A&H

Potential 3G hazard?

I'm not sure why we would surmise that. Incidentally, the definition of surmise is, "suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it."

That's the thing - there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. Meanwhile, here are links to two reports published in 2017 & 18 on the US National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health website, and their conclusions.

Comprehensive multipathway risk assessment of chemicals associated with recycled ("crumb") rubber in synthetic turf fields.
CONCLUSIONS:
This HHRA's [Human Health Risk Assessment] results add to the growing body of literature that suggests recycled rubber infill in synthetic turf poses negligible risks to human health. This comprehensive assessment provides data that allow stakeholders to make informed decisions about installing and using these fields.

Incidence of malignant lymphoma in adolescents and young adults in the 58 counties of California with varying synthetic turf field density.
CONCLUSION:
Our findings in the state with the greatest number of such fields and a large, diverse patient population are consistent with those of a prior study observing no association between individual-level exposures to turf fields and cancer incidence. Avoidance of synthetic turf fields for fear of increased cancer risk is not warranted.

The second link is to a properly-conducted epidemiological study of the incidence of lymphomas in individuals exposed to synthetic turf fields, as opposed to the EHHI data generated from (in their own words) only those who "have known to contact Amy with their cancer case."

Now, as Julie Foudy mentioned in those videos, California is currently carrying out a more comprehensive study of the risks associated with the crumb rubber infill used in synthetic fields so when that is completed we should have a better picture.

However, as things stand, there is no scientific evidence to support an increased risk of cancer associated with synthetic fields. In fact, according the HHRA study mentioned above:
... cancer risk levels for users of synthetic turf field were comparable to or lower than those associated with natural soil fields.
 
The Referee Store
In my Industry of extraction, car manufacturers have banged on for years that fuel emissions are safe.... well, as more is known they most certainly not! Just ask VW in the USA?? If you cant beat the test, then cheat the test!!!
 
In my Industry of extraction, car manufacturers have banged on for years that fuel emissions are safe.... well, as more is known they most certainly not! Just ask VW in the USA?? If you cant beat the test, then cheat the test!!!

The studies Peter posts aren't linked to the pitch manufacturers as far as I can see.

Again, I don't follow or agree with your logic - previous tests/studies on a completely different subject were flawed = studies on this subject are flawed.

You're not a secret Daily Mail journalist are you?;)
 
The studies Peter posts aren't linked to the pitch manufacturers as far as I can see.

Again, I don't follow or agree with your logic - previous tests/studies on a completely different subject were flawed = studies on this subject are flawed.

You're not a secret Daily Mail journalist are you?;)

If everything in the garden is rosey then why have countries banned these??? For what conceivable reason have they done this???
 
If everything in the garden is rosey then why have countries banned these??? For what conceivable reason have they done this???

Some countries will be overly cautious, which is no bad thing when it comes to the possibility of people getting cancer etc.

I’ve not had time to read through the reports that have been linked to in the thread, but if the risks are around the fumes given off by the rubber fill then there would be more risk in countries with warmer climates etc.
 
If everything in the garden is rosey then why have countries banned these??? For what conceivable reason have they done this???
Even the ridiculously bad website you quoted before states very clearly that they've been banned only as a precaution rather than because of any actual evidence.
 
Even the ridiculously bad website you quoted before states very clearly that they've been banned only as a precaution rather than because of any actual evidence.

That's complete and utter rubbish Graeme, country Governments don't ban things because there is no actual evidence, quite the opposite really!!!
They ban things because there is evidence, what evidence we both don't know, cautious, yes, stupid, hell no!

Delayed health problems to asbestos took 20-40 years to surface, its in every building built in its time installed as a 'safe' product! Homes, schools, factories, How much has that safety recall cost to put right???
 
Back
Top