I’ve seen nothing here to change my mind. It’s outrageous to say that the burden of proof is on the public to prove beyond any scientific doubt that the turf is unsafe. It should be the other way around. The councils and the turf manufacturers should be able to prove that it is safe. The studies referenced in that Telegraph article I linked to make it clear that there are massive question marks hanging over this.
I’ve now read the article at In The Back Of The Net. Basically Enzo Giordani’s argument is that we shouldn’t do anything “until we know for sure one way or the other”. I have a big problem with that which I will explain below. Having said that, I respect Enzo for biting this off, and I would love to see a Part 2 that goes further into the issue.
Ryan – “everything causes cancer”. You might be correct on a philosophical level but in practical terms we can make a distinction between different levels of risk. Tobacco comes with a warning label but red meat does not. Now how do you know which end of the spectrum the artificial turf is on? It’s very speculative to say that it is safer than red meat (or safer than the rays of the sun as Enzo puts it). You should be very careful making this type of argument because you are potentially an apologist for something far worse than what you are anticipating.
Patrick – You quoted me by lifting an entire paragraph except for the last sentence that actually stated the reason why I don’t care about those arguments in this context. That was very manipulative of you. Clearly my approach to this is about weighing up all the evidence. What I said in the sentence you omitted was that the balance of probabilities should be the key factor when it comes to protecting people’s health. In my opinion the argument that ‘we still don’t have enough science to go by’ can be used quite manipulatively by those who have a vested interest in postponing any hard decisions. Have a look at the NFL concussion scandal as an example of this. Sometimes you just have to make a decision based on all available data.
Conan – I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. I am not denying that “correlation does not equal causation”. That’s Science 101. What I’m saying is that it is not an appropriate argument in this context because we need to assess the balance of probabilities rather than definitively proving a scientific point. The causality between Zika and microcephaly still hasn’t been scientifically proven beyond doubt, but that hasn’t stopped Zika being treated as a public health crisis from shortly after the correlation was first noticed.
To the mods – I see you’ve changed the title of the thread to “(Alleged & Unproven) Cancer risks of artificial turf”. The title I gave it (just “Cancer risks of artificial turf”) was fairly neutral. Nobody on here was even denying that there is at least some degree of risk. You’ve changed it into something that dismisses the issue out of hand by way of subtext. Come up with a new title if you must but please make it a neutral one.
These are the facts that suggest there is a problem:
1. The crumb rubber is full of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and metals such as mercury,lead and arsenic. There is concrete evidence of this in the studies completed in Norway (2006), Michigan (2008) and Holland (2013). There are links to information about those studies in the Telegraph article. Even the turf manufacturers are not denying that these substances are present, because they can’t argue with the results that come back from the labs (their defence seems to be that the chemicals are only found in small amounts and therefore cannot affect the athletes).
2. There is a correlation between those who are goalkeepers and those who get cancer. A goalkeeper is only 9% of a team (or less if you include outfield subs), while the early indications are that they account for 61% of footballers who get cancer after playing on the turf. I guess it could be something else that is driving the correlation, but it could also be the carcinogenic turf they are diving around on more often than the outfield players.
3. The rate of cancer amongst young athletes increased at about the same time as people started playing on turf (the generation born in the late 80s/early 90s).
Now you can look at all that and say that it proves nothing, and from a scientific point of view you might be correct. But you could also join those dots and say that this really doesn’t look good.
If you compare it to the health system, the reality is that doctors are constantly weighing up the pros and cons of multiple options which are not 100% proven or disproven. They have to make some hard decisions based on all the information available to them. You could also compare it to the earthquake safety of buildings. If a building seems to be seriously unsafe the council will red sticker it and make it illegal to step inside. But can the council prove that the building would definitely collapse in the event of a big earthquake? Of course they can’t. It’s about the balance of probabilities.
The key question should be whether this is all just some paranoid conspiracy theory, or whether there is actually some degree of credibility to the turf/cancer theory. It doesn’t matter whether or not the theory is 100% proven. If you agree that on balance it looks like there might be something to it, then it becomes a no-brainer to stop using the turf immediately. Cancelling or transferring some games is a cost worth paying when you look at what the stakes are. Then we can still wait for more research and debate the options to replace it later on.
