BREAKING NEWS ...


Environmental Agency Nixes Turf Project
Synturf.org, Newton
November 8, 2007 - revised November 9, 2007

[Editor's Note: In the earlier posting of this story reference was made to a presentation at an agency hearing by Mr. Kurt Tramposch, a public health consultant from Wayland, Massachusetts. Mr. Tramposch did not make a presentation at the hearings. Synturf.org regrets the repoting error.]
 
On November 6, 2007, the Connecticut Inland Wetlands Agency in Fairfield decided to deny Fairfield Country Day School’s request to install artificial turf fields. The Agency, which is housed in Fairfield's Conservation Commission at the Conservation Department, approved otherwise the rest of the application for reconstruction of the proposed playing fields at the private school. The Agency’s final condition of approval provided "A synthetic turf field will not be installed. Natural turf is a feasible and prudent alternative." This seems to mark the first time in Connecticut where environmental concerns have been placed ahead of turf’s selling points as a mud-free and weatherproof playing surface, with arguably less maintenance cost.
The review process took five days, which included about 18 hours of expert witness testimony, with multiple rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.
Two neighborhood citizen groups had opposed the artificial turf part of the application. Dr. David Brown, the director of toxicology at Environment and Human Health, Inc., a nonprofit organization in New Haven, reiterated the results of a well-publicized previous EHHI study about toxicity, leaching and outgassing of harmful substances from the crumb rubber that is used in artificial turf fields. The lawyer representing the group cross-examined the material that the sellers of artificial turf had presented to the Agency, including a 250-page document; he stayed focused on the adverse impact of zinc, a component of crumb rubber, leaching into the environment and the carrying capacity of the ecosystems that would receive the substance. The Agency also heard from groups’ expert on soils and wetlands.
Kurt Tramposch, a public health consultant from Wayland, Massachusetts, attended the hearings. “Ultimately,” Tramposch told Synturf.org, “the hearings may come to be regarded as the origin of a new standard of proof in the emerging field of ‘turf law,’ whereby it is the applicant who will bear the burden to show artificial turf would not cause harm to the environment.” Call it the “Fairfield principle,” or just common sense the Agency has broken new ground in the on-going tiff over turf.
A full news story about the Agency hearings is available at Brigid Quinn, “Synthetic turf denied,” in FairfieldMinuteman.com, November 8, 2007, http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19002369&BRD=1653&PAG=461&dept_id=12717&rfi=6.
  

Artificial Turf Moratorium: New York takes first step
Synturf.org, Newton
November 8, 2007
On October 24, 2007, the New York State Assemblyman Colton Englebright introduced legislation that will establish a moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf pending a comprehensive public health study. The bill will also seek to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to environmental impact assessments of the use of synthetic turf, and seek to repeal certain provisions upon expiration thereof. Specifically, the bill provides for a public health study by the department of health on the use of crumb rubber in synthetic turf, a six month moratorium on its use and installation pending the health department’s report; and provides for a site specific environmental impact statement whenever synthetic turf use is proposed. This is the first instance of a legislative initiative to regulate the proliferation of artificial turf fields. The bill has been sent to the health committee for further consideration. For Bill Text A09503 of the 2007-2008 Regular Session go to http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A09503&sh=t.

EHHI Challenges Connecticut Health Department’s Turf ‘Fact Sheet’
Synturf.org, Newton
November 8, 2007
Environment and Human Health, Inc. of New Haven has responded to Connecticut Department of Public Health’s October 2007 fact sheet about artificial turf (http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/pdf/artificial_turf_(2).pdf). The point-by-point response will soon be made available on the non-profit’s website at www.ehhi.org.
EHHI created quite a stir last summer with the release of a study that examined the harmful health and environmental effects of leaching and outgassing of substances in the crumb rubber that is used in artificial turf. The organization’s call for a moratorium on installation of artificial turf fields pending health and environment studies has echoed in the New York State Assembly, where a bill to that effect was introduced on October 24, 2007. The organization’s testimony before the Fairfield Inland and Wetlands Agency on November 6, 2007, contributed to Agency’s decision to nix an applicant’s request to build a synthetic turf on the grounds of a private school.
The give-and-take will cover the following FAQs in the fact sheet: (1) What chemicals can be released by the rubber infill material?; (2) How can people be exposed to rubber chemicals at artificial turf fields?; (3) Are people exposed to these chemicals in other ways?; (4) Is there a health risk?; (5) Should towns continue to install this type of artificial turf field?; (6) Where can I get more information? The answer to the last point is rather obvious, more information is available at www.ehhi.org and on this site!
Stay tuned to this entry for a link to the EHHI responses to the CT DPH “Fact Sheet.”

Grassroots Notes

Westmount, Quebec: The city of Westmount is situated on the western slopes of Mount Royal in Canada’s Quebec Province. It encompasses an urban forest, with numerous parks and playgrounds, and boasts more than 11,000 trees in its public green spaces alone. On May 28, 2007, more than a thousand residents presented a petition to the City Council, opposing plans for the installation of artificial turf fields at Westmount Park. Among the opponents of the project were Save the Park, Westmount Park School Council, and Narnia day care center. In addition to a litany of health, environmental and cost concerns, the petitioners’ gripe was informed also by the experience with the turf installation at the city’s Jeanne Mance Park, whence “a rubber odour emanates from the surface and travels a considerable distance from the park.” To read more about  this story: Martin C. Barry, “Synthetic turf opponents present 1,000-strong petition to council,” June 5, 2007, available at http://www.westmountexaminer.com/article-110612-Synthetic-turf-opponents-present-1000strong-petition-to-council.html.

Newton/Wayland/Wellesley, Massachusetts: “On a cloudless summer morning, Kurt Tramposch, a public health consultant from Wayland, looked out across acres of green, artificial-turf playing fields in Waltham. Others might have seen a vista of potential play, a landscape made for fun. Not Tramposch. ‘Some of us look at this and see a tire dump,’ he said. Tramposch and a small group of allies have come together to oppose what some call progress - a growing wave of installations of artificial turf throughout the [Boston area’s] western suburbs. They are fighting the battle on blogs, before town officials, and even in the state Legislature, arguing that there are too many health and environmental questions surrounding fake grass. In some communities, they have taken local officials to court… And they are unafraid to take on a very powerful force in local politics: sports boosters.” To read more about this story: Meghan Woolhouse, “Grass-roots uprising: Health, environmental issues slow dash to build artificial playing fields,” The Boston Globe, September 13, 2007, available at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/13/grass_roots_uprising/.

