Lingering questions hang over artificial turf

Michael Arace

According to the Ohio High School Athletic Association, 146 of its member schools that own stadiums have installed fake grass. It makes me cranky.

I am wondering why any athletic director wouldn’t buy a few cubic yards of high-quality Kentucky bluegrass seed, have it expertly planted and fertilized, hose it down every once in a

while and let nature do its work. Real grass costs less in the long run. Plus, you get grass and mud stains — old-time badges of honor. Beautiful.

Instead, scores and scores of schools and park systems have opted to spend $500,000 to $1 million, per field, on grass that is crafted from petroleum and crumb-filled with pulverized old tires. You don’t have to be a member of the Sierra Club to wonder what the offshoot of these chemical wonderlands will be in 10, 15 or 20 years. These fields have a shelf life, and the replacement costs include the disposal of tons of unrecyclable garbage that ultimately will wind up in the Pacific plastic-trash vortex — but will never leech into local watershed, because that could never happen. No.

Lead paint often was used to make artificial turf look greener and prettier before a lawsuit put a halt to the practice in 2010. Yet questions about the safety of petroleum-rubber fields persist. If you are the parent of an offensive lineman or a field hockey fullback and you have watched your kid brush rubber pellets out of a road rash, or spit some of those crumbs out of his/her mouth, you might have paused to think.

It should be noted — and it must be stressed — that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that artificial fields pose a health risk to our children. The best overview I located is at the website for the New York Department of Health (www.health.ny.gov). It covers heat stress, injury, infection, latex allergy and chemical exposure issues. It cites studies conducted by university researchers, medical journals, parks departments and environmental-health experts, both here and abroad. It summarizes that — at present, and based on the best available information — there is little to suggest that crumb-rubber synthetic fields pose a publichealth hazard. Just remember to stay hydrated when the field temperature reaches 150 degrees.

If you are as cranky as I, you notice stories that keep popping up on the periphery of the subject. Some of them have to do with pesky activists who point out that crumb rubber from old tires can contain up to 33 chemicals — hydrocarbons, solvents, metals, etc. — that the Center for Environmental Health considers hazardous. If you are among the curious, I found material at saferchemicals.org that raised interesting questions without being the least bit preachy.

NBC News has been reporting on the subject for more than a year. The hook on its storyline is an eye-grabber: Soccer coach Amy Griffin — former U.S. national team member and now an assistant at the University of Washington — keeps a list of soccer players who have played on crumb-rubber turf and have been diagnosed with various forms of cancer. The list has grown 63 names, most of them goalies. Why goalies? Nobody knows.

This week, a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives asked the Environmental Protection Agency to prepare responses to questions regarding the safety of crumb rubber. The EPA response is due by Nov. 6, which is good. Maybe, and finally, we will have a clear public position on the subject. Imagine that.

The intent here is not to frighten. Again: There is no scientific study that says bits of recycled tires can cause cancer — or trigger asthma attacks, pose a greater threat of infection and so forth.

I’m just cranky, and I’ve got a bag of fescue and a garden hose, and if you want to dance on fake grass, that is your choice. Just stay off my lawn.

Michael Arace is a sports reporter for The Dispatch.