The Turf War Returns
Absence of evidence that a hazardous condition exists is not quite the same thing as evidence that something is safe. Is there such a thing as an absolute guarantee of safety? No. There is some element of risk in everything we do. It becomes a question of how much risk we are willing to assume in achieving a given goal. When it comes to possible health risks associated with artificial turf, we each have to make an assessment for ourselves as to the level of risk we are willing to take for our family and our community. If this is the make/break consideration on how to cast your vote, you will need to decide this one within your own comfort level and vote accordingly.
My unscientific observation of lawn signs suggests the vote might be close? That said, I’m showing up to vote “YES!”
joan_crystal said:
Absence of evidence that a hazardous condition exists is not quite the same thing as evidence that something is safe. Is there such a thing as an absolute guarantee of safety? No. There is some element of risk in everything we do. It becomes a question of how much risk we are willing to assume in achieving a given goal. When it comes to possible health risks associated with artificial turf, we each have to make an assessment for ourselves as to the level of risk we are willing to take for our family and our community. If this is the make/break consideration on how to cast your vote, you will need to decide this one within your own comfort level and vote accordingly.
the solution for a parent who has zero tolerance for potential health risks from artificial turf isn't to vote against one field in Maplewood. It would be to discourage their kids from getting serious about participation in competitive outdoor sports. Because kids who are committed to soccer, softball, baseball, lacrosse, etc. are going to be playing often on artificial turf. If they attend sports camps or join travel teams, they will be playing on artificial turf. Not to mention right here in Maplewood if they continue to play at CHS on the Underhill or Ritzer fields.
So to me the whole "it might cause cancer" argument seems like people trying to make decisions about risks for other people's kids. Because for someone who has kids who are serious about outdoor sports, their children are either already playing on artificial turf, or likely will be in a few years. Those parents have probably already chosen to accept the small risk posed by exposure to artificial turf.
yes - the lawn sign count is pretty close. Probably more not turf signs as you get closer to the field.
To address the financial aspect - anyone philanthropists willing to contribute towards the cause. Didn't Profeta put a lot into the project at Underhill.
ml1 said:
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.
What about COVID? When we put in the artificial turf and all this team play shows up to play at DeHart Park, will all the athletes and all the spectators and all the surrounding community have to wear masks and get vaccinated before playing or watching a sport on the artificial turf field? If we are concerned about health issues for our children, why are we obligated to wear a mask to order a latte at Starbucks or to sit and eat at a local restaurant or to order an ice cream, but not at a crowded field surrounded by all these parents that are going to show up to watch their kids play soccer, lacrosse, baseball, etc...??? Does artificial turf kill COVID? This artificial turf thing is going to fail, even if it passes. The real problem is the water issues in the soil not the covering of the surface. This is a misguided issue that, in the long run, will cost more money to fix.
More political posturing by the local lefties! "Let them eat cake!" or in this case "Let them have turf!" Tone deaf, cut and paste policies.
jamie said:
yes - the lawn sign count is pretty close. Probably more not turf signs as you get closer to the field.
To address the financial aspect - anyone philanthropists willing to contribute towards the cause. Didn't Profeta put a lot into the project at Underhill.
Wasn't his offer to put money into Ritzer? Didn't he want to rename it Profeta Field in memory of his mother?
ml1 said:
the solution for a parent who has zero tolerance for potential health risks from artificial turf isn't to vote against one field in Maplewood. It would be to discourage their kids from getting serious about participation in competitive outdoor sports. Because kids who are committed to soccer, softball, baseball, lacrosse, etc. are going to be playing often on artificial turf. If they attend sports camps or join travel teams, they will be playing on artificial turf. Not to mention right here in Maplewood if they continue to play at CHS on the Underhill or Ritzer fields.
So to me the whole "it might cause cancer" argument seems like people trying to make decisions about risks for other people's kids. Because for someone who has kids who are serious about outdoor sports, their children are either already playing on artificial turf, or likely will be in a few years. Those parents have probably already chosen to accept the small risk posed by exposure to artificial turf.
It's not just about the kids. Some people who live near the park and some people who use other facilities at the park such as the basketball court, the walking path, the community center, and the senior center are worried about the affect an artificial turf field may have on their health, if certain particles become airborne or enter the water they drink from the tap. These concerns are not realistic if you believe there is no chance of environmental pollution. They are realistic to those who believe environmental pollution is (a) possible and (b) likely to affect them.
joan_crystal said:
jamie said:
yes - the lawn sign count is pretty close. Probably more not turf signs as you get closer to the field.