Wayland, Massachusetts: In November 21, 2006, the Town of Wayland’s Conservation Commission decided to clear the project to install an a artificial turf field at Wayland High School. Ten residents appealed the ConCom’s decision to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, asking the department to determine if the water quality issues were properly addressed by the commission. In March 2007, the department sent a letter to the town stating that the town must make sure the field drained safely and way from the water wells. In May 17, 2007, the department affirmed the conditions that the town’s conservation commission had placed on the project. In June 2007, the “Wayland 10” appealed the department’s decision, requesting an adjudicatory hearing. A letter from the United States Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service proved crucial for the residents’ case. It told the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that the Wayland-10’s concerns about toxicity of the leachate from rubber crumb from the proposed field should be addressed. By July 23, 2007, the Wayland “minutemen” managed to get the town to agree to a rigorous testing and monitoring of the run-off and leachate from artificial turf field in order to protect the town’s drinking water and wetlands. According to the agreement, the town will hire an independent consultant to test for contaminants that may leach from the synthetic turf, which, as designed, is comprised of 40,000 ground-up rubber tires.  Under the agreement, the town will take steps to remediate problems if the consultant finds contaminants that endanger drinking water or wetlands.  In exchange for these built-in safeguards and independent oversight, the residents agreed not to pursue further litigation pertaining to the field project. To read more about this story: Peter Reuell, “Wayland agrees to regularly test field,” The MetroWest Daily News, July 25, 2007, available at http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1396328823

Wellesley, Massachusetts: In February 2007, Town of Wellesley’s school committee moved quickly to approve the installation of two artificial turf fields at the Sprague Elementary School. The tide turned against the project when in March, 2007, the town’s selectmen voted to institute user fees on youth athletic programs as a way to pay for the proposed turf fields. In voting against user fees, the lone selectmen, David Himmelberger, questioned the safety of the turf plan as a whole. “I have grave reservations about this vote and about this project … I don’t think the Sprague student community should be placed at risk to gain more fields … this product has never been evaluated for use by elementary school kids. There are latex allergy issues and asthma issues that haven’t been addressed,” he was reported as saying. By the time of the Annual Town Meeting a critical number of citizens had garnered siffcient attention and literature to educate the town meeting members on the potential health risks associated with artifcial turf. The first time Article 22 came up for a vote, it was defeated. The defeat did not deter the propoents of the proejct to call for reconsideration of the vote. The recosideration came a week later at the Town Meeting on April 10-11, 2007, after five hours of debate in the span of two nights. On April 11, the majority of members at the meeting voted for the resolution to fund the turf fields, but the measure fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to pass. To read more about this story:  Brad Reed, “Split board backs user fees,” The Wellesley Townsman, March 8, 2007, available at http://www.townonline.com/wellesley/homepage/x110101603; Brad Reed, “Turf’s out,” The Wellesley Townsman, April 12, 2007, available at (http://www.townonline.com/wellesley/archive/x1222193239).

Westport, Connecticut: “The Westport Brief,” provides a brief recounting of the efforts of a few concerned mothers in Westport, Connecticut, who raised questions about dangers of artificial turf and in the process got the state’s attention. Previously, surveys and tests had claimed that the rubber crumb, which is made mostly of ground up used tires, posed no threat to human health. That myth is now being debunked by the results of a new test commissioned by Environment and Human Health, Inc., a North Haven, Connecticut, non-profit organization (http://www.ehhi.org) dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy. To read more about this story: www.synturf.org (this site), “Introduction” section.

Wilmington, Massachusetts: “Always a lush, deep green, practically indestructible and needing virtually no maintenance, the newest generation of artificial turf – with its grass like feel and remarkably forgiving, bouncy surface – has become all the rage for year-round sports facilities. You can play as well in the rain as on a clear day, if it snows, just brush the white stuff off. Muddy fields, a memory; holes in the ground, what’s that? So who wouldn’t be enamored playing on, or even just looking at this newest of scholastics sports necessities? Try more than half of student athletes at Wilmington High School.” To read more about this story: Franklin B. Tucker, “Wilmington athletes not sold on turf,” April 12, 2007, available at http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/homepage/x1107229452.

Woodside, California: Situated on the San Francisco Peninsula, Woodside is one of the wealthiest small towns in the country. With a population slightly over 5,400, it is home to many captains of industry and persons of renown. As its name implies, it is wooded, with redwoods in the western hills and oak and eucalyptus trees in the lower areas. So, naturally, the proposal to install two artificial turf fields at Woodside School would have not been exactly “consistent with Woodside values.” Faced with an on-line petition, which was curiously dubbed “Keep One WES Soccer Field Natural Grass," on July 19, 2007, the Woodside Elementary School District agreed to use natural grass on the soccer field meant for K-3 children at Woodside School, but kept the turf plan for the filed to be used by the middle school. To read more about this story: David Boyce, Petition effort succeeds: Grass will grow on Woodside k-3 soccer field,” The Almanac, July 25, 2007, available at http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=4617.

Atherton, California: Unlike Woodside, California, where the opponents of artificial turf valued “half of a loaf” as a compromise between the happiness of having grass fields and utility, on April 3, 2007, the Menlo Park City Council opted for none of it for Encinal School, an Atherton elementary school, where the proposal would have installed an adult-size turf soccer field. Three of the five Council members voted against the proposal. They said that there were “too many unanswered questions concerning the effects on the surrounding neighborhood, and the health, safety and environmental impacts of artificial turf.” Among the concerns, they cited “injuries caused by playing on the harder surface, the fact that the artificial turf gets warmer than grass, and the environmental effects of replacing grass with an artificial surface.” The opposition to the turf plan was mobilized by an impressive on-line petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Encinal). To read more about this  story:  Rory Brown, “No artificial turf at Encinal School: Existing grass field will be refurbished, but won’t be available until February,” The Almanac, April 11, 2007, available at http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=3929.  

Seoul, South Korea: “Artificial turf causing skin disease at nation’s schools: Education ministry opens investiogation into the safety of poisonous materials,” Hankyoreh Media Company, Seoul- South Korea, July 2-3, 2007

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/219645.html.

THIS article provides a recounting of the efforts of a few concerned mothers in Westport, Connecticut, who raised questions about dangers of artificial turf and in the process got the state’s attention.

Previously, surveys and tests had claimed that the crumb rubber, which is made mostly of ground up used tires, posed no threat to human health. That myth is now being debunked by the results of a new test commissioned by Environment and Human Health, Inc., a North Haven, Connecticut, non-profit organization (http://www.ehhi.org) dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy.

In the words of EHHI’s director of toxicology, Dr. David Brown: “Although the health implications are unclear, the evidence is sufficient to create a burden of proof of safety before more fields are installed. Therefore, EHHI stands by its recommendation that no new fields that contain ground up rubber tire crumbs be installed until additional research is been done.”[1]

The Genesis

The PAH results for the first sample showed six PAHs were above the concentration levels that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) considered sufficiently hazardous to public health to require their removal from contaminated soil sites. The study also stated that it was highly likely that all six PAHs are carcinogenic to humans. The PAH results for the second sample showed the concentration levels of the six PAHs were above the DEC's tolerable levels for soil.The analyses revealed levels of zinc in both samples that exceed the DEC's tolerable levels. Lead and arsenic also were present, and many scientists believe that these metals should not be introduced into the environment at all.[5]

”We want to emphasize that the findings are preliminary,” the professors wrote. “PAHs in rubber might not act the same way as in soil, and we do not yet have information on the ease with which the PAHs in these rubber particles might be absorbed by children or adults -- by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin.” They concluded: “However, the findings are worrisome. Until more is known, it wouldn't be prudent to install the synthetic turf in any more parks.”[6]

Westport Moms

In Spring 2007, three Westport residents -- Tanya Murphy, Stacy Prince and Patricia Taylor – began asking questions about the harm that may come to children from the crumb rubber used on artificial turf fields. The town had two synthetic turf fields and planned to install two more.[7] Armed with the Crain-Zhang study in Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, Stacy Prince contacted the local officials and a reporter from Westport News, Frank Luongo. Luongo’s coverage of the story piqued Patricia Taylor’s interest in the subject and she contacted first Prince, then Environment and Human Health, Inc. In May 2007, Tanya Murphy published a piece in Westport News, entitled “Organic Fields Are the Way to Go”[8] and contacted EHHI with her concerns bout the harmful effect of the ground-up tires used in turf.   

 Enter, Environment and Human Health, Inc.

To parents of school age children and environmentalists, Environment and Human Health, Inc. is well known for its pivotal role in a series of state laws dealing with banning pesticides from school and day care centers, and regulating the sale and storage of lawn care pesticides. Previously, Dr. Brown had been helpful to Patricia Taylor’s understanding of the state’s voluntary program and federal regulations pertaining to remediation that Westport had to undertake in order to clean up a contaminated site that it had purchased for school use. 

