Did You
Know?
No. 2
The following information has been obtained from multiple sources, i.e., FOIL
requests,
District documents or other reliable sources as noted:
Mt. Pleasant Central School District
Dr. Guiney and the Mount Pleasant Central School District Board of Education have been advocating the installation of artificial turf fields at WHS and WMS with nighttime lighting for our children to play and participate in sporting events, but did you know the following about these fields (Source: MPCSD Bulletin dated Nov. 2014 School Bond Issue)
Just check current news accounts about the toxicity that may be in
some of the material used in the manufacturing of artificial turf. Most noteworthy is an article in The Examiner by Matthew K. Finkelstein, Esq. and Alicia (Aliki)
Samios, Esq. dated November 21, 2014 regarding artificial turf located in
several locations in the Pleasantville School District. We encourage all to
read this article and conduct your own research. (Source: http://www.theexaminernews.com/a-call-for-safer-playing-fields-at-pleasantvilles-schools-is-prudent/ )
Note: Always remember it is important
to verified sources and corroborate all information obtained. One should always
pay close attention to internals used. While Finkelstein and Samios have addressed one issue that is of paramount importance to the safety and welfare of our children, we would like to address two other very important issues regarding turf fields; the first being the likelihood of the physical injuries that occur when playing on artificial turf fields, and the second being the true cost of these fields.
Did you know that your child is more
likely to suffer a physical injury playing on an artificial turf field than on
a traditional grass field? There are
numerous studies that support this assessment. Did you know NFL players suffer
more injuries on turf fields then grass? Just review these remarks from a
Reuter’s article.
"He and his colleagues used data from the NFL's injury surveillance
system, which covered 2,680 games played on grass or FieldTurf between 2000 and
2009. They found players suffered 1,528 knee sprains
and 1,503 ankle sprains during those games, and both types of injuries were 22
percent more common in games played on FieldTurf."
In particular, ACL sprains - often considered season-ending
injuries - were 67 percent more common
on FieldTurf than
on natural grass.”
Again we encourage you to do your own diligence and the athletic department at Pace University is a great place to start. The more you learn about the hazards of turf fields the more you will question the logic and integrity of Board of Education President Greico and Superintendent Guiney in promoting the idea of installing a turf field.
As per the true cost of turf fields, we discover some
very interesting facts that will not
only further upset parents that have children enrolled in MPCSD, but the other
2/3 of the residents that pay school taxes, have no children enrolled in
District schools and voted in overwhelming numbers to defeat that last $54.4
million insult.
A September 2014 article in Forbes entitled, How Taxpayers Get Fooled on The Cost Of An Artificial Turf Field (http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/09/28/how-taxpayers-get-fooled-on-the-cost-of-an-artificial-turf-field/) and its references present a clear and consist picture of this subject. The following has been obtained from the aforementioned website and reproduced for educational/research purposes. Again, we encourage you are urge to share this information with others as well as your own research.
“Towns all across America are struggling with their budgets. The nation remains stuck in the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. In states like New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts household income actually fell last year. And retirees everywhere living on their savings are being hurt by near zero interest rates."
So why are some municipalities still spending big bucks to install artificial turf fields? Main reason: taxpayers have been getting hoodwinked by bogus analysis into thinking artificial turf fields are cheaper than natural grass.
But the reality is that non-partisan studies
have shown the exact opposite – natural grass
fields are a bargain compared to artificial turf due to the huge costs taxpayers get stuck
with to maintain and replace artificial fields after their warrantees expire.
One of the artificial turf industry’s selling points is that an artificial turf
field will last eight-to-10 years, even though the usual warranty runs for only
eight, and that the initial exorbitant cost of installation is recouped in no
time from tens of thousands in savings from no longer maintaining a natural
grass field. Another way proponents of artificial turf skew the math in their
favor is by saying many more events will be held on the field once artificial
turf is installed, thereby lowering “the cost per event” on the field relative
to natural grass. But who knows if that math is based on reality (the fields in
my town, Glen Rock, New Jersey, are often vacant)? How can anyone accurately
predict the future demographics of a town?
Indeed, the Australian government did a comprehensive study dispelling the myth trumpeted by some
politicians and artificial turf makers that artificial turf fields cost less
than natural grass in the long term due to lower expenses for upkeep. But the
politicians keep coming up with creative ways to fool the taxpayers into
thinking they are going to save money in the long run with artificial turf.
