Maret field PFAS vs Deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

[Anonymous]

Having grown up in DC with (bad) grass fields and now seeing kids playing on the artificial turf fields, it is night and day. Teams can play in almost any rain conditions, and can play through the winter. Gone are the bumps and divots.

I love grass fields. I hate how hot turf gets, and it does change the way games are played. But the only grass fields that I have seen remain in very good shape over the years are at private schools (e.g. sidwell and stone ridge) or regulated facilities such as soccerplex. DC's remaining public grass fields get torn up quickly.

The lafayette fight was silly but I don't mind it staying as it is, as pathetic as the "grass" is. It's an elementary school play area, with a baseball diamond attached. If it is mostly a dirt bowl, so what.

The Maret fight, on the other hand, is nimby city. This will be a great perk for athletes and kids in the neighborhood, and of course if people were really convinced of the dangers of these surfaces they would be protesting every soccer league and school in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

I agree perhaps the city should take the lead and pass some laws...but that's different than the neighborhood (let's say they arranged a vote of all the homes that are in some defined neighborhood) being able to dictate what a private landowner does with their property that is within the zoning and other laws of the city.

I have several neighbors that are literally against everything...and I mean everything. They will make a snide comment about how someone decided to remove a hedge and install a fence...as though it is some bizarre personal affront.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

I agree perhaps the city should take the lead and pass some laws...but that's different than the neighborhood (let's say they arranged a vote of all the homes that are in some defined neighborhood) being able to dictate what a private landowner does with their property that is within the zoning and other laws of the city.

I have several neighbors that are literally against everything...and I mean everything. They will make a snide comment about how someone decided to remove a hedge and install a fence...as though it is some bizarre personal affront.

But it's not within the by right zoning and other laws. They need exemptions and exceptions to do what they want to do and this is part of the process.

There are indeed a lot of people in the neighborhood that are very annoying. Wealthy and connected corporations, like Maret, should have to deal with the same crap the common people do. Tree preservation plans, runoff, permeable surfaces, traffic control plans, zoning variances, etc etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

I agree perhaps the city should take the lead and pass some laws...but that's different than the neighborhood (let's say they arranged a vote of all the homes that are in some defined neighborhood) being able to dictate what a private landowner does with their property that is within the zoning and other laws of the city.

I have several neighbors that are literally against everything...and I mean everything. They will make a snide comment about how someone decided to remove a hedge and install a fence...as though it is some bizarre personal affront.

But it's not within the by right zoning and other laws. They need exemptions and exceptions to do what they want to do and this is part of the process.

There are indeed a lot of people in the neighborhood that are very annoying. Wealthy and connected corporations, like Maret, should have to deal with the same crap the common people do. Tree preservation plans, runoff, permeable surfaces, traffic control plans, zoning variances, etc etc.

They of course have all approvals to do the work...I don't really understand what you are saying. They received whatever exemptions and exceptions. That ship sailed long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

I agree perhaps the city should take the lead and pass some laws...but that's different than the neighborhood (let's say they arranged a vote of all the homes that are in some defined neighborhood) being able to dictate what a private landowner does with their property that is within the zoning and other laws of the city.

I have several neighbors that are literally against everything...and I mean everything. They will make a snide comment about how someone decided to remove a hedge and install a fence...as though it is some bizarre personal affront.

But it's not within the by right zoning and other laws. They need exemptions and exceptions to do what they want to do and this is part of the process.

There are indeed a lot of people in the neighborhood that are very annoying. Wealthy and connected corporations, like Maret, should have to deal with the same crap the common people do. Tree preservation plans, runoff, permeable surfaces, traffic control plans, zoning variances, etc etc.

They of course have all approvals to do the work...I don't really understand what you are saying. They received whatever exemptions and exceptions. That ship sailed long ago.

The Task Force was a condition of the approvals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That for professional athletes. Having been around sports(rec and travel) the amount of injuries are much much higher on non maintained grass field is vastly greater vs artificial fields.
You are just a troll.

Just because you're being a shill does not mean that I am being a troll.

Your anecdotes are not very persuasive. Studies have been done for all levels. You are correct that there is a shockingly higher level of serious knee injuries for professional athletes but there's also twice as many incidents of ankle injuries in girls youth sports (2007) and higher concussion rates. What's more it gets worse the longer it's used because a lot of the rubber tire fill goes away over time.

