|
|
|
Your Comments: Artificial Turf
Required fields are marked with an asterisk(*)
|
|
|
The information you provide will be used only to send the requested e-mail and will not be used to send any other e-mail communications. Read more in our Privacy Policy
From Bill in Moraga:
The Town Of Moraga in California is considering placing a Field Turf artificial field in with Measure WW funds, NEXT TO YOUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.
Our parks and recreation department thinks that by spending 750 K on one of these that they will get more kids to play on a perfectly good park. When members of the town asked about the chemicals we were told they a perfectly safe by Field Turf. Now I find out they may not be?
My concern is the location of one of the fields will be located on a creek that is 900 yards from Upper San Leandro Reservoir one of East Bay MUD's 4 main local reservoirs. If there are cancer causing elements that could leach out of a proposed field into the water supply then this would be an issue that could affect the entire East Bay, not just the kids playing on the field.
Moraga has decided to spend WW funds on an artificial sports field in one of two locations, 2100 Camino Pablo Road , or at 1111 Camino Pablo. Both locations have run off that contribute to the water supply at Upper San Leandro Reservoir.
Can the chemicals be filtered out of our water supply? If you Google Earth these locations you will see how close to the water supply these fields may be.
From Joe:
This is in response to an earlier entry from San Mateo, I am a soccer player in San Francisco who contributed to the San Francisco Synthetic Fields Task Force.
Since at least 2004, the NFL Players Association have conducted bi-annual surveys of more than 1500 players from all 32 teams. (2008 survey: http://www.synturf.org/images/2008_NFLPA_Surface_Survey.pdf )
The facts revealed in the survey include: 96% of NFL players believe that artificial turf causes more soreness and fatigue than natural grass. 91% feel that artificial turf is more likely to contribute to injury than natural grass. 87% feel that artificial turf is more likely to affect a player's quality of life after football. 85% feel that artificial turf is more likely to shorten a player's career. More than 1/3 of players feel they've had at least one injury caused by artificial turf that would not have occurred on natural turf. 85% of players prefer to play on natural grass.
The most common player comment was "make all fields grass to prevent injury." David Beckham in describing FieldTurf as a playing surface said, "As a professional athlete, you can't play a game like soccer on that sort of field," Beckham told reporters. "You can't ask any athlete to perform at a high level on the FieldTurf."
Most significantly, Beckham said, "What it does to your body as a soccer player, you're in bits for three days after that."
From Janet in Marin:
In regards to comments made by Marc, in San Mateo, Of course soil contains microbes, and inorganic material like tire waste and plastic does not, (at least to any effective degree). But the microbes are exactly what breaks down the bacteria in the accumulating excrement (blood, spit, feces, etc.) that foment harmful bacteria and promote staph infections such as MRSA.
The microbes in the grass and soil are natural disinfectants. Just like the cigarette companies have done for decades, the artificial turf manufacturers and their representatives are adopting their techniques and are flooding us with misleading studies and junk science.
Marc in San Mateo responds:
Torri, please read the report located at the second link I posted below. It contains your answers on potential off-gassing or leaching of chemicals at elevated field temperatures.
The study found that levels were well within range of the acceptable standards set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. Also, a few years ago a study at Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences studied the exact bacterial issue you are concerned about and found that artificial turf does NOT harbor staphylococcus bacteria and that artificial turf systems are "not a hospitable environment for microbial activity."
The researchers also found that "The microbe population of natural turf grass far exceeds anything we've found in the in-fill systems... In fact, a number of the in-fill (artificial turf) systems had zero living microbes in the sample at the time of testing."
More information on this study is available to the public at this link http://cropsoil.psu.edu/mcnitt/microbial/index.cfm Obviously when it comes to public health these are legitimate concerns. A library of research has been conducted on the subject of SBR rubber and more studies continue to roll in with the same conclusion that these turf fields are safe.
Like anything, this comes down to education - science ignores common sense and gives you factual answers. Please read the published reports before you continue to make statements which are simply untrue.
