hour bus ride back to school seemed like 8 days and that that loss probably cost us a shot at the Ivy League title … but really, I’ve gotten over it.)

[No. 25] Hingham, Mass.: Faulty math on Ward Street artificial turf plan. The following, entitled “Ward Street Fields are Unsustainable,” was posted on WickedLocal.Hingham (The Hingham Journal) March 19, 2010). It is a financial summary by Michael Caplan of the Ward Street Grassroots sent to the Hingham Advisory Committee “to assist with their assessment of the Ward Street turf field warrant article.” Available at http://www.wickedlocal.com/hingham/news/opinions/letters/x427978027/HINGHAM-LETTER-Ward-Street-turf-fields-are-unsustainable :

The financial viability of the fields is highly questionable. Serious efforts to uncover the real costs of maintaining, and importantly, replacing the fields when required shows that these fields are neither lower maintenance nor cheaper than natural turf to maintain over its life-cycle. We will also show that the prospective revenues from this sports center to simply break-even are unattainable. If we add in the additional costs of traffic remediation, security liabilities, potential environmental liability, and the loss of protected wildlife habitat, this project is a dead loss to the town.  Though we understand that the planning board is mainly focused on the light variance, we can demonstrate that this project is not viable with or without lights. Imagine the scenario that the town may face when the costs of maintaining the fields in a playable condition get so large that the fields are closed. Given our analysis of the annual operating expenses of this project as well as the annual capital contributions to replace the fields at the end of their useful lives, the prospect of abandoning the fields is quite real.  There are 34 other fields in use by the town, bending over backwards to replace one field and then adding field number 36 seems unworthy of a town facing the layoff of school and public safety employees.

We estimate annual operating expenses to be approximately $56,000 for lighted fields and $49,000 for unlighted fields. To make these estimates, we are starting with the Hingham Recreation Commission’s estimate of DPW work on the fields of $21,705 (which includes DPW: labor to pickup trash, sweeping and brushing the fields, bathroom cleaning, plowing the fields/parking lots, leaf removal, gravel grading and replacement, septic system maintenance, grass cutting of the field perimeters). But for the gravel grading, we will stipulate these are reasonable costs. The gravel replacement and regrading for a hyper-actively used 200 spot parking lot and driveway will be considerably more expensive than the $1,500 they project. In addition to these direct DPW costs we include: multi-season,multi-sport line painting, the labor and consumable costs of the weekly top-dressing of crumb rubber infill, outside contractor repairs of tears, burns and rips of the field, and light and light standard maintenance (including bulbs).  We are also including some water costs for cooling the fields and supplying the bathrooms and concession stand.  We will also presume that field renters will pay for the direct costs of lighting and traffic details. We will note that the Ward Street Turf proponents forecast merely $10,000 in unspecified annual operating expenses, approximately 20 percent of the actual foreseeable costs.

Artificial turf fields, basically a drainage foundation with a carpet on top, wear out. The current generation is expected to wear out in 10 years given normal use – this is the replacement cycle recommended by the manufacturers of the product. The cost of replacing the two fields, approximately 200,000 sf of carpet and many tons of crumb rubber in-fill, is approximately $1.1 million to $1.3 million in 2010 dollars. Note that the crumb rubber in-fill is manufactured from tires and would not be accepted at normal landfills, I wonder what the tipping fee would be for disposing might be in 10 years?  Right now we are assuming anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000 – this cost is not going down. It is also likely that the petroleum-based carpet costs will not be declining. We can forecast that the costs of disposal and replacement will increase at a rate much higher than the general rate of inflation.

To be responsible stewards of our finances, we need to account for the foreseeable capital costs of replacement.  We need to generate an additional $110,00 to $130,000 per year (the estimated cost of replacement in 10 years divided by 10 years) – this is in excess of the $21,705 (if you use the Rec Commission’s estimate) to roughly $50,000 (using our estimate) of annual operating expenses. We haven’t included any investment income on any replacement escrow/fund as the funds would not be subject to much investment risk nor would we expect any prudent investment for this time horizon to do more than match the general rate of inflation.

The fields need to produce somewhere between $130,000 (if you use the Rec Commission’s underestimate) and roughly $180,000 per year to break even. Lights do not move this requirement by more than $7,000.

The revenue side of the equation is capped by a direct quote by the operator of a local field, “There isn’t a huge market to rent.”  There is already excess capacity in the lighted turf field marketplace.  Quincy can sell less than 10 percent of its capacity. Other towns have stopped trying. The demand and potential revenues for unlighted fields are much worse. Using only the Recreation Committee’s numbers, for the Ward Street Turf Field to make $150,000 (using the Rec Comm’s underestimate of annual expenses), they need to sell 3,000 total hours at $50 per hour for lighted fields or if unlighted, 2,000 hours at $75 per hour.  Good luck with that concession stand. Remember that some of these revenues that the Rec Commission are counting are revenues from sports organizations that already pay the Hingham Rec Comm for use of their fields; this project will bleed revenue required to maintain the other 34 town fields.  We can see no way that the Rec Commission can make this project fund itself.

A reasonable question to ask is “Why do other towns have turf fields? What are they doing differently?”  Towns like Cohasset have made the implicit choice to float a bond to cover the costs of the field replacement in 10 years.  Other towns have simply buried the looming specter of field replacement.  Both types of town have kicked the issue out 10 years hoping that costs might be lower and that no one will notice or care when they spend the money.  Unlike a natural turf field, an artificial turf field MUST be maintained otherwise it is completely unsafe for use.  When the “carpet” and the crumb rubber infill are damaged or worn, the field is unplayable.  All of the towns with fields have experienced expensive repairs to their fields due to accidents or vandalism.  It is conceivable that many towns will, in the near future, have to abandon their artificial turf efforts. This is a lot of financial risk for Hingham’s 36th recreational field.

The Ward Street Turf project is simply not financially viable.

[No. 24] Suwanee, Georgia: The turf math does not add up! Increasingly, the members of the public are catching up with the myth surrounding artificial truf installations. Here is one example. Jon DeWitt, “Math doesn’t work on synthetic turf plan,” in Gwinnett Daily Post (letter), March 26, 2010, available at http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/opinion/headlines/89313367.html :

LETTERS: Math doesn’t work on synthetic turf plan

I originally began this letter after the first story about the plan to install artificial turf at Duncan Creek Park. But when it appeared again, I decided to follow through with voicing my concern.

I agree that synthetic fields are often needed in areas where overuse essentially prohibits the use of natural grass, which is apparently the case at Duncan Creek. However, I strongly disagree that there is a financial benefit to this decision.

The artificial turf will cost $835,000 to install. You would have to spend nearly $100,000 a year for 10 years — generous lifespan estimate for a synthetic field — to make that math work, and do not forget the expense on the back end of disposing of the field. Synthetic fields can weigh up to 12 pounds per square foot, so that is another serious expense to consider.

We know the county is not likely to spend $100,000 a year on one football field in one park. Furthermore, synthetic fields are not maintenance-free so there will still be labor involved in grooming and cleaning. We can just avoid the topic of repairs altogether.

Are all the lines for the sports you plan to use the field for soccer, football and lacrosse going to be sewn in? If not, then they must be painted — and is that not an expense we are supposed to be saving on?

If a synthetic field is what you want and/or need fine, but do not try sell it as money-saving decision. The math simply does not work.

[No. 23] Ken Foster asks Fake Grass, Synthetic Turf or Stepford Lawns? Ken Foster is a landscape contractor, a certified permaculture designer, who gives talks on topics related to sustainable landscaping, including fossil free landscaping, sustainable design, hardscape and softscape installation and maintenance. A native of Santa Cruz, California, he sent us this article he penned recently for SanJoseGreenHome.com (January 6, 2010), available at http://sanjosegreenhome.com/2010/01/06/fake-grass-synthetic-turf-or-stepford-lawns/ . Click here for the pdf version. The reprint below does not include the graphics in the original. 

Fake Grass, Synthetic Turf or Stepford Lawns?
By Guest Author, Ken Foster, SanJoseGreenHome.com, January 6, 2010. Information is included in this article from an article in the Fog City Journal.

Synthetic turf can look just as real grass from a few feet away but does it hold water with its new eco claims?

Installing synthetic turf has become all the rage recently. It was even featured on some Bay Area local channels. Commonly known in the past as astro turf, it has been reinvented, repacked and now called ‘eco turf.’ It is being touted as the latest in green landscaping. There is even a striking list of ecological “solutions” that this product addresses. Those include no mowing, no watering or expensive irrigation systems, no weed control, and no other maintenance headaches like fertilizing and hauling away grass clippings. 

The latest synthetic turf is even manufactured from recycled plastic and is recycable at the end of its life. Your kids can play on it in the rain and won’t get muddy. It is wheel chair accessible. So it seems like we have solved a horde of environmental issues with one product, so what’s not to love?

Stepford Lawns
Do you recall the part in the movie, The Stepford Wives where one of the Stepford wives gets stabbed and it messes with her wiring and she starts repeating “ I thought we were friends, I thought we were friends? That’s what I imagine synthetic turf is saying when I stab it with my accusations of it being a pseudo green product. Like my friend Owen Dell would say, it’s kind of like organic heroin, organic or not it is still fundamentally a bad idea.

