Post history

History for ConanTroutman

(Alleged + unproven) Cancer risks of artificial turf

Back to topic

Current version

Posted April 22, 2016 06:53 · last edited April 22, 2016 06:58

Okay, I was being a smartarse with the Cage graph.But I am very sceptical of this article. Here's why:

- Just because there are carcinogenic compounds in the material doesn't mean that those compounds are either present in high enough quantities to pose a health risk, or that those compounds can enter the human bloodstream in high enough quantities to be a concern. Heavy metals like those talked about in the article are also found in food and water supplies too, but not generally at a level known to pose a risk to human health. 

- The statistic on goalkeepers comes from this: University of Washington coach Amy Griffin, 50, a former player with the US national team, has been researching the alleged cancer risk.

She claims to have found more than 166 cases of footballers - 61 per cent of whom were goalkeepers - developing cancer and is convinced their illnesses are linked to a substance called crumb rubber infill.

There's no discussion of how she has conducted this research or her own credentials for researching it. How does the rate of cancer in footballers who have played on this turf compare to their peers who have done other sports on natural surfaces, or no sports at all? Is the sample big enough to put any weight on the fact there are more goalkeepers? How did she select the people to study - did she say "I think goalkeepers are more at risk, can anyone who knows young goalkeepers who have got cancer contact me?"

- The increased rate of cancer among young athletes isn't something I could find data on outside of that article or other articles quoting the same woman. If it is true though, it could be because of other factors. I'm sure there's other things which have changed in young people's environments and lifestyles over the last 30 years or so -commonplace taking of creatine supplements at US high schools, or added artificial sweeteners in soft drinks ,for instance.

Here's an article showing the other side of this argument: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/scie...

Largely absent from many of those popular reports, however, is data. For years, scientists have been digging into artificial turf, which swaps blades of grass for plastic and soil for rubber crumbs to make a low-maintenance green space. So far, most studies have found that artificial fields pose little to no health risk. But none of the studies are all-inclusive; they don’t test each brand of turf or weed out every potentially toxic ingredient. Those gaps in testing fuel public fears, such as the worry that soccer players could be getting cancer from turf. That spiraling concern also highlights the disconnect between the nuanced science of health risks and parents who understandably want assurances.

A closer look at the data may ease many fears; they show that artificial turf is generally safe. Of course, the data aren’t perfect and there are a few issues to be wary of, such as lead levels, especially in older fields. But these concerns are a far cry from the drama-drenched alarm found on some parent Listservs and in the news.

Not saying it's 100% safe, but that article just seems like ill-informed scare-mongering.

Previous versions

1 version
ConanTroutman edited April 22, 2016 06:58

Okay, I was being a smartarse with the Cage graph.But I am very sceptical of this article. Here's why:

- Just because there are carcinogenic compounds in the material doesn't mean that those compounds are either present in high enough quantities to pose a health risk, or that those compounds can enter the human bloodstream in high enough quantities to be a concern. Heavy metals like those talked about in the article are also found in food and water supplies too, but not generally at a level known to pose a risk to human health. 

- The statistic on goalkeepers comes from this: University of Washington coach Amy Griffin, 50, a former player with the US national team, has been researching the alleged cancer risk.

She claims to have found more than 166 cases of footballers - 61 per cent of whom were goalkeepers - developing cancer and is convinced their illnesses are linked to a substance called crumb rubber infill.

There's no discussion of how she has conducted this research or her own credentials for researching it. How does the rate of cancer in footballers who have played on this turf compare to their peers who have done other sports on natural surfaces, or no sports at all? Is the sample big enough to put any weight on the fact there are more goalkeepers? How did she select the people to study - did she say "I think goalkeepers are more at risk, can anyone who knows young goalkeepers who have got cancer contact me?"

- The increased rate of cancer among young athletes isn't something I could find data on outside of that article or other articles quoting the same woman. If it is true though, it could be because of other factors. I'm sure there's other things which have changed in young people's environments and lifestyles over the last 30 years or so -commonplace taking of creatine supplements at US high schools, or added artificial sweeteners in soft drinks ,for instance.

Here's an article showing the other side of this argument: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/scie...

Largely absent from many of those popular reports, however, is data. For years, scientists have been digging into artificial turf, which swaps blades of grass for plastic and soil for rubber crumbs to make a low-maintenance green space. So far, most studies have found that artificial fields pose little to no health risk. But none of the studies are all-inclusive; they don’t test each brand of turf or weed out every potentially toxic ingredient. Those gaps in testing fuel public fears, such as the worry that soccer players could be getting cancer from turf. That spiraling concern also highlights the disconnect between the nuanced science of health risks and parents who understandably want assurances.

A closer look at the data may ease many fears; they show that artificial turf is generally safe. Of course, the data aren’t perfect and there are a few issues to be wary of, such as lead levels, especially in older fields. But these concerns are a far cry from the drama-drenched alarm found on some parent Listservs and in the news.