To address the financial aspect - anyone philanthropists willing to contribute towards the cause. Didn't Profeta put a lot into the project at Underhill.
Wasn't his offer to put money into Ritzer? Didn't he want to rename it Profeta Field in memory of his mother?
The (turfed) field at Underhill is named after Lynn Profeta. As part of the school reconstruction/repair bond, Ritzer (the field adjacent to Columbia) was to get turf as well, to increase usage for both gym classes and extracurricular sports. I haven't heard that there was any philanthropy associated with that project, though it's possible, either for the playing surface or related items such as bleachers or a scoreboard. Coincidentally, Ritzer was unplayable for at least several weeks after a sinkhole developed following Ida.
ml1 said:
the solution for a parent who has zero tolerance for potential health risks from artificial turf isn't to vote against one field in Maplewood. It would be to discourage their kids from getting serious about participation in competitive outdoor sports. Because kids who are committed to soccer, softball, baseball, lacrosse, etc. are going to be playing often on artificial turf. If they attend sports camps or join travel teams, they will be playing on artificial turf. Not to mention right here in Maplewood if they continue to play at CHS on the Underhill or Ritzer fields.
So to me the whole "it might cause cancer" argument seems like people trying to make decisions about risks for other people's kids. Because for someone who has kids who are serious about outdoor sports, their children are either already playing on artificial turf, or likely will be in a few years. Those parents have probably already chosen to accept the small risk posed by exposure to artificial turf.
Appropo of this conversation saw this article today - on EPA cracking down on PFAS ('forever chemicals'). Lots of articles note presence of PFAS in artif. turf. Again, it takes someonemore knowledgable than me to talk about what kinds of PFAs and how much (70 parts per TRILLION is the acceptable level), but seems to me this gets harder and harder to ignore.
joan_crystal said:
ml1 said:
the solution for a parent who has zero tolerance for potential health risks from artificial turf isn't to vote against one field in Maplewood. It would be to discourage their kids from getting serious about participation in competitive outdoor sports. Because kids who are committed to soccer, softball, baseball, lacrosse, etc. are going to be playing often on artificial turf. If they attend sports camps or join travel teams, they will be playing on artificial turf. Not to mention right here in Maplewood if they continue to play at CHS on the Underhill or Ritzer fields.
So to me the whole "it might cause cancer" argument seems like people trying to make decisions about risks for other people's kids. Because for someone who has kids who are serious about outdoor sports, their children are either already playing on artificial turf, or likely will be in a few years. Those parents have probably already chosen to accept the small risk posed by exposure to artificial turf.
It's not just about the kids. Some people who live near the park and some people who use other facilities at the park such as the basketball court, the walking path, the community center, and the senior center are worried about the affect an artificial turf field may have on their health, if certain particles become airborne or enter the water they drink from the tap. These concerns are not realistic if you believe there is no chance of environmental pollution. They are realistic to those who believe environmental pollution is (a) possible and (b) likely to affect them.
if people believe that even being near an artificial turf field is a danger to their health, that can probably be chalked up to the unsupported claims being made by the anti-turf people. Because there is no science that supports such a belief.
it's why I think leaving these kinds of decisions up to a referendum is a terrible way to govern. It's easy to rile voters up to be against almost anything if the opponents don't care about having evidence for their claims.
but it's the system we've got.
chalmers said:
The (turfed) field at Underhill is named after Lynn Profeta. As part of the school reconstruction/repair bond, Ritzer (the field adjacent to Columbia) was to get turf as well, to increase usage for both gym classes and extracurricular sports. I haven't heard that there was any philanthropy associated with that project, though it's possible, either for the playing surface or related items such as bleachers or a scoreboard. Coincidentally, Ritzer was unplayable for at least several weeks after a sinkhole developed following Ida.
Thank you. I seem to have gotten it backwards. Do you know if the sink hole would have occurred if the field had been covered with artificial turf?
RichEW said:
Again, it takes someonemore knowledgable than me to talk about what kinds of PFAs and how much (70 parts per TRILLION is the acceptable level), but seems to me this gets harder and harder to ignore.
Agreed. It shouldn’t be ignored.
What?!? "A $1.8 Million dollar obligation on your tax dollars?" For a plastic field that cannot be recycled and that will need to be replaced in 10 years with another plastic field? That's insane. I'm just reading the flyer that is being circulated around town. It also says, Claim: "We tried to fix the DeHart field and failed" FACT: The field's problems were caused by lack of professional supervision, which can be reinstated."
