The Turf War Returns
ml1 said:
that's because you don't hate organized sports and you're not grasping for reasons to oppose more facility usage.
Hmmm, that may be a tell. I see your perfectly reasonable summary and raise you: We have a real need to get more use out of our facilities so our children can go outside and play games, as long as parents get to watch them.
ConcernedHighTaxPayer said:
I already answered your question about soccer fields.
I didn't ask any questions about soccer fields.
DaveSchmidt said:
Hmmm, that may be a tell. I see your perfectly reasonable summary and raise you: We have a real need to get more use out of our facilities so our children can go outside and play games, as long as parents get to watch them.
My summary is admittedly an exaggeration. But change "hate" to "have disdain for" and "grasping" to "looking for" and it's pretty spot on.
ml1 said:
My summary is admittedly an exaggeration. But change "hate" to "have disdain for" and "grasping" to "looking for" and it's pretty spot on.
Oh. You were semi-serious.
The underlying issue in the turf debate is too many demands being placed on too few resources. Advocates for artificial turf would like to expand the availability of athletic fields for organized sports activities. Most of the discussion has been focused on youth teams. Adult teams use the fields too. However, there remains a large portion of the town's population that is not participating in organized field sports. They want some resources available to meet their recreational needs. One such group are the thousands of adults age 62+ who live in Maplewood.
Due to COVID concerns, when lockdown for seniors ended, the town was only willing to offer senior activities out-of-doors. When the Seniors Advisory Committee pressed for such programming, we were told that no greenspace was available due to commitments that had been made to businesses and community groups serving younger participants. The only space we were able to get was a small corner of DeHart Park adjacent to the Senior Center. The Seniors Advisory Committee has long advocated for evening and weekend programming for seniors so working seniors and Grandnannies would be able to participate. Again the existing resources which are disproportionately allocated to programs for our youth, preclude our doing this now. Dedicating limited resources to expanding youth and younger adult activities will make it even harder for us to accomplish this goal in the future.
While we do not currently have organized senior activities on evenings and weekends, Seniors do enjoy being out of doors when they feel they can do this safely. The walking path at DeHart Park is the safest place in the park system for seniors to get exercise. The path is relatively flat, fully enclosed in the park (unlike Maplecrest), and currently has adequate parking (unlike Memorial). Seniors had been promised additional benches around the walking path so there would be places for the mobility challenged to stop and rest. Due to a failed grant request and deficits in the municipal budget during COVID, this does not seem to be immediately likely. We still hope to make it happen.
I am sure that residents living near DeHart Park have their own wish list for how the space should be used. Equitable recreation opportunities and offerings are not just about whether all families can afford to have their children participate in team sports. It is whether all needs including those of the disabled and the elderly can be equitably met.
joan_crystal said:
The underlying issue in the turf debate is too many demands being placed on too few resources. Advocates for artificial turf would like to expand the availability of athletic fields for organized sports activities. Most of the discussion has been focused on youth teams. Adult teams use the fields too. However, there remains a large portion of the town's population that is not participating in organized field sports. They want some resources available to meet their recreational needs. One such group are the thousands of adults age 62+ who live in Maplewood.
Due to COVID concerns, when lockdown for seniors ended, the town was only willing to offer senior activities out-of-doors. When the Seniors Advisory Committee pressed for such programming, we were told that no greenspace was available due to commitments that had been made to businesses and community groups serving younger participants. The only space we were able to get was a small corner of DeHart Park adjacent to the Senior Center. The Seniors Advisory Committee has long advocated for evening and weekend programming for seniors so working seniors and Grandnannies would be able to participate. Again the existing resources which are disproportionately allocated to programs for our youth, preclude our doing this now. Dedicating limited resources to expanding youth and younger adult activities will make it even harder for us to accomplish this goal in the future.
While we do not currently have organized senior activities on evenings and weekends, Seniors do enjoy being out of doors when they feel they can do this safely. The walking path at DeHart Park is the safest place in the park system for seniors to get exercise. The path is relatively flat, fully enclosed in the park (unlike Maplecrest), and currently has adequate parking (unlike Memorial). Seniors had been promised additional benches around the walking path so there would be places for the mobility challenged to stop and rest. Due to a failed grant request and deficits in the municipal budget during COVID, this does not seem to be immediately likely. We still hope to make it happen.