Aromatherapy it’s not
I’ll begin with the deceptively simple argument that my primary distrust of synthetic turf is based on the fact that it is not alive. It does not breathe and therefore it offers no oxygen as a byproduct. On a warm day the entire area around a synthetic playing field reeks of melting off-gassing plastic, not an enjoyable smell. It certainly is not aromatherapy. Again because the stuff is not living and breathing the cooling effect is absent and thus the heat island affect is increased. The ‘heat island’ refers to the phenomena in which urban air and surfaces sustain higher temperatures than nearby rural areas.

The images below comparing air, water, bermudagrass, sand, asphalt, and synthetic turf surface temperatures illustrate how hot a synthetic field can reach during a warm day.
Crumbled automobile tires are included in synthetic turf to mimic the look and feel of soil. Cool, a new way to recycle tires? The problem is that this ‘soil’ is dead and in addition during rain it leaches carcinogens, hazardous chemicals, and heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, zinc and arsenic. This leachate is considered toxic runoff. Where does it go? Straight into our rivers, creeks and oceans. Replacing natural grass with synthetic turf is not a carbon-neutral process especially considering that natural grass helps eliminate Co2, one of the major green house gases, from the atmosphere, synthetic turf however does not.

Guinea Kids
Findings from a study published by The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in 2007  shows numerous chemicals that are detrimental to human health present in tire-crumbs commonly used in synthetic fields.

The composition of ground rubber was investigated in the Connecticut study and it was determined that the chemicals leached by crumbled tires exceed the cancer risk threshold in young people, children, and babies. The Synthetic Fields Task Force for the city of San Francisco identified eleven health and environmental issues of public concern. The report could not determine the safety of children using synthetic turf with tire waste or if it is harmful to children’s health. It did confirm that the ground up tire waste contains quantities of lead, carcinogens, and other hazardous chemicals that are unregulated. The report also noted that controlling virulent bacterial growth in tire waste fields poses a significant challenge. Our kids are now expected to play on a low level toxic surface. During strenuous activities they breathe in these toxic off gasses. Because plastic is not an inert substance, it both leaches and off-gasses pieces of itself. Plastics are known to release endrocrin disrupters because it contains zeno estrogen. Zeno estrogen can wreak havoc with the puberty cycle in the human body. With synthetic turf there is direct and close contact with the lungs and skin of the growing bodies of children. This would not seem to me to be a great combination. We are acting as if the jury is still out regarding the detrimental effects on human health from synthetic turf. Just call our kids guinea kids.

Because of the toxic runoff and drainage issues this is a product that is not healthy for the watershed. I interviewed a worm regarding this product and it was none too happy about it to say the least. The soil food web, the vast ‘web’ of life in the soil beneath our feet is under extreme duress under synthetic turf, primarily because this soil is deprived of oxygen. No oxygen, no life. Much of the current product being installed today in playing fields is made from unrecycled virgin plastic, a petroleum product that adds to global warming in its manufacture.
Our children’s trust

The health and safety of our children is at stake. They rely on us to provide them with a harm free place to play. Our duty is to live up to that trust amidst all of the marketing hoopla about synthetic turf. Hasn’t synthetic turf been around before? Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us. Let us not be fooled again by the alluring language of this supposed ‘green’ product.

[No. 22] Napa, California: Rick Cockrell complains about locked up fields. The following item, entitled “Fields were locked up, leaving nowhere to play” is by Rick Cockrell, a Napa resident, and appeared in the Napa Valley Register, January 10, 2010, available at http://www.napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_9dec08ef-bb25-55f5-8a12-27147fa60479.html :

On Sunday, Jan. 3, I took my children (boy 10, boy 5 and girl 4) up to the new ball fields at Silverado Middle School to practice baseball, as it’s really close to our house.

You see, our family loves sports (as we have no money to spend on going anywhere or really doing anything, as we are poor) and we spend one day a week practicing football, baseball or basketball as a family. We also spend a few more days going to practices through the city parks and rec department. We do this to get our three children out of the house while doing something good for them. (We spend every extra dollar we have on keeping our kids active in sports.)

What we found were beautiful new sports facilities, a new football field with artificial turf, a new track and four new baseball fields. This place is unbelievable. I can’t imagine the money spent on this place. We walked by the first field, which was totally locked up for nobody to use. We walked through the football field, where a large group of people were playing football (known as soccer to Americans). We continued our walk to the second and third field and found out they were also locked. As you can imagine, my kids were upset. As you see, we have already been run off every other field in Napa, with other footballers playing on every stretch of clean grass available — even if that stretch of grass is actually a baseball field.

You see, I’m not really mad at the football (soccer) players. I’m mad that our government spends a ton of money on things like these fields (I assume some private funds were used for these fields) and then no one can play on them. Well, not no one, just us. I’m mad that we have 20-plus basketball courts and not one has good concrete, rims or nets. Not to mention lower rims for younger kids. I’m mad that every schools’ fields are in very poor shape and overrun by football (soocer) players.

I’m mad that this city’s children are left to play PlayStation, Xbox or the Wii, which all cost a lot more money than we have. I’m mad that I have to fight to be able to practice baseball (at the softball fields) with my children because even if we are already practicing, the football (soccer) players come in and take over. I’m mad that if we go to the softball fields, football (soccer) players come in and pull on their new goals, which cost more than new basketball rims and nets, and take over. I’m mad that our children are always left behind as if they have no voice. I’m mad that I can’t provide a better life for my children. I’m mad that I don’t have enough gas money to be driving around Napa finding a field that we can use. I’m mad that I have to watch my children cry because we have to leave. When are my taxes going to count?

[No. 21] Winchester, Mass.:  Marsha L. Browne in her own words. [SynTurf.org Note] Information-wise, nothing in the following opinion piece is new. Every now and then we do come across pieces that are so well written that would be a crying shame not to bring them to your attention. They are worth emulating in style and substance when and where a case needs to be made for a prudent and studied approach to the acquisition of artificial turf fields.

Here in her own words is Marsha L. Browne, “A Synthetic Turf cautionary tale,” on WickedLocal.com (Guest Opinion), November 6, 2009, available at http://www.wickedlocal.com/winchester/news/lifestyle/columnists/x235899019/GUEST-OPINION-A-Synthetic-Turf-cautionary-tale :

Winchester, MA - I’ve been considering the recent installation of the synthetic turf at Manchester field. Even though the debates over pros and cons have ended, I want to point out a few things that may have slipped people’s notice in the haste to make this technological marvel a reality in Winchester. I did some investigation, and this is what I discovered.

Nobody, including the manufacturers of the synthetic turf, claims it is antibacterial.

In fact, according to the manufacturers, proper maintenance of synthetic turf requires that the fields be sanitized regularly to remove bodily fluids (blood, sweat, skin, and animal droppings).

According to “Synthetic Turf Sports Fields: A Construction and Maintenance Manual,” published in 2006 by the American Sports Builders Association, some synthetic turf owners disinfect their fields as often as twice a month, with more frequent cleanings for sideline areas, where contaminants concentrate.

Another concern is the runoff from synthetic turf. It has been shown in several studies to contain a wide variety of chemical toxins (zinc, lead, to name two). Unfortunately, when moisture doesn’t run off, it stands, becoming active insect breeding grounds. Add to this, synthetic turf is non-biodegradable. In fact, at present there are many regulatory agencies that forbid the dumping of it in landfills.

Health professionals dealing with sports injuries in soccer, football, and baseball are actively investigating the effects of synthetic turf on our athletes. Researchers are now connecting abrasion injuries due to synthetic turf with a higher incidence of MRSA infections.

According to a 2006 paper, “The pathogenesis and biomechanics of turf toe,” published in Orthopedic Nursing, “turf toe” is common among American football players. Athletic shoes with very flexible soles and cleats that “grab” turf can cause overextension of the toes, most commonly the big toe.

The result? Anti-inflammatory treatments, physical therapy, long recovery times, and possible chronic injury.

A 2007 study titled, “Synthetic Turf: Exposure to Ground-Up Rubber Tires (Athletic Fields, Playgrounds, Gardening Mulch),” undertaken by Environmental & Human Health, Inc. in North Haven, Conn., included some chilling facts and issues.

This is not easy reading, but I wonder if anyone would argue against its being mandatory reading for those who make decisions or influence decisions that will affect public health and safety?

In the section labeled “Toxicology and Health Effects,” the chemical compounds leached and “out-gassed” from synthetic turf rubber crumbs are identified, along with the effects of these chemicals on humans.

None of it is pretty. Further down, it states, “An unpublished 2006 Rutgers University study of tire crumbs taken from synthetic turf fields in New York City identified six polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at levels that reportedly exceeded the regulatory levels in New York State. These six compounds are highly likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Among the summary findings, “The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station study conclusively demonstrates that the tire crumbs and tire mulch release chemical compounds into the air and ground water. Thus, tire crumbs constitute a chemical exposure for humans and the environment.”

The 37-page report provides a clear, open-eyed, unambiguous caution about the uses for synthetic turf, especially in parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields.

