Real Concerns for Real Reasons

Subject: CT ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLS SYNTHETIC TURF STUDY DANGEROUSLY DECEPTIVE,
URGES ITS REMOVAL AND REVISION

> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 1:39 PM
> News from Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street
> Hartford,
> Connecticut 06106
>
> Attorney General Richard Blumenthal For Immediate Release
> Contact:
> Tara Stapleton or Christopher Hoffman 860-808-5324
>
> TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008
>
> ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLS SYNTHETIC TURF STUDY DANGEROUSLY
> DECEPTIVE,
> URGES ITS REMOVAL AND REVISION
>
> Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today called on the
> Consumer
> Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to immediately remove and
> revise a
> report on its website that may dangerously and deceptively
> mislead
> citizens into believing that artificial turf has been
> proven safe.
>
> Blumenthal said the CPSC relied on a grossly inadequate and
> badly
> flawed study in declaring synthetic turf safe to install
> and play on
> -- focusing narrowly and insufficiently on lead, while
> failing to
> examine several other possible chemicals and concerns.
>
> In a letter to CPSC Acting Chairman Nancy Ann Nord,
> Blumenthal said
> the CPSC's claims -- based on such a "crudely
> cursory study" -- may
> dangerously deceive municipal and state leaders nationwide
> about the
> safety of synthetic turf.
>
> For the sake of public health and safety, Blumenthal said
> the CPSC
> has a moral and possibly legal obligation to immediately
> remove and
> revise its synthetic turf report from its website.
>
> "This report and release are as deceptive as some of
> the advertising
> and marketing of consumer products prosecuted by the
> Federal Trade
> Commission and state attorneys general," Blumenthal
> said.
>
> "There is a clear and present danger that municipal
> and state
> decision makers -- as well as parents and citizens -- will
> rely on
> this unconscionably deficient report. It is replete with
> unsound
> scientific methodology and conclusions, and unreliable
> findings. It
> may lead t o unsupportable and unwise commitments by towns
> and cities
> or their boards of education to build or replace athletic
> fields.
>
> "I have personally reached no conclusion on the safety
> or health
> issues concerning artificial turf, because no complete or
> comprehensive study has been done. This one, far from being
> complete
> or comprehensive, is profoundly misleading and misguided
> and may lead
> to bad policymaking. Timely corrective action -- indeed
> immediate
> revision -- is essential. Contact: Tara Stapleton or
> Christopher
> Hoffman 860-808-5324
>
> "The CPSC review of artificial turf safety focused
> entirely on the
> issue of lead contamination from artificial blades of
> grass. While
> this one issue is important, it is neither the sole nor the
> most
> significant issue. There is no indication that CPSC staff
> considered
> the transferability or emission -- especially at high
> temperatures --
> of toxic chemicals from the crumb rubber used at the base
> of
> artificial turf. This crumb rubber is usually made from
> recycled
> tires, containing chemicals -- including benthothiazole,
> butyplated
> hydroxyanisole and phthalates -- that may be toxic or
> carcinogenic
> under some circumstances.
>
> "Similarly, there is no indication that CPSC
> considered other
> important risks, some presented or aggravated by very high
> temperatures in the summer sun, and exposure to serious
> infection
> caused by the more extensive skin burns and abrasions
> created by
> falls on this material. Further, while CPSC staff admits
> that aging,
> wear and exposure to sunlight may change the amounts of
> chemicals
> released, CPSC has not even attempted to study or quantify
> the
> effects of those changes on health and safety.
>
> "Even as to the lead issue, the CSPC study is
> seriously and
> reprehensibly flawed. The study evaluated only 14 samples
> of
> artificial turf, even though thousands of these fields are
> in use.
> Worse, six samples were from portions of turf that was
> never
> installed or used, and one sample came from a field that
> was no
> longer in use. Thus, only half of the samples -- or seven
> -- were
> from turf in current use. The severely deficient scope of
> this fact
> finding eviscerates the credibility of CSPC's sweeping
> conclusions
> about thousands of artificial turf surfaces in daily use.
>
> "It is mystifying and mindboggling that an agency
> charged with
> protecting our children from unsafe products would declare
> artificial
> turf 'OK to Install, OK to Play On' without
> studying these critical
> health and safety threats.
>
> "Continued public dissemination of this misleading and
> deceptive
> material might well constitute a violation of our consumer
> protection
> laws if done by a company selling this product. The
> CSPC's
> distributing it -- and vouching for its accuracy --
> constitutes a
> violation of its public trust."
>
> The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
> (DEP) -- at
> Blumenthal's urging and with funding from a lawsuit
> settlement by his
> office -- is beginning a study of artificial turf.
> Blumenthal
> recommended that the CSPC coordinate additional study with
> the DEP to
> ensure a thorough and prompt examination of synthetic turf.
>
> ***END***Co ntact: Tara Stapleton or Christopher Hoffman
> 860-808-5324
> Nancy Alderman, President
> Environment and Human Health, Inc.
> 1191 Ridge Road
> North Haven, CT 06473
> (phone) 203-248-6582
> (fax) 203-288-7571
> http://www.ehhi.org
>
>
> --
> Nancy Alderman, President
> Environment and Human Health, Inc.
> 1191 Ridge Road
> North Haven, CT 06473
> (phone) 203-248-6582
> (fax) 203-288-7571
> http://www.ehhi.org