I am sure that residents living near DeHart Park have their own wish list for how the space should be used. Equitable recreation opportunities and offerings are not just about whether all families can afford to have their children participate in team sports. It is whether all needs including those of the disabled and the elderly can be equitably met.
Isn’t the walking path outside of the fenced area to be resurfaced?
Is this really just about parking?
As in, if there’s a game going on. All of the nearby spots are taken, so seniors can’t use the senior center and walking path?
@jimmurphy I have been asked to explain present and potential future use of Dehart Park by the senior community. I have done this to the best of my knowledge and writing ability. Nowhere have I written that current use of the fields is interfering with the current, very much restricted by COVID concerns, use of the DeHart Park complex by our senior population. I have not claimed that what little use is currently available to seniors is likely to conflict with future plans to place artificial turf on the fields at DeHart should the referendum pass in November.
I have supplemented this with background information indicating that under COVID restrictions the senior population's need for outdoor recreation had been ignored by the town when it came to making outdoor programming available to the town's residents as COVID restrictions eased.
Given the extreme hardship and near total social isolation experienced by our seniors during lockdown, seniors who received the town's email blast which promised the return to outdoor activities for all were very upset to find the only offerings for seniors in that email blast were two zoom based exercise classes. When some seniors asked what about us, they were told that all of the park space in town had already been allocated [to others]. The best the town could do was offer seniors the small parking lot behind the senior center at DeHart Park.
That is the only outdoor space that has been made available to seniors since. Until now senior access to outdoor recreation programming has been limited to a few exercise classes and the occasional outdoor congregate lunch, both held at DeHart Park. Now that the weather is getting colder we don't even have that. Exercise classes are moving indoors, primarily to the Community Center. Congregate meals will likely be discontinued after this month's Halloween Party since there is no indoor space is available to hold them while maintaining social distancing. With the senior center too small to host indoor meetings for seniors beyond very limited capacity, senior programming, at least while COVID remains an issue, will not conflict with anything at Dehart Park, artificial turf or no artificial turf. The town has clearly spoken. Senior recreation has the lowest priority as far as the town is concerned. So no, it is not just about the parking. It is not about artificial turf. Seniors I have spoken with who are opposed to artificial turf primarily focus on cost and environmental issues, not conflict of use at DeHart.
No one is talking about pressing for a bond ordinance to fund the creation of a safe space for seniors to be able to gather in person as a means of fighting social isolation, which is as much of a problem now as it was during lockdown. Nobody is lobbying the TC for equitable treatment for seniors. So please don't make this an issue when it comes to deciding the vote for or against artificial turf. Senior use of DeHart or any other facility in town is clearly a non-issue. Movement of senior recreation activities to other locations is not currently possible since the libraries are no longer offering adult services beyond a few bookshelves at the OEM building and all other spaces, indoors and out, are committed to other uses/populations.
Sorry to have touched a nerve, Joan. You are obviously passionate about serving seniors’ needs - rightfully so.
The reason I brought up the parking situation is that it sounded like you were saying that use of the walking path and other facilities was difficult when games are going on. Since they are separate from the fenced field, that didn’t make sense to me, unless access, i.e. parking, was the issue.
joan_crystal said:
@jimmurphy I have been asked to explain present and potential future use of Dehart Park by the senior community. I have done this to the best of my knowledge and writing ability. Nowhere have I written that current use of the fields is interfering with the current, very much restricted by COVID concerns, use of the DeHart Park complex by our senior population. I have not claimed that what little use is currently available to seniors is likely to conflict with future plans to place artificial turf on the fields at DeHart should the referendum pass in November.
I have supplemented this with background information indicating that under COVID restrictions the senior population's need for outdoor recreation had been ignored by the town when it came to making outdoor programming available to the town's residents as COVID restrictions eased.
