Maret field PFAS vs Deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relying on grass fields destroys kid sports in DC. They close at any hint of rain. Turf fields mean kids can play unless there’s thunder/lightening. Replacing grass with turf is not a universally bad idea.

I don’t understand this. We lived in dc for years, and the grass fields closed a ridiculous amount of times. We moved to nova, and they really only close when there’s thunder or lightening. Yes, by the end of a soccer or lacrosse season the fields look horrible and have lots of dirt patches, but I’ll take that any day over my kids playing in chopped up tire parts laden with chemicals.

Fertilizer and weed killers are not chemicals? Might want to read the safety data sheets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PVC doesn't contain any carbon-fluorine bonds. It's not a PFAS.

Some PVC are not PFAS, but some are. The ones that aren't are generally produced using even worse chemicals for health like mercury or abestos. See this report summarizing an analysis of the industry and product by an European commission. Emphasis on pages 7-12 with a section on PFAS based production of PVC as the "newer" tech to produce PVC by the industry.

Can you post your proof that this PVC contains PFAS, asbestos, or mercury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relying on grass fields destroys kid sports in DC. They close at any hint of rain. Turf fields mean kids can play unless there’s thunder/lightening. Replacing grass with turf is not a universally bad idea.

If you had three times as many grass fields, you could spread the wear and tear around more. That would make the fields hold up to rain better.

No you would have to have one field for games but could only play once or twice a week. The fertilizer and weed killers are harmful to the environment, pets and anyone who plays on the field. Some are listed as cancer causing. The maintenance issue and environmental impacts of grass field are worst vs artificial fields.

Fertilizers and weed killers aren't needed for a run of the mill field. Heck, considering the amount of leaf waste that the city already collects there's an existing supply of "free" compost we already pay for.

The fact that Deal is already replacing it's artificial turf field puts a big question mark on those maintenance claims as well.

[Anonymous]

The Dutch are soccer-obsessed, but they also give a crap about children’s health.

Netherlands
Has decided to ban artificial soccer fields entirely by 2030, citing potential cancer risks associated with artificial grass. A study found that rubber crumb used in artificial turf contained carcinogenic compounds at levels 1.5–3.7 times higher than allowed in consumer products

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Deal is in a different ANC.

It physically sits in a different ANC, but it is the middle school for this area.

And also is why OP was pointing out that the ANC's majority proposal to seek/flag a city-wide exemption and not just a single project is a better idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch are soccer-obsessed, but they also give a crap about children’s health.

Netherlands
Has decided to ban artificial soccer fields entirely by 2030, citing potential cancer risks associated with artificial grass. A study found that rubber crumb used in artificial turf contained carcinogenic compounds at levels 1.5–3.7 times higher than allowed in consumer products

^Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relying on grass fields destroys kid sports in DC. They close at any hint of rain. Turf fields mean kids can play unless there’s thunder/lightening. Replacing grass with turf is not a universally bad idea.

If you had three times as many grass fields, you could spread the wear and tear around more. That would make the fields hold up to rain better.

No you would have to have one field for games but could only play once or twice a week. The fertilizer and weed killers are harmful to the environment, pets and anyone who plays on the field. Some are listed as cancer causing. The maintenance issue and environmental impacts of grass field are worst vs artificial fields.

Fertilizers and weed killers aren't needed for a run of the mill field. Heck, considering the amount of leaf waste that the city already collects there's an existing supply of "free" compost we already pay for.

The fact that Deal is already replacing it's artificial turf field puts a big question mark on those maintenance claims as well.

DC is also talking about a contract to replace the grass field at Hearst Park with an artificial one. Not satisfied with largely deforesting the slopes of this once shady park, DC now wants to substitute plastic grass for real turf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal is in a different ANC.

It physically sits in a different ANC, but it is the middle school for this area.

And also is why OP was pointing out that the ANC's majority proposal to seek/flag a city-wide exemption and not just a single project is a better idea.

Except presumably that ANC has some influence over things within its boundaries and no influence over things outside its boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch are soccer-obsessed, but they also give a crap about children’s health.

Netherlands
Has decided to ban artificial soccer fields entirely by 2030, citing potential cancer risks associated with artificial grass. A study found that rubber crumb used in artificial turf contained carcinogenic compounds at levels 1.5–3.7 times higher than allowed in consumer products

Wouldn't you have to eat the crumb rubber? Also, we aren't talking about crumb rubber.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I don’t think this was OP’s intend, but this threat does point out the ridiculousness of the the comparison of the “outrage” by Chevy Chase neighbors to the Maret turf field. Both the largest middle school and high school in DC (Deal and Jackson-Reed) have had turf fields for well over a decade and no one has expressed the level of outrage and concern for all the public school students going through those schools. But for some reason the development of a turf field near certain homeowner’s properties is now a major public health crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I don’t think this was OP’s intend, but this threat does point out the ridiculousness of the the comparison of the “outrage” by Chevy Chase neighbors to the Maret turf field. Both the largest middle school and high school in DC (Deal and Jackson-Reed) have had turf fields for well over a decade and no one has expressed the level of outrage and concern for all the public school students going through those schools. But for some reason the development of a turf field near certain homeowner’s properties is now a major public health crisis.

It came up because DCPS and the former principal tried to sneak it through at the local public elementary. If it wasn't for that then the Maret field wouldn't have been on anyone's radar. Why are the Maret boosters always so disingenuous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch are soccer-obsessed, but they also give a crap about children’s health.

Netherlands
Has decided to ban artificial soccer fields entirely by 2030, citing potential cancer risks associated with artificial grass. A study found that rubber crumb used in artificial turf contained carcinogenic compounds at levels 1.5–3.7 times higher than allowed in consumer products

They classify fertilizer and herbicide as causing cancer. They also pay taxes to maintenance existing fields and create more fields including mowing. If you do not do the maintenance on grass fields including mowing, watering, seeding, fertilizer, herbicide application, aeration and repairs it is a dangerous surface to play on. These grass field need to be rested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relying on grass fields destroys kid sports in DC. They close at any hint of rain. Turf fields mean kids can play unless there’s thunder/lightening. Replacing grass with turf is not a universally bad idea.

I don’t understand this. We lived in dc for years, and the grass fields closed a ridiculous amount of times. We moved to nova, and they really only close when there’s thunder or lightening. Yes, by the end of a soccer or lacrosse season the fields look horrible and have lots of dirt patches, but I’ll take that any day over my kids playing in chopped up tire parts laden with chemicals.

Well the close in countries have largely converted to turf because of the demands for field time. The counties farther out just do not have the demand for field space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch are soccer-obsessed, but they also give a crap about children’s health.

Netherlands
Has decided to ban artificial soccer fields entirely by 2030, citing potential cancer risks associated with artificial grass. A study found that rubber crumb used in artificial turf contained carcinogenic compounds at levels 1.5–3.7 times higher than allowed in consumer products

They classify fertilizer and herbicide as causing cancer. They also pay taxes to maintenance existing fields and create more fields including mowing. If you do not do the maintenance on grass fields including mowing, watering, seeding, fertilizer, herbicide application, aeration and repairs it is a dangerous surface to play on. These grass field need to be rested.

It isn't dangerous. It's just muddy and messy. We all grew up playing on fields that weren't watered, fertilized, and herbicided. It builds character. You've created such a false forced dichotomy that it's impossible to take you seriously - especially when there is decades of data showing that artificial turf fields have much higher rates of injuries.

[Anonymous]

Give me a break. There’s nothing wrong with PFAS or turf. Chevy chasers need to get a hobby