Artificial Turf Wars Revisited

A group of concerned Westport parents reacted (and maybe over-reacted, we don't know for sure) to a study about these new artificial turf fields being hazardous to the health of those playing ball on them. That April concern has escalated, and now Environment and Human Health Inc., a North Haven-based environmental advocacy group, has jumped on the hazardous turf bandwagon.

Back in April, Bryan Peeples, president of Dalton, GA-based AstroTurf and a member of the Synthetic Turf Council, wrote me to say that a lot of these claims -- about the ground-up tires releasing toxins into the air -- were misleading.

But the question still remains. How do we know for sure that this generation of football players is not going to mutate into hideous creatures? After all, these fields are supposed to last for 10 years before needing a replacement, and the relatively-new fields at Norwalk and McMahon are already about as bald as I am, if I let my hair grow out.

Today's News-Times has an article that explains what's going on, and how that Synthetic Turf Council considers the amount of toxins released into the air to be "negligible." On Sunday, the Connecticut Post released this editorial about artificial turf.

My take on artificial turf: The new stuff may be better in the long run than the stuff laid out at Kennedy and Boyle stadiums, but it's still not as good as grass. Yes, it drains much quicker (unless you're at Sam Testa Field at NHS), it needs less maintenance, your uniforms don't get grass stains, etc. But I think I've seen more hamstring pulls and other aches and pains on this new stuff as I have on grass or the original turf.

And I know darn well that after standing on the sidelines covering a game for 2-2 1/2 hours, my knees and lower back are killing me. Just think what it would be like if I was an active participant.