Given the extreme hardship and near total social isolation experienced by our seniors during lockdown, seniors who received the town's email blast which promised the return to outdoor activities for all were very upset to find the only offerings for seniors in that email blast were two zoom based exercise classes. When some seniors asked what about us, they were told that all of the park space in town had already been allocated [to others]. The best the town could do was offer seniors the small parking lot behind the senior center at DeHart Park.
That is the only outdoor space that has been made available to seniors since. Until now senior access to outdoor recreation programming has been limited to a few exercise classes and the occasional outdoor congregate lunch, both held at DeHart Park. Now that the weather is getting colder we don't even have that. Exercise classes are moving indoors, primarily to the Community Center. Congregate meals will likely be discontinued after this month's Halloween Party since there is no indoor space is available to hold them while maintaining social distancing. With the senior center too small to host indoor meetings for seniors beyond very limited capacity, senior programming, at least while COVID remains an issue, will not conflict with anything at Dehart Park, artificial turf or no artificial turf. The town has clearly spoken. Senior recreation has the lowest priority as far as the town is concerned. So no, it is not just about the parking. It is not about artificial turf. Seniors I have spoken with who are opposed to artificial turf primarily focus on cost and environmental issues, not conflict of use at DeHart.
No one is talking about pressing for a bond ordinance to fund the creation of a safe space for seniors to be able to gather in person as a means of fighting social isolation, which is as much of a problem now as it was during lockdown. Nobody is lobbying the TC for equitable treatment for seniors. So please don't make this an issue when it comes to deciding the vote for or against artificial turf. Senior use of DeHart or any other facility in town is clearly a non-issue. Movement of senior recreation activities to other locations is not currently possible since the libraries are no longer offering adult services beyond a few bookshelves at the OEM building and all other spaces, indoors and out, are committed to other uses/populations.
if seniors generally aren't concerned an artificial turf installation will affect their access to DeHart, I don't understand why it was brought up in this discussion about the project.
ml1 said:
if seniors generally aren't concerned an artificial turf installation will affect their access to DeHart, I don't understand why it was brought up in this discussion about the project.
If I read the argument correctly now, this is about the allocation of resources and the zero-sum game that I believe you mentioned earlier in the thread.
It is unfortunate that one constituency is being pitted against another, but it is clear that the seniors feel that they have been forgotten/mistreated. It may seem to the only tactic remaining if past campaigns have fallen on deaf ears.
Deserves a thread of its own. And greater empathy.
jimmurphy said:
ml1 said:
if seniors generally aren't concerned an artificial turf installation will affect their access to DeHart, I don't understand why it was brought up in this discussion about the project.
If I read the argument correctly now, this is about the allocation of resources and the zero-sum game that I believe you mentioned earlier in the thread.
It is unfortunate that one constituency is being pitted against another, but it is clear that the seniors feel that they have been forgotten/mistreated. It may seem to the only tactic remaining if past campaigns have fallen on deaf ears.
Deserves a thread of its own. And greater empathy.
it does.
The shameful aspect of this is a township department telling seniors that there is absolutely no outdoor space that isn't already being used. It seems hard to believe that for 9 months of the year at least, there aren't open spaces between 7am and 3pm that can be used for fitness classes or other outdoor activities. The township should be able to figure this out at least until all the COVID restrictions are behind us.
As a senior myself I respect and appreciate joan_crystal for her representation and advocacy for the senior community. Surely her insights into our under represented group are needed. Howeverer I believe this discussion, as intended, is about the type of surface that is needed at Dehart Park for it's continued use, or not, as a sporting facility. If the different types of surfaces will affect us seniors I would like to understand how. There is a vote coming up soon and I like to be well informed about my choices. Thank you.
ml1 said:
if seniors generally aren't concerned an artificial turf installation will affect their access to DeHart, I don't understand why it was brought up in this discussion about the project.
Someone on this thread asked me about seniors activities at DeHart and I replied. Apart from the broader issue of equity in allocating recreation resources to all segments of the community (as opposed to children's access to recreation resources based on family income), I don't see how seniors use of DeHart Park is relevant to the artificial turf discussion. It is germane to the broader discussion of providing recereation resources for the disabled and the elderly. That issue deserves a separate thread if it is to be discussed at all.
rhw said:
As a senior myself I respect and appreciate joan_crystal for her representation and advocacy for the senior community. Surely her insights into our under represented group are needed. Howeverer I believe this discussion, as intended, is about the type of surface that is needed at Dehart Park for it's continued use, or not, as a sporting facility. If the different types of surfaces will affect us seniors I would like to understand how. There is a vote coming up soon and I like to be well informed about my choices. Thank you.