In 2008, the CDC issued a health advisory about the use of artificial turf. The first three paragraphs explain how in the course of a routine health investigation at a scrap metal processing facility in Newark, New Jersey, the Department of Health and Senior Services and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry tested a nearby community athletic field for lead contamination.

They discovered high levels of lead in the field dust, and what surprised them was that the lead did not derive from the scrap metal facility.

At one point, the study reports, “The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur. As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases. If exposures do occur, CDC currently does not know how much lead the body will absorb; however, if enough lead is absorbed, it can cause neurological development symptoms (e.g. deficits in IQ).”

The study offers four recommendations for posting signs near the synthetic turf fields that 1) encourage “aggressive hand and body washing for at least 20 seconds using soap and water” after use, 2) taking off clothes and turning them inside out to prevent tracking contamination to other places (and washed separately), with shoes worn on the fields being always kept outside of the home, 3) avoid eating or drinking on the fields, and 4) avoid contaminating drinking containers near the field by keeping them covered and in bags or other closed containers.

Stuart Gaffin, an atmospheric scientist whose focus is excess heat in urban areas and storm-water runoff, says synthetic turf poses problems on both scores. Last summer, as part of a study of heat radiation in New York City, Gaffin found the temperature above synthetic turf fields measured at 140 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, creating what he described as “heat islands.” Gaffin, with the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University in New York City, wrote that the “surfaces are among the hottest possible for urban areas, rivaling dark roofs and fresh asphalt.”

Now that the synthetic turf field is a Winchester reality, I strongly encourage you to arm yourself with information about how to best protect yourself and your children from the potentially harmful effects of being in contact with or proximity to the field.

[No. 20] Charlotte Laws, “Religion vs. the Sprinkler Police: In defense of a verdant yard in Los Angeles,” in The Simon Magazine, September 3, 2009, available at http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/bias/01640_religion_vs_sprinkler_police.html or click here . Charlotte Laws is serving her third elected term on The Greater Valley Glen Council, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles), California. There are approximately 50,000 people living in The Greater Valley Glen neighborhoods.   

Religion vs. the Sprinkler Police

In defense of a verdant yard in Los Angeles.

 

By Charlotte Laws, Sep 3, 2009.

 

Does your Rain Bird no longer fly? Are your PVC pipes feeling neglected? Has your city hung your lawn out to dry and given your timer a time-out? If so, you probably live in a place that restricts landscaping watering. Due to devastating dry spells, dozens of cities have implemented ordinances aimed at water conservation. 

 

When I grew up in Atlanta, it was so rainy a fish could survive on land; but when I visited last year, I found straw-like lawns and a total watering ban. In Los Angeles, where I now reside, the City Council has implemented a partial ban: residents are restricted to two days per week for outdoor irrigation and no more than 15 minutes per watering station.

 

I understand the need to conserve and have always been a “waste not, water not” woman, whipping the faucet on and off while teeth cleaning as if water were pricey champagne. In my college dorm, I won the coveted “Snappy Shower Award,” and I treat my dishwasher like a roller-coaster ride: it doesn’t leave the station unless it’s full.

 

However, when it comes to my yard, a middle ground is unachievable if it means a dead ground. My religion and moral value system require healthy greenery; which in turn, benefit the animals and insects who depend on my yard for sustenance.  I live in a fire hazard zone in Woodland Hills—the most sweltering part of LA--where watering two days per week is as effective as healing third degree burns with a Band-aid and where dead foliage is an invitation for flames to “come up and see me sometime.”   

 

My lot—which abuts undeveloped acreage--may appear fully suburbanized, but it serves as an oasis for rabbits, bees, skunks, raccoons, coyotes, gophers, snakes, bees, owls, and birds of every kind. Saint Francis of Assisi would not want for feathered friends. 

 

I am not a Christian like Assisi, but practice Jainism, which is often described as the world’s oldest living religion, originating in India around 500 BC. Adherents follow the principal of “ahimsa” or non-injury to all living beings. Although practically-speaking it is impossible to be perfect, a Jain does her best to make sure no living being is injured by her action or inaction. Compassion is extended to mammals and reptiles as well as flowers, grass, insects and trees. As a Jain, I have a duty to protect the life forms on my property, and any ordinance which interferes with this is at odds with my First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.  

 

How interesting it would be for this water-related dispute to percolate into court. Santeria--a religion with Afro-Cuban roots which has approximately one million followers in the US—condones killing animals in ritual. In 1993, Santeria adherents in Hialeah, Florida won a “free exercise of religion” case: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religion and against a local ordinance, which sought to ban animal sacrifice. Although the case had an unfortunate outcome for nonhuman victims, it illustrates the power of the First Amendment. One must assume the Supreme Court would protect the critters in my yard under the same rationale used to deny them protection in Florida.

 

Apart from religion, my moral value system dictates that I maintain a verdant yard. I hold that all living beings have interests, as evidenced by their efforts to flourish and survive, and to disregard these interests would be arrogant, self-serving and speciesist. Speciesism is a form of prejudice, much like racism or sexism, in which humans deem themselves superior to other species. To adequately recognize the innate value of nonhumans—which policy-makers rarely do--and shake off speciesism, our democracy would need to be more like an omniocracy or government with representation and consideration for all living beings. An omniocratic system would, at the very least, be mindful of the needs of other species before intercepting their lifeline with an overly restrictive water ordinance.

 

Some LA City Councilmembers--as well as misguided environmentalists—suggest homeowners rip out their grass and lay synthetic turf in order to save H2O, despite the exorbitant cost. It is $7000 for 600 square feet. This would, of course, solidify Tinseltown’s image: plastic surgeons could have plastic yards, and every street could look like a movie set. But real grass is essential because it serves as a carbon offset, absorbing 13.2 million pounds of CO2 per year. One would have to plant and maintain 1861 trees for a decade to compensate for a football field of fake turf.

 

Artificial grass is not what I would call “environmental” or “animal friendly” with its lead-content problems, the extensive energy and raw materials needed to produce it, and the risk that synthetic materials may leak into the water table and that rubber infill crumbs may become airborne and inhaled. Installing make-believe grass is akin to moving your home office onto the driveway in order to save a lightbulb. In addition, horrifying images come to mind: rabbits ingesting green shag fibers and tiny life forms roasting under an airless blanket of toxins. Turf temperatures can climb to 160 degrees on summer days.

 

As a vegan, I can maintain a lush, English garden at my home and still use less water than a meat-eater in a condo, a fact the ordinance fails to take into account. It takes 300 gallons per day to produce vegetarian food, while it takes 13 times more--4,000 gallons--for a carnivore, the difference between night and day or a bathtub and a pool. This is because it is so costly water-wise to raise and feed each of the 55 billion farm animals slaughtered for food.

 

Apparently, not many sprinkler scofflaws or hose hogs exist; officials in both Los Angeles and Atlanta have revealed significant declines in water usage since their ordinances were put into place. There has been an 11% reduction in LA since June, and residents consume the same amount of water today as they did 25 years ago, despite a population increase of over one million people. Atlanta has realized a 20% reduction over the past eight years despite a population boom of 30%.

 

It is hoped Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities will continue to explore and implement conservation alternatives, when viable, such as desalinization processes, smart irrigation systems, recycled water programs, urine diversion toilets, groundwater replenishment systems and rainwater capture plans.

 

In the meantime, I hope you will conserve when you can. But don’t let the water ordinance rain on your parade or kill your “living yard.” Lots of creatures count on you. 

[No. 19] The Philadelphia Inquirer: Fake fields, real risk. The following is an editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer (July 9, 2009), available at http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090709_Editorial__Fake_fields__real_risk.html :

Editorial: Fake fields, real risk.

Sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side - even when it's not grass. Witness school officials' rush, in New Jersey and other states, to carpet their athletic fields with a purported man-made improvement upon the old-fashioned plant. Readers of Frankenstein might have guessed where this was going.

 

In 2007, New Jersey officials found high levels of toxic lead while testing for contamination around a scrap-metal plant in Newark. But don't blame the factory. The source of the lead was a deteriorating AstroTurf field nearby. The disturbing discovery set off a series of field closures, along with investigations by local, state, and federal officials.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency's preliminary findings suggest the artificial-grass fields are safe, a spokesman told The Inquirer recently. Along with similar findings by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and New York state officials, that should give some comfort to the parents of children who have been using the fields. But it should not leave anyone feeling entirely comfortable with the whole Frankengrass experience.

 

There's still plenty of cause for concern about artificial turf. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has advised that children playing on it should take a number of precautions, including "aggressive" washing. New Jersey officials say children under 7 should stay off older turf. A few fake fields have been torn up and replaced. And legislators in New Jersey and New York have proposed moratoriums on the stuff.

 

Lead is highly toxic to the developing nervous systems of children. The amount considered harmful has steadily dropped over the years to the point that some experts now say no amount is safe.

 

Poisoning typically occurs through inhalation or ingestion of lead dust. The federal findings so far suggest that the lead in the athletic fields studied - unlike in the aging Newark surface - is safely contained in a form that won't enter children's bloodstreams through either of those routes. But every field can be expected to age and deteriorate at some point.

