To the Editor:

While I am not a parent and I do not live in the Guilderland school district, I feel the need to speak out against the inclusion of artificial turf for the Guilderland athletic fields in the school capital project.  There is ample evidence that the use of these plastic surfaces is at best quite suspect as a benefit for young people and athletes. There has been documentation of a greater number of lower body injuries as noted in a June 14, 2019 article in Global Sports Matters.

The Environmental Protection Agency reported (and other studies have found) that a single field can have “substantial variability” in its materials and in the “concentrations of contaminants,” listing at least 32 potential toxic ingredients (many known and suspected carcinogens, neurotoxins, and hormone-disrupting chemicals and heavy metals) including but not limited to: lead, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, mercury, toluene, acetone, aniline, barium, benzene, benzothiazole, carbon black, chloroethane, chromium, cobalt, copper, isoprene, latex, manganese, mercury, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, naphthalene, nickel, phenol, pigments, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (highly carcinogenic), styrene-butadiene, toluene, trichloroethylene and zinc along with halogenated flame retardants.  See, EPA 2009 and follow up reports.

Because of the nature of the turf, it heats up rapidly and can reach temperatures of 140 to170 degrees (grass rarely reaches 85 degrees).

While some may point out that the inclusion of the artificial turf is but a small part of the proposed project for the school district, its impacts will be felt widely. Putting aside health concerns, where is this turf going to go when it is used up in ten years?

And, shouldn’t we all be worried about and working to minimize the use of substances that will contribute to climate change by putting more heat into the atmosphere as well as more pollution due to the offgassing of volatile organic compounds?

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission weighed in this month on the issue of synturf constituents entering waterways. Haven’t we learned enough from the contribution of PFAS (that includes PFOA) polluting the drinking water in towns in Washington and Rensselaer counties?

I urge Guilderland and any other school district or community considering the use of synturf to do more homework and reject it for health and environmental reasons.

Helene G. Goldberger

Berne

Editor’s note: Helene G. Goldberger is part of the Plastics-Free Future group that formed locally, inspired by a Bennington College course taught by Judith Enck.