I would be happy to discuss the turf issue with you further. Please send me a PM with your concerns. As i wrote above, the seniors who are opposed to artificial turf have concerns which can be broken down into two main categories.
The first, which comes up in senior discussions on most issues, is cost. Seniors as a group want to see costs kept as low as possible since many are on fixed incomes and do not want to be taxed out of their homes. A subgroup of these seniors have other priorities when it comes to spending money on capital improvements. They are not against youth athletics but they have other needs and those needs are not being funded.
The second issue is the environment. Seniors are concerned for their health and the health of their children and grandchildren who live in town and would use the artificial turf facility. They are concerned about the relatively short lifespan of today's artificial turf fields currently estimated at 8 - 10 years. Once the field is past its usefulness, it cannot be recycled using currently available methods and will end up in a landfill.
I am one of a very few people who question whether artificial turf at DeHart will achieve the stated goal of reducing stress on the remaining fields so they can receive more play. The level of demand for field use is just too great. I would like to see time spent on coming up with a longer range solution with broader impact on our ability to provide adequate recreation programming. Artificial turf at DeHart is at best a band aid not a cure.
joan_crystal said:
I would be happy to discuss the turf issue with you further. Please send me a PM with your concerns. As i wrote above, the seniors who are opposed to artificial turf have concerns which can be broken down into two main categories.
The first, which comes up in senior discussions on most issues, is cost. Seniors as a group want to see costs kept as low as possible since many are on fixed incomes and do not want to be taxed out of their homes. A subgroup of these seniors have other priorities when it comes to spending money on capital improvements. They are not against youth athletics but they have other needs and those needs are not being funded.
The second issue is the environment. Seniors are concerned for their health and the health of their children and grandchildren who live in town and would use the artificial turf facility. They are concerned about the relatively short lifespan of today's artificial turf fields currently estimated at 8 - 10 years. Once the field is past its usefulness, it cannot be recycled using currently available methods and will end up in a landfill.
I am one of a very few people who question whether artificial turf at DeHart will achieve the stated goal of reducing stress on the remaining fields so they can receive more play. The level of demand for field use is just too great. I would like to see time spent on coming up with a longer range solution with broader impact on our ability to provide adequate recreation programming. Artificial turf at DeHart is at best a band aid not a cure.
The first concern (taxation) is very understandable. There is great value in having seniors reside in our communities, but on the other hand, they should not impede progress merely for financial reasons. Given that changing the way services are funded in this state is a heavy lift, I, for one, would absolutely be in favor of freezing property taxes for seniors, at least on a municipal level.
The second environmental concern is spurious to me. There are environmental concerns with properly maintaining a grass field as well, including fertilizer and water use. Virtually every surrounding community has resolved environmental concerns in favor of turfing the fields.
We’ve discussed this before, but the third concern, only partially solving the problem, is non-sensical. There is no “cure” that would not come at odds with the first concern. To leave the fields in a state of disrepair and unavailability smacks of not going to the doctor when you know something is wrong with your health.
The athletic fields are there to host athletic events, not to sit fallow and unused.
joan_crystal said:
The first, which comes up in senior discussions on most issues, is cost. …
The second issue is the environment. …
You’ve recounted two concerns that RichEW also tied together: $1.8 million for fields that are likely to have to be thrown away in 10 or so years.* But because the last rehab of the grass was executed poorly, there’s no sense in contemplating what spending, say, an extra $60,000 a year on maintenance over 15 years — half the turf money, not including new maintainence tools that may be required — could do to improve access and use of DeHart’s fields.
It sounded like a close call to me, until I remembered my disdain for organized youth sports. (Also, when I asked myself who am I to tell kids that our facilities have their limits, I remembered what a kick I get out of saying no to children.) Thankfully, I didn’t have to go looking far for reasons.