The aforementioned comprise an extraordinary group of experts in the field of medicine and public policy. So when they, the EHHI speak, others listen:

“In the spring of 2007 Environment and Human Health Inc., received numerous inquiries about health concerns with respect to children’s exposures to ground-up rubber tire “crumbs” that are the in-fill material in the new synthetic turf fields. Such fields have been installed, or are being proposed, in towns all over Connecticut and many other states.

“The safety information about the new synthetic fields has mainly focused on the health benefits from the reduction of joint injuries due to the use of the rubber tire crumbs in the new fields. Public health analysis of the health risks from human exposures from the rubber crumb has not been adequately addressed up to this point.

“Review of the immediately available literature about these new fields found that similar health concerns had been raised in other states as well as in other countries. In addition to athletic fields, shredded tires are being used on playgrounds and as gardening mulch. 

“There have been some studies done on the health effects from exposures to the rubber crumb material, but many of these studies present only partial assessments of the human health risk potential. As well, many studies have major data gaps with respect to the chemicals released, as well as the actual levels of exposures to humans and the environment.

”From the information that is available, it was found that tire crumbs contained volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) with carcinogenic potential, which could be extracted from the crumbs in the laboratory. Health reports from workers in the rubber fabrication industry and in the rubber reclamation industry describe the presence of multiple volatile organic hydrocarbons, semi-volatile hydrocarbons and other toxic elements in the air. Studies at tire reclamation sites report the leaching of similar sets of chemicals into the ground water. Occupational studies document a spectrum of health effects ranging from severe skin and eye irritation and respiratory irritation to three forms of cancer.

The CAES study concluded:

The EHHI Report on the CAES Study

The Press Conference: Enter, Attorney General

Contemporaneous with the release of the EHHI Report, on August 29, 2007, EHHI held a press conference at the state house in Hartford to announce the  “Release of Report on Potential Health Effects of Rubber Tire “Crumb” in new Synthetic Fields.” Convened at 11 AM in Hearing Room 1-B of the Legislative Building, the presenters included Nancy Alderman, the President of EHHI, the organization’s Director of Toxicology, Dr. David Brown, and Susan Addiss, past Commissioner of the Connecticut the Department of Health and now EHHI’s Director of Health Education. Also present were Tanya Murphy and Patricia Taylor, who, according to the media advisory announcing the press conference, were the “Westport, CT mothers who brought this issue to the attention of Environment and Human Health, Inc. in an effort to protect their children.”

At the press conference, EHHI “repeated a call for a moratorium on installing any new artificial turf fields that use ground-up rubber tires as part of the composition until more research is conducted. The organization also suggested that individuals have limited exposure to already-installed fields.”[41]

The most significant part of the day belonged to the state Attorney General Richard    Blumenthal. He took to the podium after EHHI’s presentation and “pledged to provide $200,000 from the state over the next two years for additional testing.” He “urged parents and the school communities not to panic about the artificial turfs but to be aware of the potential effects.” “There is a need for more studies, information and awareness,” he said. “This kind of particle can be dangerous to youth. They pose issues to health, and people need to be aware.”[42]

The Massachusetts Connection

The press conference was a monumental achievement for CAES, EHHI and the Westport moms who instigated a much-needed debate about crumb as a public health issue. One basking in the glow of the moms’ achievement was Kurt Tramposch, MPH, a public health consultant from Wayland, Massachusetts. He is the cofounder of the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards and of the environmental activist group Mass Toxics Network. Tramposch’s  pet peeve with artificial turf is the potential leaching of rubber crumb toxins into water wells and storm-water drains. Because some 40,000 tires are used to create the crumb for a single soccer field, when Tramposch looks over an artificial turf field he sees a tire dump.[43]

The press conference in Hartford was not the first time for Tramposch going to another jurisdiction to lend moral support to citizens questioning artificial turf. A few months before the turf debate was joined fully in Westport, the Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts, had seen itself divided over turf – and Tramposch was there in the audience the night that turf went down at the Wellesley’s Annual Town Meeting in March 2007.

On February 6, 2007, Wellesley’s school committee had moved quickly through the proceedings and approved the installation of two artificial turf fields at the Sprague Elementary School. The few and very brief comments by citizens who opposed the plan made no difference to the majority of the committee to hurry the process along. It was recommended that the issue in the shape of Article 22 of the Warrant be offered for approval of the voters at the Annual Town Meeting that was scheduled for March 26-27, 2007.

The tide began to turn in favor of the opponents of the Sprague project when on March 5, 2007. The town’s selectmen voted to institute user fees on youth athletic programs as a way to pay for the proposed turf fields if the public were to vote down the funding of the fields with debt. In voting against user fees, the lone selectmen, David Himmelberger, questioned the safety of the turf plan as a whole. “I have grave reservations about this vote and about this project … I don’t think the Sprague student community should be placed at risk to gain more fields … this product has never been evaluated for use by elementary school kids. There are latex allergy issues and asthma issues that haven’t been addressed,” he was reported as saying.[49] 

Business as Usual: Plowing Ahead with Turf

The parks and recreation bureaucracy, public health officials, school administrators, athletes, booster clubs, coaches and athletic directors, parents, and elected public officials have found it very difficult to buy into the alarm raised by the EHHI and a few Westport moms. Not only the called for a moratorium on construction of new fields has gone unheeded, the local governments in the sate have plunged right ahead with the installation of new fields.

 “Even Blumenthal, who advocates further study, said there should not be a rush to stop using or installing the fields. He said his four children, two of whom are in college, all played on artificial turf,” wrote Lisa Chamoff in The Stanford Advocate. "I can understand the confusion and doubt because we don't have all of the answers," she quoted Attorney General Blumenthal saying, "I'm simply trying to be completely honest, as a non-scientist and a non-technician, in digesting what I've read and heard from experts, which is that there are several points of view."[54]

Moms Back in Action: Demanding risk management

Emerging Consensus: Let’s talk, study and test

 Earlier on the same day that Taylor and Prince sent their rejoinder to the Health District, September 28, Frank Luongo from Westport News reported on the statements that the director of the health District had made about turf testing September 25 when she was on her way to a meeting about mold issues in Westport’s public schools. As reported by Luongo:

“Westport Weston Health District (WWHD) is now looking favorably on proposed on-site testing of the turf fields … WWHD Director Susan Jacozzi told the Westport News that she agrees with state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that $200,000 in state funds should be committed to the testing of turf fields at their locations … Jacozzi and Parks and Recreation Director Stuart McCarthy are scheduled to participate next Wednesday [October 3, 2007]  in a discussion to be held on the safety of the fields by the Health and Human Services Committee of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM).

“In supporting Blumenthal's recommendation regarding the turf fields, Jacozzi said that she was influenced by the same laboratory study by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES) that caught the attorney general's attention.

“CAES called last month for on-site testing to determine whether the leaching and out-gassing of chemical compounds from the rubber granules used on the fields, as discovered in its laboratory tests under relatively mild conditions, might reach levels high enough to be hazardous for health and the environment.

“Jacozzi described CAES as a 'reputable state agency,' and said that it was time to spend money on testing the actual fields and move the issue out of the laboratory.”[62]

Closing Thought

Even though nobody is rolling up the turf carpet any time soon in Connecticut or other places, the Westport brief and the exploits of the “Wayland-10” in Massachusetts show that talking, studying and testing is fast emerging as a politically convenient and mollifying response to citizen actions that challenge the environmental and health risks of artificial turf. Exactly when and where the first carpet will be rolled up and disposed as a health hazard will remain to be seen. While one stays tuned for further developments, it bears recalling that many of the proven contemporary health hazards were deemed once to be without risk and, in fact, were encouraged.