 

Given lead's well-known dangers to the turf-makers' target customers - children - their use of it was reckless and inexplicable. While lead is useful for pigmentation, it's not indispensable. American paint manufacturers, for instance, have managed to get by without it since a federal ban took effect three decades ago.

 

There are other unresolved worries about synthetic surfaces. The EPA has acknowledged that it's also looking into the safety of so-called rubber crumb made from recycled tires, which has become a popular base material for playgrounds and fields in recent years. School and municipal officials should be readjusting their cost-benefit calculations before any more of them pay six or seven figures for a fake athletic field.

 

As the purveyors of artificial turf have often reminded us, you don't have to water it, mow it, or cancel games because it's muddy. But the mere possibility that it's poisonous is a monumental drawback compared with the alternative. Grass, anyone?

[No. 18] Nancy Alderman to President & Mrs. Obama: The rubber mulch under that swing set is toxic. The following is an “open letter” addressed to President & Mrs. Obama on the occasion of the installation of the swing set and play area in the White House. The playscape I made of rubber mulch, cut up used tires, of the same vintage as the crumb in artificial turf fields. Written by the president of Environment and Human Health, Inc., Nancy Alderman, the piece is called “Toxic mulch means White House play area not fun and games,” and appeared in the New Haven Register  (April 13, 2009) available at http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/04/12/opinion/doc49e01b38bb81b764005107.txt (or click here):

Toxic mulch means White House play area not fun and games

Published: Monday, April 13, 2009

By Nancy Alderman

THE Obamas recently installed a playscape for their children in the White House backyard. Whoever installed the playground covered the earth under the play equipment with used ground-up rubber tire mulch.

A spokesperson for the White House, Camille Johnston, said they followed the recommendations of the National Recreation and Park Association when they chose and installed the rubber mulch. Johnston continued by saying, “the mulch is going to stay.”

Why is this a problem? In some states, rubber tires are a “hazardous waste” and in other states they are considered a “special waste.” Whichever the case, used rubber tires are not a material that children should play on.

My organization, Environment and Human Health, Inc., remains concerned about the health implications of children playing on ground-up rubber tires, whether they are the small children who experience them under their playscapes or older children who experience them as the loose infill in synthetic turf fields.

This same material is also being sold as garden mulch, and has the potential to contaminate soil and water as well as stunt plant growth. If ground-up rubber tire mulch is put on vegetable gardens it would be possible for the vegetables to absorb some of the chemicals found in the rubber tires.

The manufacturers of the rubber mulch for gardens present it as one of convenience because it won’t break down and people won’t have to mulch again for many years. However, real garden mulch is meant to break down and become part of the soil.

Why is this material a problem for children and gardens?

First of all, ground up rubber tires are filled with a number of toxic chemicals and these chemicals are capable of leaching out of the tires. Secondly, the rubber absorbs heat and gets very hot in the warmer months. Temperatures have been measured at many times hotter than the grass around the rubber tire material. Some people have measured synthetic turf fields with ground-up rubber tires at 161 degrees when the outdoor temperature was 91 degrees. At the same time, a parking lot was measured at 111 degrees.

The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven has analyzed a sample of ground-up rubber tires and found major toxic compounds. One is a skin and eye irritant, one is a recognized carcinogen and another is harmful to mucous membranes.

Other well-known chemicals that are often found in rubber tires include benzene, which is a carcinogen; phthalates, which are suspected to cause harm to reproductive systems; and latex, which can cause allergic reactions in some people.

Rubber tires have always been very hard to dispose of. They cost a lot of money to get rid of, so one can only imagine how happy some industries are to grind them up and sell them to unsuspecting people as a recycled product.

The used rubber tires are shredded and cut in differing sizes depending on what they are being sold as: the smallest size for infill on synthetic turf fields, the larger size for garden and playground mulch. However, whatever the size and whatever the end product is being sold as, it is all simply used rubber tires. The garden and playground rubber mulch are often dyed different colors to make the product look more appealing. For instance, the Obama’s playground mulch was dyed green.

What had been a hazardous waste is being turned into a profitable industry — but at whose expense?

Recycling is good — but there are certain things that should not be recycled. We should not recycle asbestos, we should not recycle lead and we should not recycle rubber tires, certainly not where children play.

Nancy Alderman is president of Environment and Human Health, Inc, 1191 Ridge Road, North Haven 06473. E-mail her at info@ehhi.org.

[No. 17] Slender in the Grass. The essay of the same title, by Sanjay Gupta, MD, was published in Time on November 25, 2008 (with reporting by Shahreen Abedin). It is available at http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1703763_1703764_1862029,00.html . Here is the full text:

There's one place my young daughters love so much that we have to spell out the word in their presence, lest they go berserk: the p-a-r-k. We regularly use a trip to the park as a bribe, and while that may not be the best parenting technique, in this case it comes with incredible rewards.

 

A new study found that inner-city kids living in neighborhoods with more green space gained about 13% less weight over a two-year period than kids living amid more concrete and fewer trees. Such findings tell a powerful story. The obesity epidemic began in the 1980s, and many people attribute it to increased portion sizes and inactivity, but that can't be everything. Big Macs and TVs have been with us for a long time. "Most experts agree that the changes were related to something in the environment," says social pidemiologist Thomas Glass of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. That something could be a shrinking of the green.

 

Read a story on the 7 Habits of Highly Effective Schools

 

The new research, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, isn't the first to associate greenery with better health, but it does get us closer to identifying what works and why. At its most straightforward, a green neighborhood simply means more places for kids to play — which is vital since time spent outdoors is one of the strongest correlates of children's activity levels. But green space is good for the mind too; research by environmental psychologists has shown that it has cognitive benefits for children with

attention-deficit/ hyper activity disorder (ADHD). In one study, simply reading outside in a green setting improved kids' symptoms.

 

Read about A New ADHD Guide for Parents

 

Exposure to grassy areas has also been linked to less stress and a lower body mass index among adults. And an analysis of 3,000 Tokyo residents associated walkable green paces with greater longevity among senior citizens. Glass cautions that most studies don't necessarily prove a causal link between greenness and health, but they're nonetheless helping spur action. In September the U.S. House of Representatives approved the delightfully named No Child Left Inside Act to encourage public initiatives aimed at exposing kids to the outdoors.

 

Finding green space is, of course, not always easy, and you may have to work a bit to get your family a little grass and trees. If you live in a suburb or a city with good parks, take advantage of what's there. Your children in particular will love it — and their bodies and minds will thank you.

[No. 16]  It’s been real! Editor’s Note: Liza Field is a conservationist and teacher in Wytheville, in Southwest Virginia. I cannot tell if it is her or one Jeffrey Simmons who penned “A Mountain View: It’s been real,” which was published last week in the Wytheville Enterprise (March 27, 2009), available at http://www.swvatoday.com/comments/a_mountain_view_its_been_real/ . Regardless, it is an interesting piece; here are some excerpts:

In one of my philosophy classes, the students love to discuss “what’s real.”

My students aren’t so sure that most Americans would choose an unpleasant truth over a happy illusion. So they have some rip-roaring debates.

There’s no way to stop the manufacturing of illusion. Falsity and its promotion comprise parts of several major industries now—certain news shows, entertainment, political consultants, gaming, propaganda agencies, psychics, and certain religious or new age movements that prey on people’s urge for escape from reality.

But it at least would help the next generations—and ourselves—if we could examine ways to distinguish real from artificial, truth from illusion—if such distinctions are still possible. So I thought I’d spend some columns on the topic, beginning with a look back over my years on the planet to see how reality and false appearances became so divergent in our time.

I was born midstream of the hippy era, when expressions like “See ya man; it’s been real!” had become common vernacular. To say something was “real” denoted a compliment. To call it “just unREAL!” meant that a situation was inconceivably wrong or beyond reason.

How could simply being “real” deserve noteworthiness? Surely it would have made no sense to a frontiersman to look through the woods in wonderment and remark, “Wow, man; it’s just so real around here!”

Perhaps it was a reaction to an artificiality craze. By the 1970s, the “artificial” had acquired a kind of glamour. The hideous, glossy and bizarre colors of clothes and furniture and shoes, hot-pink plastic tumblers in cupboards, the burgundy vinyl booths of roadside diners, the polyester pantsuits of teachers, the artificial turf of ball fields, fake puddings and coffee creamer, artificial flavors and dyes and Tang orange drink—all had taken American culture by storm.

If it was unreal, we wanted it, perhaps because artificiality seemed more sophisticated and progressive than plain old earth-toned, rooted, grubby, natural things that our somewhat daft ancestors had had to rely on.

Meanwhile, a backlash against all this artificiality had begun, with people like Scott and Helen Nearing eager to restore a back-to-the-earth lifestyle. Singers like John Denver soared in popularity with nature-celebrating songs like “Country Roads” and “Rocky Mountain High.”

Americans took to the trails with backpacks and camping gear. Words like “natural” and “real,” items like “earth shoes” and rawhide belts, quilted handbags, crocheted wool hats and cotton madras shirts came into vogue.

What happened? Let’s be real; I have no clue. But I’ll continue this genuine search for answers next time.