Syn turf, locked up from the public

Right here in our backyard, Jackson Twp, NJ, we are seeing what happens when synthetic turf is put in by a township but is only allowed to be used by members of an organization. So, basically that means every taxpayer is paying for a product, but only certain portions of that group are going to be able to utilize said product. Does that seem fair? I think not.

NJ Dept Health and Senior Services determines turf is a hazzard

Extra, extra read all about it, turf does contain harmful lead!! Read the full report by clicking on the title of this headline.

Another look at the turf wars (click)

Here is an up to date overview of the synthetic vs real turf debate. Comments at the bottom are interesting. Read on

ABC World News Video Clip (click)

Believe it or not, the ABC World News called VAST for an interview last Thursday. Unfortunately, I wasn't available to take that call, otherwise it would have been Marlton on the news. In light of all the recent events that have led up to the CPSC investigation, I thought it would be pertinent to post this link, it runs 2 minutes.

One issue that remains a concern is that the crumb rubber used as infill has not been included in this study as a source of lead. So far, CPSC is only looking into the nylon fibers that were used in the old Astroturf product . It is urgent that they make sure they examine the whole product when checking for heavy metals, especially on product that is currently being installed.

Please write to the CPSC and let them know you would like the entire turf product examined, not just the fiber. Here is a link: http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/info.aspx

Very well put together presentation (click)

Concerned San Franciscans have put together this absolutely wonderful presentation that should be mandatory reading for all public officials making decisions about installing synthetic turf. As Evesham's Mayor Randy Brown recently quoted in the Burlington County Times, “Safety is paramount”. So, I am very hopeful that he will make absolutely certain that the synthetic turf which is comprised of lead filled crumb rubber as the infill, is never considered for use here in Evesham because it poses very real health risks. We, the looney tree huggers, have the correct information regarding this controversial issue and have had it all along. Please take a few minutes to look over this very important presentation which has been laid out in a very readable format. Thank you.

FieldTurf hires lobbyists....scary

Here we go. Since all the health concerns regarding syn turf have become public and the legislators have taken action, now FieldTurf has decided to hire lobbyists. This should raise eyebrows more than anything has yet.

** Turf manufacturer hires lobbyist to bury NYC turf bill. SynTurf.org, Newton Mass. April 16, 2008. Citing the April 15, 2008, edition of Crain’s Insider (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=insider), Geoff Croft of New York Parks Advocate (http://nycparkadvocates.org) reports that FieldTurf, which has sold New York City 200 artificial turf fields, has hired lobbyist Claudia Wagner and public relations firm Widmeyer Communications to help bury a City Council bill to rip up $100 million worth of fields. Council members Eric Gioia, D-Queens, and Tish James, D-Brooklyn, say fields made with crumb rubber should be replaced because the product contains harmful substances. New Jersey-based FieldTurf says the fields are safe and cause fewer injuries than grass fields. It has been trotting out scientists and data to back up its position. The Bloomberg administration says the city's Health Department is studying the fields, adding that the bill is premature and lacks widespread support.

