While it might not be as vital a national issue as sex, today's Inquirer has a fascinating article about an organized effort to stop the use of artificial turf on local playing fields, which they claim is dangerous:

The newest generation of artificial turf comes with a cushion of recycled tire crumbs and, in some cases, a thick layer of contention.

Industry representatives say the turf - in place at dozens of fields throughout the Philadelphia area - is safe. But some parents are not convinced and have mobilized against it.

In Burlington County, Evesham Township residents last week turned in more than 2,500 signatures aimed at forcing a referendum that would keep synthetic grass off their recreational fields.

"This stuff has ground up rubber tires in it, and it's toxic, and they're letting little children play on it," says Karen Borden, a concerned mother and blogger leading the petition drive. "It's crazy."

In Delaware County, some Radnor residents are rejoicing after the school board recently agreed to toss out plans to install the turf at a new middle school.

The school was designed as a green facility with a grass roof and other planet-saving features and would have looked foolish with a fake field, residents argued at several board meetings.

Across the country, similar scenarios are playing out in town halls and school districts as people debate the safety of the new covering, which industry officials say is being laid atop fields at a rate of 800 a year. In San Carlos, Calif., placard-carrying parents recently marched against a turf project, and New Haven, Conn., residents voted down a multimillion-dollar turf proposal.

But there are a lot of ugly things in this world. Esthetic considerations might be important, but they tend to be personal in nature, and should not dictate public policy. Besides, there might be plenty of people who think astroturf is esthetically beautiful, or cool, or something. I disagree.

But is artificial turf really dangerous?

The Inquirer quotes extensively from "concerned mother" Karen Borden who claims it is, and the story links her month-old activist blog which also claims that it is. (Proudly linked on the home page is the "Precautionary Principle.")

The danger, it is claimed, stems from crumb rubber, which consists of ground-up tires. From the blog's first post:

Crumb rubber is made of ground-up, used tires that contain hazardous substances including the metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, zinc and other chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and phthalates. Recent studies conducted in Connecticut and New York have confirmed the presence of these substances on existing fields at levels exceeding current allowable NYS Department of Environmental Conservation limits.

This is not a new debate. The battle pits advocates for improved athletic facilities against a coalition of environmental groups and concerned parents.

Artificial turf can be a superior playing field to traditional grass. Proponents say the $700,000 a football field it can cost may be worth it, because the surface is level, a ball can move better and the players can move a little faster. And regardless of rain or snow, the field stays playable.

But many environmentalists aren't buying it. They don't like that the fake turf is composed of polyethylene fibers made to look like grass, which are in turn anchored by rubber pellets made from chopped-up automotive tires.

Might there be a political motivation?

Consider Karen Borden, the local leader who started the petition drive and the blog. The Inquirer calls her "a concerned mother and blogger leading the petition drive" from Evesham Township but neglects to point out that Karen Borden is listed as the Treasurer of the Evesham Township Democratic Municipal Committee. While it may not shed much light on the claim that the ground-up tires are a public health hazard, isn't it relevant that the leader of the drive against them happens to be a professional Democratic Party activist?

Hmmmm...

Can there be such a thing as "astroturfing" the anti-astroturfers?

Before I read today's article, I had never even heard of "crumb rubber." Quite frankly, I wish I never had, but when I see a link to an activist website and petition drive in a news article which doesn't supply links to the other side, my natural curiosity is aroused. And when a turf proponent is characterized as "a former pro football coach and the father of a student athlete," while a turf opponent is billed as a concerned parent (but who's actually a professional activist), I have to look further.

So, I wasn't in the mood for tire crumbs, but now I am. As it turns out, they aren't just used in artificial turf, but in a wide variety of products:

Rubber crumb is sold as feedstock for chemical devulcanization or reclamation (pyrolysis) processes, added to asphalt for highway paving and pavement sealers, or used for the production of a large number of recycled rubber-containing products (Table 1).

Hospital, Industrial, and Bathroom Flooring

Floor Tile

Carpet Underlay

[...]

Baseboards and Kickplates

Flower Pots

Garbage Cans

Shoe Soles and Heels

Wire and Cable Insulation

More from the Wiki article on tire recycling:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports 290 million scrap tires were generated in 2003.[1] Of the 290 million, 45 million of these scrap tires were used to make automotive and truck tire re-treads.[2] With landfills minimizing their acceptance of whole tires and the health and environmental risks of stockpiling tires, many new markets have been created for scrap tires. Growing markets exist for a majority of scrap tires produced every year, being supported by State and Local Government. Tires are also often recycled for use on basketball courts and new shoe products.

How dangerous is it?

According to the EPA, there's no evidence of a health hazard:

There is no current evidence showing that products containing recycled rubber from scrap tires substantially increases the threat to human health and the environment as compared to the threats associated with conventional products.

I'm wondering how carefully the concerned parents are applying the so-called "Precautionary Principle" in their children's lives. Are they making sure their children don't play on paved streets? The same recycled crumb rubber material which goes into the playing fields at issue also goes into the streets surrounding it. You can't be too careful. Shouldn't the children who are being kept off these dangerous fields also be kept from playing or walking on the streets? And what about industrial and bathroom flooring? The very floors your children walk on might contain the same materials which come from tires and are in the astroturf!

Most importantly, how many of the concerned parents have looked into the materials that go into their children's shoes?

Aren't millions of children are being endangered by recycled rubber soles? If we are to live up to the Precautionary Principle, it makes little sense to be selective in its application. If it's bad to have on the playing field, then it's certainly bad to have on the floor, and even worse to have on the feet!

Back to esthetics. What I think is going on is that people think astroturf is ugly, and they just plain hate it. But that's not enough to draw people into a cause, as it looks whiny.

Likewise, it sounds whiny to object to money being spent on playing fields because they're used for sports. From an email at the anti-turf site:

...This is so out of control that I wish there was a way to impeach the mayor and council. They have lost all objectivity. Is sports that important? 1% of children who play will make a career of it. How many of the same kids have been to a bookstore or art museum or learned to play an instrument....

If recycled tire products are everywhere, what's with the selective outrage?

Can't they just admit that they just plain don't like artificial turf and be done with it? This whole "public health" and "environment" game strikes me as dishonest in the extreme. (And contradictory, if we consider the virtues of recycling.)

I'm wondering if there was similar dishonesty (and maybe "astroturfing") involved with the phony environmental scare over ugly plastic bags.