Open letter on Blair High School artificial turf

May 6, 2009

Patricia McManus
Supervisor, Design Section
Park Development Division
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Dear Ms McManus,

I recently read an article in the April 23 edition of Montgomery Blair HS newspaper Silver Chips, discussing the decision to install artificial turf at Blazer Field at Montgomery Blair HS. The article quoted you extensively.

As a parent of a Blair athlete (class of 2011) and friend to many other Blair athletes and their families, I am both interested and concerned regarding this decision. I wonder if you could answer a few questions raised by the article?

The article stated that "the artificial turf will reduce the risk of player injuries". That would certainly be great news! However, a study in the August 2007 issue of the British Journal of Sports Medicine (Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football [soccer] players) concluded that "There were no major differences in the incidence, severity, nature or cause of match injuries sustained on new generation artificial turf and grass by either male or female players." An earlier study in the October 2004 issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine (Incidence, Causes, and Severity of High School Football Injuries on FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass) had mixed results, reporting higher incidence of overall injuries on artificial turf, but lower incidence of serious injury. This study concluded "Although similarities existed between FieldTurf and natural grass over a 5-year period of competitive play, both surfaces also exhibited unique injury patterns that warrant further investigation." So, on what basis can we conclude that the new artificial turf will actually reduce injuries to our children?

Have ongoing maintenance costs been budgeted for? At a cost of $1.2 M ("exceeding initial estimates" according to the article), up-front cost is approximately $400,000 greater than a similar natural grass field. One could use that difference to spend $40,000 per year for grass field maintenance for ten years. Note that the expected lifetime of an artificial turf playing field is ten years (according to the Association of Synthetic Grass Installers) and only seven years for heavy use such as soccer (according to Dow Chemical, which manufactures artificial turf materials). Where will maintenance funds for the artificial turf come from, and how much has been budgeted?

Artificial turn can get much hotter (as much as 60 degrees) than natural grass. Given where we live, heat (think of August football practice!) is a great concern. A measurement in New York on a 78 degree day showed a natural grass surface in direct sunlight at 85 degrees, while an adjacent artificial turf surface was 140 degrees. According to Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, injury can occur at temperatures above 122 degrees. Will the new surface be watered down before practices and games whenever the surface is too hot?

You are quoted in the sidebar to the article as saying "there is no difference in risk of disease between natural and artificial turf". However, the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) is not so certain. In an official CDS Health Advisory issued June 8, 2008 (Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf: Public Health Issues, Actions, and Recommendations), the CDC stated "At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf." If the CDC does not yet understand, on what basis do you and the Park and Planning Commission? The CDC advisory goes on to recommend dust suppression measures. Will this be done for the Blair HS field? The CDC also recommends posting signs at artificial turf fields that say: "After playing on the field, individuals are encouraged to perform aggressive hand and body washing for at least 20 seconds using soap and warm water. Clothes worn on the field should be taken off and turned inside out as soon as possible after using the field to avoid tracking contaminated dust to other places. In vehicles, people can sit on a large towel or blanket if it is not feasible to remove their clothes. These clothes, towels, and blankets should be washed separately and shoes worn on the field should be kept outside of the home." Will such a sign be posted at Blazer Field? Even if it is, do we expect our high school athletes to actually follow these recommendations?

Finally, might there be an increased risk of MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staph Aureus) infection from playing on artificial turf? In a study in the February 3, 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (A Clone of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus among Professional Football Players), an increased incidence of MRSA infection was detected, and one of the conclusions was (emphasis added): "One important player-level factor was skin abrasions, or turf burns. All MRSA skin abscesses developed at sites of turf burns on areas of skin not covered by a uniform (e.g., elbows and forearms). These abrasions were usually left uncovered, and when combined with frequent skin-to-skin contact throughout the football season, probably constituted both the source and the vehicle for transmission." How will we ensure that the inevitable turf burns our children will obtain while playing on the new artificial turf field do not lead to increased MRSA infection, as it did for the professional football team (St. Louis Rams) in the study?

Montgomery Blair HS deserves a great, safe playing field for its football, soccer and lacrosse teams. How can we be confident that the artificial turf now planned will deliver that, at a cost less than, or similar to, a natural grass field?

I look forward to hearing your responses to my questions.

Respectfully,
Jerry Kickenson

Thanks to Mr. Kickenson for making this letter available to the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland for publication.