[No. 15] Vancouver, BC: A Sense of Place by Wynn Nielsen, published in Bowen Island Undercurrent, February 5, 2009:

I believe there are two ways to understanding the artificial turf issue. The first is quantifiable and intellectual such as costs versus benefit, ongoing maintenance costs, disposal/landfill issues, health concerns, disinfectant/grooming products leaching into ground, floodlight pollution and loss of tax dollars opportunity for other broader-benefit amenities. I am concerned with all these things. The other way is at the heart and cellular level, for lack of better description. Maybe it is best explained through questions. How do you describe a colour you see to someone who can’t see it or the pleasure of one’s favourite music to someone who prefers a different rhythm? Why do some people feel an obligation to protect the habitat of venerable old trees while others cheerfully say, “what’s the big deal, they are all going to fall down someday anyway.” How do you describe a ‘sense of place’ to someone who responds, “huh?” Why do some see an artificial field as simply a convenient way to have kids play ball and exercise close to home, while others see it as a threat to the island’s character, a thin-edge-of-the-wedge of that creeping urbanism so many of us came here to escape, only to have it finding us. I don’t know. Different values, priorities and sensitivities, different upbringings forming our beliefs and preferences, varying degrees of altruism versus self-interest, long term views versus short, disagreement about what is rural and urban?

 

Perhaps there is no agreement possible, just an acceptable combination of idealistic and pragmatic decisions that, in the end, creates a community we can all live in. Don’t get me wrong, people on both sides of this argument are good people. There just seems to be some elemental disagreement on what inherent value we place on nature, and what trade-offs for our lifestyle we are willing to tolerate.

Why do I not want artificial turf fields? I don’t like it for the same reason I don’t have plastic grass and synthetic skulls in my aquarium or fake hollow rocks in my garden. I have a strong affinity for a natural and less tamed and manipulated world. I was born to this coast and lived my entire life here in small communities. I’ve seen many natural areas and small villages succumb disastrously to the lure of development money, selfish interests and thoughtless adoption of ill-fitting urban infrastructure and amenities. I chose to move to Bowen 14 years ago instead of returning to my childhood community because it had fallen hard to the big box store, strip mall proponents and ubiquitous housing developments. I would find it convenient and certainly cheaper to have a big box Rona on island as I buy the tools or landscape materials there that I can’t get here. But I would never advocate to get one here because I don’t believe it fits within our island’s small footprint or intrinsic character. It would violate my ‘sense of place’.

 

In finishing this thought, I don’t believe that natural options have been adequately explored. There may be fibre-type mats that prevent potholes and level the ground but allow real grass to grow through (partly natural). Dwarf, condensed varieties of grass are also used world-wide for sports fields. I haven’t heard about research into these alternatives. Being presented with ‘this option is the only option’ is not good enough.
 

[No. 14] Newton, Mass.: Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan in his own words. Editor’s Note: Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan is the author of the resolution adopted by the Board of Aldermen to make the City of Newton’s choice of turf as eco-friendly as maximally feasible. Although the resolution has no binding force on the Mayor, who favors a quick and dirty fix for the playing fields at Newton South high School, the resolution stands as a singular reminder that, in strong-mayoral forms of municipal government, such sentiments ought to be expressed and leveraged before the funding actions are approved. Nevertheless, this resolution may well be what a semi-enlightened municipality would adopt as sound policy. An enlightened community, on the other hand, would accept that all natural grass playing fields constitute a practicable and substantially economically equivalent, if not better, alternative to synthetic turf playing fields, when considering life-cycle costs between natural grass and artificial turf fields, existing drainage and natural grass technologies, the proposed use, and logistics.

Below is an editorial by Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan, which appeared in an online publication of The Boston Globe (January 10, 2009). It is available at http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2009/01/alderman_tes_hessmahan.html .

Turf fields still a potential hazard

By Ted Hess-Mahan

 

Although synthetic in-filled turf has become a popular alternative to natural turf for communities desiring low-maintenance athletic fields that can endure intensive use, synthetic fields are increasingly regarded as potential environmental and health hazards, because of the materials they contain and the high temperatures they generate.

 

Various governmental agencies have found elevated lead levels in older synthetic fields, causing some communities to close fields or impose moratoriums on installing new ones. While newer turf products generally contain less lead, the crumb rubber “in-fill” made from recycled tires contains not only lead, but also known carcinogens, and phthalates, which can cause birth defects and affect the development of the male reproductive system. Synthetic fields also generate air temperatures exceeding 140 degrees on the playing field, may provide a medium for fungi, mold and bacteria, and have been blamed for transmitting MRSA, a treatment-resistant infection.

 

Moreover, every synthetic field will eventually require replacement in 10 to 15 years. Each full-sized field may contain well over a hundred tons of crumb rubber, synthetic turf, urethane coating, and other materials that cannot be recycled. Some of these materials are considered “special” or “hazardous” waste, which requires special handling. The cost of disposing of these materials may be in the six figure range per field, a fact which is frequently overlooked in the cost analysis.

 

It must be acknowledged that, although studies and research into the potential hazards associated with synthetic fields are ongoing, thus far, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. While a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) report found no harmful lead levels in some of the newer types of synthetic grass, it also recognized the potential for lead exposure from older, worn synthetic fields exposed to weather and sunlight, and called for “voluntary” industry standards to preclude the use of lead in future products. Conversely, although the crumb rubber in-fill also contains lead, as well as carcinogens and other harmful substances, there is no study conclusively proving actual harm or injury from exposure to these materials in synthetic fields—at least, not yet.

 

Not surprisingly, the synthetic turf industry dismisses many of these concerns as exaggerated or unproven, and cites the CPSC report as definitive proof that these fields are safe. The industry’s reliance on the CPSC report and the absence of studies offering definitive proof of hazards associated with synthetic fields provides cold comfort at best. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote The Silent Spring, in which she documented the harmful environmental impact of the pesticide DDT on wildlife, and accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation and public officials of accepting industry claims without question. The chemical industry viciously attacked her work, threatened her with lawsuits, and derided her as a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. It took ten years, but in 1972, despite intense opposition, DDT was finally banned in the United States and Carson’s book, once reviled, was seen as a groundbreaking achievement that helped launch the environmental movement.

 

When the Board of Aldermen recently approved funding to install synthetic fields with crumb rubber in-fill at Newton South High School, I was one of the very few who voted against it. While I support renovating the existing natural turf fields, which are a disgrace, I remain concerned about the potential hazards associated with synthetic fields. As I told my colleagues and the many parents, students and coaches assembled in City Hall that night, this was one vote about which I truly hope to be proven wrong.

 

That is not the end of the story, or at least, I hope not. In response to widespread demand, some manufacturers have developed “eco-safe” alternatives made with organic materials that are both recyclable and virtually free of lead, carcinogens and other harmful substances. Some of these products have been used successfully for years by professional soccer leagues in Europe and are now available in America. Recently, I filed a resolution asking the Mayor to pursue these alternatives, which has received broad support from my colleagues, most of whom voted for synthetic fields at Newton South. Through these efforts, I sincerely hope that Newton will “do the right thing” by installing synthetic fields containing the most environmentally responsible alternatives available.

 

Jackie Lombardo, member of the Sierra Club Toxics Committee

[No. 13] Jackie Lombardo – to the point, in her own words.

[No. 11] Newton, Mass.: Woe to our public servants! SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. December 16, 2008. The following piece is a resident’s eloquent plea, which fell on deaf ears, as the Board of Aldermen of the City of Newton, Mass. later in the day voted 20 to 4 to approve funding for two artificial turf fields at the Newton South High School. The identity of the resident (simply known as “Marty”) is not known to SynTurf.org. The piece was posted on Wickedlocal.com/Newton, December 15, 2008, and is available at http://answers.polldaddy.com/viewPoll.aspx?view=results&id=1195903 . It is a great read.

