[No. 03] City of San Francisco’s Synthetic Playfields Task Force Report: A Preview. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. August 3, 2008. In February 2008, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department convened a task force to tackle the question of health an environmental concerns raised by synthetic playfields. For details, see on this page http://www.synturf.org/sanfranciscobrief.html (Item No. 1). The Synthetic Playfields Task Force has completed its work and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department will be issuing its findings and department recommendations to San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission at the end of August 2008. SynTurf.org has obtained a copy of the draft of Report to San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission, dated July 25, 2008.
The Report has 8 Parts: Executive Summary, Introduction and Purpose, Background and History, Overview of Public Concerns, Task Force Process and Proceedings, Key Findings and Department Recommendations, Conclusion, and Acknowledgements. The gut of the Report is contained in Part V (Task Force Process and Proceedings), which contains the conclusions of each “study group” that was set up to look into a specific issue: (a) bacteria/staph infection; (b) climate change and urban heat island effects; (c) ecosystem; (d) injuries; (e) material composition: overall chemical composition and flammability; (f) material composition: off gassing; (g) material composition: ingestion – inhalation of turf product materials; (h) material composition: lead; (i) obesity; (j) turf products: alternative field products; and (k) turf products: recyclability.
The report contains only one significant finding and one significant recommendation that could make a difference to longevity of grass fields in the San Francisco area. First, the study group that looked into “Climate Change and Urban Heat Island Effects” stated synthetic turf materials constituted an impervious surface (Draft, p.14). This might be the first instance of a municipality actually taking note of this revelation that has been around for some time. Until now, the purveyors of turf fields had managed to convince the unsuspecting public and policymakers that turf is a pervious surface, because it is porous. Water on a turf field actually seeps into the sub-base and is conducted by perforated pipes away from the field, often into sewer or storm water drains. The upshot of this draining system is that it deprives the ground from recharge. That makes the surface impervious, even if a minute amount of water does make its way past the sub-base’s compacted gravel bed. The notion that permeable carpet an impervious turf field it does not make, is implicit in the impervious surface ordinance for the City of Lewiston, Maine. It defines an impervious surface as “those areas that prevent or impede the infiltration of stormwater into the soil as it entered in natural conditions prior to development. Impervious areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, sidewalks, walkways, patio areas, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, compacted gravel surfaces, awnings and other fabric or plastic covering, and other surfaces that prevent or impede the natural infiltration of stormwater runoff which exited prior to development.”
Second, the Climate/Urban Heat Island Effects study group also found, “Urban heat islands are created when natural areas are replaced by impervious surfaces like rooftops and asphalt, which absorb heat during the day, and continue to do so after the sun sets.” Because turf fields are impervious surfaces, turf “temperatures are higher than natural grass.” Draft p. 14.
On the basis of these findings, in evaluating future fields, Rec & Park Department “[will] identify opportunities to convert asphalt play space into synthetic turf.” This makes it sound like turf is better than asphalt! Every heat effect study that has compared turf with asphalt temperatures has concluded that turf fields run higher than asphalt. Besides, the asphalted playgrounds are usually not of the acreage that could accommodate a turf playing field, or they are suited for a specific sport like basketball, skateboarding and alike. A better site selection for a turf field, ever so, would be to install turf fields in lieu of parking lots or even above highways and wide roads (air right).
The Climate/Urban Heat Effect study group made no specific recommendations about public health hazard of turf fields running hot in the summer months, other than to have the Rec & Park Department conduct or participate in field temperature testing at existing synthetic turf fields. Draft, p.3.
The study group that looked into the affect of turf fields on the “Ecosystem” did not prepare a formal written summary for the Task Force. Made up of a member of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and a member of the Audubon Society, the group “did not find independent studies that specifically addressed this topic in relation to synthetic turf playfields.” But, the group managed to summarize its concerns about issues of potential biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation. It recommended, “When considering sites for field renovations with synthetic turf, the Department should consider sensitive species occurring in parks. One suggestion [is] to consider the installation of turf on a case-by-case basis. For example, consider the difference between ecological impacts of removing existing grass versus asphalt for replacement with synthetic field.” Draft, p. 16.
A part form the foregoing findings/recommendations, very little else in this Report is worth praising on balance, objectivity or thoroughness.
The study group that looked into bacteria/staph infection was made up of two members of San Francisco Department of Public Health and a member of the Athletic League. They collectively missed the point about the relationship between artificial turf and staph infections, perhaps in part because their research was lacking in breadth and scope. “Originally the study group could not find literature on bacterial growth on synthetic turf playfields” and it was only during the writing of the Draft Report that suddenly a study from Penn State was brought to the attention of the group. Draft, p. 13. This is the same study that most purveyors of artificial turf quote in order to dispel the notion that turf causes staph infection. Turf by itself does not cause infection but, by focusing on bacterial and microbial populations in artificial turf, the study group missed the point about the connection between staph infection and turf .The research that the study group consulted (Draft, Appendix) pointed to higher incidence of skin abrasion on turf than grass. And because skin abrasion acts like a portal for staph bacteria, then an increased incidence of skin abrasions on turf is likely to result in higher incidence of staph infection regardless of where the bacteria resides or where the athlete comes into contact with the bacteria. While most of the cases of staph infection in one study had turf burns, the study group decided to dismiss the evidence by claiming that a higher portion of the people who did not get staph infection also had turf burns. All this suggests about the people who did not get staph infection is they were spared contact with or entry of the bacteria into their system. For a full briefing on this issue, see http://www.synturf.org/staphturfbrief.html and http://www.synturf.org/staphnews.html .