* Jim, I don’t know that other towns have resolved this part of the environmental equation so much as they’ve decided just to accept it as a fact of artificial turf. It may be shrugged at, but I don’t see it as spurious.
DaveSchmidt said:
You’ve recounted two concerns that RichEW also tied together: $1.8 million for fields that are likely to have to be thrown away in 10 or so years.* But because the last rehab of the grass was executed poorly, there’s no sense in contemplating what spending, say, an extra $60,000 a year on maintenance over 15 years — half the turf money, not including new maintainence tools that may be required — could do to improve access and use of DeHart’s fields.
It sounded like a close call to me, until I remembered my disdain for organized youth sports. (Also, when I asked myself who am I to tell kids that our facilities have their limits, I remembered what a kick I get out of saying no to children.) Thankfully, I didn’t have to go looking far for reasons.
* Jim, I don’t know that other towns have resolved this part of the environmental equation so much as they’ve decided just to accept it as a fact of artificial turf. It may be shrugged at, but I don’t see it as spurious.
A balanced post, as always.
The financial issue is why matters such as these should not be decided via referenda where a very small minority decide the outcome, and the kids don’t have a vote at all. Better to leave the decisions to elected representatives, who theoretically represent all of us.
On the environmental question, there is no “proof” either way. Practicality and using a facility for its intended purpose would seem a valid guide.
jimmurphy said:
The financial issue is why matters such as these should not be decided via referenda where a very small minority decide the outcome, and the kids don’t have a vote at all. Better to leave the decisions to elected representatives, who theoretically represent all of us.
On the environmental question, there is no “proof” either way. Practicality and using a facility for its intended purpose would seem a valid guide.
I think someone speculated earlier that the TC purposefully punted. Add that to the lack of neighborhood outreach — my opinion is that a project like this calls for more than publishing agendas for upcoming meetings, posting meeting videos or even sending email blasts — and it does seem to me that the TC came up short on this one.
As for proof of what I was talking about: Absent some market or technological breakthrough during the turf’s life, is there any doubt it’ll get tossed?
DaveSchmidt said:
I think someone speculated earlier that the TC purposefully punted. Add that to the lack of neighborhood outreach — my opinion is that a project like this calls for more than publishing agendas for upcoming meetings, posting meeting videos or even sending email blasts — and it does seem to me that the TC came up short on this one.
As for proof of what I was talking about: Absent some market or technological breakthrough during the turf’s life, is there any doubt it’ll get tossed?
No Profile in Courage here.
I was focused more on the claimed health effects. I fully believe that plastic and rubber are safer than fertilizer.
As to the waste stream once it is tossed, the market would dictate, as you say.
Hard decisions are made all of the time on environmental issues. I’d think it more important for individuals to assess their own actions on environmental issues, such as driving an SUV, airline travel, excessive packaging of online orders, etc, etc, rather than depriving children and their families of as much use of the fields as possible, all in the name of being eco-warriors on a single issue.
jimmurphy said:
I was focused more on the claimed health effects. I fully believe that plastic and rubber are safer than fertilizer.
I may be repeating myself, but for me the health arguments are the weakest against turf —even occasionally bordering on spurious.
DaveSchmidt said:
I may be repeating myself, but for me the health arguments are the weakest against turf —even occasionally bordering on spurious.
Would love to know why you think turf is ok health-wise. Do you not believe that many/any of the elements, chemicals are dangerous? (just one example is PFAS https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/10/15/oregon-test-150-drinking-water-systems-pfas-forever-chemicals/6044270001/)...Do you think, well yes, but the exposure is not so high? Do you think the benefits of the play are more important than the risks? Or...something else?
RichEW said:
Would love to know why you think turf is ok health-wise. Do you not believe that many/any of the elements, chemicals are dangerous? (just one example is PFAS https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/10/15/oregon-test-150-drinking-water-systems-pfas-forever-chemicals/6044270001/)...Do you think, well yes, but the exposure is not so high? Do you think the benefits of the play are more important than the risks? Or...something else?
No, I do. Yes. No. No.