Dec 15, 2008 1:26am ET

It's shocking to me that the Mayor wishes to spend untold dollars on this foolish, excessively costly, unnatural, high-maintenance, potentially toxic, non-disposable, trash-based product. It's apparent that developing natural grass fields with adequate drainage (which should have been done years ago) would cost lass than 1/2 of this non-"GREEN" product that ages, needs repairs, may harm the land, and worse, may be dangerous for our children's health and safety (including injuries). Why does our leadership, both the Mayor and Aldermen, just blindly support this excessively costly, environmentally unfriendly artificial turf when the alternative is clearly more economical, maintainable, and certainly more than adequate for our young, amateur athletes? Something is out of control at City Hall!!! I do NOT SEE handicapped ramps at parts of Newton South! I do NOT SEE a swimming pool at Newton South! I do NOT SEE as many theater, art, and music electives, and clubs available to students at Newton South! Most importantly, I do NOT SEE as many teachers at Newton South! Could it be that our politicians are just that, and not at all concerned about the welfare of the many versus the special interests of the few (supporters of athletics and soccer!)? Do our elected officials worry just a little too much about a season of football games (and by the way, I understand the head coach never requested these fields, but said he'd be happy with improved drainage), while ignoring the importance of providing the best and most advanced education with higher teacher-to-student ratios for our children? Could it be that there is a foul odor at City Hall? What's missing from this equation? Why is there such persistence and insistence that we install this questionable product in the "GARDEN CITY?" Is this about cronyism and special interests? Are our politicians casting a blind eye to the facts and the num bers? What's in it for them? I wonder and wonder. I hope more Newtonites consider this travesty and question their elected officials. Why haven't our officials consulted some of the many local Engineers, Accountants, Financial Actuaries, Business Consultants (e.g., MBAs), Lawyers, Environmental Experts, Landscaping Professionals, Medical Doctors, Quality Personnel, Proposal Writers and Reviewers, and others to IMPARTIALLY assess the data exclusively provided by the proponents of this project? Would it not make sense to tap into our most lauded and valuable Newton resource, our incredibly talented and diverse working population? It's apparent these folks do not reside at City Hall! Not only could the City solicit a REAL REVIEW of this seemingly steam-rollered project, it could open up the issue to the entire community who should know how our government is spending millions of dollars at a time when our economy is in a terrible downward spiral! Residents are losing their jobs; citizens have lost enormous portions of their savings, investments, retirements, and senses of security; tax revenues and state distributions are likely to decline; City services are at risk; some (particularly elderly) citizens are in need; teachers, firemen, and policemen are threatened with cutbacks while the City 'Pols' continue to spend, spend, SPEND on its glorious projects (witness the new Newton North High School!). And, they finance these excessive projects on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Have our Mayor and Aldermen failed to learn from the greatest US economic disaster since the Depression? Do they miss the News every day? Don't they understand that limited oversight, irrational thinking, unrestrained spending, no financial reconciliation, improper influence, and plain bad management can lea d to a terrifying black hole (okay, sink hole)? Our current administration's legacy will be a declining quality of life, second-rate schools, a disintegrating landscape, and severe financial hardship for others to clean up later.

[No. 10] Luis Garden Acosta: “Green space is a human right.” Co-Sponsored by Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, this year the biennial conference of the City Parks Alliance and the National Association for Olmsted Parks took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 21-23, 2008 (http://www.urbanparks08.org ). Appropriately subtitled Body & Soul: Parks and the Health of Great Cities, the conference is the premier forum for professionals and parks advocates. While its primary focus tends to be urban and historic parks, it is clear that the promotion of artificial turf fields is not a part of the conference’s agenda – if anything …. Among the speakers who addressed the 200 plus attendees at the conference was Luis Garden Acosta. Form Brooklyn, New York, Acosta is a human rights activist and founder of El Puente, an organization dedicated to community building. Thanks to his group’s efforts, the Grant Park in his overly urbanized part of New York City came to be saved as a green space amenity for the community. Patrick Barnard of The Pimento Report (Westmount, Quebec) video-reports on the conference and Acosta at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikcdj5tg4o&feature=email .

The  story being told in response to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission declaring synthetic turf fields are safe because they do not contain lead, is extremely misleading. This declaration of “safety” is misinforming the public about what the potential risks from synthetic turf really are.

Environment and Human Health Inc. remains as concerned as ever about the synthetic turf fields that are being installed by schools and towns all across the United States.

The organization is a nine-member, nonprofit group composed of physicians, public health professionals and policy experts dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improved public policy. The group is supported by foundations and receives no funding from businesses or corporations.

When we researched the health issues presented by synthetic turf fields, we looked at the ground-up rubber tire in-fill that is a major component. The in-fill is made of used rubber tires. Some states considered used rubber tires a “hazardous” waste. Other states considered it a “special” waste.

When the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission tested the fields, they only tested the plastic or nylon fake grass for lead. Not finding lead in their extremely small sampling of fields, the commission then declared all fields safe. It never even looked at the ground-up rubber tire in-fill for its health risks, which remain an enormous worry.

Unbiased research
When the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station tested the ground-up rubber tire in-fill they found the following five compounds:
Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed.
Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen.
Hexadecane: Severe irritant based on human and animal studies.
(T-octyl) phenol: Corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes.
Zinc: A large amount of zinc is added in the manufacturing of tires, therefore there is a great deal of zinc in ground-up rubber tire in-fill.

Besides those chemicals, rubber tires often contain:
Benzene: Carcinogen.
Phtalates: Suspected developmental toxicant.
PAHs: Suspected cardiovascular or blood toxicant.
Maganese: Gastrointestinal or liver toxicant.
Carbon Black: Carcinogen.
Latex: Causes allergic reactions in some people.

Saying these fields are now safe because they do not contain lead is like saying that diesel exhaust is safe because it does not contain lead — or cigarettes are safe because they don’t contain lead. Neither of course is true.

Nancy Alderman is president of the North Haven-based Environment and Human Health Inc. organization.

SynTurf.org Note: The foregoing was carried as an op-ed by Norwich Bulletin (Norwich, Connecticut), on August 5, 2007, and it is available at http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x469173708/Nancy-Alderman-Incomplete-study-dubs-rubber-turf-free-of-lead ).

[No. 08] Noelle Robbins: The Grass is Always Greener. Published in Alameda Sun (California), July 24, 2008. Available at http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3638&Itemid=32 .

Water is tight. People want lawns. Kids need playing fields. So the answer, logically, is to install more artificial turf. Right? Saves water, looks good, doesn't need mowing. Makes all sorts of sense, or does it? Let's take a look.

 

Real grass uses about 22,000 gallons of water a year to maintain its growth and health. Not all of the water comes from the hose or sprinklers, of course. During the wet, winter months, rain does the job. And there are drought resistant varieties of grass. In fact, I found a product called Eco Grass sold by Wild Flower Farm, which is described as drought tolerant. What makes it able to weather the dry times are grass blades that are thin, which means less surface for evaporation. The roots grow deeply seeking sustenance from the water table, we are blessed with a high one here in Alameda. In addition, deep roots reduce the need for fertilizers. And the grass is very slow growing, so the need to power up and mow down is greatly reduced.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to push this particular lawn product. There are a number of fescue varieties that create rolling, lush summer lawns without gulping down gallons of H20. One is called Sheep Fescue. Another, named Buffalo Grass after the grazing ruminant, also creates a thick, pleasant summer lawn and grows slowly, so mowing is minimized; and needs to be fertilized just every two to three years. Maybe, just as we need to break our addiction to oil, we need to wean ourselves from our bluegrass habit, which does create water and fertilizer greedy yards, pushing us to pull our mowers, unfortunately usually gas powered, out of the garage every weekend.

 

And speaking of mowers, yes, real grass needs mowing. Some varieties more, some less. But nowhere is it written that gas-powered mowers are the only legal means of achieving a well-kempt lawn. Electric mowers are a real option. And, come to think of it, so are good, old-fashioned push mowers. No gas, no fumes, no noise. Just the quiet whirr of the blades as the grounds keeper, you or your kids, actually gets some fresh air, sunshine (vitamin D) and exercise.

 

As for avoiding chemicals and poisons, which disperse in the air and soak into the earth, there is no rule that says petroleum based fertilizers and toxic pesticides are a must for a good, healthy green lawn, either. Grass clippings make great grass food, a nice closed cycle when you think about it.

 

There are also organic fertilizers including such exotic ingredients as seaweed, and how about compost from your backyard bin? And there are organic pesticides available as well.

 

Real grass also soaks in CO2 from our air, and through photosynthesis, creates oxygen. It has become quite trendy to refer to all living green plants as CO2 sinks or reservoirs, holding tanks, as it were for all our excess gassy output. But people seem to forget that green plants don't store CO2, they convert it in their green lungs into the oxygen we breathe. I learned this in elementary school. Have we all forgotten this early lesson? And at what cost?

 

According to a 2005 NASA study, U.S. lawns, which total about 40 million acres, soak up about 13.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year. There is no mention of the millions of pounds of human life-giving oxygen produced. The authors contend that the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere is negated by the energy going into making synthetic fertilizers and powering gas mowers. Well, we already know there are good alternatives to both those villains of the environment.

 

Natural lawns, "green" grass if you will, do sometimes, depending on the variety go dormant in late fall until the refreshing rains of winter arrive. Maybe not so pretty, but a lovely shade of light golden tan certainly can be appealing if we change our thinking. And the new burst of fresh verdant growth is a wonderful sign of spring.

 

As for artificial turf? Well it doesn't take any watering, except perhaps to hose off the greetings of local dogs. They don't know it's not real, after all. And it doesn't require fertilizer. It is the same constant green all year round. Artificial turf is made of plastic and recycled tires (for bouncy infill); it can contain lead; requires an intensive energy sucking, pollution producing manufacturing process; and cannot be recycled but is usually dumped in landfills. The degradation of artificial turf can result in the inhalation of rubber particles. One chemical found in high levels in artificial turf is benzopyrene, a known carcinogen. And, although bugs may not gambol on fake grass, some bacteria find it absolutely irresistible, particularly the germs responsible for MRSA, the extremely serious form of staph infection that many young athletes have developed after abrasions received on artificial turf surfaces.

 

In fact, a very thorough exploration of this topic by a concerned young blogger at ProgressiveKid, named Sarah, turned up these facts: "A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control found that athletes who had suffered artificial turf burns were seven times more likely to develop MRSA infection. The reason is partly that the burns open the skin to the opportunity for infection. But many studies, most notably the study conducted by the Journal of Clinical Microbiology in 2000, have found that MRSA survives better on artificial turf than on other surfaces. Specifically, the staphylococcus survives longest, up to 90 days, on polyethylene plastic, which is a plastic used in synthetic turf fibers."

