As concerned parents we wanted to share with you some of our information regarding artificial turf with crumb rubber infill. Because this issue deals with our children's health it is potentially incendiary. We ask that we all continue to be mindful of the sensitive nature of this topic as it relates to the cohesion of the community and that we all enter into this dialogue with conscientious mutual regard. 

1.An Overview of the Issues

2. An Excellent Overview of How Toxins From These Fields Effect Children. Featuring Dr. Phillip Langrigan, Harvard School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Forman,Mt. Sinai Hospital in NY, NY and others, "Children and Synthetic Turf” -

3. A Survey of the Materials Used

In Brief:
Benzene: Carcinogen, Developmental Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant
Phthalates: Suspected Developmental Toxicant, Endocrine Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant
PAHs: Suspected Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Reproductive Toxicant ,Respiratory Toxicant,
Manganese: Gastrointestinal or liver toxicants
Carbon Black: Carcinogen
Latex: Causes allergic reactions in some people
Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity
Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen, suspected endocrine toxicant, gastrointestinal toxicant, immunotoxicant (adverse effects on the immune system), neurotoxicant (adverse effects on the nervous system), skin and sense-organ toxicant. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
n-hexadecane: Severe irritant based on human and animal studies. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity
4-(t-octyl) phenol: Corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity
Zinc: There is a very large amount of zinc that is added in the manufacturing of tires.
Benzene (one of the chemicals in the recycled tires) is a type of aromatic hydrocarbon and VOC. It is used as a solvent. It has been identified as a carcinogen, particularly regarding leukemia. Benzene may be absorbed by humans through inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact. 

4. This is the warning label on the bags of silica sand. The silica sand is mixed with the crumb rubber to create the infill.
View PDF here.

5. An Evaluation of Potential Exposures to Lead and Other Metals as the Result of Aerosolized Particulate Matter from Artificial Turf Playing Fields Submitted to: Alan Stern, Dr.P.H. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 
Submitted by: Stuart L. Shalat, Sc.D. July 14, 2011

6. Higher Levels of Black Carbon Associated with Lower Cognition Rates

7. Panel on the Subject: Toxic Chemicals: The Safety of Synthetic Fields and How Environmental Laws are Failing Our Children Speaker: Dr. Joel Forman, Mt Sinai Hospital, NY, NY. Dr. Forman is the Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community and Preventative Medicine. Dr. Forman, along with Dr. Phillip J. Landrigan from the Harvard School of Public Health created the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at Mt. Sinai Hospital. 

a. Part of Dr. Joel Forman's presentation (13:10 how young children's unique behaviors influence their exposure to toxicity)
b. The continuation of Dr. Forman's presentation
c. Question and Answer session
(in addition to Dr. Forman, Dr. Helen Binns from Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago speaks)

8. How two municipalities are viewing the findings.
- This is the study that lead NYC to have a moratorium on buying crumb rubber fields for NYC Parks. Page 181 deals with the issues of heat.
 View PDF here.

9. Definition of the Precautionary Principle:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998.

10. Links below are articles about possible cancer clusters in soccer players using this type of turf. 

11. An Article about the EPA seeking to tighten national soot standards. "Soot" is largely comprised of carbon black. What struck me is the last statement regarding particulate matter. We don't often hear about the  toxicity of particulate matter. 
Article at:

and see comments at:

