Over the last two decades, I’ve worked as an early childhood educator and as a volunteer advocating for policies and practices that support the well-being of all children. To my mind, children’s well-being is inextricably linked to public health and environmental issues so I’ve accumulated a bit of information about these and have developed a tendency to ponder the repercussions of various products and practices.
In recent years, my interest in gardening and nature drew me to a few very informative presentations about the dangers of synthetic lawn chemicals and pesticides developed and marketed after WWII and the alternative approach of organic lawn care. Separate but somewhat related, I attended a lecture at the Museum of Natural History by Marcus Eriksen, one of the researchers studying plastic pollution in the ocean and other bodies of water.
As I learned more about organic turf care, I accidentally learned more about artificial (synthetic) turf and its sudden ubiquity. While I learned about the exorbitant cost of artificial turf and its many negative health and environmental implications from numerous public health and environmental experts, I also learned that others have the false impression that not only are there no negatives to artificial turf, but that there are no good alternatives. I wondered to myself, how did this happen? I have some ideas.
As I began a process of sharing my findings with my local school leaders, I learned that Gradient Corporation is one entity defending the safety of artificial turf. A little research revealed that Gradient Corporation also defended arsenic in wood, the smokeless cigarette and BPA in plastic. Apparently, companies hire Gradient to defend their products and protect them from future liability.
I suspect that many schools and communities had been using a combination of synthetic fertilizers and/or pesticides to treat their playing fields. Even without pesticides, synthetic fertilizers alone will destroy the microbial life of the soil, cause quick but shallow root growth, and then lead to soil compaction and a vicious cycle of drainage and pest problems. And of course, many of these fields are under constant and heavy use, which leads to further compaction. Consequently, athletic directors found themselves with playing fields in very poor condition and in need of total renovation. Synthetic turf likely seemed the only alternative. One community adopted it and with reassurance about its efficacy from Gradient Corporation and the industry itself, others followed.
However, thanks to many developments in organic turf care in recent years, there is an alternative way to effectively renovate and maintain a beautiful, real grass playing field safely and organically at one-third to one-half the cost of artificial turf. Many communities have done this and are doing it. I’ve asked my own school leaders to consider this approach as one of its options for a field in dire need of renovation. To me, it is irresponsible for school and community leaders to consider only the options of the status quo, a chemically-based lawn care program or synthetic turf. They should consider all of the available options and all of the pros and cons for each with the overarching goal of “doing no harm” to the current or future generations whether it relates to health, landfill space, implications for the watershed, and more. Even if they don’t want to follow the Iroquois practice of considering the implications for the seventh generation ahead, they should at least look a few generations ahead.
Below is a summary of what I’ve learned about a real grass vs. a synthetic turf renovation:
Artificial turf fields cost between $500,000-$1,000,000. There are hidden costs for disposal after 10 years. My school district has a quote for $750,000 for one field (without maintenance and disposal costs, this amounts to $75,000/year). Oddly, many school and community leaders have balked at annual maintenance costs for real grass yet are willing to spend far more for disposable, synthetic turf. A premium organic renovation with real grass would cost approximately $300,000.
Both types of fields require maintenance and maintenance costs are similar:
Synthetic turf requires additional infill, irrigation due to high temperatures, application of disinfectants(in many cases, these are harmful pesticides that will then be tracked into school buildings and/or homes, endangering the school population’s health), sprays to reduce static cling and odors, drainage repair and maintenance, removing organic matter accumulation, repairs of seams.
Organically maintained grass will require natural fertilization to support the microbial life in the soil, aeration, overseeding, mowing and depending upon the weather, watering. With high quality seeds and care, maintenance costs usually decrease over time. It is a natural system and requires no cleaning; the microbial life of the soil can help to break down body fluid spills, animal feces, etc.
Before 2010, many synthetic turf companies used lead paint to paint the plastic grass blades green (they took the lead out when faced with a lawsuit). See CDC recommendations for safer use of older fields with lead paint below.