"There's enough information from (the agricultural) station to say, 'Wait a minute, this doesn't look good,' " Alderman said. "Kids have been playing on grass for years, so we don't understand the push to get it done this second."

Vandalism -- It was reported a few weeks back that vandals had managed to burn the school insignia in the middle of the Peirce Field at Arlington High School in Arlington, Massachusetts. The item was posted on this page (see below). The three pictures below show a piece of the burned rug, surface and back. The rubber crumb in the filament appeared to have burned to a crisp as well. A visit to the field and conversation with the locals revealed a multiple theories explaining the burn: fire works, lighter fluid, cigarette burns .... It does not matter: Ultimately, this is not a fireproof product, very few things really are. However, the likelihood of expensive fire damage to the turf should weigh heavily in municipalities where there is history of pranks and kids just being kids. 

U.S. Silica

Hazards

Precautions

Editor's Note: Below are two threads of interest -- the first one is about the continuing saga of David Beckham, his ankle injury and disdain for artificial turf. The second item is about the heat island effect of artificial turf, citing the work of Dr. Gaffin, whose work is referenced in the "Heat Island Effect" section of this site.
In contemplating the Beckham situation please reflect on the notion that, unlike the minimum wage soccer players in the MLS, Beckham is, financially and mentally, sufficiently independent that he can say what he wants or feels about the harm that artificial turf does to soccer players (or at least to him -- see the earlier postings here, below). On Saturday August 11, I spoke with a potential recruit for DC United, who told me that he often has knee pains just standing on artificial turf and considers the rug burns received on artificial turf considerably worse and painful than that which he gets on natural grass. Originally from a Latin American country, he played on his birthland's national team and now plays semi-pro ball here in the States. 
The playing on artificial turf is clearly becoming a management-versus-players issue. The management believes it saves on maintenance cost as well as generates greater revenue by hosting more and diverse events, not just sports and games, on artificial turf. The players meanwhile are the ones who suffer. The surveys by NFL Players Association (2006) and the international association of professional soccer players, both of which are posted on this site (scroll down this page), show that players do not favor playing on artificial turf. Also note the speed by which management often exonerates the turf every time a story breaks that suggests the turf may be the culprit for player injury; this is followed by some apology for the misspoken words. One can only wonder if this might be the result of a non-disparagement clause in player contracts with the clubs or a part of the artificial turf contracts with the clubs or some other regime that dictates "Thou shalt not speak ill of the turf!"

Sccoer Notes: Crowds thin as wins mount

Frank Dell’Apa

The Boston Globe, August 14, 2007, p.D3

      Grass is greener

Yes, Beckham is still recovering from a left ankle injury and he has started only one game (for Real Madrid) since June 6. But he was clearly dissuaded from testing the ankle on Gillette's artificial turf. Beckham has played twice for the Galaxy, both times on grass; on this three-game road trip, he missed two games, both on synthetic surfaces.

Galaxy defender Abel Xavier also sat out Sunday's match, though he was not on the injured list, shying away from even training lightly on the Gillette surface Saturday.

MLS teams will have to start taking into consideration that veteran players will be reluctant to play on artificial surfaces, even in latest evolution of FieldTurf at Gillette Stadium.

On Playing Fields, Grass Is an Endangered Species

David Gonzalez

The New York Times, August 13, 2007

Though Brandon, 13, now plays in a Brooklyn league, he and his father love these fields of thick grass near their apartment in Battery Park City. In fact, a lot of people love the fields, which are home to youth baseball and soccer leagues, as well as adult teams. More young players are on the way, too, judging from the apartment buildings that continue to rise on nearby blocks.

The almost unnaturally pastoral feel of these green oases may be a thing of the past, however, because of the area’s continued popularity with families. To avoid the ignominy of being trampled underfoot, the grass fields need to be idle all winter, and once a week the rest of the year. As a result, there is increasing pressure from league coaches to install synthetic turf to allow the fields to be used year-round to meet local demand.

Mr. Diaz would like to keep the local fields real. Then again, he has seen nature’s niceties give way to the local building boom.

“I used to have a river view in my apartment until they put up another building,” he said. “Look at the shadows on this field. We used to have nice sun in the afternoons until the buildings blocked it off. I’m not crazy about artificial turf, but everything is doable, you know.”

A similar need to increase recreational space across the city has led parks officials to rely on synthetic turf to reclaim bleak asphalt yards or extend the life of scraggly soccer fields. Its proponents also cite its cheaper maintenance costs.

“New Yorkers expect to play where they want, when they want,” said Adrian Benepe, the commissioner of parks and recreation. “Our biggest need is to make a lot of places where kids can play so we can address health risks like obesity.”

But the use of turf has also prompted other health concerns, about the possible dangers posed by the materials used to make it, as well as its ability to soak up so much sunlight that it heats up to extreme temperatures.

Scientists at Columbia University who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City the past two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60 degrees hotter than grass fields. They attributed the difference to the pigments used in making the turf, as well as the turf’s reliance on filaments that increase the surface area that soaks up heat. More important, the turf lacked grass’s ability to vaporize water and cool the air.

Stuart Gaffin, an associate research scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, said the synthetic fields get almost as hot as a tar rooftop.

“I’ve been telling everybody that turf is among the hottest surfaces in the city,” said Dr. Gaffin, who is publishing the study later this year. “With the scale we are talking about here, I think they are going to be hazardous places to be during heat waves in the city. I know the public wants these spaces. My position is: Can we engineer a lower temperature?”

Even without the heat, some opponents of turf have raised questions about the recycled tire rubber that is ground up and sprinkled on the turf to give it added cushion and springiness. William Crain, a psychology professor at City College who paid to have the rubber analyzed, said it contained “worrisome” levels of a known carcinogen, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, or P.A.H. The manufacturer said the chemical could not be absorbed by the skin or stomach, but Dr. Crain insisted further study was needed.

His objections to turf go beyond any possible physical effects it may have. As a psychologist who has studied children and play, he insisted that natural fields stimulated children’s mental development by increasing their curiosity and their powers of observation.

In a city where there is very little nature left, kids are already living in a synthetic indoor setting,” he said. “When they go outside, they should feel grass and soil. Instead, we’re putting artificial surfaces outside, too.”

Similar arguments are found in Battery Park City, as a task force studies the pros and cons of synthetic and natural fields. The group, whose members said they were leaning toward synthetic turf, will make its recommendation to the Battery Park City Authority, which oversees the area’s development. A final decision may come by the year’s end.

James F. Gill, the authority’s chairman, said he wanted to be sure that his concerns about adverse effects on health were addressed to his satisfaction. At the same time, he understands the unceasing pressure to provide recreational spaces in an area that has seen its population double in the last 10 years. While the area was built on landfill, some from the construction of the original World Trade Center, many residents are now proud of its environmentally friendly reputation.

“We have been on point with respect to being green and protecting the environment here,” Mr. Gill said. “I know artificial turf is not in keeping with that, but it is always a balancing thing. You get something, but you give something up.”

Mark Costello, a parent who is the president of the Downtown Little League, said synthetic turf would double the available playing time.

“The alternative for me is sports fields or my kid in front of a computer playing video games,” he said. “I would love my kids to play on grass for aesthetic reasons. That is just not the reality we are facing. Artificial turf serves urban leagues better.”

