Artificial field turf does not expose young children to harmful levels of lead, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded Wednesday. "Our message is: go out and play," says a CPSC spokesperson. Because it's durable, easy to maintain, and doesn't require pesticides, synthetic turf has increasingly replaced grass fields across the U.S. Manufacturers insist that the lead that gives the green "grass" its color cannot leach out or become airborne; however, concerns about turf toxicity came to a head in the fall when New Jersey officials found worrisome lead levels in a handful of fields. But the CPSC found that while lead exposure does appear to increase over time as synthetic grass fibers break down, none of the fields the agency tested "released amounts of lead that would be harmful to children." The study did not consider the potential health effects of the ground-up rubber which makes the spongy surface of many fields; that issue will be addressed in a U.S. EPA study of artificial turf due this fall.
Turf's Up
Artificial turf found not harmful to children 10
-
Posted 4:47 PM on 30 Jul 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 5:02 pm
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
leroyblake Posted 12:58 am
31 Jul 2008
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 1:33 am
31 Jul 2008
Today, everyone is talking about kids having a deficiency of "nature" and "green," but tomorrow, who knows what the medico-pharma-corporate-media will be telling us...maybe that kids have a deficiency of neon pink or or candy apple red. I assume that artificial turf could be made neon pink, right?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:32 am
31 Jul 2008
If you don't know what's wrong with replacing natural grass with plastic, I don't have an answer for you. It's like asking what's wrong with taking animals out of the wild and putting them in zoos, because your kids get to enjoy them there and wouldn't be able to in the wild. The world doesn't revolve around your or anyone else's human kids. There are far more important considerations, and destruction of the natural environment is one of them.
That all said, I agree that potable water should not be wasted on grass fields nor should fossil fuels be used to mow them. Reclaimed water can be used for irrigation and grass can be cut by mechanical means, as it was before artificially powered mowers were invented.
This has nothing to do with the environment, but I played one football game on artificial turf in Michigan and vowed never to play on it again. Every time I hit the ground it hurt; it was like playing on concrete covered with a thin layer of carpet.
Permalink
leroyblake Posted 5:48 am
31 Jul 2008
As I mentioned before, the amount of actual green space that artificial turf surfaces actually take up, are so minute in the grand global scheme of things. If I understand correctly the turf you played on was some sort of astro-turf and nowadays all those surfaces are being replaced with artificial turfs which closely mimic the characteristics of natural grass, such as FieldTurf(which my kids play on) is composed of a sand-rubber infill system and is installed in most professional football and baseball stadiums today. FieldTurf has actually been tested as an even safer surface than natural grass! Anyways, I hope you can realize that artificial turf is doing way more Good than bad.
Permalink
PatMac Posted 7:51 am
31 Jul 2008
CPSC analyzed turf for both total lead content and used wipe tests to gauge exposure. The total lead contents ranged from non-detects to 8,800 PPM. 600 PPM is the maximize level of lead allowed in paint. The wipe tests were conducted using a method CPSC developed for testing arsenic from CCA wood. Folks in the lead poisoning prevention business typically use a slightly different wipe test in homes to gauge risks from lead based paint. While CPSC's test is different, it is quite similar in intent. To gauge the turf risk, CPSC took their wipe results and divided them by 5 to reflect an estimated difference between the amount of dust that the wipe picks up versus what someone's hands pick up. They further divided that by 2 to account for the difference between what gets on your hand versus what would go in your mouth. These "fudge factors" were loosely based on a study they did for CCA, and are not well justified. The highest result using this method was an intake of 9.9 micrograms. Their standard, again based on the notion that you have to get to a BLL of 10 to be hazardous, is 15 micrograms. Clearly if CPSC had been using a lower level of concern or had slightly altered their "fudge factors" they would have been labeling at least some of the products hazardous.
For residential purposes, it is typical to look at the number of micrograms of lead per square foot. EPA set a standard of 40 micrograms per square foot as the safe level of lead for floors. Assuming there is rough equivalency between CPSC's dust wipes and residential dust wipes, CPSC sampled about 400 square centimeters of turf (8 wide by 50 long - actually less than that since the circular shape would miss the corners...). 400 square centimeters is .4306 square feet. So if you divide CPSC's "wipe sampling result" by .4306, you can get an estimate of the number of micrograms per square foot. The highest wipe was 229 mcg/ft^2 and all of the wipes on the first sample would have failed a 40 mcg/ft^2 floor standard. The second sample, which was collected from an indoor field, calculates out to 33 mcg/ft^2 - getting close to the standard.
Although I would not advocate that turf is providing a major source of lead exposure to a broad range of children, it's clearly not as cut and dried as the CPSC implied with their cheerful "Go out and play" message. I would further suggest that this is another sad example of CPSC's commitment to protecting industry over consumers and illustrative of the backwards and scientifically deficient approach they take towards regulating lead and other toxins.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:02 am
31 Jul 2008
While it might be true that the amount of artificial turf is small compared to the total green space on Earth, it's nothing but a copout to claim that just because the harm you're supporting is small, it doesn't matter and should be ignored. There are over 6.5 billion people on Earth, so you have to multiply your actions by that number to see their true effects.
As to comparisons with natural grass play fields, your argument is a lesser of evils one, which I never support. As I said in my previous post, I don't support either method of causing environmental harms. Regardless of the harms caused by wasting water and polluting lawn mowers, there's no getting around the fact that replacing natural grass with plastic is ecologically harmful.
Permalink
Masked Goddess Posted 8:56 am
31 Jul 2008
Low level exposure - oh what a blissfully ignorant feeling that evokes. Ever hear of total body burden? I now have to wear a carbon filter mask because of "low level" exposure to chemicals in everyday products approved by federal agencies.
Chemical exposure is chemical exposure - it all adds up. And yes, it can happen to your kids - it may take years, but are you really willing to take that risk?
And why couldn't kids just learn to love the feel and consistency of real grass?
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 2:33 am
07 Aug 2008
I agree that chems and mowers are not necessary to keep grass thriving. Watering in the pre-dawn hours will help grass retain and use the water before the sun can cause it to evaporate. And all those little blades are producing oxygen, rather than just degrading like astroturf, or whatever they are calling it now.
Keep it up and keep us honest!
Permalink
ASGi Posted 2:24 am
25 Aug 2008
Artificial turf has it's appropriate uses, not all products are created equal and consumers should know more about the products, selections and installation options which, if industry installation standards are followed, remain beautiful, safe and porous for the surface's life-cycle.
If you've never seen the artificial grasses up close - many styles are very realistic and can help to mitigate dust and erosion control - along with saving millions of gallons of water per year, reducing air, water and soil contamination from traditional lawn care products and equipment.
See ASGi's Public Downloads library of the CDC, CPSC, EPA, EHHI, CAES and California health and safety reports; testing and the concerns about lead in fibers, crumb rubber and alternatives are also discussed on the site.
http://www.asgi.us/syntheticturfinformationlibrary.htm
Also look into the rebates pages on the site and you will find that many drought ridden states encourage the use of artificial turf. http://www.asgi.us/artificial_grass_rebates.htm
Please visit and browse our Current News & Reports postings for coverage of timely topics or download some of our free guides at http://www.asgi.us/xwp
Annie Costa
Exec Dir
Assoc of Synthetic Grass Installers
ASGi
Permalink