NJ Dep Health and Senior Services has concerns on syn turf

Health and Senior Services Commissioner Heather Howard has urged the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to investigate the artificial turf used on athletic fields, play areas and in homes, after New Jersey testing found high lead levels in selected samples of turf fibers.

The New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services tested 12 artificial turf fields at municipal parks and colleges, and found that two had lead levels eight to ten times above the state’s residential soil standard for cleanup of contaminated properties. DHSS also tested samples of turf marketed for residential use. Two samples had similarly high lead levels.


Click the title of this post to read the whole report

Jackson, NJ circumvents the Pinelands Commission

The soil samples that come back from Evesham's geotechnical survey should be examined closely. What will the Marl of the story be (ha ha), really isn't very funny is it? We all know there are pre-existing drainage problems in Marlton due to the clay (marl). Why would it drain better off of a impervious surface? Read on for more tales of woe ..............

More on the turf wars from ACP........

Another NJ town is considering syn turf. Hopefully Assemblyman Rooney's bill will be passed and our children's health and safety will become a priority. When will the discussion about the ecologically friendlier Mondoturf, begin?

An Environmental Issue not related to syn turf: (click)

Support from both sides of the aisle has finally arisen in regards to emissions from our automobiles. Both parties are calling for the EPA to set standards. It's about time, don't you think?

It's Not an April Fool's Joke

Here is another story, reiterating the concern we should all have about the safety of crumb rubber. It's just plain old common sense when you step back and look at this topic objectively. Safety is the ONLY priority we should really care about, isn't it?

NJ joins the list of states proposing moratoria on turf

Finally, the day has arrived! Assemblyman Rooney has proposed a moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf, Assembly Bill 2512. Hallelujeh!!!

Getting Rid of Turf Infill (Future Cost Considerations)

Council members push for removal of pulverized tires
from city parks

By ADAM LISBERG
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, March 26th 2008, 4:00 AM

Three City Council members are pushing to get an
estimated 30 million pounds of pulverized tires out of
city parks, saying there are too many unanswered
health questions about using the material in
artificial turf.

"We shouldn't be taking any risks when it comes to the
health of our children, especially when alternatives
are available," said Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Queens),
who will introduce a bill today with colleagues Maria
Baez (D-Bronx) and Letitia James (WFP-Brooklyn).

The bill would ban any more artificial turf fields
that use tiny bits of "crumb-rubber infill" as a
cushion, and would require existing fields to be torn
up and replaced within a year.

The city Parks Department says the fields are safe,
while standing up to heavy use and costing less to
maintain than grass. Ground-up tires contain heavy
metals such as lead and cadmium as well as volatile
organic compounds and other chemicals.

Turf critic Geoffrey Croft of NYC Park Advocates
estimates there are 130 crumb-rubber fields in the
city with 30 million pounds of tires - which would
cost millions to replace.

"Tests should have been done before any of this got
into our park system," Croft said.

Evesham on Manalapan's radar...

Perusing the web I found this blog , interesting.

Jumping on the Moratorium Bandwagon

California, New York, Connecticut......the list continues to grow. Check it out.

How green is the greenest of them all? (click)

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all. This article talks about another town in the midst of a turf war. They have been considering Mondoturf with Ecofill as a substitute for the ground up used tires that your typical synthetic turf field would consist of . The Mondoturf is a greener alternative but has not had any independent study yet. It is worth a look though......

Today's BCT

When does "no" mean "no"? Couldn't 1.5million be put to better use? Wouldn't that amount of money be able to address the needs of more than a small fraciton of MRC children? I think it could and it should. Read on

BCT readers respond (click)

It's wonderful to see people have had enough. Read the article and most importantly the reader's responses at the bottom. This is public sentiment and it CANNOT be ignored.

Judge Sweeney rules in favor of the voters...

Judge Sweeney ruled that Township Open Space Fund money should be spent only on township owned property. The Cherokee High School synthetic turf deal is dead. Read on for details..........

