Petition to Arlington County to Ban use of crumb rubber on fields

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

NP here (and massive science advocate).

I hear what you're saying but aren't you at least slightly uncomfortable with this generation of children being the guinea pigs? If they turn out safe great but if there ends up being a danger and we did nothing then years worth of additional, unnecessary exposure will have occurred.

I guess ideally we could just put these fields out of use until the answer is determined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

Advocating for further analysis, as stated clearly above. I will evaluate the results of the federal study supported by the administration and Senator Blumenthal.

You sound like you would have trusted the cigarette companies, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

NP here (and massive science advocate).

I hear what you're saying but aren't you at least slightly uncomfortable with this generation of children being the guinea pigs? If they turn out safe great but if there ends up being a danger and we did nothing then years worth of additional, unnecessary exposure will have occurred.

I guess ideally we could just put these fields out of use until the answer is determined.

Yes but per the sophomoric cost-benefit economic analysis referred to by a pp, would that be appropriate. The elephant in the room is possible litigation. Tort lawyers are salivating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

Advocating for further analysis, as stated clearly above. I will evaluate the results of the federal study supported by the administration and Senator Blumenthal.

You sound like you would have trusted the cigarette companies, though.

No. There was a ton of data saying that smoking was bad. As far as crumb rubber turf goes, you have a non-scientist who has collected a list of thirty-eight soccer players with cancer. And we have no idea whether that is statistically meaningful or not.

There is a name for this: cancer cluster. A cancer cluster a group of people identified by the public because a number of the group got cancer. All of them look suspicious to the public. Nine out of ten cancer clusters turn out to be just a random fluke. So no, I cannot panic about something with this level of data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

NP here (and massive science advocate).

I hear what you're saying but aren't you at least slightly uncomfortable with this generation of children being the guinea pigs? If they turn out safe great but if there ends up being a danger and we did nothing then years worth of additional, unnecessary exposure will have occurred.

I guess ideally we could just put these fields out of use until the answer is determined.

No. By this definition, we are guinea pigs because we are the first generation to sit in front of computer screens for so long. We are the first to be bombarded by wifi. We are the first generation to drink out of polycarbonate water bottles. We are bombarded by radiation from all the flying we do. Everywhere you turn in the spring, someone is laying asphalt, and you can smell it off gassing. Our gymnasts dive into pits of foam cubes. And on and on and on. But we don't stop living, just because someone thinks these things "might" be dangerous. We study them.

[Anonymous]

Well, epa has indicated that prior studies were not comprehensive enough and that there are data gaps. So no one knows anything at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the pps. But the article provides no evidence to support the claim. Its anecdotal.

The article summarized a report, which is available in full, and was prepared by ... scientists. Draw your own conclusions. Is there a basis for skepticism about overstated claims? Yes. Is there a reasonable basis, though, for some concern? Yes to that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the pps. But the article provides no evidence to support the claim. Its anecdotal.

The article summarized a report, which is available in full, and was prepared by ... scientists. Draw your own conclusions. Is there a basis for skepticism about overstated claims? Yes. Is there a reasonable basis, though, for some concern? Yes to that too.

Which report. Because I have looked this article over and I see nothing of the kind. You seem to know what this is, so please provide the name of the study or the link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

NP here (and massive science advocate).

I hear what you're saying but aren't you at least slightly uncomfortable with this generation of children being the guinea pigs? If they turn out safe great but if there ends up being a danger and we did nothing then years worth of additional, unnecessary exposure will have occurred.

I guess ideally we could just put these fields out of use until the answer is determined.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should not go to the expense until we have data to support the claims. They are good playing surfaces. My kids play and I coach.

They have already gone to a very large expense the most to replace the crumb rubber with a natural project is not out of the question. Better to be safe than sorry

Not if the risk isn't real.

That is pretty much what better safe than sorry means.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess ideally we could just put these fields out of use until the answer is determined.

Exactly.

The underlying assumption is there is no cost in doing so. To the contrary, there is ample evidence that exercise is very, very good for people, and artificial turf allows people to exercise more than any other alternative. I say this not as a rubber-industry shill, but as someone who plays in adult games three times a week. I know that I would not be able to do so if there was not an artificial turf field available to me. First, because artificial turf just allows the field to be used more. Natural grass cannot be used after a heavy rainfall -- which is one day in three in our climate -- and can't be used at all from November to April. An artificial turf field stands up to thousands of hours of use a year, a grass field will be wrecked after hundreds. But more important, on artificial turf my fifty-year-old body can play three times a week on my fifty-year-old joints and for the most part avoid injury -- something that I have not found to be true on any other surface.

The benefit of exercise is real and known. Artificial turf has become so common that the danger, if any, cannot be large, or it would already be showing up in population studies. There is no nationwide epidemic of unexplained cancers in high school students. Whatever the danger, I am convinced that the benefit of regular exercise outweighs it.

So no, it wouldn't be a good idea to put the fields out of use until the danger is determined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer what Bethesda is doing: Before getting all worked up, test the fields for the detectable presence of toxins.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Council-Members-Call-on-County-to-Test-Artificial-Turf-Fields-for-Toxic-Substances/

Science works.

Science might not have all the answers at this point.

Yeah, but ignorance and superstition have a spotty track record with the answers they give.

Are you a crumb rubber lobbyist? Or do you feel qualified to speak on this because you got a B minus in an Earth Science class?

Not a lobbyist. Someone who believes in making decisions based on the scientific method. Statements like "Science might not have all the answers" drive me crazy. Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know. But what's left? Making decisions based on some combination of our fears, hopes, prejudices and wishes? Going on "gut," like Sarah Palin?

There's a lot of fear-mongering around crumb rubber. In particular, the goalie "study" (it's not really a study but a collection of anecdotes) suffers from small sample size. As my statistics professor said, unusual things happen every day.

Synthetic fields are incredibly useful because you just get so much more playing time. The introduction of crumb rubber a decade or so ago revolutionized them, because it made them much safer in terms of injuries to the joints and from falls. So it wouldn't be cost-free to get rid of them.

But they're not perfect. When they were introduced one of the selling points was you could use them 365 days a year. Now the manufacturers are saying not to use them on the hottest days, they get too hot to be safe. That is a finding that is backed up by science.

Reading comprehension matters. Hence the words "at this point." More analysis would be welcome. One huge cost, potentially, will be huge jury verdicts against counties, leagues, and coaches. Intuitively, something seems off about these fields. But if science persuades that that is not the case, then that is that.

You lost me. Are you backing science or intuition?

Science, as the final sentence makes perfectly clear. My personal intuition makes me concerned. Yale scientists are concerned too, as are others. Federal scientists are following up. I await their scientific results, as any open minded person would. Making this a liberal versus conservative thing doesn't work here.

So are you signing this petition or advocating for research first? That would demonstrate where you are on science vs intuition.

NP here (and massive science advocate).

I hear what you're saying but aren't you at least slightly uncomfortable with this generation of children being the guinea pigs? If they turn out safe great but if there ends up being a danger and we did nothing then years worth of additional, unnecessary exposure will have occurred.

I guess ideally we could just put these fields out of use until the answer is determined.

Exactly.

yeah right. Because we have lots of spare fields around here.