QUESTION FAKE GRASS in LGUSD.

Do not assume our government would prohibit schools from installing artificial turf if it weren't safe. Do not assume the existence of a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) ensures  consumer products are safe. Below, read the CPSC Commissioner's statement  that compliance with standard "most definitely does not mean" artificial turf is safe.   He clarifies the artificial turf standard does not include requirements for any artificial turf system components beyond crumb rubber infill.  This is a critical point for ALL artificial turf systems, regardless of the infill product it utilizes, given, as just one example, what researchers are uncovering about the chemicals in artificial turf carpets.  He emphasizes  that artificial turf safety efforts are urgently needed, reminding us "that  our youngest – and thus most vulnerable – children are the ones using playgrounds on a daily basis." (By the way, for districts unlike LGUSD, that are considering usin

PFAS are used in artificial turf manufacturing. They have been found in the blades and backing of fields in use , most later landfilled. So from site of manufacture to site of use to site of disposal, artificial turf potentially contributes to PFAS in people, environments, animals and water. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency , PFAS have been linked to: developmental delays in children, accelerated puberty, hormone interference, decreased fertility, reduced immune systems, including reduced vaccine response, increased risk of prostate/testicular cancers, high cholesterol, etc. The conclusion of the “ PFAS Strategic Roadmap: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024 ” includes a directive to local governments to exercise increased and sustained leadership to prevent new PFAS contamination. Call upon your local governments to fulfill this EPA directive they’ve been tasked with. Call upon them to landscape schools and parks witho

Image from idiomsandslang.com . Are we confident that board members, teachers and administration, and community members explicitly advocating for use of plastic grass on our elementary school campuses  are  well-informed of its pros and cons?   Are we confident they've been presented with alternatives?   Have they been presented with attractive, inviting, low maintenance corridor and courtyard designs without plastic grass?  Have they been presented with  an overly simplistic approach to water conservation on the fields? ? Terese McNamee, Director of Maintenance and Operations Thomas Lettiere, and our landscape designer Devin Conway have all repeatedly stated publicly they have no stake in the game, that they are not advocating for plastic grass, and that they are simply providing options for the  the  decision-makers, the  LGUSD Board of Trustees .  Presumably stakeholders are relying on the LGUSD board and the district to have thoroughly researched the  options being presented to

Image from  2021-2023 Priority Product Work Plan CA Dept of Toxic Substances Control is evaluating whether artificial turf should be classified as a product that needs to be labelled as toxic. The agency has added artificial turf to its 2021-2023 Priority Product Work Plan for research and study to determine whether it needs to be added as a Priority Product.   If the agency concludes artificial turf is a Priority Product, it will become a requirement for manufacturers to label the toxic chemicals in it so that consumers are aware.    The fact the product is under investigation indicates artificial turf may be lacking in adequate regulation. Below is the text regarding artificial turf that appears in the final plan. Note that the toxicity concerns are not limited to tire crumb rubber. CA Dept of Toxic Substances Control is not yet ready to conclude artificial turf is non-toxic even if consumers use a version without recycled tires in it. If our own state agency is not yet ready t

Image of Samuel Liu from his  school newspaper where he wrote an in-depth piece about concerns over the district's artificial turf installations Our elementary school kids are trusting grownups to be educated on the issues and advocate for them.  These kids are trusting LGUSD to make a safe decision here.  However, older students in the community have spoken out themselves in the past against artificial turf. In April 2015, Los Gatos High School student, Zoe Lam, penned this piece: " LGHS needs to listen to its constituents' opinions and concerns.   Plan resulting from Measure E is replacing ALL five athletic fields with artificial turf at LGHS. This is NOT the right choice." A petition started by Lam garnered over 300 signatures.  " Keep Natural Grass on Helm Field...  Grass on LGHS’s football field, Helm Field, should be reinstalled after renovations ."  View the petition to read the numerous and insightful comments from Los Gatos community members oppos

Will the artificial turf at Los Gatos schools contribute to the contamination of drinking water ?? "We're talking about a massive public health threat...   We're now talking about, probably one of the biggest environmental contamination stories in history, and most of us still don't know about it.   We know about Flint , Michigan -- one water supply.  Yet here, we're talking about something that's in water all over the world, in all of our blood, in animals, polar bears, eagles and we're all just now starting to hear about this, because this information was withheld and covered up for years."  - Robert Bilott, the lawyer who  took DuPont to court over PFAS-contaminated drinking water and won

