What are your concerns? The posts originators, the “Delaware Riverkeepers”, are described as “a regional non-profit advocacy organization” ie a bunch of self-appointed do-gooders. I’d take anything that they say with pinch of salt (just I would regard anything from the Daily Wail as suspect for different reasons) they have an agenda and twist whatever they find to it.

Personally I don't have any concerns but people I know have raised their concerns because they have kids playing football on these surfaces.

For those concerned about injury - astro has to be better than red blaize! Ah the post-match fun, picking little bits of stone from those unsightly wounds to the arms and legs.......... Huffpost: not usually known as a bastion of intellectual integrity.

I have experienced the cuts and scrapes when sliding/hitting the old sandpaper type of Astroturf, open woulns that seem to take an age to scab over, and always sore. This query is about potential harmful fumes from the rubber, being inhaled by children using the pitches. I just wish to know if there is any truth so I can pass the word on. We all know what happens when a Myth begins and spreads.

Invictus, thanks, I read that before I posted this thread but with it being American I just wondered ??????

Cheers.

Not sure if anyone picked up in todays paper a 18 year old who has cancer who has related it to the artifcial pitches. He dad stated he always came home covered n the stuff. In the article it states that the issue was raised by the family of Gary Ablett who raised concerns after he died of cancer. I know this post was a few weeks ago but I thought it was worth raising.

Whilst it is desirable to have a world safe from any exposure to harmful chemicals pseudo science needs to be reported extremely carefully - remember the hysteria that linked: The MMR jab with autism? Cot mattresses and Sudden Infant Death syndrome? The Metro states 158 cancers out of an "unspecified" sample where the pitches have been deemed by an individual as contributory (interestingly the Mail records Griffins same list as 63 cancers out of an "unspecified sample") - this report is unfortunately about a personal belief and speculation to rationalise loss rather than any proven causational link. Outside of the 90+ minutes a week when these pitches are used the inference would be there is absolutely no exposure to a carcinogenic trigger from any other source: tyre rope swings, car fumes, industrial emissions, road side pollution, phthalates in food tin coatings, BPA in plastic drinks bottles, asbestos fibres, cigarette smoke, e-cig vapour, formaldehyde release from panel flooring/carpets etc. Two forms are listed in the reports: Hodgkins lymphoma @ 1,900 UK cases each year mainly young adults in their 20's (US est. 9,000) non-Hodgkins lymphoma @ 12,000 UK cases each year increased risk with age - (US est. 72,000) No definitive cause noted for either but increased risk for those with a weak immune system or exposed to Epstein-Barr virus (glandular fever) Be interested to see the full chemical analysis of the keyboard I am typing on - probably have quite a few hits with the substances listed in Post 5!

No body is saying 'ignore it' - just be mindful that epidemiology is very complicated and that most people (including academic scientists and medics - see "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre) don't / cannot understand it properly (I don't claim to either, but I have studied it a bit at post graduate level) Association is not causation and the plural of anecdote is not data!

why not ? He did.

David Bannister wrote: Pseudonym wrote: Association is not causation and the plural of anecdote is not data! Love it. Please can I pinch that? why not ? He did Fair cop! But does anyone know who used it first -I've come across both parts more times than I can recall over the years, and it would be nice to give somebody the credit that they deserve.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner) If its wrong blame Google not me. Lol

From a search in "images" "Anecdotal evidence - a million badly educated people couldn't possibly be wrong!"

I hope your "we" does no include me. I remember quite vividly my chemistry teacher (a smoker!) explaining this link when I was about 12 (50 years ago). I believed him explicitly and have never smoked, not even once.

As we are well off topic now I will chip in with this one. The quote is probably true but not the way it is understood. Usually when a fire is big enough to warrant more firemen the damage has already been done. Nowadays with all the cuts to services, vastly reducing the number of fire stations, appliances and men/women, fire appliances have further to travel and as a resut arrive much later than in my day, resulting in more fire damage. Further now that the regulations have changed re fire fighting responsibilities and the frs following risk ssessment and resulting procedures they tend to fight fires from outside so not to increase the risks to their employees. More fire and water damage.

To get back to the original question, despite the fact that the off topic discussion has been so interesting. I've just come across this: http://www.theguardian.c...er-links-material-cancer It seems it's just too difficult to prove the cause.

the toxicity of Dihydrogen Monoxide (aka Hydroxylic Acid) given it's prevalence in the world alarms some people, i normally keep the MSDS for Dihydrogen Monoxide on my desk just in case!!

On the subject of new cars http://www.mirror.co.uk/...rgic-new-car-can-7315972 Seems the poor gent had been sensitised, asked the appropriate questions prior to purchase and only after they took the money did they admit the plastics emit Formaldehyde (noww a Category 1B Carcinogen)

Of course you can run scared of every ‘new’ invention like radio waves and WiFi. No body knows if they’re safe. I’ll tell you one thing for certain ‘nothing is safe’. Living is a sexually transmitted disease that is 100% fatal. This kind of scare mongering about radio waves, electromagnetic radiation is what gives health and safety a bad name. Granted we don’t know, but then we do know people die of drinking too much water (The Great North Run about 5 years ago) but you can’t stop living. If we go on removing all risks from the world we’ll end up sitting around doing nothing – Oh hold on that’s pretty dangerous to! It just has to come down to ‘Show Me The Evidence’. That’s the reality and we have to deal with it. Until there is evidence for something being more risky than just living I’m not going to worry about it. I’ve got enough to worry about without making stuff up because it’s new and we don’t ‘know’ it’s safe. The number of cancer cases in centuries past was indeed a lot lower than they are now. Because people died of other things, that’s why. Cancer is a disease of old age (by and large). And as you say the disease wasn’t as well recognized as it is now. But lets knock this crap about modern living causing cancer on the head it’s just not true. The age related statistics prove it. And if you want to go back to, well whatever idealized society you care to mention I’m sure you can find some group somewhere to join – be my guest. And I'll eagerly await the time I get sensitized to the poisons and toxins and carcinogens and other fatal stuff coming from a new car. It's all about the dose. Rant over…

Comment of the year.

And as the ambulance chasers assemble their class action law suit pursuing multi-million dollar settlements 200 will be the tip of the iceberg

Yea no doubt, a couple of tem were from thei country including the son of a former NHS boss.