 

One solution to the bacteria problem is, you guessed it, to spray the entire lawn with chemical disinfectants. All this ends up in the air, and soaks down through the ground, if the fake grass is installed to be water permeable. Otherwise it, with rainwater, washes down the gutter and into our water supply. The odds that all this disinfection will create more antibiotic resistant super germs? Very good, I would think. And of course, no oxygen made here.

 

Fake grass also raises the temperature of its immediate surroundings. My husband, just today, was telling me about professional baseball players complaining of on-field readings of up to 130 degrees during game time. That certainly is not something our already overheated planet needs more of.

 

Anyone who has read my column over the years knows that I have a definite bias toward natural, organic and green. And that goes for real green grass. Done right, living grass can be a beautiful, and healthy part of our home and neighborhood environments. Real lawns can give us time to connect with nature, prompt us into the outdoors for some good exercise, even allow us to meet folks sharing our streets, without tainting our air and soil. All without draining our water supply, or our pocketbooks.

 

Noelle Robbins is an Alameda writer.

[No. 06] William Crain speaks about Synthetic Turf. A video presentation (June 2008). The following link below will take you to “Bill Crain speaks about Synthetic Turf,” a video presentation on You Tube produced by Westmount-based Savethepark Productions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pud7WFZr65o .

Professor Bill Crain is a professor at City University of New York and not a stranger to the readers of this site. He and Jim Zhang were among the first to test samples of crumb rubber from New York City parks and thus an early shed light on the potential harm that may come from playing on artificial turf fields. For their findings, see http://synturf.org/crumbrubber.html (Item No. 08) and http://synturf.org/warnings.html (Item No. 04).

[No. 05] If a horse can’t eat it, I don’t want to play on it. Richard Anthony Allen (Richie, Dick), former Major League Baseball player. (Attribution in Monroe News (Monroe County, Michigan), June 12, 2008, available at  

[No. 04] Patricia Taylor in her own words. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 25, 2008.

On April 22, 2008, the publication Statelien.org posted an item called “Turf wars rage over fake grass” by staff writer Eric Kelderman http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302883).

Stateline.org is one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center for the people and the Press (http://people-press.org), which is headquartered in Washington D.C.

In the article Kelderman featured one Tuncer Edil, which the article identified as

“a civil engineering professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a consultant for the company FieldTurf USA.” According to Edil, “the concentration of volatile compounds released from crumb rubber is too low to be harmful when inhaled as dust from artificial turf-covered fields. And the body’s digestive system cannot extract any of the toxins if swallowed,” reported Kelderman.

The article also featured one Jonathan Levy, “a lobbyist for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.” According to Levy, ISRI has “grave concerns” over the moratoriums proposed in several states on artificial turf fields. SIRI claims to be a  private, non-profit trade association that is the "Voice of the Recycling Industry" and represents more than 1,350 private, for-profit companies that process, broker, and industrially consume scrap commodities, including ferrous and nonferrous metals, paper, electronics, rubber, plastics, glass, and textiles. http://www.isri.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_ISRI&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=11&ContentID=14328 .

“About 51 million tires annually are used to make crumb rubber for a variety of products including a mulch substitute and an ingredient in asphalt, as well as the synthetic turf,” Levy told Kelderman. “In the larger environmental picture, if there is nowhere for these tires to go, what do we do with them?” Levy wondered.

Well … This is what Particia Taylor, one of the Westport Moms (http://www.synturf.org/thewestportbrief.html - Item No. 1) thinks of the comments by the scrap recycling industry lobbyist --

Where Do Old Tires Go? By Patricia Taylor on Apr 23, 2008 9:49:57 PM. [http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302883, comment section)]

I am one of the Westport mothers who contacted EHHI last spring about crumb rubber in fields that were being installed in Westport. We're not really a group, just several worried moms. I didn't even meet one of the moms who contacted EHHI until I met her at the EHHI press conference in Hartford in August.

The last comment in your article really popped out at me -

"Jonathan Levy, a lobbyist for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., said his group has "grave concerns" about the moratoriums. About 51 million tires annually are used to make crumb rubber for a variety of products including a mulch substitute and an ingredient in asphalt, as well as the synthetic turf, he said.

"In the larger environmental picture, if there is nowhere for these tires to go, what do we do with them?" he asked."

Since I began reading about rubber tires, recycling of tires, crumb rubber, rubber dust, and synthetic turf fields last spring, I've come to the conclusion (my opinion only) that these fields are nothing more than a waste disposal scheme for old rubber tires, marketed as recreational fields that are safe, non-toxic, and highly desirable to wealthier communities.

Mr. Levy comes close to confirming my opinion with his remark.

We have no where to put old tires so someone had the idea to grind them up and spread them on school and town fields and let people play on them and or, perhaps worse, to mix them with soil and use them for mulch for lawns, gardens, and farms?!

What a terrible idea in terms of our soil, our water, our food, and our human health.

As a mother, my common sense tells me that if tires themselves are regulated waste (all states but 8 have restrictions on where you can dump them), and there are laws keeping flammable and toxic materials away from children and their play spaces, that the last place for them to go is where children play!

Should we be growing food in stuff that emits chemicals like benzothiazole, butylated hydroxyanisole, n-hexadecane, and 4-(t-octyl) phenol, and high levels of zinc? These are the chemicals the Connecticut Ag Station conclusively identified with confirmatory tests to be coming off crumb rubber in their lab, under conditions that mirrored a typical Connecticut summer day.

My hope is that independent scientists will soon test the components of these fields so we know what our kids are playing on, before too many children are exposed for too much longer.

In the meantime, as summer nears, in communities all over the country, food is growing in crumb rubber mulch, lawns are being filled and seeded which contain rubber, synthetic turf is being installed and played upon by hundreds of thousands of children.

We are all taking part in a great natural experiment.

[No. 03] Barbara Fullerton in her own words.

Barbara Fullerton, PhD, of Weston is an assistant professor of otology and

laryngology at Harvard Medical School, a consultant in the Department of

Radiation Oncology at Mass. General Hospital, and a member of the Weston League

of Women Voters. She is the author of By Barbara Fullerton, “Real health risks of artificial turf ,” The Weston Town Crier, April 10, 2008, available at http://www.wickedlocal.com/weston/homepage/x224949434, as reproduced below:
 

Real health risks of artificial turf

I was happy to see the article on artificial turf in the March 27 issue

of the Town Crier ("Towns grapple with artificial turf issues"). The article

focused on the fact that the rubber crumb material in the turf heats up to

levels that can be 50 to 60 degrees above the ambient air temperature.

This situation is bad, not just for the athletes, but also from an environmental

standpoint, because the solution is to water down the fields to lower the

temperature. Water is an increasingly important resource that we should be

conserving. It is ironic that we are planning to construct a second new playing

field in Weston that may need to be watered more than once an hour to reduce the

temperature below the 120 degrees proposed as the upper limit for field use.

The artificial turf fields have additional problems that were not apparent when

they were first proposed last year as the solution to the shortage of playing

fields in town. These problems include the "out-gassing" of chemicals from the

turf, the potential increase in asthma and allergies from exposure, the

methicillin-resistant staph infections, and the possibility of increased risk

for cancer.

The rubber crumbs in the turf contain, in part, volatile organic compounds that

are emitted into the air as the temperature of the turf increases. Everyone is

in agreement that there is some level of exposure of athletes to the chemicals

that are "out-gassed" from the rubber crumbs. What is not known is the amount of

exposure with different conditions on the field, such as the amount of sun

exposure, level of the sun in the sky, wind speed, moisture in the turf, to

mention a few of the physical variables. It is expected that the emission of

chemicals into the air will increase with the increased field temperatures.

The susceptibility of individuals from their exposure to the chemicals is

something that is also difficult to predict with 100 percent accuracy, but there

is already evidence that people do react to these chemicals at some level. There

is no dispute in the medical literature that exposure to volatile chemicals such

as those in tires (and also gasoline fumes) limits lung function and increases

respiratory problems and rates of asthma. We don’t need to wait for more studies

to be done on this subject. Additional volatile chemicals and particulates in

the air are highly correlated with increased risk of asthma, a condition that is

steadily increasing in the U.S. Individuals may also develop allergies to the

latex in the rubber crumbs.

Given that there are some potential health risks, it should be incumbent on

those who want to introduce an additional health burden on the players to show

no negative consequences, and not the other way around. The prudent approach

would be to avoid exposure as much as possible to substances that are

detrimental to health, especially in children, whose brains and bodies are still

growing and vulnerable to the effects of unnatural chemicals.

Artificial turf fields have been associated with methicillin-resistant staph

infections that can occur from cuts or skin abrasions on the field. Bacterial

infections are usually addressed in athletic departments by extra disinfecting

of sports equipment and locker rooms where bacteria can spread easily among

players. In the case of artificial turf, however, the entire field needs to be

sprayed with an anti-microbial material in order to reduce the growth of

bacteria. This adds an additional expense to the total cost of artificial turf,

not to mention the unknown effects of having antibacterial solutions migrating

into the adjacent wetlands. (Bacteria in the natural area of wetlands serve many

beneficial biological purposes that could be the subject of at least an entire

article.)