Central Record Letter Sums it all Up (click)

It's nice to get an objective opinion on local matters, this one just about sums things up in a clear and concise way. Read on..

The latest from our Telegram (click)

It's up to the Evesham township Council whether or not we spend $60K on a special election. This issue could wait until November and it would cost the taxpayers nothing, nada, zilch. Let our officials know how you feel about this issue. Read on....

Gated Turf Fields??? (click)

One has to wonder whether these turf fields will need to be fenced in to keep vandals out. This is just another issue to consider when contemplating the installation of these fields. Is the cost of fencing included in the astronomical price? What will happen if there is no fence and someone destroys this product? Who will man the security of these fields and do we need cameras to do that? Will the field be off limits to everyone other than MRC participants? Many implications and too little thought has gone into this endeavor. Read on.........

Evesham Residents File Suit .... (click)

Residents question the legality of using dedicated Open Space Funds to put synthetic turf on land we don't own. Read on...

Minneapolis rejects synthetic turf (click)

More and more cities and towns are rejecting toxic artificial turf. Read this article to see how this movement is gaining momentum. From NYC, Minneapolis, Newark and MANY other places, people are saying an emphatic NO to this material.

Central Record's latest...........(click)

Central record continues to report on the turf drama.

Courier Post Editor Weighs in on the Democratic Process (click)

Here's how the editor sees things......

Bluejersey reports on the Evesham turf debate (click)

A great balanced article on Bluejersey

Turf is about to hit the fan in Evesham Township (Click)

Turf wars in Evesham have now made national news. Click the link above to read all about it.

Excellent article by another reader (Click Here)

......
The rug costs $500,000 to replace. The annual cost of maintaining each field is about $10 to $15,000, as the field, when properly maintained, requires combing and fluffing, sweeping, and treatment for removal/killing of bacteria, weeds and seeds, and minimizing static electricity (with the help of gallons of fabric softener). The surface requires periodical application of sand and rubber crumb, and replacement or patchwork of the prematurely frayed or damaged areas. To protect them, the fields will be fenced in and limited for athletic use. No dogs, no chewing gum, and no orange and watermelon allowed.

Reader sends VAST this article (Click)

Interesting story, especially considering there is so much debate on whether MRSA is increased among those people who utilize synthetic turf.

The latest firestorm....... MRC vs Voters

VAST’s statement on MRC’s latest statements:

VAST is sadly disappointed with the way the Marlton
Rec Council has decided to react to the voice of the
tax payer and voter. The MRC has publicly stated the
threat that they will shut down and close if the
public signs the petition where VAST asks for
Democracy to be heard.

Just to be clear, VAST’s objectives are not political.
They simply want the voters to decide how everyone’s
Open Space Tax dollars are spent when dealing with
such a questionable idea where there are many
unanswered questions that must be addressed before the
fields are approved.

For the MRC to respond like this shows they are
clearly scared of the public not wanting synthetic
turf fields. This type of response is sad and only
demonstrates that the MRC is willing to punish our
children by stopping all recreation sports programs.
The MRC has put their selfish wants ahead of the
enjoyment and development of our children.

VAST believes that Marlton’s sports programs are
simply fantastic. The disagreement is VAST believes
that these sports programs should be played on safe,
natural grass. Now, the MRC is threatening not to let
our children play any organized sport on any surface.

VAST encourages Democracy and the voice of the tax
payer/voter. That’s all we ask for, Democracy.

Thank you

Turf plan foes say put issue to vote.... (click for entire article)

By TODD MCHALE
Burlington County Times
EVESHAM — A day after the Township Council approved spending $3.1 million to build two artificial turf fields, opponents of the plan have not given up their fight.

While no decisions have been made, Karen Borden, a member of the grassroots group Voters Against Synthetic Turf, said yesterday she believes there's enough support in town to override the council's decision Tuesday night and put the measure to a public referendum vote.

“It's definitely doable,” Borden said, noting it only took her group five days to get 400 people to sign an earlier petition opposing the turf fields.

Opponents have objected to the plan primarily because of health and safety concerns related to the products used in the fields, the lack of public input in the decision and the township's use of local open space tax revenues on land it doesn't own.

