I was undecided about the use of artificial turf on athletic fields when I went to last week’s meeting of the Bainbridge Island School Board. I’m a soccer, football and lacrosse mom. I understand the advantages of plastic over natural turf in lower maintence costs for cash-starved school districts, and increased resilience that allows year-round play in our soggy climate.
But I also appreciate the environmental concerns raised by Bainbridge parents like Sarah Lane, whose thoughtful essays on the hazards of artificial turf (and other environmental topics) appear on her blog, on a ledge.
Several board members seemed intrigued by artificial-turf opponent Chris Van Dyke’s suggestion for a voter initiative that would increase island sales tax by a half-penny to raise money for the maintenance of natural turf fields. But in the end, the board approved the plan to install artificial turf on the high school athletic field.
I came away from the meeting thinking the school board may have handed the community an opportunity for compromise: the island’s only stadium field can have artificial turf and we’ll bring the rest of our fields up to snuff with natural turf.
Then I read about plastic in “The World Without Us,” Alan Weisman’s best-selling thought experiment about what would happen to the Earth if humans disappeared. There’s a reason plastic holds up so well to athletes and bad weather. It turned my stomach–and turned me completely against plastic fields.
For the first time I focused on the fact, made abundantly clear in the book, that plastic never biodegrades. That’s right. Never. At least not in any time frame that’s meaningful to human beings.
Quoting from the book:
Except for a small amount that’s been incinerated…every bit of plastic manufactured in the world for the last 50 years or so still remains. It’s somewhere in the environment.
Although plastic doesn’t biodegrade, it does photodegrade, breaking down into ever finer particles. But even single molecules aren’t digestible, so until some microbe finds a way to digest it, plastic will persist in the environment.
In spite of the torrent of plastic products manufactured since World War II, plastic accounts for only about 20% of what’s in our landfills, in part because it can be compressed so tightly. So where does it go?
It ends up in the ocean. Refuse from all over the Pacific Rim blows from garbage trucks, landfills and spilled shipping containers, sails down rivers and washes down storm drains to create the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” a swirling mass of garbage caught in ocean currents, estimated to be about 10 million square miles, and rapidly growing.
Scientists are finding plastic in the ocean’s tiniest creatures and all the way up the food chain. As marine consultant Curtis Ebbesmeyer said in a Seattle P-I article last year, “There’s no effective way to remove the plastic pollution, whether it’s in chunks or microscopic bits. Researchers say the solution is keeping it out of the water in the first place. And there’s good reason to do so: It’s on our dinner plates.”
It’s hard to read stuff like this, thinking about the cell phone and computer I’m not going to give up (and that I’ll replace every few years). Car parts, packaging of all kinds. Food containers. Most of my life’s conveniences. You can bet I’ll be looking for alternatives to plastic from now on.
But in any home, you’d be hard pressed to come up with an acre of plastic (actually more, because plastic is used underneath the turf too) in a single purchase. With public funds.
So what happens to the plastic in our new field at the end of its 10-year lifespan? Could I at least assuage my guilt knowing it’s all recycled, so less plastic is manufactured to begin with?
I contacted the Association of Artificial and Synthetic Grass Installers who wrote in an email:
After it is seen more “useful” days and needs to be replaced, today’s artificial grass surfaces are generally taken to “recyclers” that will take the turf fibers off the top of
the surface backings–those fibers are then REUSED in a variety of different products – just like plastic bottles can be reused and repurposed into fabrics (fleece and such)
so about 75% of its mass are recaptured for other uses.
Somehow, this doesn’t make me feel any better. The twenty-five percent (of more than an acre) that isn’t made into other plastic products–plus the any plastic in the backing, which is dumped–is still one heck of a lot of new plastic that we, the parents and citizens of Bainbridge Island, are bringing into the world. And some of it will undoubtedly swirl in the Pacific when today’s young soccer players are having kids of their own.
Ah well. The decision is made. As of last week, Van Dyke was vowing to fight on (see his comment to this post), bringing a real alternative to the debate, with as much as $700,000 a year in revenue for natural fields from his half-penny tax.
