NOW we know why it wasn't approved by everyone.....
Environmental impact of synthetic turf to be studiedBY JENNIFER SMITH | jennifer.smith@newsday.com; Staff write
May 1, 2008
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: The state's environmental agency has started work on a study to assess the environmental impact of ground-up tires used in modern synthetic turf fields.
Dozens of these fields have been installed across Long Island in recent years.
Department of Environmental Conservation officials said yesterday that the agency took up the issue after state lawmakers raised concerns about potentially toxic and carcinogenic components - such as arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc - in the rubber crumbs that cushion the fields. Some fear that the chemicals may leach into groundwater or vaporize into inhalable gases.
"We don't know what the environmental implications are for the long term," said Assemb. Steve Englebright (D-Setauket), who has sponsored a bill calling for a six-month moratorium on the turf until a comprehensive study can be completed.
Scrap tires are used in most of the new types of synthetic turf fields, which are increasingly popular because they require little maintenance and hold up under heavy rain and extended play.
At least 60 such fields have been installed on Long Island since 2001, according to LandTek, an Amityville distributor of the most popular type of synthetic turf. New York City has a number of crumb rubber fields. There are about 150 statewide, said DEC spokeswoman Maureen Wren.
The DEC study, which was approved in November, will use laboratory and field tests to assess whether the crumbs leach toxics into groundwater or release volatile chemicals into the air. Work should be completed by the end of the year, Wren said.
At the same time, state health researchers are conducting a review of existing literature on crumb rubber fields, said Health Department spokeswoman Claudia Hutton.
Artificial turf manufacturers say the playing surfaces pose no risk to children or athletes, citing studies by European governments, as well as those funded by turf and sports industry groups. But little independent research has been done in the United States on the potential health and environmental consequences of crumb rubber.
"We know the chemicals are there," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan. "Where the debate really settles is whether they're getting from the fields into the kids, and whether they pose an actual hazard."
Shira Miller, a spokeswoman for the Synthetic Turf Council, said the Atlanta-based industry group welcomed the study. "The truth is that science is on our side," said Miller, adding that the New York State research should clarify any remaining questions about the safety of the product.
Scrutiny of artificial turf increased earlier this month, with news of high lead levels in older AstroTurf fields in New Jersey and Syracuse, which do not contain crumb rubber.
Rich Rothe, athletic director for Lindenhurst public schools, said he has heard of no health concerns regarding the synthetic field the district installed a few years ago. Still, Rothe said, "If the state turns something up, either positive or negative, it only benefits the coaches and the players to have that study done."
Staff writer Laura Albanese contributed to this story.
TALE OF THE TURF
HYBRID FIEBER: Polyethylene and polypropylene blend treated to be soft, strong and nonabrasive. Players can slide without fear of turf burns.
AREA OF POTENTIAL PROBLEM
FIELDTURF INFILL: Mixture of silica sand and ground rubber supports the hybrid filters like natural earth, while providing stability and long wear.
At the end of last year, FieldTurf had installed 38 fields in New York. Here's a look at the factors administrators need to consider before getting a new surface.
PROS:
There's no need for watering, application of pesticides and seeding to keep up the field.
Cheaper maintenance: yearly upkeep of a grass field costs around $50,000 per year while turf fields cost about $5,000 to maintain per year.
The fields are equipped with drainage systems, which means that teams can play in the rain or after a downpour, leading to fewer postponements.
There are no divots or uneven surfaces that can lead to bad ball hops or injuries.
CONS:
There are escalating health concerns due to the presence of lead, cadmium and arsenic in the ground-up tires used for infill.
Turf can cost somewhere between $700,000 to $1 million to install, while grass fields cost about $250,000 -$300,000 to put in.
There is some risk of higher field temperatures in turf.
Studies conducted on turf have left open questions as to its safety in more extreme conditions (for instance, excessive heat) and have used a limited number of samples. - Laura Albanese