From Torri in San Anselmo:
Although I am true believer in 'reuse', I am an even truer believer in common sense. Ground up tires are toxic and dangerous, ergo, don't reuse them in areas where children play! The issue of artificial turf vs natural grass fields is so crystal clear to me especially after seeing the CBS 5 report. Artificial turf is more than just a bad idea it is blatantly dangerous, short sighted and already hurting our children. I was at Burlingame High yesterday walking around the track. It was a pleasant 75 degrees with a cool breeze. I held my hand waist high above the artificial turf and felt the heat emanating three feet above the ground and who knows what kind of chemicals were being emitted on this pleasantly COOL day. I shudder to think of what it would be like at higher temperatures.
The concern about staph infections was also a frightening reality, not to mention other health risks when you have kids and adults spitting, bleeding and sliding on a plastic surface that isn't being cleaned. Adults...use your brains and stop this madness. Artificial turf should be banned in areas where children play instead of deliberately installed.
From Marc in San Mateo:
Here is a link where the New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene report can be viewed. Better to let readers go right to the source than to base their knowledge solely on Leah's version of it - http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/turf_aqs_report0409.pdf. Another study of out Connecticut-http://www.miloneandmacbroom.com/downloads/MMI%20Syn%20Turf%20Study_Bristol_McDermott.pdf
Leah, your statement "All the professional sports fields being built in the U.S.A. today are using only natural grass" is completely false. In fact, 14 of 30 NFL teams play on artificial turf: Ravens, Bills, Bengals, Colts, Patriots, Jets, Falcons, Cowboys, Lions, Vikings, Saints, Giants, Seahawks and Rams. Numerous other NFL teams have artificial turf practice fields. Four Major League Soccer teams play on synthetic turf as do 3 in Major League Baseball. Over 100 NCAA Division 1 football programs use artificial turf and over 60 NCAA Division 1 soccer programs use it. These facts are very much to the contrary of what you wrote below.
From Peter in Los Altos:
The opponents of turf fields are right! Rubber pellets made from old tires are toxic if vaporized by heat or ingested into the body by some other means, but we should not simply ban turf fields. Every year, millions of tires are worn out and deposit rubber dust on our highways. We must also prevent our children from traveling on highways, to keep them safe. Come to think of it, we should also keep them out of our homes in which the resins from the wood and plywood of which they are made, are also highly toxic. Next, we should take hard look at the carpets on which they play .........
From Wes in Mill Valley:
I don't know about you but when I was in fourth grade we learned that Green growth gave off oxygen and used carbon dioxide. So here we are tearing up fields of green grass and covering it with fossil fuel byproducts. All we seem to hear about today is carbon footprint and particulate matter, what has this done to her carbon foot print. Rubber tires today are not made of rubber they are made of fossil fuel byproducts. But hey, our leaders or the intelligent ones and we are pretty stupid. They have learned that they can do anything so long as they say "for the sake of the children", even if it kills them!
From Kasha in San Francisco:
The ARTIFICIAL TURF concept goes against all things Green. It is toxic in every sense, destroys the environment in its path and surrounding area, is not a good surface for our children, swabs positive for MRSA, is being scrapped by all professional sports as a viable playing surface, requires large quantities of water for cooling and maintenace, etc. The information is already available as to why this product should not be applied anywhere. Then why when SF declares itself as GREEN and PROGRESSIVE that it would even consider this costly and eco negative environment to fill thousands of acres of parks. This hypocrisy lets me look elsewhere when casting my vote for Gavin Newsome.
From Ron in San Francisco:
San Francisco Rec & Parks has a policy of virtually zero fertilizer or weed control use on our grass playfields. Grass turf technology is improving everyday. There currently exists hybrid turf products that require much less watering, have a hardier root structure and grows back quickly, and could mowed with electric mowers at the cost of pennies a day. It's time to replace SF RPD's number crunchers and with creative environmentalists.
From Mary in Fairfax:
One synthetic turf field (see www.fieldturf.com) contains 40,000 recycled car tires in particulate waste form. That is ten pounds of ground rubber tire per square foot of field. The chances of children at play ingesting these particles are very high. These particles stick to sweaty hands, faces and clothing. They pour from shoes in cars and at home. The idea that children should have any opportunity to ingest these toxins, some listed as carcinogens and male reproductive toxicants on California's Prop. 65, should make every football, soccer and lacrosse mom and dad shudder. Bravo Jeffrey and CBS5 for bringing this hazard to light.