The Report’s section on “Injuries” begins with a common lamentation among the proponents of turf fields that many a player has suffered sprained ankles as the result of playing on grass fields. Obviously, this kind of set up is designed to subconsciously bamboozle the public to think that players who play on artificial turf do not sprain their ankles. No amount of evidence, particular as contrived by turf peddlers, can hide the fact that an occasional sprained or twisted ankle is an evolutionary byproduct of being a homo erectus. The “Injuries” study group did not find a single study that concluded artificial turf is safer than natural grass. Instead, the balance of the studies came down to an equal safety record, more tending to natural grass. This issue will never be resolved until public health officials start keeping statistics on injuries in correlation with the type of surface, surface conditions, nature of injury (impact or non-impact), etc.
One cannot be certain of why an injury occurs all of the time. But, for now, there are two sources of information on which one could build a database about the effect of playing on artificial turf. There is a vast body of literature about the various aspects of turf’s effect on muscles, joints and ligature. There are also testimonial of athletes who in one shape or another recount the physical hardships associated with playing on turf. When it comes to comparing turf with grass, athletes also have registered their preference for grass (disdain of turf) in a variety of surveys. For a summary, go to http://www.synturf.org/health.html and http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html .
The Report’s discussion of “Material Composition” takes up four parts. After a general discussion of “Overall Chemical Composition and Flammability” of turf fields, the study group recommended Rec & Park Department to choose turf products that are lead-free and zinc-free. Draft, p. 19. In the part about “Off Gassing,” the study group “did not consider the level of off-gassing adverse to human health based on the studies they review.” Draft, p. 19.That is because no study to date has actually focused on this issue. But, the studies that the group consulted all do tell what emits from turf fields and what they do or are capable of doing to health and the environment. One excellent and seminal study on this topic is carried out by Environment and Human Health, Inc. of North Haven, Connecticut. The study group recommended testing of fields for off-gassing in real-world conditions.
Insofar as “Ingestion – Inhalation of Turf Product Materials” is concerned, the study group noted the existence of gaps in the data and recommended more research. The group noted, determining if the recycled tire infill is a pollution source and health risk in the outdoors and indoors requires further research. Draft, pp. 19 and 21.
The study group that looked into “Lead” did not prepare a written statement, largely because it believed that “it is unclear whether all artificial turf contains lead.” So, it recommended Rec & Park Department to buy non-nylon and lead-free turf. Draft, p. 22.
The Report’s part on “Obesity” does not have any relationship to turf whatsoever. The proponents of turf fields like to introduce this element into the mix because it suggests, albeit erroneously, turf fields increase opportunity for physical activity and therefore by having more turf fields children can avoid getting obese and obese people already can get physical activity, get healthy and slim down. The implication is, because they are not well maintained or cannot be used incessantly, natural grass fields discourage physical activity and/or restrict use of fields. The fact is getting physical activity is not compulsory. Lifestyles and diet and other factors, including biomedical and pharmacological, contribute to obesity. The absence or limited availability of natural grass playing fields is rampant in most of the world and yet obesity is not a problem in most countries and cultures. Turf is a part of a youth sports culture that, in the words of Tom Farrey, is a race to make champions of our children, for reasons that may have nothing to do with sports and exercise. His book is entitled, Game Plan: The All-American Race to Make Champions of Our Children (ESPN, 2008).
The Report’s “Part J” discusses alternative field products in terms of variations that exist in the turf industry’s ever-evolving technology. The study group recommends obtaining Material Data Safety Sheets for all the components of the turf field in order to insure the product complies with safety and health requirements. Draft, p. 24. The study group has not a single sentence on alternatives available also in natural grass industry. The thrust of this part is clearly to make artificial turf more palatable by placating some of the concerns raised by the public.
The Report’s last Part is about “Recyclability” of turf. The study group recommends installing a product whose manufacture would vouch for recycling the old carpet into other consumer products. Draft, p. 24. The study group assumes an artificial turf field “to have a lifetime of 12+ years.” Draft, p. 24. This is shown to be an exception. A more realistic life-span for turf is 8-9 years. See http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html .
“Once they are worn down and require removal,” the study group stated, “the material will need to be lanfilled, unless an alternative solution is identified.” In one instance, the group noted, in Larchmont, Califronia, when an 80,000 sq. ft. filed required replacing, it created 400 tons of debris that the city needed to manage.
Long before a venue replaces the carpet, every day, while in use, the worn out parts of the field – fiber (carpet fuzz) and in-fill (crumb rubber and silica), in the tons annually, part from the surface of the field and enter the environment. If this unmitigated release or migration of hazardous material – in whatever form -- into the environment causes no loss of sleep, then the disposal of the carcass of a carpet and associated debris is not an issue.
The Report is a masterpiece of obfuscation. It defends the use of artificial playfields and promotes the continued installation of artificial turf fields in the San Francisco area for some time to come. The Report’s tone is defensive of Recreation and Park Department’s long-held view that the turf fields are fine and the answer to increasing need for playing surfaces. With a few exceptions, there is not much critical thinking or even adequate research into the topics that the Task Force has addressed.
|