This is one soccer mom who’s signing his initiative.
This report was sent to me by the Association of Artificial and Synthetic Grass Installers, and referenced in my second comment below: sullivanreport.pdf
I just spoke to Tamela Van Winkle, the district’s Capital Projects Director. She said her team “read every resource sent to us” regarding possible risks, and they did their own research too. She emphasized the environmental problems associated with fertilizers and chemicals necessary for natural turf, as well as the fact that the district would need at least two more fields to have the same amount of playing time on one artificial field. That would mean clearing more acres of trees and habitat, plus the huge land and installation costs.
She admitted that drainage from the field, including the plastic and rubber pellets, would go into a subsurface drainage system. From there, runoff goes into the city stormwater system (not the sewage system) and into Puget Sound without any treatment. (she gets points here for candor!) The chemicals used on natural turf–or your lawn–take the same untreated route to the Sound.
This is a tough issue for the district. In weighing the risks and the benefits, she–and the School Board–come out differently than I do, but I understand their arguments. There is no perfect solution if we’re going to have fields.
There will be another opportunity for public comment during the SEPA process. She also told me that the Parks Department has had their SEPA in for artificial turf at Battlepoint for a couple of months. So there could be another field of plastic on our island.
While I do agree that the environmental impact of synthetic fields, and all plastics in the environment, has yet to be determined, I do have to disagree with you when it comes to your description of Sarah Lane’s article “Home Turf Disadvantage” as being thoughtful. It is always a red flag when someone does not provide any references to back claims up with, something this article is completely void of. It is easy to make claims when you don’t have to prove that they are correct.
Here are a few examples.
“But many studies, most notably the study conducted by the Journal of Clinical Microbiology in 2000, have found that MRSA survives better on artificial turf than on other surfaces”. The study refered to is this http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/724?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=mrsa&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=1/1/2000&tdate=12/31/2000&resourcetype=HWCIT. This is a study of MRSA survival on common hospital materials. Artificial turf is not mentioned with a single word. Any microbiologist can tell you that growth conditions for bacteria on a surface indoors under optimal conditions is something completely different than growth conditions on the same material outdoors where temperature, humidity, UV and ozone exposure will be of a different magnitude. The two are not related.
“It (Benzopyrene) also suppresses the gene that controls cell growth and, according to Dr. William M. Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health Sciences University, has been linked to half of all human cancers and up to 70 percent of lung cancers”. The study referred to is this http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5286/430. This is a study of exposure to benzopyrene from cigarette smoke, not synthetic turf. Yes, synthetic turf may contain benzopyrene, but the magnitude compared to direct exposure to cigarettes is again not quite comparing apples to apples. What is also inaccurate is the statement that “(benzopyrene) has been linked to half of all human cancers and up to 70 percent of lung cancers.” What the paper states, and more recent research has shown, is that benzopyrene may lead to mutations in a gene called p53, a tumor suppressor, and that mutated p53 may contribute to lung cancer. It is not stated anywhere that benzopyrene has been linked 70% of all lung cancers (p53 can substation mutations by many other mechanisms, and it is debatable that it is linked to 70% of all lung cancers).
These are a couple of the references that I have been able to find. Please provide the others. Some of us are capable of understanding the science and can make our own judgment. Take this one for example “A study conducted last year by Dr. William Crane of the City College of New York and Dr. Junfeng Zhang of Rutgers University determined that a FieldTurf surface in Manhattan’s Riverside Park contained polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and toxic metals.” Where has this been published? I find no references in PubMed.
Do not get me wrong, I do not solely accuse the “anti-turf” side of being un-scientific. This goes across the board. If you make statements such as “many studies have shown that….” without providing proof thereof I’m simply not going to believe it. That is in my opinion the prudent approach.
You’re right that people sometimes cite studies and other written material that don’t support their argument.
