I am a lifelong Delhi resident, Delaware Academy graduate and third generation owner/operator of Clark Companies. We specialize in the construction of outdoor athletic facilities and over the past 40 years we have built approximately 300 synthetic fields. As such, I would consider myself to be one of the most knowledgeable people on synthetic turf in the school district and feel compelled to weigh in on some of the misinformation I have seen recently.
The terms “natural grass” and “synthetic turf” are very generic terms and can each describe a wide range of different surfaces.
“Natural grass” could be a world-class, pristine, sand-based field with drainage, irrigation, full time trained maintenance staff and unlimited maintenance budget. Or “natural grass” can describe the fields at the Legion; native compacted topsoil, uneven, inconsistent where “maintenance” equates to someone mowing them on a weekly basis.
Similarly the performance characteristics and relative safety of “synthetic turf” varies with different types of fiber, infill (sand, rubber, organic materials, etc.) and quantities of each component.
Injuries by NFL players on synthetic turf and their preference for natural grass has gotten a lot of publicity. The truth is that at the NFL level, the data does show that a player is slightly more likely to get injured on turf. But we are talking about the biggest, fastest and strongest athletes in the world. And they are comparing synthetic turf to the highest performance natural grass fields that money can buy. Who wouldn’t want to play on a surface like that? If those same studies were performed on middle/high school level athletes and compared injury rates at the Legion fields compared to a Fieldturf sand/rubber infill field like DA is proposing, I am certain that the results would be different. In fact, there was a 5-year study conducted on high school football players comparing injuries on natural grass to Fieldturf. This study, published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, found 43% fewer ACL injuries and 44% fewer concussions on Fieldturf as compared to natural grass.
Synthetic turf fields are hotter than natural grass fields. In extreme heat this can create unsafe conditions for athletes training or competing on synthetic turf, but in central New York, we rarely experience those unsafe temperature levels. When we do it is predominantly during the summer months (June, July, August) and during the hottest part of the day (early to mid-afternoon hours). Field temperatures are more of a problem in southern climates where the ambient temperatures are much higher.
Crumb rubber has been one of the most studied substances over the past decade with over 100 studies performed specifically on SBR rubber (ground car tires). None of these studies conclude that the potential health risks of crumb rubber outweigh the benefits. I have not seen evidence of a direct link between synthetic turf usage and any adverse health conditions. Crumb rubber has been used as synthetic turf infill for over 25 years and there are over 15,000 fields in the United States alone. Roughly 2,000 infill turf fields will be installed in 2023. The most progressive scientific research institutes in the country have crumb rubber fields on their campuses. We have installed them at Princeton, Yale, Cornell and Dartmouth to name a few. The notion that crumb rubber is a toxic substance is plainly not supported by the facts. All of the headlines about crumb rubber are either in reference to the fact that crumb rubber contains “carcinogens” or people who speculate that crumb rubber “could” have potential health risks, but without any scientific evidence. While it is true that SBR crumb rubber does contain substances classified as “carcinogens,” the research shows that the substances are not “bioavailable.” This means that the human body is not capable of breaking down the substance to the point that it can enter circulation and have an active effect. This whole topic is moot anyway because the District has conceded that they would utilize virgin EPDM crumb rubber rather than SBR rubber.
The environmental impact of synthetic turf has been questioned by its opponents, specifically the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals.” This is an important issue but not relevant to this synthetic turf debate. Fieldturf does not use PFAS in their manufacturing process and they have testing to prove that their products do not contain PFAS. People also question what happens to the turf at the end of its useful life (estimated to be 12-14 years). Synthetic turf recycling is an industry on the rise with multiple recycling facilities now open and operational in nearby Pennsylvania. The district will have the option to specify that turf be completely recycled at the end of its useful life.
I have been involved in this same debate at schools throughout New England, including some of the most liberal communities in the country. I have heard all of the fears and speculation but the science is clear and I wouldn’t think twice about putting any of my three young children out on the synthetic surface that DA is proposing.
I would also dispute the notion that since the voters didn’t support a synthetic turf field previously, that it should not be brought up again. When a synthetic turf field was previously presented it was by a different administration under different circumstances. Candidly, I was not a supporter of the previous turf proposition. I don’t feel that the merits were properly explained nor understood. For those willing to listen, the current Administration has done a much better job this time around of explaining the impacts of limited field space on the school’s main campus and challenges presented by extensive usage of the Legion (lack of control, no state aid, logistics, safety, etc.). Without a synthetic field on campus, the District remains at the mercy of the Legion.
For those voting on Oct. 11, I hope that you can separate fact from opinion and make an informed choice in the best interest of our school and our children.
Christopher Clark
Delhi