From Urla in San Jose:
When I returned from graduate school, I was impressed when I saw the new sporting complexes at the high schools in the East Side Union High School District in San Jose. However, when I returned to substitute teaching in that district, I was disappointed to see the dilapidated conditions of many of the buildings at several schools. I am amazed at how quickly taxpayers' dollars went to fund football and baseball fields, and tracks, but how slowly money comes to replace books and classroom equipment, and build up school libraries. Why all this money would be spent on fields without that research is puzzling . . .
From "PlaygreenSC":
Why is it that everytime I see or read a story on synthetic turf it always revolves around soccer?? I don't understand the need to change natural for plastic for one group. A public park serves "all" the families. It's downright discrimantory. You should see the signs up of what you cannot do once syn-turf goes in! Don't even get me going on how fiscally irresponsible this is for a city to make. The cities should listen to the people who appoint them. The schools should do what they do best, keep education as their focus. Last of all, for those who haven't installed it, be patient. There is more info to follow. For those who have already installed it, be scared, everyone is looking for easy money these days.
From Rebecca:
I find this amazing that this is being discussed. Before this was even reported the investigative team should've looked to see if state grants were used to purchase these fields. Our useless CA Integrated Waste Management Board which grants millions of dollars every year in the name of the environment fails to think before it acts.
Take a look at their grant for tire derived products and take a look at who they awarded grant funds to, schools mostly and 15 of 22 projects for recreation. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Tires/Grants/Product/default.htm#General In March 2009 they awarded $2,000,000 statewide. Are we not in a budget crisis? The health effects of these products are critical, but this state needs to begin to look at our state government and realize they are often behind the initiation of these so called green products and great programs. Don't blame the schools and the parks, blame those that are being appointed to useless state boards!
From A.S. in San Francisco:
Although this is an important topic and necessary call-to-action, what's so interesting is that these field have existed for a very long time - as far back as when I was in High School back in 1989, and it seems very negligent on the part of many sources that with the technology available that this 'hazard' has just now become an issue...?!?!?
From Kelley:
City neighborhood grass parks cost money to be maintained. Politicians have tried to eliminate them for many years. The state of the art used to be to pave over them with asphalt. Today it is to fill them with gravel, plastic and tire waste infill.
At least asphalt surfaces don't contain finely ground unregulated amounts of toxic ingredients that are easily inhaled and ingested. Nor do they need to be replaced every 8 years, (the infill then becomes "hard as rock" as per a Fieldturf representative) at a cost of millions of dollars.
If only some politician could invent an urban playing surface that repaired and replenished itself, and was able to sequester CO2 and pollutants while producing fresh oxygen for all who used them and lived around them. They would surely win a Nobel Prize.
From "Save Kimbell Field" in San Francisco:
We participated at every meeting of the San Francisco Synthetic Fields Task Force. The SF Park Commissioners/ RPD/City Fields are well aware of these risk issues and many more.
Why are they trying to push through the Kimbell Field installation this spring in spite of such growing data and public concerns?
http://sfparks.googlepages.com/savekimbell
Even if these fields cost less over the long run, which they don't, how short-sighted is it of our government officials to prioritize a few dollars over our children's health? Our group is composed of athletes as well as concerned citizens. How selfishly narcissistic would we have to be to put our recreation desires over the well-being of our neighbors? Is this a lesson we want to teach our kids? Save Kimbell Field.
From Andy in Milpitas:
People need to read about the studies before going overboard. The turf fields do not cause health problems. I grew with the Natural fields they are full of ankle twisting holes and ruts. The cost to maintain the fields in pristine condition is too much. We would just need to fire more teachers to pay for green field. Granted the best natural field is better than turf, there just are not any pristine fields in the public sector.
Leah in San Francisco responds:
The Environmental reports are ALL against artificial turf, David. They have been banned in Connecticut and New York - and in most of Europe. All the professional sports fields being built in the U.S.A. today are using only natural grass. Natural turf uses less water than the necessary floods to wash the artificial turf. Artificial turf also destroys the habitats of birds and ground animals and eliminates carbon sequestration. David Beckham is against them as well. Please reconsider your research?
Also from Leah:
Please read the scientific studies on the dangers of crumb rubber befor endorsing artificial turf. It has "above allowable" levels of lead, cadmium, chromium, zinc, selenium and PAHs in addition to toxic gasses that become more deadly as the temerature rises.