Turf is worse in every way. Higher rates of injuries, increased heat island effect, and toxic chemicals. We aren't allowed to throw tires in the trash or bury them in our backyard but shredded tires are ok for youth sports fields?

The only thing turf is supposedly better at is cost and maintenance but frankly I'm skeptical.

We were talking about PVC turf, not crumb rubber. Conflating all artificial turf into the same category is deceitful.

No we’re talking about PFAs aka forever chemicals

No evidence has been submitted that the PVC turf contains PFAs. Just fear mongering.

Basic chemistry shows that all PVC resins are produced with one form of toxic technology or another, whether it be asbestos, mercury, or PFAS.

Please tell me how the turf is manufactured. Is it with asbestos, mercury or PFAs?

You are spreading misinformation.

Industrial products often use toxic chemicals in their manufacturing process. That doesn't mean the end product is contaminated. By your logic, PVC pipes would be poisoning people daily.

Your claim is that the PVC infill is somehow contaminated but have presented no evidence other than a picture of the word PVC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turf field issue is legit…but if Maret tomorrow said they decided to go with grass, the same people would try to manufacture a new issue.

Like all these NIMBY issues, once the field is up and running and it becomes part of the fabric after a couple of years, nobody will give a s**t anymore.

Oh for sure, that's the whole point. While they don't want artificial turf, they also don't want the field there in the first place, period.

This is the correct answer. Resist all change no matter what lies you need to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

I agree perhaps the city should take the lead and pass some laws...but that's different than the neighborhood (let's say they arranged a vote of all the homes that are in some defined neighborhood) being able to dictate what a private landowner does with their property that is within the zoning and other laws of the city.

I have several neighbors that are literally against everything...and I mean everything. They will make a snide comment about how someone decided to remove a hedge and install a fence...as though it is some bizarre personal affront.

But it's not within the by right zoning and other laws. They need exemptions and exceptions to do what they want to do and this is part of the process.

There are indeed a lot of people in the neighborhood that are very annoying. Wealthy and connected corporations, like Maret, should have to deal with the same crap the common people do. Tree preservation plans, runoff, permeable surfaces, traffic control plans, zoning variances, etc etc.

They of course have all approvals to do the work...I don't really understand what you are saying. They received whatever exemptions and exceptions. That ship sailed long ago.

They are saying that they want the studies to be done again. And again. And again. Until they get the answer they want.

[Anonymous]

The people who live in Chevy Chase by the purple line tried that. How did that work out for them?

[Anonymous]

Deal's fields are artificial, but there are signs all over CCDC protesting changing the Lafayette fields to artificial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then prove it. Just switch to grass and call their bluff.

The “crumb-bums” would be very upset.

The only ones that would be upset are those that don't want neighborhoods to have any say on things. This shouldn't be a power game where you fight them just because.

If they want grass then give them grass. It's not like artificial turf is something special or important.

Well…neighborhoods really shouldn’t have a say on things once the authorities and the land owners have made their decisions.

This is why you have zoning laws and private property rights. If neighborhoods had a say then it would be a chaotic mess…and next to nothing would ever happen in most neighborhoods.

BTW…I bet 90% of the neighborhood doesn’t have any opinion on what Maret uses for the field.

You're right but, at the same time, the city has been imposing more regulations than ever before. This is just the natural outgrowth of all that.

There's dozens of climate change and environmental rules we all have to abide by but for some reason a giant field of plastic grass is ok? It doesn't make sense when you consider everything else.

I agree perhaps the city should take the lead and pass some laws...but that's different than the neighborhood (let's say they arranged a vote of all the homes that are in some defined neighborhood) being able to dictate what a private landowner does with their property that is within the zoning and other laws of the city.

I have several neighbors that are literally against everything...and I mean everything. They will make a snide comment about how someone decided to remove a hedge and install a fence...as though it is some bizarre personal affront.

But it's not within the by right zoning and other laws. They need exemptions and exceptions to do what they want to do and this is part of the process.

There are indeed a lot of people in the neighborhood that are very annoying. Wealthy and connected corporations, like Maret, should have to deal with the same crap the common people do. Tree preservation plans, runoff, permeable surfaces, traffic control plans, zoning variances, etc etc.