Image from The Story of Stuff  video in this post on "externalized costs". LGUSD is proposing to install artificial turf on its campuses.   Artificial turf contains PFAS. PFAS have been linked to reproductive problems, cancer and other health issues. Concerns have become grave enough that, as of just recently, California has: banned PFAS chemicals from items for young children and food packaging. (Beware: Artificial turf remains unregulated . Artificial turf is, incredulously , not classified as a childrens' product.) forbidden manufacturers of cookware to label their products as free of any particular toxic chemical if the pots or pans contain PFAS.  restricted use of environmental labels claiming product compostability or recyclability. PFAS is so persistent and so pervasive in our environment that, coupled with the fact that it bioaccumulates in our bodies, it's now found almost universally in blood and breastmilk samples tested! However, it is completely il

Image of plastic turf dumped near a wetland from a coalition in a town that now has a moratorium on artificial turf installations . Yes, this is the same Dr. Debbie Tatro that has  taken issue with the artificial turf safety assertions provided by LGUSD's consultant , David Teter. Here is Dr. Tatro's letter to the LGUSD school board:

Image from student Ryan Basso's " The Balance of Opinion " LGUSD district management staff  continue to insist artificial turf is safe d espite assertions from experts and government agencies that it is  premature to conclude artificial turf is safe. LGUSD's conclusion of safety is based, seemingly entirely, on the word of the sole consultant they hired explicitly to provide safety reassurances, David Teter.   Why are district management staff: neglecting to seek out and consider the input of at least one of the  experts that finds it  premature to conclude artificial turf is safe? failing to acknowledge concerns that clearly continue to be held by government agencies?  failing to acknowledge the narrow context of Teter's product analysis? so willing to adopt Teter's advice knowing that not only was  he hired by the artificial turf industry to get  one of our state agencies  to dismiss its concerns, he actually  failed  to do so? LGUSD's consultant, Dav

The Story of Stuff  explains "Externalized Costs" in the video below. As apparent from the financials in the district presentation, artificial turf will cost the district at least a million dollars more than natural grass. While that's already a jaw-dropping amount of money, it does not even reflect the full true costs of artificial turf products. This often goes unacknowledged because true costs are not reflected on financial expense records. There are costs to artificial turf that neither the district nor the community will pay with cash from their pockets. These are called "externalized costs". These costs include the costs to environmental and public health and extend beyond LGUSD campuses. These costs are incurred and effect real people along the entire length of this product's lifecycle, from the toxic pollution that comes from harvesting of natural resources, through manufacture, through degradation over years of exposure to the elements and foot

Want to know what it's like to learn your children have been drinking contaminated water ? Communities like Flint as well as those that neighbor chemical companies can tell you. Image from cargofilm-releasing.com Researchers ask "Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS?"   The answer: " The evidence reviewed in this analysis does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health. Given fluoropolymers’ extreme persistence; emissions associated with their production, use, and disposal; and a high likelihood for human exposure to PFAS, their production and uses should be curtailed except in cases of essential uses." So   we can't conclude PFAS is of "low concern for environmental and human health".  But is there even PFAS in artificial turf?  Yes... Consultant Dr. Laura Green has traditionally been someone the art

Image from  Safe Healthy Playing Field 's  Facebook post . Marketing artificial turf as "recyclable" is greenwashing. Being "recyclable" and being "recycled" are not the same thing.  Artificial turf is classified as a single-use plastic .   While some single-use plastic water bottles may be recycled, artificial turf is  NOT being recycled in the U.S. It's challenging to separate the infill and contaminants from the carpet. There are no facilities in the U.S. that recycle artificial turf, and it's unlikely we're shipping it overseas.  Industry confirms in the video below that no artificial turf has EVER been recycled in the U.S.: 🟢👀🟢We spy something green...an industry greenwashing tactic! 🚩Artificial turf has long been touted as being recycled, giving communities a false sense of being good enviro stewards. 💀BUT @TenCateGrassUS admitted that NO artificial turf has EVER been recycled in the US. NONE. pic.twitter.com/Q8RTjoxEwZ — PFA

Image from report by EWG.org " PFAS Contamination of Drinking Water Far More Prevalent Than Previously Reported " Wind and rain blow or wash pollutants off hard surfaces like streets, parking lots, sidewalks, and artificial turf systems into storm drains that flow untreated directly into our creeks and waterways. In LGUSD's proposed artificial turf "fields", water will rinse the chemicals off the weathered and worn plastic blades of "grass" as well as off the perforated carpet backing and perforated shockpad beneath. The chemicals will be rinsed into drainage pipes that flow directly to storm drains . Why wouldn't PFAS forever chemicals, lead, infill, plastic grass blades, microplastics, cleaning chemicals, and weedkillers be carried by rainwater and sprinkler runoff from local artificial turf systems into the surrounding storm drains that flow into Los Gatos Creek? Even David Teter acknowledged at our Town Hall meeting the greater volume