12. High Concern Over PAHs  from Tires

13. American Academy of Pediatrics Urges Overhaul of US Environmental Chemical Policy
EPA to tighten national soot standards
By Juliet Eilperin, Updated: Thursday, June 14, 7:09 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency will announce a proposal Friday to tighten the nation’s soot standards, a move that could help deliver major health benefits by the end of the decade but force some oil refiners, manufacturers and other operations to invest in pollution abatement upgrades.
Particle pollution measuring less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or soot, is possibly the most deadly widespread air pollutant. Measuring one-thirtieth the width of a human hair, these particles come from activities ranging from wood burning to vehicle emissions and can cause respiratory and heart ailments by entering the lungs and bloodstream.
Facing a court-ordered deadline, the EPA will propose tightening the annual exposure to fine-particle soot from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to between 12 and 13 micrograms per cubic meter of air, according to individuals who had been briefed on the rule making. Industry officials and environmentalists said the proposal, which will be finalized by mid-December, would have far-reaching implications for both the U.S. economy and public health.
“It’s going to be a big step forward,” said Frank O’Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “This could help frame the national effort to clean this up for at least a decade.”
Jeffrey R. Holstead, former head of the EPA’s air and radiation office under President George W. Bush, said he’s been “a little surprised” that industry hasn’t launched as hard a fight against these rules as it did against an EPA smog proposal last year, which President Obama pulled back in September.
Administration officials declined to comment on the proposal Thursday, noting that it had not been announced. But they have said repeatedly that several of the rules the EPA has either implemented or is in the process of finishing — including ones curbing mercury and air toxics, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from sources such as power plants, industrial boilers and cement plants — will help communities meet stricter soot requirements without additional costs.
The question of how to set an acceptable level of soot exposure has been the subject of political and legal wrangling for years. In 2006 the Bush administration rejected the advice of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to make the annual standard more stringent and kept it at 15 micrograms per cubic meter, although it strengthened the 24-hour standard from 65 to 35 micrograms. Thirteen states and several environmental groups challenged the 2006 standards in court, and in 2009 a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to rewrite the rule.
The EPA’s staff and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, an independent group of experts, concluded that there is enough scientific evidence to lower annual average soot exposure to between 11 and 13 micrograms per cubic meter.
On June 6 Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EPA to issue its proposed rule by June 14.
Holmstead said the agency would be rushing to finalize such an important rule within six months, by Dec. 14. “This is probably the most important single issue under the Clean Air Act, and yet this is yet another sweetheart deal between the EPA and their allies in the environmental community,” he said.
Once a rule is finalized, the EPA must determine how many counties across the country will be out of attainment with the new soot standards, and those communities must eventually cut down on pollution or risk losing federal funds. Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, said a more-stringent rule will discourage economic investment in counties that fail to meet federal air quality standards.
“It’s in our interest to have a vibrant domestic economy,” Feldman said, adding that many companies eyeing a place to build a plant or refinery “perceive non-attainment to be non-investment.”
S. William Becker, executive director for the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said “there is going to be a significant workload” for some counties to meet the new standard.
“That’s no reason not to support and follow the science, but it’s one reason EPA and Congress will need to step up and provide additional resources and set strong federal control measures,” Becker said.
In the past week, GOP lawmakers and industry officials have lobbied the White House to keep the existing annual soot exposure standard in place, or at least allow the EPA to take comments on that option as part of its proposed rule. “Our position is look, everyone will take comments and let the chips fall where they may,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utilities.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and Republican Reps. Ed Whitfield (Ky.) and Joe Barton (Tex.), sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on June 6 arguing that scientific uncertainty still exists when it comes to reducing fine particle pollution further. They said the schedule “does not allow for full consideration of alternatives and review by expert scientists at other federal agencies.”
Critics such as Feldman questioned the benefit of setting stricter standards for fine-particle pollution, which is already on the decline, because it contributes to mortality rather than causes it. “Neither you nor I know anyone who has died from PM 2.5 pollution,” he said, referring to the fine particle unit of measurement.
But Jonathan M. Samet, a pulmonary physician who directs the University of Southern California Institute for Global Health and chairs the EPA’s independent scientific advisory panel, said the scientific literature suggests there are adverse health effects from soot pollution “at the higher end of levels” that some Americans are exposed to right now, and the EPA administrator must adopt rules that ensure “an adequate margin of safety.”
When looking at the causes of premature death in the United States, Samet added, “particulate matter would be at the top of the list.”
© The Washington Post Company