I was glad to see in the July 1 issue of the Tri-Town Weekly that the decision regarding the turf field in Freeport has not yet been finalized. I am of the opinion that the possible downsides of installing artificial turf have not been sufficiently explored and suspect that people tend to assume, since it is so widely used around the country, it must be perfectly safe and reasonably economical in comparison to natural grass. I have explored various aspects of the subject to some extent and wish to share my findings.

While artificial turf may not cause short-term health problems for the majority of children, it definitely will for some. Those with sensitive immune systems (and there are a growing number of such children) may very well not be identified until after their exposures have triggered problems. And no consideration appears to have been given to long-term health issues due to the mercury in the rubber bits. Mercury is an endocrine disrupter, it crosses the blood/brain barrier, and it bio-accumulates in tissues, including the brain. These factors are likely to result in serious long-term health problems. I am aware of these issues because I have a clinically documented mercury hypersensitivity.

Furthermore, while artificial turf will eliminate the usual mowing and ground-care expenses of a grass field, it will also cut the job of whoever is performing that duty now. Meanwhile, artificial turf will require other maintenance, as pointed out by an individual writing for the University of Arkansas. This included (among other things) chemical disinfectants and removing organic matter. After all, birds poop, and so do other animals. This brings us back to health concerns for the children playing on the field, as they will be exposed to whatever disinfecting chemicals must be used or be exposed to the bacteria that will be infesting the plastic turf. The environmental effects of the chemicals sprayed on the field must also be considered. Also, possible off-gassing and leaching from the field during its lifetime must be considered and the possible health and environmental impacts. The Environmental Protection agency gives a partial listing of some of the substances found in these fields, at www.epa.gov/nerl/features/tire_crumbs.html.

It has been mentioned in the various back and forth over the last few weeks that some think playing sports on artificial turf is safer. Studies on the matter are widely varying. Some of the studies have higher injury rates on synthetic turf, others less, yet others point out that the type of injuries change. All this contradiction leads me to conclude that we don’t know enough to decide which surface is physically safer for playing sports.

According to the Univeristy of Arkansas article (http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html), the actual yearly maintenance cost of synthetic versus artificial turf is very similar; however, that does not take into account the long-term costs. Replacement of an artificial field must be done sooner and will cost more, and the material of the field includes the aforementioned mercury containing rubber and may require special disposal.

The synthetic field will not be able to be used as much as a natural one due to temperature. While not as much of a concern here in the Northeast as some other parts of the country, on a hot day in full sunshine the temperature of the field may get prohibitively high. This high temperature also increases the volatility of the chemical compounds in the turf, increasing out-gassing and the exposure of the people playing on it.

Grass, being a plant, has temperature-controlling mechanisms built in.

In short, there is a plethora of unanswered questions regarding artificial turf fields in relation to environmental impacts, to human health, to ongoing costs, to replacement costs and to remediation costs if the community decides to return to natural turf. I do not believe we understand all these well enough to make a responsible determination for such a large financial investment at this point in time. There are still too many unknowns and too much emphasis on short-term benefits.

Elizabeth Frey is a resident of Freeport and a retired software systems analyst with 20 years experience in scientific applications.