A&H

Potential 3G hazard?

The Referee Store
This old chestnut again.

Maybe if he played in the US, where I believe the specifications are not too stringent but in the EU I believe the rubber crumb components are regulated and controlled.

This story seems to do the rounds at least once a year.
 
This was high profile perhaps 2-3 years ago that showed all the signs of growing into major issue. Given how these things gather momentum (rightly or wrongly) I'm surprised it's been so quiet despite the steady increase in synthetic facilities. The lack of a scientific link has never stopped anyone having an opinion. I can't comment on the health/safety position but these pellets are certainly a nuisance - I'm shaking them out of my boots, socks and kit bag for weeks after a game on 3G/4G.
 
Dreadfully sad story - but if 3g pitches are dangerous, then so are car tyres? My own son has handled car tyres professionally for about 15 years now!
 
Dreadfully sad story - but if 3g pitches are dangerous, then so are car tyres? My own son has handled car tyres professionally for about 15 years now!
Exactly - as the FA statement said:
"A large number of studies have further confirmed that the effects of SBR rubber are as negligible as the effect of ingesting grilled foods or exposure to tyre wear on roads in everyday life."
 
I'm not sure about the reliability of that data. Compiling statistics (and assessing risk) by asking people to self-report if they think their cancer was caused by synthetic turf is hardly employing a sound scientific method, is it?

From a scientific point of view those statistics have little value, as far as i can tell.

Also, according to an article in BusinessWire, although admittedly using information from advocates of synthetic turf, the EHHI has habit of "cherry-picking half-truths to support their misleading views of synthetic turf fields."
 
I'm not sure about the reliability of that data. Compiling statistics (and assessing risk) by asking people to self-report if they think their cancer was caused by synthetic turf is hardly employing a sound scientific method, is it?

From a scientific point of view those statistics have little value, as far as i can tell.

Also, according to an article in BusinessWire, although admittedly using information from advocates of synthetic turf, the EHHI has habit of "cherry-picking half-truths to support their misleading views of synthetic turf fields."
Exactly why an epidemiological study is required to establish whether there is a causal link. The collation of this data I s not about what the individual thinks caused their cancer but that they were football players that have contracted cancer. On this basis it is suggestive but hardly conclusive for a lot of reasons.
 
They said head injury in US football wasn’t an issue for years or smoking wasn’t linked to cancer!

Even concussion till very recently wasn’t thought to be so serious!

Wake up people!
 
They said head injury in US football wasn’t an issue for years or smoking wasn’t linked to cancer!

Even concussion till very recently wasn’t thought to be so serious!

Wake up people!


Because smoking is linked to cancer, it therefore follows that 3G pitches are - that's a huge leap, well less of a leap more an exploration into space!

As I mentioned above, lots of professions come into contact with rubber - so a study involving them is surely the way to go?
 
Not quite getting my point PP, for years and years and years all the evidence was that both were perfectly OK.

As time went by and more proof was found it became the truth rather than the accusation! Both cost multi millions / billions in subsequent compensation.
 
Not quite getting my point PP, for years and years and years all the evidence was that both were perfectly OK.

As time went by and more proof was found it became the truth rather than the accusation! Both cost multi millions / billions in subsequent compensation.
Quite right SF. It takes a generation or two to get the empirical evidence that any particular substance has a long term ill health effect.
 
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Crumb+Rubber

Mmmm, not looking good this!!!

......There were 96 chemicals found in 14 samples analyzed, half of which have had no government testing!!!!

Many countries have already banned them !!! Why??
Chemicals? Oh no, how terrifying!!!

I'm sorry, but what is that website? Telling me that crumb rubber is made from SBR is interesting and does raise legitimate questions. Going on to list the health hazards of styrene and butadiene is meaningless, misleading and scaremongering - given that's not how chemistry works! A fully polymerised copolymer made from two raw monomers can easily share very few properties with a jar of either monomer and it's very misleading to try and imply otherwise

I'm also sceptical when the website goes on to list potential alternatives, and then goes on to list "natural" as a credential for the alternatives. Natural things can be fatal, and "artificial" things can be perfectly safe. Again, a meaningless thing to mention and not something any serious scientist would even think to bring up.
 
This is really irresponsible journalism, but it’s the mail so I’m not surprised.
All chemicals carry hazards - the trick is to not come into contact with too much. Water probably kills more people than any other chemical, and you can definitely overdose on it. If you inhale enough you will die. Arsenic is a natural chemical, but it’s not that safe! Styrene is actually a natural compound, but stating that it’s found in coffee among other things doesn’t suit the story!
Without sufficient data it is irresponsible to suggest that use of a 3G pitch caused the cancer, but that’s not the Mail’s job. Their job is to get people reading their stories, and making it sound scary gets people to read it.
Both these monomers are in cigarette smoke and both are harmful, but the levels are much lower in SBR and you don’t inhale a 3G pitch.
You can’t say there is no risk, because you can’t prove a negative, but not saying there is no risk is not the same as saying there is a risk. It’s saying you don’t know.
The data to show smoking was harmful was available but was hidden, and famously the original Marlboro man died of lung cancer caused by smoking. In the chemical industry we are not blasé about the risks, but stories like this are sensationalised in order to sell papers / advertising space and do more harm than good by worrying people unnecessarily and hiding real issues.
A chemical called bisphenol A is toxic but is used to make the lacquer inside tin cans. This stops food spoiling and has saved millions of lives, but it sells more papers just to focus on its toxicity. Again when it’s used it has polymerised so there is no monomer left.
Reading the Daily Mail will probably do you longer lasting damage by destroying brain cells!
 
The FA has funded numerous in depth studies which prove that there is minimal risk to health from artificial grass pitches.

I also have a few friends, one of whom who plays in a supply league, and they have wrote papers and studies proving that artifical grass pitches are no more dangerous than actual turf.

I do know that in America, they had to postpone a game on an artificial grass to a later kick off because the surface temperature was something like 60 degrees Celsius. However that was in Arizona, and the air temperature was around 40 degrees Celsius.

Living in England, I don't think we'd have to worry about those sort of conditions.

Take what you will from it, but I'm not convinced to be honest. Of course I don't doubt the consumption of rubber crumbs is probably a bad thing for your health, either in the form of vapour particles or even accidental consumption of the whole thing, but it's not like players are eating a bowl of the things for breakfast...
 
Let’s just summise for a second that it is worse than they say. You’d do everything to try and rubbish the evidence to limit potential blame. This could be huge in the costs of firstly replacing 1000s of pitches and then the claim blame lawyers would have a field day. 4-5 countries have banned them so someone thinks there is an issue!
 
Back
Top