In order to recall the bond ordinance and put it to a public vote, opponents have 20 days to get 15 percent of the voters who cast ballots in the last election for state Assembly to sign a petition stating they favor such a referendum.

Basically, that means the group must get about 1,100 signatures from registered voters in town in less than three weeks.

Council overrides public opinion.....

Unfortunately, 4 of our elected officials (Brown, Schmidt, McKenna and Brown) decided to vote in opposition to the will of the public last night. They voted "YES" to install artificial turf at Cherokee (on land we don't own) and at Memorial Sports Complex. There was standing room only at the Council meeting. People stood in line to have their voices heard, apparently it fell on deaf ears. Out of approximately 35 people who spoke, only 4 were in favor of this proposal. It seems that a representative government does not exist in the township of Evesham anymore.

VAST is in the process of determining what our next step is concerning this matter. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and ideas. It has come to my attention that it is possible to get this ordinance put back to the public for vote if we are able to obtain petitions that number 15% of the voter turnout in the last general election. We don't have hard numbers yet, but think that number is somewhere in the vicinity of 1000.

Infill Systems the Real Scoop (click here)

.....if a field like this isn't scarified, brush dragged, topdressed and cleaned on a regular basis, the surface may become dangerously hard for athletes to compete on. The field that's not maintained aggressively will look nice and new, yet may not be satisfactory for play.

In short, the new rubber infill systems require aggressive maintenance to maintain safety, yet those practices are likely detrimental to the longevity of the surface. This is the reverse of a natural turf field, which is certainly considered an investment in the longevity of the grass surface.

Residents of Evesham, NJ Unite against turf

Residents unite against turf issue
To the editor:

A number of Evesham Township residents and Lenape Regional High School District voters have organized a group called Voters Against Synthetic Turf (VAST).

Our mission is to bring to light all the health safety, environmental, and financial concerns that surround the Evesham Township Council's decision to fast-track the installation of synthetic turf at Cherokee High School and Memorial Sports Complex.

In November 2006, LRHSD voters overwhelmingly defeated a ballot question calling for the installation of synthetic turf. VAST believes that voters have been disenfranchised by the council's decision to override this vote.
Advertisement


We have also discovered dozens of health and environmental concerns raised by the materials in artificial turf that we believe necessitate an immediate moratorium on installation of this product, certainly until studies prove its safety.

Members of the public who are interested in signing our petition calling for this moratorium are asked to contact vast_2008@yahoo.com.

VAST asks interested members of the public to attend the Evesham Township Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 19 at 6:30 p.m. at the Evesham Township Municipal Building at 984 Tuckerton Road.

Please let your voice be heard by signing our petition or attending this meeting.

David J. Silver
Voters Against Synthetic Turf
(VAST) http://votersagainstsyntheticturf.blogspot.com/

Study proves contaminants in infill (click for full story)

The unknow risk factors associated with the rubber infill are numerous and need further investigation. Apparently New York State feels that it is worthwhile to put the health of children first and foremost. We are hoping that Evesham Township does the right thing by our children as well.

Beckham Against Fieldturf (click for full article)

At a press conference in the bowels of RFK Stadium on Wednesday, Beckham spoke out strongly about the artificial surface at several MLS grounds and made his feelings perfectly clear: He hates them.

He likes real grass.

"Every game, every team, should have grass – without a doubt," Beckham said. "You can't ask any soccer athlete to perform at a high level on FieldTurf.

"That is one thing I think should change about the league because of what it does to your body. You are in bits for days afterwards."

He is not the first and certainly will not be the last player to complain about FieldTurf, which cures aches in the heads of franchise owners but allegedly creates pains in the joints of MLS players for days after matches.

But when such protests come from Beckham, it means so much more, and MLS may be left with little choice but to act. These comments, like every word the 32-year-old utters in public, will be heard around the globe and could potentially affect American soccer's ability to attract the international stars it craves.

FieldTurf looks to be a cheap option on paper, but if it causes injuries, reduces player effectiveness and turns away potential targets, then it is surely more trouble than it is worth.

Fox News Article (Click for full article)

How Green Is Artificial Turf?