I also agree this goes for both sides of this and most other controversies. In an email to me from the Association of Artificial and Synthetic Grass Installers, a portion of which I quoted in my article, there was also this:
I attached a report for you to read, if interested
Share it with anyone you like
the significance of this report is
1. no one in our industry wrote this
2. it was commissioned by the natural turf growers to put the use of artificial grass using crumb rubber infill materials in a bad light
3. i spoke directly to Dr Sullivan, who wrote the report, and his conclusion is written towards the back – though he was supposed to pull together all this “scathing” info on the hazards of fields for the organization that hired him to compile his thoughts and info – his conclusion – “no trouble found”
I read the report they sent (which I’ve posted at the end of my article) and could not find any indication that the author concluded “no trouble found.” To the contrary, there were statements like these:
“Inhalation of small particles of tire rubber can also be harmful” (page 28), “Additional work is required to assess whether exposure to tire rubber…(can) lead to harmful effects for children or athletes.” “Little or no work has been done to consider toxicity…to birds, mammals or reptiles. In sufficient quantities…tire rubber incorporated into soil will inhibit plant growth or…cause plant death.” (both on p. 28)
“The degree to which tire rubber can lead to environmental contamination is currently not clear…(and) needs further research to determine the potential harm on human health or the environment.”(from the concluding paragraph).
The study author lists significant unknowns about the impact of recycled tire infill. That’s not at all the same as saying he’s found no trouble. I didn’t hear back after I asked the Association to back up their characterization of the report.
I didn’t write about this aspect because the school district is considering using recycled athletic shoes instead of tires, to respond to the concerns people have raised.
In any case, as a lay person, I can’t evaluate the science and weigh in on the battle of the experts.
What I do know is that garbage is garbage. That’s why plastic is the deciding factor for me. The obvious environmental impact of the of millions of tons of plastics in our oceans is NOT “yet to be determined” as you claim (though more research can tell us more details). Untold numbers of sea creatures get tangled, choked, maimed and killed in this floating dump. Time Magazine quotes David Laist, of the Marine Mammal Commission: “Plastics may be as great a source of mortality among marine mammals as oil spills, heavy metals or other toxic materials.”
Do we need more research before we know not to eat inedible plastic? And that we should worry about other creatures eating it?
Easily the most comprehensive and objective report on the impacts of artificial turf, and more specifically, crumb rubber infill is that put out by http://www.ehhi.org
I try to understand the science, and find myself relying on the resumes of the writers–in this case, the Board members of EHHI are nationally prominent scientists, toxicologists, public health professionals and others, many of whom are connected with the Yale Medical School.
You can choose whom not to believe. In this instance, given the higher duty a school board has in that we require attendance at school of children and that they “play” on a field–the same argument goes for retrofitting buildings to current earthquake standards–if there is doubt about a product and its introduction into the school environment, you have to err on the side of caution.
Take whatever risk you want with your kid. My preference, simply put, is that mine not be required to play sports in or on a used tire recycling facility. That’s not what my school taxes are supposed to be going toward…..
The New York Times reported last week that NYC’s Parks Department was “suspending the use of rubber infill synthetic turf in all parks capital projects.” New York has been dealing with the same criticism and concern from citizens as on BI. The article says the Parks Department has asked “the city health department to investigate potential health and safety problems associated with the synthetic material, even as it continued to insist the surfaces were safe.”
You can read the article here.
In Navels, I am sitting in the main town square, Piazza del Plebiscito (the place where members of the electorate gathered for important votes) wondering if Ezra and I could start a business importing used astro grass.
There are a lot of roof top verandas in Navels. Nothing but old clay tiles on the floor. I thought something green and cheerful for the rooftops! Ezra said he would bring it up at the highest levels of government. He says that when he doesn’t want to be bothered.
I have other ideas, too. I’m holding back. I’m hungry for news. I asked Ezra if he could write more like Citizen Scales. Ezra said I should go to Bainbridge and shop for astro grass. The Italians have style! They need astro grass.
The front page of the International Tribune says nothing about astro grass, today. But Pakistan is still angry US airstrikes bombed Pakistani troops by accident last week. Ezra would call this, “cheek”. “We killed a few soldiers in the line of duty,” he says.