The prospect of losing the grass fields at Battery Park City has alarmed Christian DiPalermo, the executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, an advocacy group that last year issued a report urging caution on installing the fields.

“That would be a sin,” he said. “To take away grass in an area with a dearth of parkland just for a few more games? That does not make sense.”

The local support for the fields was typical, Mr. DiPalermo said, of other communities in the city where the turf is seen as a quick fix, rather than part of a long-term strategy. “We know the problem is overcapacity,” he said. “But where is the vision? We don’t even know how long this turf will last.”

Yet the city keeps installing the synthetic fields wherever possible. Commissioner Benepe said that while he was not aware of any hazards posed by turf, he had asked the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to review the current research on synthetic turf and make recommendations if necessary. He added that his department was trying to see if changing the color or consistency of the rubber used for the fields would result in lower temperatures, too.

“There is nothing inherently dangerous to these fields,” Mr. Benepe said. “What is dangerous is letting kids play touch football on asphalt. There is a greater likelihood of head injuries in a fall than any danger from ingesting the rubber crumbs.”

A few days ago in Red Hook, Brooklyn, a handful of young people kicked soccer balls and ran drills on a smooth synthetic field. At a grass pitch across the street, only pigeons pecked though the scraggly blades that ringed the large bald spot between the goal posts.

The area is so popular that both fields are in nonstop use on the weekends. John Triana, a trainer and coach, said he kept his players off the grass field because it had too many rocks and sometimes even glass shards.

He admitted that the synthetic field sometimes looked like a desert in the summer, with shimmering waves of heat rising from its surface. On hot days, he makes his players take water breaks every six minutes. Sometimes they get blisters on their feet.

Still, he said, most players liked it.

“You can run faster,” he said. “It’s like playing on a pool table.”

Personally, he preferred playing on grass. It gave him a visceral kick back to his college days.

“You smell the grass and it reminds you of competition,” he said. “Dewy grass in the morning is like, wow, the preseason. It sends chills up my spine like nothing else. Artificial turf doesn’t give you that.”

Johnston said the Chicago brass should not have any complaints about BMO. "I would think they would be more concerned about playing in front of only 7,000 or 8,000 fans (in Chicago), than our turf in Toronto," Johnston said.


New Athletic Turf Raises Questions
Judy Benson
TheDay.com  -- Augsust 1, 2007
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=49a76430-5978-469d-a68d-f1f68d8ce2d7 


Volatile organic compounds are being released into the air from material used in a type of artificial turf found on two athletic fields in southeastern Connecticut and becoming popular across the country.
Recent preliminary tests conducted at the state-run Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station showed that the compounds are being released into the air from the rubber pellets from ground-up tires that form the fill material of the turf, the group Environment and Human Health Inc. announced this week. Locally, artificial turf with the rubber pellets has been installed at a field at Montville High School and one at Connecticut College.
“What we found was that there are a dozen or more organic compounds that showed up in the lab tests that we could see and identify,” said David Brown, public health toxicologist for Environment and Human Health. “You can't assume these things are inert. Our tests are just asking some beginning, basic questions.”

The independent group, which commissioned and paid for the tests, is recommending that towns and schools in Connecticut delay installing artificial turf that uses ground-up tires until it can be studied further for possible health hazards.

The work done by scientists at the state lab included a review of scientific literature on synthetic turf and the materials it is made of, and led to the conclusion that more testing is needed to protect the health of youngsters, Brown said.

The group called for a moratorium on new projects until further study. State Department of Public Health spokesman William Gerrish said his agency had “no opinion” on the group's statement.

“We have not had an opportunity to review the data in the study,” he said.

The state Department of Environmental Protection said the issue should be looked into. Commissioner Gina McCarthy has been in contact with Environment and Human Health, according to DEP spokesman Dennis Schain. The group has raised concerns that toxic chemicals from the rubber pellets could seep into groundwater that would be within the DEP's purview, he said.

“The commissioner asked our materials management unit to look into this,” Schain said. “We're going to have to assess the issues raised by this study and determine if action is warranted, and what could be done.”

Brown said his organization undertook the work after a Fairfield County resident contacted it with concerns about a project in his town to install artificial turf. The group's concerns only apply to the newer type of artificial turf that uses ground-up tires, not the older, foam-blanket type that has covered a field at Norwich Free Academy for the past decade.

Montville High installed artificial turf with a rubber-pellet base late last year, said Walt Sherwin, the school's athletic director. Because the work was completed late in the season, it was only used for one football game and a few practices, he said.

The material was considered the safer option for athletes because it absorbs impact and helps prevent injuries better than natural grass or other types of artificial turf, he said.

“We haven't seen anything with fumes,” he said. “Our main concern was with the safety aspect and preventing injuries.”

Natural turf, Sherwin said, can be more costly to maintain, and the school had no nearby water source to keep the grass watered in the summer. In addition, new state restrictions on pesticide application on school fields are adding to the difficulty.

Two years ago, Connecticut College installed artificial turf on one of its fields that has a base of rubber pellets and sand. Artificial turf is being considered for fields at other local schools, including New London High, because it can withstand heavy usage and athletic field space is increasingly in high demand.

Additionally, schools favor the artificial turf because it takes less time to dry out after rain, giving teams more practice time and fewer game postponements. According to a New York Times article, covering a football field with the newer type of artificial turf costs from $600,000 to $1 million. Last year, more than 850 synthetic fields were installed across the country, including about 30 in Connecticut, according to the article.

But environmental and health concerns have been raised in several communities in other states.

Keith Day is president of Forever Green, a Pennsylvania-based company that manufactures and installs artificial turf. Among its projects were fields at Montville and Greenwich high schools.

He said he's heard health concerns raised from time to time, but remains confident that the rubber pellets used for the infill in the turf are inert. His company only uses tires produced by U.S. companies that must meet all federal health, environmental and safety regulations, he said. This type of turf has been available for about 10 years, but has come into widespread use in the last few.

“The rubber crumbs are inert and do not break down and transfer anything into the skin,” he said, adding that the product has undergone extensive testing.

Day said he would have no objections to further testing of his company's product, as long as experts conducted tests with clear and reasonable objectives.

Brown said some artificial turf products contain ground-up tires from overseas that use materials U.S. manufacturers could not use here. The preliminary tests, he said, showed the artificial turf emitted more fumes and leached more chemicals into groundwater in higher temperatures that fields are likely to see in the summertime. He declined to name specific chemical compounds the turf was emitting until more testing is done to confirm or refute the preliminary findings.

Brown said he's concerned that some of the volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds found that are seeping into the air off of the artificial turf could cause respiratory problems in children, among other health effects.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds are chemicals that release gases into the air and can have short- or long-term health effects. They are found in a wide variety of industrial and household products and fuels.

These effects can include eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, nausea, dizziness, liver, kidney and central nervous system damage, and severity varies widely depending on the level and length of exposure. Many are known or suspected carcinogens.

“Some of these are semivolatile organics that were active enough to interfere with someone who's an asthmatic or who has chemical sensitivity,” Brown said. “There's a whole array of chemicals coming out. The rubber pellets are like breadcrumbs. They pop up into your hand. Children who play on these fields do get them stuck on their shoes and in their socks. Toddlers could put them in their mouth. There are some obvious pathways for exposure.”

Delay on turf decision provides opportunity for analysis

By Guest column/Kevin Dutt and Brooke K. Lipsitt

GateHouse News Service

Tue Jun 26, 2007, 03:36 PM EDT [http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinions/x595658227]

Newton - [Massachusetts]

The Board of Aldermen has yet to act on Mayor Cohen’s request for funds to install synthetic turf at Newton South High School and, at this point, seems unlikely to act before fall. We hope that members of the Programs & Services Committee, to whom this item has been assigned, will take advantage of the summer to initiate a comprehensive assessment of synthetic versus natural turf options to ensure a sustainable solution for the NSHS fields — one which will address economic, environmental and community concerns.