The risk of cancer is the least certain of the problems with the chemicals in

the artificial turf. However, the National Cancer Institute reports that 80 to

90 percent of cancer is related to environmental causes. Since cancer generally

develops over decades, it would be hard to definitely link it with exposure to

artificial turf as separate from other environmental exposures. We should not

disregard data showing increased laryngeal, tracheal and lung cancer rates among

workers in rubber tire factories, just because the situation is not exactly the

same as on the outdoor artificial turf. In both situations people are breathing

in organic compounds that are, at the very least, irritating, if not injurious,

to the mucous membrane lining of the nose, throat and other respiratory

passages.

The position of the League of Women Voters is that, while the artificial turf

proponents claim that after 30 years there is no proof that players will develop

cancer or other adverse health consequences, there is also no proof that they

will not. We all know how long it took for the scientific and health information

on the effect of smoking  to finally become public. Unless we pay attention, we

may repeat the same story with artificial turf.

We would all agree that everyone wants to do the right thing for the children in

Weston and to give them as many opportunities as possible to play sports on

good, safe surfaces. I commend the Weston Field Steering Committee for the many

hours spent studying the issues and collecting as much information as possible

about the artificial turf in order to try to create the best experience for the

players.

Weston citizens have a lot of money with which to purchase a product that was

originally being sold as a panacea. Nothing is perfect, however, and we are now

learning that artificial turf comes at a cost that is higher than we should be

willing to pay, since it may require not just money, but also risks to health

and costs to the environment.

I would urge people to do the courageous thing, which is, in this instance, to

resist the immense pressure from the artificial turf industry and from the

perception that not having the chance to play sports as soon as the snow melts

in the spring would be a terrible fate. Fields that were installed and

maintained with good organic practices would cost a fraction of the money that

is now being spent on the artificial turf. It is true they would not be green in

early March, but they would also not be associated with all of the problems of

Paul Kozaliewicz is the editor of the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon (http://www.sunsetbeacon.com), two newspapers that serve the residents in the west side of San Francisco. This is what he wrote in the April (2008) edition of The Sunset Beacon:

The road to Hell is often paved with good intentions.

The City has recently gone into the carpet laying business, replacing large swaths of grass with ground up tires. In 2005, the City Fields Foundation was formed to raise money for the replacement of athletic fields at playgrounds throughout the City. The idea is to make the fields more accessible during the rainy season and at night, with the program's installation of lights, including a proposal to put them at Rossi Playground.

Proponents of the artificial fields say they will save thousands of gallons of water and remove the need to cut grass, which will save the City money in the long haul. The new artificial turf is better than it used to be, they say, because it mimics natural grass in a more realistic way.

But someone has lost sight of the forest. It doesn't even make sense to me that a forward-thinking, environmental city like San Francisco would consider this proposal, much less move forward without even doing an environmental assessment of the potential dangers. Especially with our children playing on the outdoors mat.

The foundation, working in concert with the City, has already replaced the grass fields at Garfield Square and Silver Terrace. It is moving fast to replace other fields, including Rossi and South Sunset Playground. At Silver Terrace, real grass is already growing through the artificial turf.

In March, the SF Recreation and Park Commission approved the formation of a Synthetic Fields Task Force to "discuss, clarify and make recommendations on the environmental, health and social impacts of synthetic fields."

The task force, with its appointed experts on climate change, public health impacts, water quality and turf toxicity, is a good start. The horse has already left the barn but at least the City is sending a posse out to look for it.
 

Contributing to Global Warming

Why would we contribute to global warming by removing life that removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere?

According the non-profit group Athena Institute, the replacement of one grass field would require the planting of 1,861 trees, and allowing them to grow for 10 years, to offset the amount of "carbon dioxide sequestration" lost with the grass fields.

David Brown, a public health toxicologist, wrote a column for the Sunday New York Times explaining some of the dangers of creating playing fields out of petroleum products. He said each square foot of synthetic surface has 10 or so pounds of tire crumbs, which results in about 225 tons of ground-up tires for a field 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. Silver Terrace is at least twice that size.

"(Studies) found that dust from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung," Brown wrote.

As well, the water that drains off the synthetic fields is channeled into the city's sewer system, which means it is treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It does not go back into the underground aquifer. (Wasn't that the problem with Lake Merced?)

Our sewer system can't handle all of the water during a heavy rain and sometimes untreated effluent is dumped directly into the ocean. This will make that problem worse.

The SF Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2002 to ban the paving over of small green spaces in the front of people's homes in an effort to keep water flowing into the underground aquifers and out of the city's storm drainage system. Recently, it passed legislation calling for fines of up to $500 for violators. Now, the City wants to be the biggest violator of its own policy. Surprise.
 

Injuries a Concern

Sports injuries are reportedly more frequent on synthetic turf. One common injury, rug burn, often causes a bacterial infection, including drug-resistant staph infections.

According to a report in Scientific American Magazine, players burned on artificial turf are 10 times more likely to get antibiotic treatments for their wounds than on grass. A study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 reported that five members of the St. Louis Rams football team got drug-resistant staph infections from playing on artificial turf in their home stadium.

At Silver Terrace, its two baseball diamonds are completely covered with synthetic turf, including the infield where players slide. The turf is also responsible for knee, ankle and foot sprains and tears that occur when an athlete's foot is planted and doesn't give as the player continues to move. This type of injury is common in soccer matches because of the way athletes have to move, with constant stops and twists.

Players wear short rubber-spiked shoes to play on the field.

David Beckham, an international soccer star, had this to say about artificial turf: "As a professional athlete, you can't play a game like soccer on that sort of field. What it does to our body as a soccer player, you're in bits for three days after that."

A poll of more than 1,500 players in the National Football League in 2006 showed 65 percent felt artificial turf was more likely than grass to cause an injury and 74 percent said the surface caused more soreness and fatigue.
 

Limitations of Synthetic Turf

The synthetic turf being installed in San Francisco is made up of plastic and finely ground pellets derived from rubber tires. The turf needs to be watered, sometimes with chemical disinfectants, to wash away spit, vomit, blood and bird and animal excretions. It also needs to be cooled under certain conditions to prevent a potential fire hazard. (Could an arsonist start a "tire fire" on the field? Is the fire department ready to respond?)

A conventional sprinkler system will not work because it would require tears in the turf, which would void the turf's eight-year warranty. Special high-velocity water nozzles have to be installed at the edge of the field.

The turf also requires a special $60,000 sweeper to agitate the petroleum-based rubber pellets once a month.

Some of the changes in city policy and potential affects of synthetic fields are:

• Pets, food and drink are prohibited;
• Any vehicle with wheels is prohibited, including strollers;
• Birds will lose feeding habitat because worms, grubs and other delectables will no longer be available;
• Algae can become a problem. Usually confined to marine habitats, the algae can grow in artificial turf. One chemical used to clean the surface is Benzalkonium Chloride, which is a hazard to fish.

Problems Around the Globe

There have been lots of problems where synthetic turf has been installed.

Because of health concerns, the governments of Norway and Sweden have recommended that there be no more installations of artificial turf with tire pellets. They are concerned about the toxicity of the pellets and the possibility of a negative reaction from people that are allergic to latex, a component of rubber tires.

Community groups have formed in several New Jersey towns calling for the end of synthetic fields. New Jersey has more than 150 synthetic fields, out of the 850 that were installed in the United States in 2007.

In California, legislation was introduced Feb. 19 by Sen. Abel Maldonado (SB 1277) that would prohibit the installation of synthetic turf at any public or private school or park until the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has prepared an environmental study. The California Department of Public Health would be required to perform a health study on the use of "crumb rubber" before June 30, 2009.

In the City, the Sierra Club has called for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for synthetic fields, citing concerns over restrictions of public access, impacts on trees, animals, insects and vegetation, and the installation of lights, which puts migratory birds at risk.

Intentions are Good

The City Fields Foundation and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom are splitting the cost of the city's field renovations. They argue that synthetic carpets save the taxpayers money, but that claim is dubious. When you add in the initial cost of ripping out the grass and topsoil fields and replacing them with crushed stone and a massive rubber and plastic carpet, and the cost of maintaining, repairing the synthetic turf, there is no savings.

Proposition A, passed by city voters in March, is providing $8.5 million for the synthetic fields program, even though there was no mention of synthetic fields in the text of the proposition. There is no doubt that the intentions of those supporting the City Fields Foundation are good. That includes the family of GAP founder Don Fisher, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and many more San Franciscans, which have contributed more than $4 million for the program so far.

According to the foundation, the City is currently short 27 baseball fields and 33 soccer fields.

Helping children and families is an admirable goal that needs to be pursued. But use those millions to hire more gardeners so our kids have great grass fields to play on and to build more playing fields within our vast array of parks and playgrounds.

Both sides of the issue are getting ready to butt heads and argue over the details. But it's a plain as the back of your hand - replace grass fields in a City blessed with weather for growing grass year round with ground up rubber tires and plastic made from oil - it's just not right.

San Francisco adopted the Precautionary Principle in 2003. It says: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." This sounds like one of those cases to me.