There are also a lot of spiral fractures, turf toe, and other injuries playing on this surface. You should also know that that there isn't enough pesticides and fertilizers to compare to the dry cleaning fluids required to clean artificial turf. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/
David in Tampa responds:
I would simply ask Janet, Suzanne, Leah, Amy and Heidi to take 30 minutes and read some of the independent reports: The recent NYC report on airborne carcinogens; the very detailed Norwegian report which tested the material in indoor applications...or any of the countless others (most done in Europe which has much stricter environmental standards than the US).
What you will find is NO negative results or risks found. In fact when you consider the water savings (hundreds of thousands of gallons per year per field) and the utilization benefit (one artificial turf field can handle the traffic and use of 4-8 natural grass fields...means cutting down less trees, using less fertilizer and pesticide, lower costs over time)
Any true environmentalist who studies this info will become an advocate...so I challenge folks to read up on the studies ...I think you will be impressed with the amount and quality of research that has been done.
From Marc in San Mateo:
People really need to take a good look at the science behind this story. Dave from Tampa said it right. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and other forms of rubber exist in countless products we use everyday, including some that come into direct contact with our mouths.
Many chewing gum manufacturers use SBR as gum base! Think about the cosmetic sponges women use to remove make up - many of those contain SBR! When you buy broccoli or asparagus, what is it wrapped with? A rubber band! Have you or your children ever drank water from a hose? Well, that hose is made of rubber!
Rubber comes into direct contact with the food we eat as conveyor belts and neoprene protective clothing worn by workers in meat processing plants! Our children use rubber erasers in class! You can take any toy, cooking utensil, sofa, bed mattress, or TV remote control in your home and break it down chemically to find potentially harmful ingredients.
Fact is, in their finished state those products are inert and harmless. These fields are safe. The alternative requires hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, cutting with lawn mowers which consume gasoline and spew out more toxins in an hour than driving your car 150 miles, cuts blades of grass which studies show releases harmful VOCs into the atmosphere contributing to poor urban air quality, and requires pesticides and fertilizers that pollute our dwindling water supply.
From Ivan in Burlingame:
It is much cheaper over the years to have a turf field. The money that cities would need to spend on water and maintenance people is very, very high. The new turf they use is much better then the ones from 5 years ago.
How many kids have been seriously hurt or infected by the turf or the so-called "toxics" in the turf? Not many, if any.
If parents are worried about the heat of the field then hire responsible coaches who know how to give breaks at the proper times to the kids then it will not be a big issue.
From David in San Francisco:
As a member of the City's task force on artificial turf and as a park neighbor and City dweller, I am strongly against artificial turf for health and environmental reasons. It is a mistake for the City of SF to be supporting this product.
From Heidi in San Carlos:
Great Job, Jeffrey at letting people know the dangers of artificial turf. There is also another danger: to our city budget when in 8 years, it is time to replace the worn-out turf at a cost of $1.5 Million. How can we afford this financial drain and the potential long-term health impacts on our children?
From Amy in San Carlos:
Recently our neighborhood has been fighting our city board to oppose a turf field in a public park. I feel like we are fighting a no win battle and not sure why the city is going forward after all our opposition. With all the questions about the crumb rubber toxicities and excessive heat given off, why the push? It is not for water conservation and not for maintenance cost savings.
With budget shortfalls, this is a very expensive project. With public safety officers like fire and policemen getting laid off, you wonder where the money for this project will come from. It sounds suspicious and you just look to those who have something to benefit.
From David in Tampa:
So many rumors, so little understanding of the facts. Saying tire rubber is filled with carcinogens or toxic ingredients is like saying granite and composite flooring are. Almost any substance when looked at in terms of its chemical composition has stuff we would not want to ingest or inhale. But once rubber is vulcanized (cured and only cured rubber is used in tires)these hazardous elements, just like those in granite or flooring,are embedded inside the new compound and are not "accessible" unless the rubber is destroyed or burned.
Remember, this is tire rubber the same stuff that is in the tire swing in your backyard and that you have been messing with every time you change a tire. Relative to heat...yes these field get hot...so do grass fields...if you look at the research there is nothing conclusive that says one or the other is hotter.
