I believe it was irresponsible for the regional high school committee to approve phase one of MV@Play’s plan.
I believe it was irresponsible for the regional high school committee to approve phase one of MV@Play’s plan, about which many significant details remain unknown and many valid concerns have been raised. I hope the Martha’s Vineyard Commission will now take a hard look at the potential long-term health and environmental consequences.
Related to this, I am dismayed by the tone of the debate over the last month, particularly the involvement of high school leaders and coaches advocating for one “side” and framing the discussion in adversarial terms. The result of that influence was clearly on display at the two PAC meetings. It seemed as though students had been led to believe that those concerned about artificial turf do not want to improve field conditions or act on student athletes’ behalf. Sadly, it also seemed they were being taught that environmental impact should be secondary to expediency.
In the rush to push this decision through, several myths appear to be informing the conversation.
Myth 1: Dissenting opinions are not valid. School leaders, elected officials, parents, and athletes unilaterally dismissed 600-plus perspectives (online petition signatures and comments as well as opinions expressed at the PAC meetings) by stating that dissenters don’t understand the current state of some fields, are fear-mongering, don’t support athletics, are hippies unwilling to embrace change, or aren’t even from the Island community. Contrary to one passionate parent’s insinuation that my (atomic bomb-surviving) Japanese in-laws’ concern regarding chemical exposure was not relevant, those at a distance are arguably more easily able to see how fundamentally misguided it is to install plastic carpeting to address the issue of neglected fields.
Myth 2: Artificial turf fields with plant-derived infill are safe. It is shocking that anyone in this day and age could deny the inherent negatives associated with plastic fields. This is the replacement of (cooling, oxygen-producing, carbon dioxide-absorbing) grass and dirt with a foot of rock overlaid with synthetic fiber made from petrochemicals and treated with flame retardants and lead, which is then routinely maintained with chemical antimicrobials, static conditioners, solvents, fungicides, and RoundUp (recommended in FieldTurf’s “Maintenance Guidelines”). And those are just the ones we are aware of. According to David Heath, in an article published by VICE News and the Center for Public Integrity, “While there are more than 80,000 chemicals available for commercial use, the EPA over the past 30 years has assessed the health risks of only 570.” Please. It doesn’t matter how many studies the artificial turf industry underwrites or how many white coats they hire; we have got to be smarter than this.
Myth 3: Our children need pristine playing fields. While I appreciate the appeal of perfectly groomed fields, that is neither a realistic nor appropriate goal for our community. The all or nothing attitude (i.e. fields remain in a state of dangerous neglect or be replaced by million-dollar installations that rival the best golf courses) does not allow for a happy medium where fields are upgraded and better maintained for safety — with a few game fields kept in even better condition. This is real life, where perfect bounces don’t exist and perfection isn’t a virtue. Learning to cope with manageable obstacles cultivates psychological resilience, which allows children to rebound from adversity as strengthened and more resourceful individuals. As the high school’s incredible athletic success attests, our children’s strength lies not in their school facilities, but in their determination, athleticism, coaching, and resilience.
Fortunately, the current debate has brought the important issue of field maintenance to the forefront. Everyone knows the high school needs a new track. Quickly. But there are lots of ways to skin this cat. We need to take a good look at all the resources we have — pre-existing playing fields around the Island, generous donors, landscapers experienced in green methods, town monies, a horticulture vocational program — and build a sustainable plan from there. Already many Islanders are coming forward with innovative ways to get involved.
It’s time to stop drinking the artificial turf Kool Aid. Perhaps we should follow the wise example of Concord, Littleton, Medway, and other towns that are passing three-year moratoriums on the installation of artificial turf fields. Let’s put our heads and wallets together to make this project something of which the entire community can be truly proud.
Rebekah Thomson
West Tisbury
Comments
Well written Rebekah, thank
Susan Desmarais Oak BluffsWell written Rebekah, thank you.