In other words, someone needs to do their job and maintain the field at DeHart Park. The $1.8 Million dollars on a 15 year bond is all about avoiding the work that needs to be done to maintain the field. I doubt a landscaper would charge $1.8 Million dollars to maintain DeHart fields. This is just a silly excuse to take away green space and avoid having to maintain a natural field. I'm not sure what the problem is? I've heard we have people who maintain the parks. What does that mean? The remove the garbage from the garbage cans and mow the lawn? That's not maintenance. That's doing the absolute, rock bottom minimum. This is a disgrace!
joan_crystal said:
ml1 said:
the solution for a parent who has zero tolerance for potential health risks from artificial turf isn't to vote against one field in Maplewood. It would be to discourage their kids from getting serious about participation in competitive outdoor sports. Because kids who are committed to soccer, softball, baseball, lacrosse, etc. are going to be playing often on artificial turf. If they attend sports camps or join travel teams, they will be playing on artificial turf. Not to mention right here in Maplewood if they continue to play at CHS on the Underhill or Ritzer fields.
So to me the whole "it might cause cancer" argument seems like people trying to make decisions about risks for other people's kids. Because for someone who has kids who are serious about outdoor sports, their children are either already playing on artificial turf, or likely will be in a few years. Those parents have probably already chosen to accept the small risk posed by exposure to artificial turf.
It's not just about the kids. Some people who live near the park and some people who use other facilities at the park such as the basketball court, the walking path, the community center, and the senior center are worried about the affect an artificial turf field may have on their health, if certain particles become airborne or enter the water they drink from the tap. These concerns are not realistic if you believe there is no chance of environmental pollution. They are realistic to those who believe environmental pollution is (a) possible and (b) likely to affect them.
Joan, that's a real stretch. We aren't talking about asbestos, and tap water doesn't come directly from streams.
ConcernedHighTaxPayer said:
What?!? "A $1.8 Million dollar obligation on your tax dollars?" For a plastic field that cannot be recycled and that will need to be replaced in 10 years with another plastic field? That's insane. I'm just reading the flyer that is being circulated around town. It also says, Claim: "We tried to fix the DeHart field and failed" FACT: The field's problems were caused by lack of professional supervision, which can be reinstated."
In other words, someone needs to do their job and maintain the field at DeHart Park. The $1.8 Million dollars on a 15 year bond is all about avoiding the work that needs to be done to maintain the field. I doubt a landscaper would charge $1.8 Million dollars to maintain DeHart fields. This is just a silly excuse to take away green space and avoid having to maintain a natural field. I'm not sure what the problem is? I've heard we have people who maintain the parks. What does that mean? The remove the garbage from the garbage cans and mow the lawn? That's not maintenance. That's doing the absolute, rock bottom minimum. This is a disgrace!
delete your account.
Dan: I am reporting how some people feel about artificial turf. You may not agree with them but to them their concerns are real.
m/1: You may not agree with what CHTP is writing on this or any other thread. That still does not justify your writing that he delete his account.
joan_crystal said:
Dan: I am reporting how some people feel about artificial turf. You may not agree with them but to them their concerns are real.
m/1: You may not agree with what CHTP is writing on this or any other thread. That still does not justify your writing that he delete his account.
"delete your account" doesn't literally mean to delete your account. It means stop trolling us with idiotic nonsense.
ml1 said:
"delete your account" doesn't literally mean to delete your account. It means stop trolling us with idiotic nonsense.
Thank you for the clarification.
ml1 said:
joan_crystal said:
Dan: I am reporting how some people feel about artificial turf. You may not agree with them but to them their concerns are real.
m/1: You may not agree with what CHTP is writing on this or any other thread. That still does not justify your writing that he delete his account.
"delete your account" doesn't literally mean to delete your account. It means stop trolling us with idiotic nonsense.
The hard part of this discussion is finding the facts. The concerns about the location and neighborhood impacts I feel are valid and need to be considered. A lot of the turf criticisms seem to be outdated, and the environmental concerns raised tend to assume that a grass field presents no concerns. No pollution from mowing, no fertilizers, nothing. So Joan, when people say that incorrect concerns are valid simply because they thought of them, I'm not going to accept that.
I won't benefit from it at all, but I think the turf is a good idea. We bend over backwards to cater to every group in town that makes claims for services, but the heart of the funding for the town comes from the working families with kids who would benefit from this. My son plays ice hockey, so I have no choice but to pay a great deal for travel teams. I'd like to see young soccer players be able to play in rec leagues here for a reasonable price.