Many elements and chemicals are dangerous if ingested (ETA: or breathed in or absorbed by the skin) in certain quantities. Grass fields are treated with chemicals under the assumption that the grass won’t be ingested, at least in large amounts. (ETA: Or the chemicals harmfully inhaled or absorbed.) I grant artificial turf and its rubber granules the same assumption.
Also, reports and studies tend to be thrown around with little attention to context. Take that Oregon article, for example. Have any PFAS — of which there are many kinds — been found in turf in quantities that are comparable to concentrations detected in drinking water? (Turf runoff adds to the water, though, you say? Fertilizer runs off, too. Not as much as PFAS from hard-surface runoff? Data, please.)
Take your earlier NYU Langone link, for another. Aside from its own caveat — “the new study does not establish a direct cause and effect association between phthalate exposure and early deaths, in part because the specific biological mechanism that would account for the connection remains unclear” — the first two words of the article are “daily exposure.”
When turf opponents post health links, I read them, often clicking through to the source findings. I haven’t found any to be persuasive. Of course, you may have epidemiological or other expertise that I lack and can explain why my critical doubts are mere nits. Or even if you don’t; I’m all ears. You’re already aware, though, that my vote has been cast.
human beings really aren't very good at risk assessment. With regard to chemical exposure, most people don't think about the items that are surrounding us all the time. People are in contact with carpets all the time, and we don't think twice about what materials they contain. Exposure to artificial turf for a few hours a week has people freaked out. But not our carpets. And personally, I'm not concerned about carpeting. But there seems to be as many people making the kinds of claims about carpet that are being made about artificial turf.
ml1 said:
human beings really aren't very good at risk assessment. With regard to chemical exposure, most people don't think about the items that are surrounding us all the time. People are in contact with carpets all the time, and we don't think twice about what materials they contain. Exposure to artificial turf for a few hours a week has people freaked out. But not our carpets. And personally, I'm not concerned about carpeting. But there seems to be as many people making the kinds of claims about carpet that are being made about artificial turf.
You both seem to be thoughtful folks. I don't claim special expertise about exposure (my academic area is different) but people who know something are concerned. A colleague who is a highky ranked epidemiologist at an ivy thinks these chemicals are in sufficient quantity to be of concern, especially for kids. So does an environmental toxicologist from NJIT who lives in town, not to mention the Mt Sinai folks. The abrasive impacts of playing on these fields, as I understand it, causes wear and sends particles in the air (where in can be ingested by players) and water. I can ask one or several of these to comment here. An relatively small amounts can have impacts on systems that lead to hormonal problems and potential serious health issues. Is this worse than your carpet? I don't know, but new carpet no longer has a strong smell because VOCs were removed to make use safer. Look, we know that we can't avoid every source, but there are also many illnesses that probably have environmental causes. Doesn't it make sense to reduce the sources we can? Is it worth some increased play time over what a grass field (including one that can be made better) provides?
This is how I look at the health arguments: There are some concerns that warrant continued investigation, but so far evidence is at best inconclusive. Which, as I noted, falls on the weak end of my argumentometer.
Instead, what I mostly read in anti-turf documents that bring up health effects are “See this! And this! And this!” scaremongering with forwarded-to-them links to research that the authors haven’t vetted carefully, don’t really understand or intentionally misrepresent. Your earlier acknowledgment that “the tests to demonstrate cause specifically from turf surfaces haven’t been done and would be very expensive” was a refreshing departure.
After reading all of these posts, I am still convinced that the sheep will do the most to improve the DeHart fields. In fact, I think the sheep should be on the ballot. I would vote sheep for Mayor. 
RichEW said:
You both seem to be thoughtful folks. I don't claim special expertise about exposure (my academic area is different) but people who know something are concerned. A colleague who is a highky ranked epidemiologist at an ivy thinks these chemicals are in sufficient quantity to be of concern, especially for kids. So does an environmental toxicologist from NJIT who lives in town, not to mention the Mt Sinai folks. The abrasive impacts of playing on these fields, as I understand it, causes wear and sends particles in the air (where in can be ingested by players) and water. I can ask one or several of these to comment here. An relatively small amounts can have impacts on systems that lead to hormonal problems and potential serious health issues. Is this worse than your carpet? I don't know, but new carpet no longer has a strong smell because VOCs were removed to make use safer. Look, we know that we can't avoid every source, but there are also many illnesses that probably have environmental causes. Doesn't it make sense to reduce the sources we can? Is it worth some increased play time over what a grass field (including one that can be made better) provides?