For example, the following information from a
report done by Montgomery County looks at the cost of a natural grass field
versus an artificial turf field. The report states that over 20 years, the
artificial field is 49% more expensive than the grass field (assuming the most
expensive natural grass is used). Then, presto! By manipulating the number of hours that the
artificial turf field is supposedly used, the report shows that the number of
hours is doubled to twice the use of the natural grass field, thus based on
“cost per hours of use” projections the artificial field is now cheaper. This
type of math reminds me of the guy who went to a sale at a store determined to
buy enough items on sale so that his he would “save” enough to pay for
everything.”
This piece in Forbes sets a very different tone
on turf fields than the one that the Mount Pleasant District and Dr. Guiney
presented and begs the question of actually who was advising the Board on this
matter? It has become apparent that the tax payers funded District’s bulletin “From The Heart” was used only to present
one side of this issue and it appears the wrong one. It’s time, when it comes
to fiscal matters, that solitary editorial control of “From The Heart” must end immediately. When it comes to fiscal
matters both pros and cons must be
presented in order for the tax payer to make an informed decision when voting. We believe an immediate court action is necessary to achieve this reasonable goal of protecting the rights of all tax payers as well as the health and welfare of our children. It would be difficult to disagree with the notion that both sides of the turf v. grass field was fairly presented to the public.
This begs the question of whether or not members
of the Board of Education truly acted in the best interest of our children
or merely took the path of least resistance. The Board of Education rationale
in their June 17, 2009 press release supports this view. With an annual budget
of over $54 million dollars and
almost 2,000 students the Board of Education was anything but diligent when
searching for a truly qualified superintendent of schools, not to
mention their executive session action that extended Dr. Guiney’s contract was
a betrayal of public trust. One must
question whether the Board is acting in the best interest of the children and
the taxpayers in this current matter.
It is crucial that voters are educated on the matters to be voted on. We hope that the above information is helpful to the voters who will be going to the polls on Tuesday.
I remember playing lacrosse on a grass field in high school, then going to play at West Point and played an exhibition on their "fake" turf field. I enjoyed playing on real grass 100 times more and didn't even realize at the time how much more dangerous playing on "turf" was. I remember as a kid playing to win, and that meant pushing my self to the limit; thank God I didn't tear my ACL or injure myself in some other manner. As for the chemicals in the material they use, I don't know who would want to expose our children to more toxins in today's day and age. Not to mention, what happens if in the next ten years, that some environmental study or legislation declares these types of fields toxic waste sites and the town gets slammed with some major clean up and removal fees? This could either cost the town millions in disposal costs, or legal costs if the town decides to pin the clean up on the manufacturer. Barring all of that, I would not want my kid playing on a field that is releasing toxic gases and chemicals, especially when they are too young and impressionable to make that choice for themselves.
ReplyDeleteMaintenance
ReplyDeleteIt is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960 (1).
Long-term costs
Long-term costs are less with natural turf fields compared to synthetic turf fields. Artificial fields need replacing every 8-10 years, whereas a natural turf field does not need as frequent renovation and can be renovated at a much reduced price compared to an artificial field. In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013 (2).
Disposal costs
When artificial turf (in-fill systems) needs renovating every 8-10 years, there is a hidden cost of disposal. Because the field is filled and top-dressed with a crumb rubber material (typically made from ground automobile tires), the material may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated at $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges (3).
Potential increases in infections
An aspect of synthetic turf that is now receiving increased scrutiny is the potential for increased incidences of infections among players that play primarily on in-fill systems. In a report titled “Texas Football Succumbs to Virulent Staph Infection From Turf”, at least 276 football players were reported to be infected with an antibiotic-resistant staph infection, a rate of 517 for each 100,000 individuals (6). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported a rate for the general population of 32 in 100,000. These infections were primarily associated with increased skin abrasions associated with synthetic turf and the risk of infection that might occur off the field from infections. In-fill systems must now be routinely treated with special disinfectants to reduce the likelihood of infections, adding another cost to the maintenance of these fields.
High temperatures
Artificial fields cannot be played on all the time due to temperature build-up on warm-sunny days. Artificial field surface temperatures have been documented as high as 199°F on a sunny day with an air temperature of 98°F (7). Researchers at Brigham Young University reported that the surface temperature of a synthetic football field on campus averaged 117°F, with a daily high of 157°F (8). On an adjacent natural grass field the surface temperature averaged 78°F, with a daily high of 89°F. Researchers at Penn State University studied the effect of using irrigation to reduce surface temperatures of synthetic fields and discovered that temperature could be decreased with irrigation, but the effects were short-lived (20 minutes) (9). Because of these high temperatures, an artificial field will remain largely unusable during warm days. Additionally, practicing on an artificial field could increase the incidence of heat stroke, muscle cramping, and overall athlete fatigue. Coaches holding practices on synthetic fields will need to monitor athlete health more closely and will need to limit the duration of practices on these surfaces to reduce the risk of athlete injury.