Beautifully written. I look
Sarah Waldman Vineyard HavenBeautifully written. I look forward to watching my two sons (currently ages 5 and 2) play hard and proud for Martha's Vineyard on grass turf.
I was in the process of
Elizabeth McBride West TisburyI was in the process of writing my own letter to the editor when I saw this letter and Rebekah is so much more eloquent than I, that I immediately deleted my letter. I do want to add and emphasize a couple of points, however.
Firstly, I, too, am dismayed by the behavior of some, and the tone that this debate has taken. We all deserve to be heard and respected. The cyber-bullying, the mocking, the out-right bullying, and the wielding of power to which some have stooped is very disappointing to me. I thought we were all above that, and that we, as parents would be better role models and try to raise our children to be thoughtful and respectful to each other and to adults. This has not been the case in this debate thus far.
Let’s all agree that there is a lot of common ground. We all want better facilities, and we all want our children to be able play. Nobody is trying to thwart progress. We are all in violent agreement on that subject.
I stand on the side of natural grass for reasons beyond safety. I know that I am not going to change anyone’s mind on that issue. Sides have been taken and nobody seems to be budging. I just think that grass is a better surface for athletes.
Having lived in the UK for eleven years where “football” reigns supreme, my children never played on synthetic grass. Natural grass was the preferred choice because it IS “slightly unpredictable and makes for better control and better skills. It varies in condition through the seasons and makes for a better all round player and game.” This from the English coach, Terry Brazier, with whom I started the first female Ascot United soccer league. Though synthetic is quicker and can teach the athletes better reaction time, it is not realistic. We could actually be putting our athletes at a disadvantage by not coaching them on natural grass in all the different weather conditions. Sometimes “pitches” are soft, sometimes they’re hard, or slow, or fast or slick, or bumpy. That’s real life; that’s real soccer....or field hockey, football or lacrosse. Athletes need to learn how to deal with it all to become better players and advance to higher levels.
And, furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right in my gut to cover up natural grass with concrete and plastic. And I’m sure if everyone really thought hard about it, it wouldn’t feel right to them either. When is fake EVER better than real. It just seems so obvious to me.
I, too, think we can do better. Grass is the better choice and I think there are ways to make that happen. But let's all agree that we just want to let the children play!
Well said, Rebecca.
Daniel Cooney West TisburyWell said, Rebekah.
The subject of natural grass
Robert Smith EdgartownThe subject of natural grass vs synthetic turf is very complicated and there are wide ranging and strong opinions on both sides. MV@PLAY sifted through much of the available information and only used the science from independent, published, peer reviewed studies. These studies are from universities and governmental agencies. All studies from synthetic turf and natural grass industries were disqualified as were opinion papers that were not data but are masquerading a “science”.
When MV@PLAY started the process we looked at all options. Natural grass was the first option we considered and that is why we have chosen natural grass for 65% of the athletic campus fields. We had meetings with Jeff Carlson who is a natural grass expert and we showed him the use that each field would be asked to handle. He was clear the only way to handle this amount of use would be with a combination of synthetic turf multi-sport fields and natural grass fields.
Rebekah’s letter is beautifully written but unfortunately, somewhat misleading, inaccurate or misrepresentations. I will attempt to address each of these items.
• Today’s synthetic turf fibers are lead free.
• Rebekah’s comments regarding the use of antimicrobial, static conditioners, solvents, fungicides & RoundUp is an incorrect representation of what actually is used on thousands of outdoor synthetic turf fields. Most facilities do not use any of these products at all and when they are used it is typically associated with indoor facilities.
• Penn State study debunks Staph bacteria scare in synthetic turf.
It should be noted that S. aureus survival rate on a common natural grass species used for athletic fields in the Northern United States was comparable to the survival rate on synthetic turf when no disinfectants were applied.
http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/turf/extension/factsheets/…
• There are many examples of facilities using both natural grass and synthetic turf fields that are required to test monitoring wells placed around both surfaces. These water quality results without question favor synthetic turf fields as being significantly lower impact. Grass field monitoring wells show elevated nitrogen & phosphorous levels and a much higher percentage of run off. Synthetic fields show no elevated levels of fertilizers or turf compounds.