Many fields contain crumb rubber infill (crumb rubber is made of hazardous waste) which contains toxic chemicals with health hazards identified by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. The Center of Environmental Health lists 33 chemicals including metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic solvents and various others. Next to each chemical is its associated harm whether cancer, genetic damage, or reproductive harm, or as is the case with most of them, some combination of these. Public health and environmental experts are concerned that athletes are inhaling, ingesting or absorbing these toxins, and tracking them into their homes. Children are more vulnerable to toxins and are unable to process them due to their rapidly developing bodies and organ systems. The negative health effects might not show up for years, but public health pediatricians now recognize that even low exposures to toxins can have dire long-term consequences for children and their offspring.
Ironically, the city of Cleveland closed a playing field (grass) last year after soil tests revealed traces of PAHs (industrial waste byproducts), many of which have been found in artificial turf playing fields, and estimated clean-up costs at $1.5 million.
Dr. Philip Landrigan, renowned pediatrician and director of Mount Sinai’s Children’s Environmental Health Center, has cited three additional concerns – dangerous temperatures (exceeding 150 degrees F on warm days), staph infections (from abrasions and turf burns) and injuries such as turf toe. He recommends that communities delay installing more of these fields “until questions about their safety have been studied more thoroughly.” See recommendations from the Children’s Environmental Health Center for safer use of such fields (below).
Synthetic turf fields need to be replaced and discarded about every 10 years. Disposal costs can be considerable, especially for those using crumb rubber infill since it is made of hazardous waste (not including the hidden costs of the space all of these will occupy in landfills nationwide). One report cites a disposal cost of $130,000.
Synthetic turf fields are made of petroleum. Even without crumb rubber infill, the chemicals used to make the fields will break down to some degree under heavy use and end up in our watershed or air. Real organically maintained grass filters the air and water, but it requires mowing with gas-powered machines for part of the year and this is problematic. I’m hoping for more efficient and less polluting lawn care equipment in the coming years.
Synthetic turf can reach dangerous temperatures on hot days and should not be used in these conditions.
Synthetic turf can better withstand unlimited use/play each day. No matter how well cared for, real grass requires some rest.
Water use is an issue for both types of fields. Synthetic turf requires cleaning with water mixed with disinfectants. The industry now also sells water cannons to use on hot days (which works to cool the field for about 20 minutes). With the right seed and weather, one may be able to decrease water usage for real grass. Water conservation systems such as gray water and rain reclamation systems could be incorporated (perhaps more easily with real grass than artificial turf).
Because my world view leads me to believe that when it comes to children, the environment and public health, it is safer to err on the side of caution and to reduce unnecessary exposure to toxins, I believe that a beautifully, thoroughly renovated organic turf field is a better option for my community. As it turns out, it’s better for its fiscal health as well.
_________________________
Recommendations for safer use of artificial turf fields now:
From the Children’s Environmental Health Center:
· Do not use the artificial turf fields on hot days (at temperatures in the 80s and 90s F).
· Be sure to clean and monitor any “turf burns” obtained while playing.
· Attempt to remove all pellets from shoes and clothes prior to leaving the fields.
· At home, shake out your children’s equipment and clothes in the garage or over the garbage.
· Have your child shower and wash thoroughly after playing on the field.
For fields built before 2010 that may have lead in them, the Centers for Disease Control also recommends the following:
· Clothes worn on the field should be taken off and turned inside out as soon as possible after using the field to avoid tracking contaminated dust to other places. In vehicles, people can sit on a large towel or blanket if it is not feasible to remove their clothes. These clothes, towels, and blankets should be washed separately and shoes worn on the field should be kept outside of the home.
· Eating on the field or turf product is discouraged.
· Avoid contaminating drinking containers with dust and fibers from the field. When not drinking, close them and keep them in a bag, cooler, or other covered container on the side of the field.
Leave a Reply