DanDietrich said:
The hard part of this discussion is finding the facts. The concerns about the location and neighborhood impacts I feel are valid and need to be considered. A lot of the turf criticisms seem to be outdated, and the environmental concerns raised tend to assume that a grass field presents no concerns. No pollution from mowing, no fertilizers, nothing. So Joan, when people say that incorrect concerns are valid simply because they thought of them, I'm not going to accept that.
I won't benefit from it at all, but I think the turf is a good idea. We bend over backwards to cater to every group in town that makes claims for services, but the heart of the funding for the town comes from the working families with kids who would benefit from this. My son plays ice hockey, so I have no choice but to pay a great deal for travel teams. I'd like to see young soccer players be able to play in rec leagues here for a reasonable price.
To be clear there are 4 reasons I am against the turf option, any one of which is enough for serious concern: cost, environmental impact, health risks and neighborhood/environmental justice issues. I’m not going into detail now to avoid being repetitious, but all are real and serious, and no one is masking things up to scare people – happy to discuss any one of these if you want. Do you have trust issues about these points? Think about how much you trust the PR arms of the big chemical companies that make the stuff that goes into the turf. We know they are going to reject claims of environmental and health impacts right up to (and maybe past) the point at which they become undeniable. FYI, the town council of Vail CO decided yesterday to remove funding for an artificial turf field, after similar discussions.
RichEW said:
To be clear there are 4 reasons I am against the turf option, any one of which is enough for serious concern: cost, environmental impact, health risks and neighborhood/environmental justice issues. I’m not going into detail now to avoid being repetitious, but all are real and serious, and no one is masking things up to scare people – happy to discuss any one of these if you want. Do you have trust issues about these points? Think about how much you trust the PR arms of the big chemical companies that make the stuff that goes into the turf. We know they are going to reject claims of environmental and health impacts right up to (and maybe past) the point at which they become undeniable. FYI, the town council of Vail CO decided yesterday to remove funding for an artificial turf field, after similar discussions.
Also, I don’t think any environmentalist would say that growing grass has no negative consequences. Using organic methods mitigates a lot of those. If we were in Arizona, water use would be more of a problem – less so here, but still a concern. But even so we are talking about replacing growing, carbon sequestering, water retaining plants, that support the living eco-system, with a plastic carpet.
RichEW said:
Also, I don’t think any environmentalist would say that growing grass has no negative consequences. Using organic methods mitigates a lot of those. If we were in Arizona, water use would be more of a problem – less so here, but still a concern. But even so we are talking about replacing growing, carbon sequestering, water retaining plants, that support the living eco-system, with a plastic carpet.
Sorry for putting up so much text, but just received this - it is testimony (to a committee in a California town) just received from Dianne Woelke of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. These points are not, she notes, disputed by the turf industry. I have edited slightly for space:
-Synthetic turf fields are NOT recyclable anywhere in the US. [a point the industry has finally conceded]…and none ever have been
-There are over 15,000 synturf fields in the ground right now and over 1,000 being installed annually (per the industry trade group STC).
-At end-of-life, each one is 250+ tons of mixed toxic plastic waste with nowhere to go. -It is being illegally dumped all over the US and Europe, as we helped document in stories picked up by Salon, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, Fair Warning, The Intercept, and others. Remote areas are widely used to "store" what amount to hundreds of thousands of tons -- literally mountains of used synturf leaching its chemicals and plastics into our soil, air and water without regulation.
-Additionally, before its removal after 7-10 years, each field is estimated *by industry* to lose one to *five tons* of infill, per field, per year.
-On top of the infill loss, the microplastic load is alarming: A typical synturf field is two acres of plastic surface, *plus* the surface area of some 800,000,000 (800M) plastic blades, all shedding microplastics from day 1.
-The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is preparing to ban synturf with tire infill as a *leading* contributor to microplastic pollution.
-Synturf is a toxic stew of heavy metals, phthalates, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, PFAS (yep), plasticizers and more.
Grass, she also notes, is safer, softer, cooler, cheaper, and infinitely recyclable, compostable and renewable.
RichEW said:
Sorry for putting up so much text, but just received this - it is testimony (to a committee in a California town) just received from Dianne Woelke of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. These points are not, she notes, disputed by the turf industry. I have edited slightly for space:
-Synthetic turf fields are NOT recyclable anywhere in the US. [a point the industry has finally conceded]…and none ever have been
-There are over 15,000 synturf fields in the ground right now and over 1,000 being installed annually (per the industry trade group STC).
