OPINION: Vote NO on Article 32 – High School Turf Field Replacement

April 24, 2025 By Sara Gordon

With rising rates of cancer, infertility and chronic disease we can no longer pretend what we introduce into our environment isn’t affecting our health. We need to understand the consequences of our decisions and start making better choices for the future.

With the existing synthetic turf field nearing its end of life, a thorough assessment of the options for replacement should be considered and presented to the community for consideration along with a discussion of benefits, costs and risks.

What are the concerns with synthetic turf fields?
1) They contain many highly toxic chemicals and substances including:

• Heavy metals (lead, cadmium, zinc)
• PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
• VOCs (volatile organic compounds such as benzene)
• Plastic compounds including phenols
• 6PPD-quinone
• Tire crumb rubber infill (now banned in the EU)

These chemicals are absorbed via skin contact, inhalation, ingestion and can contaminate drinking water. Among various potential health problems, studies suggest links to increased risk of cancer, heart disease, endocrine disruption, gastrointestinal disease, reproductive issues, hormone system disruption and neurotoxicity.

2) Synthetic turf fields are harmful to our environment through the following mechanisms:

• Microplastic pollution – the tiny plastic particles contaminate water, soil, and air as well as accumulate in the body, posing risks to both environmental and human health.
• Excessive heat – synthetic turf retains significantly more heat than natural grass, leading to potentially hazardous temperatures for players and wildlife. It can also contribute to urban heat island effect.
• Recycling – this process is fraught with misleading claims and guarantees. Current evidence shows that synthetic turf cannot be meaningfully recycled.
• Carbon intensive – a typical synthetic turf field introduces 80,000 sq ft. of plastic into the environment, 200 tons or 400,000 pounds of infill and 20 tons of turf carpet to be ‘recycled’; further adding to the climate crisis.
• Water contamination – Runoff containing heavy metals, microplastics and chemicals can reach surface and groundwater.
  • – NOTE: Hingham’s PFAS water testing results are already consistently over the EPA’s proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA “Teflon chemical.”
  • – Many communities have found PFAS in synthetic turf and runoff – most recently in Burrillville, RI. RI Department of Environmental Management and the RI Department of Health Letter

Further reading on the significant environmental impacts of synthetic turf can be found here.

Legislation and Bans
For the second consecutive year, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering two bills –S.2187 and H.3339 – that would “ban the purchase of and installation of synthetic turf fields”. Two additional bills, S.195 and H.384, explicitly mention synthetic turf fields installed on school properties in their list of products containing harmful chemicals. And a fifth bill, S.624 is calling for at least a 36-month moratorium on synthetic turf installation in the state. The last three bills mentioned (S.195, H.384 and S.624) have all just advanced to the next stage and have hearings scheduled within the next two weeks.

Residents from more than 35 communities in the state are demonstrating strong support for the legislation; and they are not alone. Other states like New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Vermont and California have varying degrees of bans and moratoriums on synthetic turf. Burrillville, RI is currently involved in a legal battle over a proposed synthetic turf field.

What do health experts say about synthetic turf fields?
Several medical and scientific groups have either come out against synthetic turf or advise caution in using it around children until further studies can be done. Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center at the Institute for Exposomic Research recommends against the installation of synthetic turf fields due to the “uncertainties surrounding the safety of these products and the potential for dangerous heat and chemical exposures, especially for children”. Their concerns are rooted in ongoing, inconclusive safety studies and the presence of known carcinogens and neurotoxins in materials commonly used in synthetic turf. For reasons outlined in the statement they recommend natural grass fields as the safest option for areas where children play.

Their position statement effectively summarizes key concerns and provides 27 related links for further reference. In addition to these resources, my informational Facebook page is a repository for numerous articles related to synthetic turf, offering additional information and perspectives on the topic.

Who are the consultants?
Hingham School District has hired David Nardone and Elizabeth Denly to advise them on the field replacement. They are both renowned synthetic turf advocates. David Nardone is a former board member of the Synthetic Turf Council and Elizabeth Denly is vice president and chemistry director at TRC, a consulting firm that represents clients advocating for synthetic turf installation.