The economic analysis should include a life cycle assessment of all costs that will be incurred with each option. We recommend analysis over a period of 50 years, in order to take fully into account the need for replacement or restoration of the fields. This must include not only the initial costs, but also the maintenance, drainage and replacement costs of each option. It should also clearly identify areas where projected costs may vary widely or have great uncertainty. Even if the financial analysis shows no difference over the period of study, both options have environmental — ecological, health and safety — impacts that must be closely examined. Examination of these issues should include both site-specific and neighborhood impacts.

The community needs to know whether the challenges presented by the geology and hydrology at this site, a filled wetland, are being fully taken into account. There is a long history of problems relating to surface water management with the current grass fields. Any successful new site design must include a comprehensive drainage plan to provide for well-drained fields and also ensure that stormwater can and will be controlled on site so as not to burden city storm sewers and to ameliorate or, at least, have no negative effect on adjacent properties. 

For users, we need to know the facts, not just the rumors, about the level and type of injury associated with each surface and whether or not there exists a legitimate hazard related to inhaling particulates from artificial turf. We must also be sure that synthetic turf will not leach contaminants into soils and groundwater. These concerns must be weighed carefully against health issues related to the use of pesticides and fertilizers if needed to maintain natural fields. We must know whether and the extent to which there may be significant heat island effects.

Finally, it is important to consider whether there are additional costs or benefits associated with installing synthetic turf on multiple fields covering several acres. A carefully prepared landscape plan for the fields should include provisions for maintenance access and may become a factor in the decision depending on the limits on layout due to distances between fields that are required. The city should review examples of multiple-field installations in other locations before making a final decision, learning from the experience and actual data collected by other communities that have installed synthetic turf. It is not immediately clear that this needs to be an all-or-none decision; it may be appropriate to have a combination of natural and synthetic turf fields.

We urge the mayor and Board of Aldermen to take this opportunity to gather and critically review all of the information on maintenance requirements, costs, performance, player injuries, microclimate, etc., that has been assembled, being careful to compare the relative site conditions in the process. The fact that synthetic turf is the current fashion does not mean that it is necessarily a superior or inferior choice for our particular application. Newton deserves a smart, sustainable solution for its athletic fields just as it does for its buildings, and we urge the board to move deliberately and thoughtfully in your consideration of this item.

Kevin Dutt and Brooke K. Lipsitt are co-chairmen of the High Performance Building Coalition.

Home Turf Disadvantage: Citizen Goat takes on FieldTurf !

As a former soccer player well acquainted with the hazards of sand-based soccer fields in the rainy Northwest, I can appreciate a soccer club’s frustration and desire to do something to improve playing conditions for its members. I know only too well the taste of a mouthful of muddy water and the sinking feeling of seeing a perfectly timed pass floating in a small pond halfway to its intended destination.

All across the nation, more and more high schools, colleges, and park districts are installing artificial turf fields with the hope that they will be spared skid marks, puddles, and mudbaths. While improving upon some aspects of the situation, their choice creates other far more serious negative consequences, including potentially adverse health effects. Specifically, artificial turf exposes players, park users, and neighborhood residents to known inhaled carcinogens and dangerous bacteria and introduces the threat of aquifer and water supply contamination to the area.

To read more, go to http://www.dianovo.com/blogs/tags/artificial_turf

A grass field has been re-installed at Gillette Stadium for the doubleheader international soccer matches on May 26, 2007. The local team, the Revolution, has mixed feeling about the change. According to a Boston Globe report, “the coaches and players prefer natural turf to the synthetic.” However, “[t]hey would rather be consistent with it.” The artificial turf speeds up the game and teams who like to play at a fast pace like the artificial surface for that reason. But, as to the change at Gillette, “it’s good they are having international games here and that’s a good reason to play on grass,” said the coach of the Revolution.

Editor’s Note: In the aforementioned article, a Revolution defender was reported as saying, “the grass slows up the ball.” I am sorry to see to see that natural grass has become such an impediment to a game that began on natural grass. The speed of the ball on natural grass is the norm, not the other way around. Bounce-less balls, skidding of the ball, fast pace of passing and playing on artificial turf are changing the nature of the game, just like the oversized and non-wooden frames of rackets did for tennis. This is a crying shame.

For a discussion of artifcial turf from the perspective of players, go to this site's section called "Seriois Questions, Ask" and scroll down to item "G." 

By Jeffrey L. Bruce, Jeffrey L. Bruce & Company, LLC
1907 Swift Street, Suite 204, North Kansas City, Missouri 64116

Tel: 816/842-8999 - Fax: 816/842-8885 - www.jlbruce.com

This article will take an insider's look behind the artificial turf market in the United States and what the manufacturers don't want the public to know.  The industry is just beginning to understand how these new emerging synthetic turf technologies perform and wear over time, but this information is seldom available to the public for fear it might influence purchasing decisions. 

Synthetic turf has once again gained popularity as a premier athletic surface as new technologies mimic the performance of natural grass surfaces.  Driven by massive marketing campaigns, the synthetic turf manufacturers promote these new technologies as superior to natural grass in terms of maintenance, surface performance, installation, quality and longevity.  While these technologies are promising, there are limitations and liabilities to their use.

The increase in public demand has also created delivery problems along the entire synthetic turf distribution system from shortages of materials, manufacturing defects, unqualified installers, lack of quality assurance and performance problems.  Let's look at how artificial turf is manufactured and installed.  This will reveal the source of some of the problems seen in the synthetic turf industry.

The most surprising and revealing aspect of the synthetic turf manufacturing process is that most companies selling synthetic turf don't manufacture anything but marketing brochures.  We have begun calling synthetic turf manufacturers "turf brokers," since it better reflects the structure of the business model that dominates the industry. 

Every synthetic turf installation begins with a call to the local salesperson.  The potential project is aggressively tracked by the synthetic turf brokers until a sale is closed.  Upon executing a contract for installation of a synthetic turf surface, the turf broker's main office is notified and the manufacturing process begins.  The main office prepares a field layout plan indicating the markings, lines, colors and product type which is then sent to one of only a handful of tufting plants in the United States, the majority of which reside in Dalton, GA.  Over 90 percent of the synthetic turf for the North American market is tufted by four or five companies in Dalton.  Tufting is the process of stitching yarn into the primary backing.  Tufting has replaced knitting as the most common method of synthetic turf manufacturing because of the economy and cost of production.  However, tufting is less durable than knitting. 

When the tufting plants receive an order, they obtain the synthetic turf fiber and primary backing from the independent factories which produce these items as finished products for a variety of open uses.  The largest of the turf brokers will negotiate annual volume purchasing agreements or allocations from the fiber and backing manufacturers to ensure seasonal supply and competitive pricing.  To convince the public that the brokers actually manufacture a product, some companies will lease or purchase tufting machines which reside in the large carpet factories next to the competitor's machines.  These tufting machines are primarily maintained and operated by the carpet factories, not by the turf broker.  It is not uncommon to see a synthetic field being manufactured next to a Berber carpet for your living room.  It is also not uncommon to see two or three synthetic turf brand names being tufted next to each other or even on the same machine.  