Relative to bacteria...extensive testing was done on this by Penn State University where it was found that there is no link to cases of bacterial infection and turf fields, in fact the artificial turf is less likely to support bacteria than natural grass is. In fact if people will go the the synthetic Turf Council website or the Rubber Manufacturers Association website you will see than a very significant number of studies have been completed by independent organizations on all of these issues and rubber and turf have come out with no known issues. In fact I think you will find that few things we and our children interact with have been studied as much...so let's stick to the facts and not rumors.
From Michael in Santa Cruz:
Senator Maldonado is doing an extreme form of governing without people's consent. The people like artificial turf, but he said "if these are harming our kids there is no question, we are going to get rid of them." He doesn't realize that throughout all of history man has been making mistakes, and even if this is shown to be a mistake it is not wrong. To error is human, so why should we listen to this steadfast politician? Only if he acts with force can be be proven right.
From Leah in San Francisco:
I am part of a growing group of San Francisco residents who have been fighting the artificial turf going into, over, 10% of all our open fields in San Francisco. Please look at Friends of Potrero Hill. We have been fighting this for over 2 years. We have support from the Audobon Society and the Sierra Club, S.F.
The former head of the Commission of the Environment, Jared Broomfield, is now on the Park and Rec. Commission and has reversed his letter against this, (1,9,2008), when he came over to the Park and Rec. The Fisher family (through the City Fields Foundation), are behind the first gift of Field Turf for our municipal parks and they are fencing all the play fields off from the city's residents to rent them for profit.
Also, plastic grass is not in compliance with our "0" land fill ordinance. Gavin Newsom is completely behind this program. He has told the neighborhoods that he won't put the Field Turf into sports fields if the neighbors protest. The Park and Rec. Dept. do not tell the neighbors of their meetings to adequately have any attendants in their meetings and then they go through with their installations citing that they have no protests. Most of the less affluent neighborhoods are getting these plastic fields. We also found out that the City Supervisors allowed a dispensation from the Environmental Impact reports when they received this gift in 2004, worth over 8 M.
We have been fighting artificial turf to no avail. The Park and Rec Commission put together a "Field Turf Task Force" last year, that worked against all the science and neighborhood protests. Thanks for your report! Several hundred residents in San Francisco are still fighting and we are losing against our "Green Mayor" Newsom and The Park & Rec. Dept.
Supervisor Margarine is trying to stop plastic grass installations too, but his office was told the Board has no power to do anything. All the power comes from Mayor Newsom's Office and I was advised that all the neighborhoods must plead with him directly. Park & Rec. had another meeting today and have more plans to privatize our municipal fields and put a total of 80 play fields into plastic grass fields. We've been fighting this for 2 years with Friends of Potrero Hill, Silver Terrace and and Rossi Parks. We applaud your investigation.
From Rob in Marin:
Your report is lacking in any meaningful facts regarding actual risks. Although you claim to have found toxic metals and benzene (NOT a metal) in the materials used, you do not provide any indication that playing on these surfaces could actually result in exposure (inhalation, ingestion, ... ) to those chemicals at at levels that might actually pose a risk.
These chemicals are present throughout our environment, but not at levels that present a health risk. That they can be found at some level in artificial turf DOES NOT mean that they constitute a public health hazard. You have glossed over the advantages of these fields, including reduced demand for watering, the better playing surface, and the all-weather nature of these fields.
More seriously, you have also ignored the injuries (including broken ankles, which I have witnessed) that are an inherent risk in playing on marginally maintained multipurpose grass fields.
From Suzanne in San Carlos:
You didn't mention the fact that some cities are even ripping out the grass and laying turf in community parks. Who wants a park covered in artificial turf? You might as well stay at home and play on the carpet. All I can say is, there must be some great turf salesmen out there. After pro ball nixed turf, they've come after our kids.
From Phil in San Bruno:
We're raising a whole generation of candy-a** kids. Waste of tax payer money by people who need self affirmation that they are doing so much good for the world jumping on these pseudo causes.
From Art:
I can understand the health aspects of these tests, but natural grass cannot be any better. What about all the pesticides and fertilizers that are used. They are just as dangerous or even more so.
From Janet in San Francisco:
Natural is always better. Artificial turf smells and stinks up the neighborhood during hot days. The odor is probably toxic too.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
|
Reference
Stumble It!
Comments