• Our children do need safe well maintained fields that are equal to what their opponents play on. The Vineyard should not be fooled into accepting inferior playing surfaces as a character or skill building tools.
• Cost of maintenance & replacement of the synthetic turf at the end of its life is comparable to the cost of maintaining natural grass fields.
• The towns of Concord, Littleton and Medway did not place a moratorium on synthetic turf fields. Concord has a three-year moratorium on using crumb rubber infill. Littleton & Medway have yet to vote on the same issue (CRUMB RUBBER INFILL)
• MV@PAY proposal does not include crumb rubber infill. The infill is an organic mixture of sand, cork & coconut husk.
• I would like to warn all of you who may have concerns in the use of artificial turf to take a couple of hours and do your own research. It doesn’t matter which side you favor just read the independent scientific data that is available and make an informed decision. It is clear that nobody should rely on letters to the editor as facts.
Spike,
Rebekah Thomson West TisburySpike,
While I believe that MV@Play is trying to do right by this community, I fear MV@Play has been misguided by Gale Associates and the artificial turf industry with which they are so closely aligned. Last week I saw Merchants of Doubt (http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Patricia-Callahan/dp/B00YO2IC3W/r… ) at the Film Society. I strongly recommend that everyone who thinks artificial turf might be a good idea do the same. It is eye opening and the sheds an important light on the artificial turf debate going on around the world. One known merchant of doubt, working for Gradient Consulting, has already weighed in via a letter to the editor here. Understand that there is absolutely nothing that they can say that will make me believe that artificial turf — regardless of the infill -- is safe.
To the points raised in this comment...
-The turf industry admitted as recently as three months ago that there is still lead in their product: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I6C869I3Q. While it is supposed to be under the 50ppm limit, there is no measurement nor enforcement, and the CDC has repeatedly said there is no safe level of exposure to lead. In 2008, three major manufacturers admitted to producing AT with lead levels more than 5,000 parts per million (more than 10 times state and federal guidelines for content in children’s products). That kind of track record doesn’t inspire much confidence. http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-reaches-settlement-reduce-c…
-No solvents, antimicrobials, static conditioners, fungicides, nor RoundUp are used on outdoor artificial turf fields as detailed in the Maintenance Manual? Please then explain, in detail, exactly what chemicals will be used to maintain the carpet so as not to void the warranty and what biocides will be used to prevent the build up of bacteria, bodily fluids, animal droppings that inevitably accumulate on artificial turf? How will gum be removed if not with solvents?
-Despite being outrageously skewed in favor of artificial turf, even Gale Associate’s presentation indicates the grass and artificial turf are comparable in price. In an objective cost analysis that accounts for an 8-year life cycle based on the warranty and actual maintenance and replacement costs for artificial turf with plant based infill, grass is undeniably cheaper. And fortunately, given advancements in grass turf maintenance, the collective experience of many local landscapers, and the very strict regulations on the island, it is possible to safely maintain grass fields without poisoning the environment or the children playing on it.
-The unidentified plant-based infill that MV@Play is proposing to use cannot in good faith be referred to as organic. There is no regulation of such terms in the artificial turf industry, there is no way to verify the source of PBI or its contents, and the fact that it contains silica, a known lung hazard and recognized as a carcinogen by the EPA, should be enough to give everyone pause. Let’s not forget this is the same industry that has made a fortune selling toxic waste (tires) to playgrounds, parks and schools for 50 years. It’s hard to imagine that these companies are now truly going green.
There is much more to write, but it is my hope that our community can come together and invest in grass fields where WE can actually control our environmental impact and minimize the chemicals to which our children are exposed.
Robert Smith is drinking the
AnonymousRobert Smith is drinking the synthetic turf Koolaid. Here's proof one: lead IS in synthetic turf as of 2016. https://youtu.be/OHpzL9Y7YQw
Add new comment