Once primary tufting factories receive the fiber and primary backing, the carpet is tufted according to the turf broker's specification.  Each field is custom manufactured according to the specific requirements of the owner, depending on what sports are to be played on the surface.  The yard lines and goal lines will be tufted directly into the carpet using a different color fiber.  The tufting process will take about three days for an average field and is completely on demand.  The industry has been so plagued by company foreclosures that many turf brokers are on a cash-only basis with the material suppliers. 

After the fibers have been inserted, the tufted carpet is then sent to the secondary coating facility which applies a polyurethane or acrylic coating to the back of the primary backing to secure the fiber.  Depending on the requirements of the turf broker, perforations are burned or punched into the carpet backing to permit drainage.  Over 85 percent of the secondary coating for synthetic turf in the North American market is performed by one independent company.  No matter what name brand you buy, it probably traveled through this plant for the secondary coating process.  After the secondary coating cures, the carpet panels are packaged and shipped directly to the construction site.  Seldom does the turf broker have a representative inspect or review the carpet before it is shipped. 

The next step in the process is to secure sand and rubber in-fill products.  The turf broker orders sufficient graded sand and SBR rubber from independent quarries and tire recyclers.  The in-fill materials are purchased in bulk and direct shipped to the construction site.  Every aspect of the synthetic turf process is typically out-sourced.  Even the logos in the center of the fields are manufactured by an independent company which ships the finished logo sight unseen by the turf broker directly to the site.

The basic materials for a synthetic turf surface are now on site ready for installation.  The biggest misconception that is perpetuated in the industry is that the individuals who install the synthetic turf are employees of the turf brokers, sometimes called "in-house crews."  We believe that in-house crews of the turf brokers are responsible for less than eight percent of the total synthetic carpet installed on an annual basis.  The vast majority of synthetic turf installers are small companies or contract labor, who may or may not have been certified or trained by the turf broker.  Demand for installers is so high because of the volume of fields being installed that a turf broker will use almost any installation crew that is available and has equipment.  During the peak installation season between May and September, competition for trained crews is fierce and at times ruthless.  In some instances, it appears that installation volume is a more important criterion in selecting installers than quality. 

Installation crews are bounced from job to job by the turf broker and may not even now where they are working the following week.  The carpet installers receive a work order which includes the seaming and layout plan, along with the estimated quantities of in-fill needed to complete the work.  Many times these companies will never receive any of the construction documents or correspondence prepared by the owner, leaving them totally ignorant of the project requirements. 

The materials are typically on site when the installation crews arrive.  Their primary responsibility and focus is to install the synthetic turf and move on to the next project.  Anything that would slow this process down is problematic, such as inspecting the materials that have been delivered to the site or correcting sub-base problems.  Quality assurance or coordination between sub-contractors is sporadic at best.  Remember that it is in the best interest of the turf broker to provide the least amount of documentation possible, which limits contractual responsibilities to the owner.  If a grading plan is not provided, the owner cannot verify whether the grading has been performed correctly. 

We have yet to see a systematic approach by the turf broker to test or inspect materials delivered to the site to ensure they comply with the expected requirements.  Since the carpet panels really can only be inspected at the manufacturing plants or when the carpet is rolled out on site, it is virtually impossible for the installation crew to have a defected carpet panel returned to the tufting plant.  This would delay the project for weeks, so regardless of the quality of finished product that arrives on site, it is typically installed without question. 

Most owners only purchase one or two fields in a decade, and are helplessly uninformed about the process; whereas the turf brokers may install a couple hundred fields a year, so any concerns about quality are quickly dismissed with, "This is the way we have done it in the past, and we are the experts."  This almost total reliance on the turf broker as the judge of quality leaves most owners in an extremely vulnerable position.  In fact, most sales staff will discourage the owner from seeking professional guidance when designing a synthetic turf field.  The common response is, "You don't need to waste your money on consultants, we can do it all for you." It must be understood that the best interests of the turf broker may not be the best interests of the owner.  The objectives are clearly different.

The dramatic increase in the demand for synthetic turf in the past couple of years has challenged the industry's ability to keep pace.  We have recently seen severe shortages of fiber, silica sand and SBR rubber.  The limited pool of quality installation crews has plagued every turf broker resulting in significant schedule delays and construction defects.  Even the tufting plants and secondary coating process have experienced manufacturing problems as new companies rush new products out to market in order to capture the public's growing demand in the new gold rush.  When materials become scarce, poor choices are made in substitution, resulting in an increase of installation failures.  Most of these choices are typically made out of expediency, since there are more fields to be installed than can be done each year.

Understanding the synthetic turf manufacturing process sheds a light on the origin of problems in the turf delivery process.  The complete fragmentation of manufacturing process and lack of quality assurance creates an environment where responsibility is difficult to assign.  When a product fails, is it the fiber, primary backing, secondary coating, in-fill materials or installation quality?  Remember that each of these items is more than likely out-sourced to different companies.  The turf brokers actually rely on the out-sourced company warrantee to remedy defects.  Most synthetic turf warrantee claims take years to resolve as the cause of the defect is determined, and many owners end up just giving up pursuing remedy of defects through the turf broker's general warrantee.   ...End __/
 
                                                                                 *     *     *

Wilmington [High School, Massachusetts] athletes not sold on turf

Thu Apr 12, 2007, 04:48 PM EDT

It is a field of dreams, version 2.0.

Always a lush, deep green, practically indestructible and needing virtually no maintenance, the newest generation of artificial turf – with its grass like feel and remarkably forgiving, bouncy surface – has become all the rage for year-round sports facilities.You can play as well in the rain as on a clear day, if it snows, just brush the white stuff off. Muddy fields, a memory; holes in the ground, what’s that?

So who wouldn’t be enamored playing on, or even just looking at this newest of scholastics sports necessities?

Try more than half of student athletes at Wilmington High School. That was the findings of a three-day survey held last month, its outcome taking many by surprise including the student who conducted the questionnaire. “I didn’t believe that so many people wouldn’t want it,” said Matt Williams, a junior football player.

The results, released at the March 14 School Committee meeting, also brought Williams under the gaze of one of the field’s chief supporters. Williams is the current student representative to the Wilmington School Committee. He became involved when asked by outgoing Superintendent William McAlduff to undertake the survey on students’ thoughts of a new field at Alumni Field.

Not that this generation of high school students is likely to be cutting and weaving on a blanket of synthetic sod.

In fact, fundraisers are being held around town so supporter can hire a firm to conduct a feasibility and cost study.

“We are only in the first steps of a long process,” said Mark Nasiff, a leader of Wilmington Youth Soccer and go to guy for an amalgam of groups – from high school officials to youth sports ­volunteers and townies – hoping one day to watch mostly young people hit the field.

“We simply want to know what the costs we can expect to face,” said Nasiff. Only then will the supporters present a rough preliminary plan to the School Committee who will have the final say on approving the construction of the field.

“We’re not pushing this forwards until we’re better informed,” he said. [T]he student survey came as a wake up call to many who simply assumed that a new field would find universal enthusiasm and praise.

Williams’ survey asked if the student athletes had played on turf, if they suffered any skin burns on the artificial grass and on what surface they would like to play on. The results took Williams and many others by surprise. On injuries, 55 percent of Wilmington athletes had been cut or suffered burns from contact with the artificial surface. Of roughly 100 student athletes who took the survey, slightly more than half would prefer to play on the real stuff. And asked what the town and school board should do, another small majority said that the grass should stay on Alumni Field. Nathan Clarkin, 17, who puts the shot and throws the discus, said a new playing field would benefit only a small number of athletes – football, soccer and lacrosse players – at the expense of the majority of kids playing sports. “It would be great for them but for other athletes, well, we get left to the side,” said Clarkin, who said putters like him and javelin throwers would be forced to find alternative sites.