They of course have all approvals to do the work...I don't really understand what you are saying. They received whatever exemptions and exceptions. That ship sailed long ago.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure it is very annoying for Maret. But if those with influence don't have to suffer just as much as those without then the system will never get better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That for professional athletes. Having been around sports(rec and travel) the amount of injuries are much much higher on non maintained grass field is vastly greater vs artificial fields.
You are just a troll.

Just because you're being a shill does not mean that I am being a troll.

Your anecdotes are not very persuasive. Studies have been done for all levels. You are correct that there is a shockingly higher level of serious knee injuries for professional athletes but there's also twice as many incidents of ankle injuries in girls youth sports (2007) and higher concussion rates. What's more it gets worse the longer it's used because a lot of the rubber tire fill goes away over time.

Turf is worse in every way. Higher rates of injuries, increased heat island effect, and toxic chemicals. We aren't allowed to throw tires in the trash or bury them in our backyard but shredded tires are ok for youth sports fields?

The only thing turf is supposedly better at is cost and maintenance but frankly I'm skeptical.

We were talking about PVC turf, not crumb rubber. Conflating all artificial turf into the same category is deceitful.

No we’re talking about PFAs aka forever chemicals

No evidence has been submitted that the PVC turf contains PFAs. Just fear mongering.

Basic chemistry shows that all PVC resins are produced with one form of toxic technology or another, whether it be asbestos, mercury, or PFAS.

Please tell me how the turf is manufactured. Is it with asbestos, mercury or PFAs?

You are spreading misinformation.

Industrial products often use toxic chemicals in their manufacturing process. That doesn't mean the end product is contaminated. By your logic, PVC pipes would be poisoning people daily.

Your claim is that the PVC infill is somehow contaminated but have presented no evidence other than a picture of the word PVC.

How would PVC pipes poison anyone since they are only used for waste water? You obviously don’t know anything about plumbing yet you are arguing from your uninformed position?

Artificial turf contains residual chemical compounds that are not found on any natural surface. That’s just a basic fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having grown up in DC with (bad) grass fields and now seeing kids playing on the artificial turf fields, it is night and day. Teams can play in almost any rain conditions, and can play through the winter. Gone are the bumps and divots.

I love grass fields. I hate how hot turf gets, and it does change the way games are played. But the only grass fields that I have seen remain in very good shape over the years are at private schools (e.g. sidwell and stone ridge) or regulated facilities such as soccerplex. DC's remaining public grass fields get torn up quickly.

The lafayette fight was silly but I don't mind it staying as it is, as pathetic as the "grass" is. It's an elementary school play area, with a baseball diamond attached. If it is mostly a dirt bowl, so what.

The Maret fight, on the other hand, is nimby city. This will be a great perk for athletes and kids in the neighborhood, and of course if people were really convinced of the dangers of these surfaces they would be protesting every soccer league and school in the city.

I generally agree. But that grass field at Sidwell is horrible for baseball. It’s so bad it actually gives the home team a competitive advantage because most teams are not used to playing on such a mess of a surface.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having grown up in DC with (bad) grass fields and now seeing kids playing on the artificial turf fields, it is night and day. Teams can play in almost any rain conditions, and can play through the winter. Gone are the bumps and divots.

I love grass fields. I hate how hot turf gets, and it does change the way games are played. But the only grass fields that I have seen remain in very good shape over the years are at private schools (e.g. sidwell and stone ridge) or regulated facilities such as soccerplex. DC's remaining public grass fields get torn up quickly.

The lafayette fight was silly but I don't mind it staying as it is, as pathetic as the "grass" is. It's an elementary school play area, with a baseball diamond attached. If it is mostly a dirt bowl, so what.

The Maret fight, on the other hand, is nimby city. This will be a great perk for athletes and kids in the neighborhood, and of course if people were really convinced of the dangers of these surfaces they would be protesting every soccer league and school in the city.

I generally agree. But that grass field at Sidwell is horrible for baseball. It’s so bad it actually gives the home team a competitive advantage because most teams are not used to playing on such a mess of a surface.

That's not a bad thing. Some of the problems with our national soccer team are our players being unable to handle the imperfect fields of our regional competitors.