British inflation is highest in 10 years; not to be out-done, Michigan University Survey on Consumers shows the 2nd gloomiest reading in history. MBIA, the big bond insurance company, may have a call on its $137 billion in privately traded insurance swaps.
I asked Ezra if our Bainbridge bonds were safe. He said, “Read the red herring”. I hate it when he treats me like a fishwife.
I don’t know if basketball players can use astro grass, but there it is, the Celtics beat the Lakers, center, front page photo. This is international news for Americans abroad and bored.
Penny, you will need to search elsewhere, or wait a while, for used astro grass from Bainbridge. The City has just determined that the Park District’s “Grade and Fill building permit to resurface two existing sand/ rubber soccer fields with artificial turf systems” at Battle Point Park “does not have a probable significant impact on the environment if measures to mitigate the proposal are used”.
But perhaps when you get home, you could start cutting some samples from the fields to send to Navels. Unless they don’t allow toxic imports.
Based on last night’s turn of events, there was a shift — Peters, Stocknes and Franz were on the side of limited cautious government. Good for you Barry !!
Subject: Denial of Van Dyk new sales-tax initiative
Barry — I applaud your articulation why Van Dyk’s initiative was fatally flawed and should not move forward. It is not for our government to trail blaze. If Van Dyk wants to sue and get the legal findings to support is position, that is fine. If COBI wants to change your procedures to allow citizen initiatives, that is fine also but it must be at the end of a studied and proscribed legal process. You prevented COBI from doing another ACT IN HASTE — REPENT AT LEISURE. Currently COBI is dealing with far too many lawsuits and challenges and we don’t need Van Dyk’s project taking away further energy.
Again, thanks where thanks is due.
Get the fields funded and get those youth and adults out there 7x24x365.
JMO
It’s a bonus in a way, isn’t it, because it’s ‘free’ money. Rotarians reportedly donated $50,000 toward artificial turf on Bainbridge in a move from Back to the Future.
Anne Boleyn said, “Let them eat cake,” when her subjects rioted for bread.
This was reported in error. What Anne really said was, “Let them play on artificial turf”.
Ezra Pound Foolish says $50,000 capital in this market is enough for a challenge matching grant to replace Serenity House. Add that to COBI Senior Management bonuses, and you have an attractive campaign pledge for a $1M capital campaign.
I can’t quibble over multipliers. Ezzie says “The good ink from a community services turn-around in hard times should be worth $10-$50M/10yrs in exogenous revenews”. Ezra is so smart. He writes for the government.
I say, rename us, “Island-in-Excess-Without-Shame” Island.
Or “Island-Gets-One-Wish-Asks-for-Artificial-Turf” Island. Ezra won’t let me use Bainbridge Island on our letterhead anymore. He has no idea how impossible it is to run for office today as a citizen of the world.
Ciao from Navels, Penny and Ezzie
Igo Wafat Island is my new copyright & registered real estate sales campaign for paradise.
I can see a chamber website now, “Come to Igo Wafat Island. Another Sound Paradise”. And, “Walk picturesque and mysterious Madrone Lane”, (while it’s still here).
Igo Wafat Island, The “Island-Gets-One-Wish-Asks-for-Artificial-Turf” Island.
How do you like them apples? I may even partner up with Estee Lauder for a development in Lynwood. “Eve and Estee Estates”. We’re waiting for Moses to hook up the water.
Damnation! The announcement of my sales campaign belongs as a comment under City Actions Speak post.
The Devil made me do it.
Ezra Pound Foolish says $50,000 donated to economically stressed Copper Top Loopers would buy a lot of instant mashed potatoes.
“The real question is, ‘Why buy them instant mashed potatoes, when you can teach them how to plant a potato tree somewhere else, like NYC?’”.
I told Ezra that we would be eating instant mashed potatoes if we lose our affordable housing in Navels. Then I reminded him not to eat instant mashed potatoes, because he is diabetic.
I love Ezra! He has style. He writes for the government.
Ciao from Navels, Penny and Ezzie
Hi I am a yr11 student currently studying a course called CiDA and I would be delighted if I could have permission to use the pictures in this article. Thank you. =]