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

By Meg Shannon

......... According to a 2007 report by the NFL Players Association, 61 percent of 1,511 players polled had negative reviews of artificial surfaces, with many believing artificial surfaces were more likely to cause injury and shorten players' careers.

There may be something to that. A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found a high rate of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus, or MRSA, bacterial infection in artificial-turf scrapes among St. Louis Rams players, though it blamed the transmission of the bacteria on sloppy hygiene rather than the turf itself.

Then there's the problem of cleaning the stuff. Blood, sweat and spit are easily absorbed by natural soil, but on artificial turf they've got to be swabbed down with disinfectants and detergents, then mopped up.

Perhaps the biggest environmental hazard from artificial turf is in its disposal, Wood says.

Synthetic turf on school athletic fields needs to be completely replaced after eight to 12 years, but the old turf will never disintegrate, she points out, adding that it's already been banned by some landfills.

Still, Wood admits that fake grass is the right choice for certain locations, such as indoor or domed fields and urban playgrounds that have blacktop or concrete lying beneath.

Both artificial-turf proponents and environmentalists agree on one thing: It's still early in the game for a firm conclusion on its impact on health and the immediate surroundings.

"There's a lot of pressure [to come up with a solid answer]," says Neil Lewis, executive director at Neighborhood Network, a non-profit environmental organization on New York's suburban Long Island. "And we are doing this without a lot of information, which I think is a mistake."

Community Alert on Synthetic Turf

Community Alert on Synthetic Turf

Information is becoming available to the public at large regarding the very real concerns people have about the potential harmful affects of artificial turf. They are summarized below. Most of the information that is gathered here has been taken from studies conducted by both the Environment and Human Health, Inc (EHHI) and also by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.

* Crumb rubber is made of ground-up, used tires that contain hazardous substances including the metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, zinc and other chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and phthalates. Recent studies conducted in Connecticut and New York have confirmed the presence of these substances on existing fields at levels exceeding current allowable NYS Department of Environmental Conservation limits.

* Health effects of these chemicals include immune system damage, cancer and endocrine disruption which is particularly more likely to occur during times of rapid cell proliferation (puberty). These substances enter the body via rapid breathing that takes place during exercise and also via the inhalation of this mix of chemical and metal laden dust that is kicked up during routine play. These rubber pellets have also been found in children’s clothes, mouth guards and in their cleats, providing for more portals of entry.

* Since fields are constructed of up to 10 tons of crumb rubber from used tires and since these same tires are prohibited from being disposed of in landfills and oceans, it is safe to say we are forcing these children to play on environmental waste.

* The NY State Assembly (A09503) and the NY State Senate (S6531) have introduced Bills calling for a 6-month moratorium on the installation of artificial turf fields that use crumb rubber as filler due to the unknown and potentially harmful effects that this substance has on human and environmental health. Precedent is being set by NYS, and here in Evesham, our elected officials seem to be dismissive about these very real health issues.

* It is known that artificial turf causes an increase in player injury due to “turf burns”. Turf has been implicated to be a breeding ground for MRSA, a virulent strain of Staphylococcus bacterium. Turf burns + MRSA = disaster. Due to this particular issue, turf needs to be cleaned with harsh and expensive chemicals that also have harmful effects.

* Temperatures on artificial fields have been documented to be upwards of 86.5 degrees (F) hotter than natural grass fields under identical conditions. For example, at one location, when the natural grass surface temperature was 93.5 degrees (F), the measured artificial field temperature was 180 degrees (F). This presents a plethora of problems such as outgassing which is the release of noxious fumes from the heated up crumb rubber. Serious injuries including heat exhaustion and foot burns have been documented. These incredibly high temperatures necessitate that the fields be hosed down prior to, during, and after each game of play. Does the requirement to have a field-watering system negate some of the projected cost-savings of artificial turf?

Due to the limited testing synthetic turf has been subjected to and because there are so many levels of concern regarding it’s safety on the population that uses this product (children), it is incumbent upon our township officials to act as good stewards of the environment and also as protectors of the health and safety of our community by halting the installation of artificial turf fields in Evesham until further studies prove it’s safety.