At the April 14th information meeting, Ms. Denly stated that she disagreed with the Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center position statement on synthetic turf. By doing so, Ms. Denly disregarded a position that is supported by pediatricians, epidemiologists, and laboratory scientists at Mount Sinai, who have publicly stated that children are “uniquely vulnerable” to harmful exposures from synthetic turf. The Center’s guidance is precautionary, emphasizing the lack of comprehensive safety assessments and the potential health risks, particularly for children.

Later when discussing PFAS material safety data testing she conducted for Burrillville, RI, Ms. Denly stated that the “poison is in the dose.” This is despite science and the EPA asserting that “… there is no level of exposure to these contaminants without risk of health impacts”.

Furthermore, the material safety data presented by Ms. Denly was solely for PFAS chemicals. No safety data was presented nor mentioned for heavy metals, VOCs, PAHs, microplastics and 6PPD-quinone. Whilst PFAS is important it is but one of the many concerning chemicals and compounds found in synthetic turf that should be investigated for safety.

I am left to wonder why the precautionary principle which prioritizes safety and prevention is not being applied by Hingham School District in this matter.

What is the alternative?
Organic or sustainably managed natural grass sports fields are the answer. Significant advancements in science and technology applied to these fields in the past 5 years make them a viable option in terms of durability and playable hours.

To make an informed decision Hingham must fully understand all available options. This requires a thorough natural grass field assessment which involves more than a cursory review or an outdated field study from 2020.

Two companies that Hingham School District, at minimum, should have consulted are: Tom Irwin and Sports Turf Specialties. A sample presentation for the town of Arlington done by Tom Irwin can be viewed here  as well as a video from May 2024 with field experts explaining the pros and cons of the turf options.

When comparing the costs of synthetic and natural grass it is important to review the total life-cycle expenses – including installation, annual maintenance, and eventual disposal or replacement. This comprehensive approach ensures that all financial implications are considered, rather than focusing solely on initial installation costs or maintenance. (TURI Article) Using this approach, the 20 year-life-cycle costs of a natural grass field are approximately half of those of a synthetic turf field.

Presentations to local communities have shown that a well-constructed, sustainably maintained natural grass field can provide 800 hours of usage a year; not 500 hours as the field study claims; bringing Hingham much closer to the needed 1,000 hours of play.

What happens if Article 32 receives a ‘NO’ vote
The existing synthetic turf field requires replacement. Hingham School District has let a 12-year-old field with a projected 10-year life span remain in play without thoroughly investigating its replacement in a timely manner.

Hingham School District has warned that the field may deteriorate to the point of being unsafe for play, potentially resulting in a full shutdown, though no public timeline has been provided. Should this occur before a replacement is in place, it would be an unfortunate and regrettable outcome. The hope is that a ‘No’ vote will prompt the district to give this issue the attention it deserves so that we can work together to swiftly find the best possible solution.

What happens if Article 32 receives a ‘YES’ vote
The field replacement project will move to the bid process stage. Once that happens the public will no longer have a say as to what materials are used and what in-fill choice will be made.

Hingham School District, in consultation with pro-synthetic turf advocates, will determine what testing parameters and safety measures (if any) will be implemented and whether any guarantees will be made regarding the claims around the materials being used. In other words, decisions that will affect the health and safety of our children as well as our community will be made in direct contradiction to recommendations given by doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, environmentalists and lawmakers. No independent, third-party input will be considered, leaving these important choices without the benefit of unbiased expert review.

Voting ‘No’ on Article 32 sends a strong message to the Hingham School District that the community expects more rigorous standards for decisions affecting our children and our town. This includes genuine due diligence, full transparency, independent third-party review, and meaningful public engagement before any major decision is finalized. Given the lasting impact this decision will have on all Hingham residents, it is essential that the process be thorough, informed, and open to robust public debate.