-At end-of-life, each one is 250+ tons of mixed toxic plastic waste with nowhere to go. -It is being illegally dumped all over the US and Europe, as we helped document in stories picked up by Salon, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, Fair Warning, The Intercept, and others. Remote areas are widely used to "store" what amount to hundreds of thousands of tons -- literally mountains of used synturf leaching its chemicals and plastics into our soil, air and water without regulation.
-Additionally, before its removal after 7-10 years, each field is estimated *by industry* to lose one to *five tons* of infill, per field, per year.
-On top of the infill loss, the microplastic load is alarming: A typical synturf field is two acres of plastic surface, *plus* the surface area of some 800,000,000 (800M) plastic blades, all shedding microplastics from day 1.
-The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is preparing to ban synturf with tire infill as a *leading* contributor to microplastic pollution.
-Synturf is a toxic stew of heavy metals, phthalates, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, PFAS (yep), plasticizers and more.
Grass, she also notes, is safer, softer, cooler, cheaper, and infinitely recyclable, compostable and renewable.
I don't dispute any of this. And I respect your position.
But -- all of those substances are being used and consumed by almost all of us all the time, every day. We consume mountains and mountains of plastic. We drink from it. We wear it. We sit on it. We walk on it.
that's where I diverge from your position (respectfully). I include myself in this -- have we banished plastic from our homes? Have we torn out the carpets? Do we still commute alone on the highway in a large SUV? Do we still travel on airplanes? Are we replacing the carbon sequestering grass in our yards with an addition on our homes?
If anyone is doing those things (and I'm guilty of a few), why do we draw the line at an athletic field? To me, if I'm not willing, and other people aren't willing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, why should I demand that other people make the sacrifice?
It's easy to feel good about being "progressive" and environmentally conscious if one only asks other people to make the sacrifices.
"Diane Woelke is a retired certified nurse with a masters degree in midwifery from USC."
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2020/jan/14/stringers-oceanside-battle-over-artificial-turf/
Again, why can’t the sports be played at Ritzer field? Carpet that field as it’s already dedicated to sports. Organized sports. Remember when we used to have the Columbia pool for swim sports?
This obsession with dehart is actually grating on the people of Hilton. It’s like the armpit of maplewood to some of you, why do you think you would see more anti turf signs closer to dehart? Some of you just don’t give a rodent’s baxide about that part of town it seems. That’s what it boils down to. All the back and forth and just trying to convince people that a plastic carpet is best for everyone. Annoying. Btw… seniors are the biggest voting block. Carry on.
Jaytee said:
Again, why can’t the sports be played at Ritzer field? Carpet that field as it’s already dedicated to sports. Organized sports. Remember when we used to have the Columbia pool for swim sports?
This obsession with dehart is actually grating on the people of Hilton. It’s like the armpit of maplewood to some of you, why do you think you would see more anti turf signs closer to dehart? Some of you just don’t give a rodent’s baxide about that part of town it seems. That’s what it boils down to. All the back and forth and just trying to convince people that a plastic carpet is best for everyone. Annoying. Btw… seniors are the biggest voting block. Carry on.
Sports are played on Ritzer, every day, by the school district. The district owns the field and it is not available for other groups, including the town rec departments, to use
Jaytee said:
Again, why can’t the sports be played at Ritzer field? Carpet that field as it’s already dedicated to sports. Organized sports. Remember when we used to have the Columbia pool for swim sports?
This obsession with dehart is actually grating on the people of Hilton. It’s like the armpit of maplewood to some of you, why do you think you would see more anti turf signs closer to dehart? Some of you just don’t give a rodent’s baxide about that part of town it seems. That’s what it boils down to. All the back and forth and just trying to convince people that a plastic carpet is best for everyone. Annoying. Btw… seniors are the biggest voting block. Carry on.
We've been through this already. DeHart has been an athletic facility since it was built. The lights were installed in 1982 because it's an athletic facility. That's why there's a focus on playing sports there.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Humbly submitted: “There are some concerns that warrant continued investigation.”
Let’s also agree that human biology and salmon biology differ quite a bit. From the CDC: “Humans and animals react differently to PFAS, and not all effects observed in animals may occur in humans.” These implied leaps do the credibility of the health arguments no favors, at least as far as this nonpartisan is concerned.
It’s a consideration for me, but since I’m not convinced that marginal additional playing time, as you put it, poses an exposure risk, it wasn’t a decisive one.
And for what it’s worth, “prove it is safe before I use it” wasn’t my standard when introducing my child to everything in the world. But remember, because you oppose turf, you’re just as anti-child as I am.