I don't doubt the expertise and the sincerity of these folks. But I'm skeptical when I see statements like the No Turf people have as point #1 in their flier -- "the chemicals in plastic turf fields can..." There are a couple of points there that are a bit weaselly IMHO. The word "can" is chosen because there isn't sufficient evidence that they do cause those health problems. But I'm especially skeptical of any such claims that refer to "the chemicals in."
Because as I mentioned above, those chemicals are in all sorts of everyday items. The key variables regarding the danger are -- whether the substance is ingested, how much, how often, and for how long a period of time. And I'm not aware of any studies that have conclusively answered those questions. Which means no matter how expert or learned someone is on environmental toxins, their answers to those questions are guesses. And interestingly enough, the Oregon article you linked to about PFAS in drinking water doesn't even mention artificial turf. Those substances are entering the drinking water from a host of other sources. I'm not saying they aren't a cause for some level of concern, but is the danger from playing a few hours a week on artificial grass worse than what's already in the environment.
And not for nothing, but the crumb rubber in an athletic field is sourced from used tires. Those tires are going to be disposed of somewhere if not used for fields. So unless we all decide to stop driving, we're all guilty of introducing those substances into landfills and groundwater.
the article I linked to above is from the NY State Health Department, which summarizes the research on artificial turf. While I suppose people might say they don't trust a state government that allows installations of artificial turf on public fields to be impartial on the question of health effects, I trust a state health department over advocacy groups' statements. And the state of NY found no evidence for a link to cancer, that the risk from chemical exposure is low, risk of injury is not different from grass fields, and there's no evidence of latex allergy reactions.
They do find that there is a risk of infection from these fields, but that is mitigated by immediate hygiene. The one persistent risk of artificial turf, which I don't think anyone disputes, is from the heat generated by the fields on hot sunny days.
ml1 said:
I don't doubt the expertise and the sincerity of these folks. But I'm skeptical when I see statements like the No Turf people have as point #1 in their flier -- "the chemicals in plastic turf fields can..." There are a couple of points there that are a bit weaselly IMHO. The word "can" is chosen because there isn't sufficient evidence that they do cause those health problems. But I'm especially skeptical of any such claims that refer to "the chemicals in."
Because as I mentioned above, those chemicals are in all sorts of everyday items. The key variables regarding the danger are -- whether the substance is ingested, how much, how often, and for how long a period of time. And I'm not aware of any studies that have conclusively answered those questions. Which means no matter how expert or learned someone is on environmental toxins, their answers to those questions are guesses. And interestingly enough, the Oregon article you linked to about PFAS in drinking water doesn't even mention artificial turf. Those substances are entering the drinking water from a host of other sources. I'm not saying they aren't a cause for some level of concern, but is the danger from playing a few hours a week on artificial grass worse than what's already in the environment.
And not for nothing, but the crumb rubber in an athletic field is sourced from used tires. Those tires are going to be disposed of somewhere if not used for fields. So unless we all decide to stop driving, we're all guilty of introducing those substances into landfills and groundwater.
the article I linked to above is from the NY State Health Department, which summarizes the research on artificial turf. While I suppose people might say they don't trust a state government that allows installations of artificial turf on public fields to be impartial on the question of health effects, I trust a state health department over advocacy groups' statements. And the state of NY found no evidence for a link to cancer, that the risk from chemical exposure is low, risk of injury is not different from grass fields, and there's no evidence of latex allergy reactions.
They do find that there is a risk of infection from these fields, but that is mitigated by immediate hygiene. The one persistent risk of artificial turf, which I don't think anyone disputes, is from the heat generated by the fields on hot sunny days.
Two things in further response. First, I/we have heard things that are very much more scary about turf impacts but have'lt put them in print because of insufficient sources. In other words, we are tyring to do the opposite of the scare mongering that you folks claim - hence the cautious words like 'can' instead of 'does.' How do we point out the problem without screaming "fire!" ???