Revealing the results also put Williams into the sight of one of the turf’s biggest supporters. A day after the survey’s results were released to the School Committee meeting, Wilmington’s Athletic Director and former football coach Edward Harrison approached Williams during lunch to provide him with addition information supporting the need for a field in town. While Williams described the meeting as quite friendly and non-confrontational, it was a surprise for the student. “I guess this is a big deal for lots of people,” said Williams.

2006 NFL Players Playing Surfaces Opinion Survey. The 2004 NFL Players Association survey concluded that professional footbal players prefer grass over synthetic turf. However, the savvy purveyors of artificial turf dismissed the survey as anachronistic, because the players were rating the old Astro-turf fields versus grass fields. In the 2006 NFL Players Association survey, the players confirm their preference for natural grass over even the “new generation” rubber infill synthetic turf fields. Here are some of the results: 

-- 64.93 % of the respondents said that infill synthetic grass is more likely to contribute to injury.
-- 73.87% of the respondents said that infill synthetic grass causes more soreness and fatigue.
-- 67.11% of the respondents said that infill synthetic grass is more likely to shorten a player’s career.
-- 61.19% of the respondents said that infill synthetic grass is more likely to negatively affect the player’s quality of life
    after football.

The NFL players also ranked the NFL fields. All of the fields in top 19 fields were natural grass, even the New England Patriots’ Gillette Stadium at the time, before it converted at the year’s end in 2006 to artificial turf. For the full survey in PDF format click here.    

The NFL players are not alone. Professional soccer players also prefer to play on grass. Even in Norway, where the climate necessitates artificial turf as a viable option the players prefer natural grass. In Switzerland, too, the players prefer to play on grass and recently the only Super League venue that is artificial turf had to be converted to grass cover in anticipation of the Euro games in 2008. The following two segments provide some details. 

 Survey on artificial turf conducted among Norwegian professional footballers [soccer players], Norwegian Players Union Study (September 2005). Here are some of the findings from the survey:

-- When questioned about the danger of injuries on both surfaces, 74% of the Norwegian professional footballers think that artificial turf increases the danger of injuries. This compared to only 3% who are of the opinion that natural turf causes more injuries. 10% think that it makes no difference and the rest have no opinion.

-- When questioned about injuries that are actually a result of the surface on which they play, 41% of players say that they now and again sustain an injury that is a consequence of the artificial turf surface. Another 31% say they have sustained injuries that were the result of the constant switching between artificial and natural turf pitches. Only 5% say they have been injured by a surface of natural turf.

-- The proposition that continuously playing on artificial turf produces more injuries and that players must even stop playing football at a younger age, is found to be justified by 44% of the players. 30% of players say that this could perhaps be true. 18% of players consider this proposition to be false.

For the file in PDF format go here: http://www.fifpro.org/index.php?mod=one&id=14551 

In the Swiss Super League only BSC Young Boys from Bern play on artificial turf, in Stade de Suisse. However, in advance of hosting the UEFA Euro 2008, the venue has replaced its artificial playing surface with a grass filed in order to ensure that playing conditions are at an optimum level. The artificial surface used by club side BSC Young Boys will be reinstalled after the tournament. For details go to:

http://www.fifpro.org/index.php?mod=one&id=15352&PHPSESSID=a4c9be74e1b60f14332c9e6d3fd24319 and http://www.fifpro.org/index.php?mod=one&id=15385&PHPSESSID=a4c9be74e1b60f14332c9e6d3fd24319 

The web site of the Fédération International de Footballeurs professional is an international union of professional soccer players, in Hoofddorp, Netherlands: Its website (www.fifpro.org) usually reports on national payer association surveys about turf. Even though the proponents of artificial turf cite the FIFA’s acceptance of artificial turf, the FIFPro is doing its level best to change minds, as the welfare of its own membership is at stake. According to one report found on page 17 of the ESA report, players are often told by the clubs to say they prefer artificial turf, against their personal views. By the same toke, the statements made by coaches and athletic directors in support of artificial turf is not free from defending their expensive decision to install synthetic turf fields.

A sterile artificial turf field, Anywhere, USA

Of late, in Newton, Massachusetts, officials are considering the conversion of 3.5 acres of natural grass playing field into artificial turf. Next door in Wayland, a group of taxpayer have gone to court and the state’s department of environmental affairs to complain about the artificial turf project for the high school. In Concord, there is a plan to carve a part of the historic Walden Woods and turn it into artificial turf for the benefit of Concord-Carlisle High School and area youth sports organizations. Come the academic year 2007-2008, Lincoln-Sudbury High School will boast three artificial turf fields. In Wellesley, the town is eyeing to install at the Sprague Elementary School a few artificial turf fields. Similar instllations are being cosidered for Easton and Weston. There are plans for putting five artificial turf fields in a woodland area in Bourne, and in Queen Sewell Park at Buzzards Bay, and another at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy campus. In Duxbury, there is plan to replace existing grass fields with two synthetic turf fields. One manufacturer/installer of synthetic turf alone boasts 1,700-2,000 installed fields in its portfolio.

The capital cost of artificial turf is exorbitant and not many municipalities around Massachusetts have the wherewithal to pay for the installation on their own. In January 2007, Wayland’s state representative, Tom Conroy, filed legislation that would facilitate the public funding of synthetic turf fields with money otherwise raised by the municipality for acquisition, creation and preservation of open spaces.

In many communities, the exorbitant capital cost of artificial turf is being underwritten by all manners of philanthropists and commercial enterprises. In 2006, the Kraft family, which owns the New England Patriots, funded a community artificial turf field in Brookline. The Roche family in Needham has pledged $2 million toward the installation of fake turf fields at the DeFazio and Memorial Parks. The 16-field facility of the Massachusetts Youth Soccer Association at Progin Park in Lancaster, Massachusetts, boats five synthetic fields. The Citizens Bank’s purchase of the naming rights to Progin Park underwrote in part the cost of installation of the fields.

The general public’s only source of systems information about artificial turf installation is often the promoter of the product. Typically, they concede that natural grass is better, but they insist that artificial turf is in the long run more economical. The second part of that statement is an overstatement. Further, the promoters often insist they have “no dog in the fight” when recommending artificial turf over natural grass fields. In general, that statement is outright false: most of the promoters who pitch the product are hired often as after-sale “consultants” and providers of repair and maintenance services to the buyer.   

If the current adulation for Al Gore’s multimedia opus An Inconvenient Truth should not be an exercise in hypocrisy, then our environmentalists, public health professionals, conservationists and elected officials should think locally and act accordingly.

One place to begin is to slow down and, hopefully, one day to prohibit the conversion of our natural grasslands and playing fields into artificial turf. Whether called new turf, field turf, synthetic turf or by any other name, it is what Peter Alden, a prominent naturalist from Massachusetts, has called “an eco-desert rug.” It is a lifeless installation of fake grass (fiber) made for the most part from nylon, polyethylene or polypropylene and kept in place by tons of loose sand-and-rubber crumb mix in-between the fiber blades.

Do we have it that bad?!

This site provides four discussion areas:

In “Serious Questions” we provide a general checklist of the various concerns associated with the installation of infill artificial turf fields. These include discussion of the artificial turf’s carbon footprint, hazards of differential settling, combined sewer overflow, epidemiological studies about risk of injury to players, public access to parklands, and other concerns.

-- The discussion includes a number of scientific research papers, with links to a particular study or survey. The section titled “The Heat Island Effect” presents a number of studies that explore the adverse impact of artificial turf on global warming by virtue of its heat island effect and surface temperatures so hot that they can injure the skin.