Second,I know that everyone in this debate loves their kids as much as I love mine so I still don't get the attitude of "I'll use it until hard evidence of danger comes through." With kids its usuall more like "prove it is safe before I use it." That is exactly the problem in many areas with insufficient government oversite. So, for instance, scietists know with some level of certainty that PFAS in the streams kill salmon (let's agree that that can change in either direction with new data). And we know that PFAS is part of turf blades. We also know that some of those blade materials abrade and can get into air, water lungs. I don't think we know how much over what period of time. The question for me remains, how much risk are you willing to take for the marginal gain of some addtiional playing time on a turf vs grass field? Either answer doesn't make you a horrible person...but us pointing these things out is, on the same token, quite appropriate.
RichEW said:
ml1 said:
I don't doubt the expertise and the sincerity of these folks. But I'm skeptical when I see statements like the No Turf people have as point #1 in their flier -- "the chemicals in plastic turf fields can..." There are a couple of points there that are a bit weaselly IMHO. The word "can" is chosen because there isn't sufficient evidence that they do cause those health problems. But I'm especially skeptical of any such claims that refer to "the chemicals in."
Because as I mentioned above, those chemicals are in all sorts of everyday items. The key variables regarding the danger are -- whether the substance is ingested, how much, how often, and for how long a period of time. And I'm not aware of any studies that have conclusively answered those questions. Which means no matter how expert or learned someone is on environmental toxins, their answers to those questions are guesses. And interestingly enough, the Oregon article you linked to about PFAS in drinking water doesn't even mention artificial turf. Those substances are entering the drinking water from a host of other sources. I'm not saying they aren't a cause for some level of concern, but is the danger from playing a few hours a week on artificial grass worse than what's already in the environment.
And not for nothing, but the crumb rubber in an athletic field is sourced from used tires. Those tires are going to be disposed of somewhere if not used for fields. So unless we all decide to stop driving, we're all guilty of introducing those substances into landfills and groundwater.
the article I linked to above is from the NY State Health Department, which summarizes the research on artificial turf. While I suppose people might say they don't trust a state government that allows installations of artificial turf on public fields to be impartial on the question of health effects, I trust a state health department over advocacy groups' statements. And the state of NY found no evidence for a link to cancer, that the risk from chemical exposure is low, risk of injury is not different from grass fields, and there's no evidence of latex allergy reactions.
They do find that there is a risk of infection from these fields, but that is mitigated by immediate hygiene. The one persistent risk of artificial turf, which I don't think anyone disputes, is from the heat generated by the fields on hot sunny days.
Two things in further response. First, I/we have heard things that are very much more scary about turf impacts but have'lt put them in print because of insufficient sources. In other words, we are tyring to do the opposite of the scare mongering that you folks claim - hence the cautious words like 'can' instead of 'does.' How do we point out the problem without screaming "fire!" ???
Second,I know that everyone in this debate loves their kids as much as I love mine so I still don't get the attitude of "I'll use it until hard evidence of danger comes through." With kids its usuall more like "prove it is safe before I use it." That is exactly the problem in many areas with insufficient government oversite. So, for instance, scietists know with some level of certainty that PFAS in the streams kill salmon (let's agree that that can change in either direction with new data). And we know that PFAS is part of turf blades. We also know that some of those blade materials abrade and can get into air, water lungs. I don't think we know how much over what period of time. The question for me remains, how much risk are you willing to take for the marginal gain of some addtiional playing time on a turf vs grass field? Either answer doesn't make you a horrible person...but us pointing these things out is, on the same token, quite appropriate.
there really is no evidence that playing on artificial turf causes negative health outcomes. If the opponents of artificial turf were being truly honest, they wouldn't include the suggestion that it does in their materials at all. But I get it, they're taking an advocacy position. They don't have to be impartial or omit claims that don't have sufficient evidence. And in turn, skeptical people like myself can decide whether or not to believe that claim. A lot people can figure out what a statement like "the chemicals in X can..." means and doesn't mean and decide how much weight to give it.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
that's because you don't hate organized sports and you're not grasping for reasons to oppose more facility usage.