Artificial turf and cancer - again

[Unregistered]

The appearance of correlation is not causation.

The scientific method and journalism are in a race to extinction.

[Unregistered]

The appearance of correlation is not causation.

The scientific method and journalism are in a race to extinction.

Thank you.

All we have is a small list of turf playing GK with cancer.

How many turf playing GK don't have cancer? How many turf playing soccer players do/do not have cancer?

More data is needed.

[Unregistered]

As a parent of a young keeper I find it interesting. But more data is needed.

How many soccer players (non keepers) have cancer? What about other turf sports, like football as others mentioned?

I'm honestly more concerned about pesticides and other every day chemicals.

I wonder if that's more what this is. The chemicals used to clean the turf. Not sure what the protocol is, but turf is supposed to be cleaned regularly. I wonder if there is a correlation between those places that clean it more often and the cancer rate or the type of cleaner used.

[Unregistered]

They've been playing on turf since Forekicks Norfolk was built in New England.

There have been literally thousands and thousands of athletes playing on these surfaces in New England.

Some have now grown up playing on the surfaces.

I hate to downplay the idea of cancer, but why is it never brought up that there are now millions of athletes that don't have cancer around the world playing on these surfaces?

Is it possible that there is another factor here?

You just never hear the other side of the story, the millions of people without cancer...

[Unregistered]

They've been playing on turf since Forekicks Norfolk was built in New England.

There have been literally thousands and thousands of athletes playing on these surfaces in New England.

Some have now grown up playing on the surfaces.

I hate to downplay the idea of cancer, but why is it never brought up that there are now millions of athletes that don't have cancer around the world playing on these surfaces?

Is it possible that there is another factor here?

You just never hear the other side of the story, the millions of people without cancer...

Predisposition??? Maybe some are more susceptible.
Either way I feel it's worth investigation. Cancer is no joke.

[Unregistered]

Predisposition??? Maybe some are more susceptible.
Either way I feel it's worth investigation. Cancer is no joke.

Exactly. Who knows what is in those tires. Every company uses slighly different chemical compositions to make things. If there is a correlation, it could well be but one brand of tires with it.

And for all you naysayers, it wasn't that long ago when asbestos was used everywhere.

[Unregistered]

Predisposition??? Maybe some are more susceptible.
Either way I feel it's worth investigation. Cancer is no joke.

It certainly isn't a joke. And we're talking about exposing kids to chemicals on a cummulative basis, which we know little about. Kids are playing on these surfaces more and more as towns add fields and indoors places (which traps it all) are built. Turf hasn't been all that long. There are many products we used to think were safe. Who is to say we won't see more NFL players coming down with something ten years from now.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. Who knows what is in those tires. Every company uses slighly different chemical compositions to make things. If there is a correlation, it could well be but one brand of tires with it.

And for all you naysayers, it wasn't that long ago when asbestos was used everywhere.

Let's all take a deep breath.

The appearance of correlation is anecdotal, which doesn't actually mean correlation exists, which still does not mean causation. Making this observation of fact should not draw the inference of any particular conclusion, much less the dismissal of what could be true. It doesn't mean someone is a naysayer and that's the point being made -- don't elevate hypothesis to proven before it's proven.

[Unregistered]

But...

Let's all take a deep breath.

The appearance of correlation is anecdotal, which doesn't actually mean correlation exists, which still does not mean causation. Making this observation of fact should not draw the inference of any particular conclusion, much less the dismissal of what could be true. It doesn't mean someone is a naysayer and that's the point being made -- don't elevate hypothesis to proven before it's proven.

Though the reported results of 63 keepers is anecdotal, there is no reason to presume that is an inflated number, but rather could be the tip of the iceberg ... Certainly the numbers are enough reason (conclusion, if you will)to do further comprehensive studies. I've repeatedly watched my daughter dive, stand up again and spit out small little black pieces - of tire. While the naysayers are saying the process of creating turf from tires is safe, are they really talking about ingesting the material- no matter the amount being ingested...
It wasn't that long ago a child would bump his/her head and then be back on the field. It took voices like yours and mine to combine and get focused case specific studies to happen.

[Unregistered]

Though the reported results of 63 keepers is anecdotal, there is no reason to presume that is an inflated number, but rather could be the tip of the iceberg ... Certainly the numbers are enough reason (conclusion, if you will)to do further comprehensive studies. I've repeatedly watched my daughter dive, stand up again and spit out small little black pieces - of tire. While the naysayers are saying the process of creating turf from tires is safe, are they really talking about ingesting the material- no matter the amount being ingested...
It wasn't that long ago a child would bump his/her head and then be back on the field. It took voices like yours and mine to combine and get focused case specific studies to happen.

I can't speak for others, only what I've posted, but I don't see naysaying or dismissiveness. Instead I see rational rebuttals when an argument, speculation or conclusions are offered ahead of the information available. That to me doesn't suggest or imply don't study, don't get more information, etc. On the contrary, myself and others have suggested that's exactly what would be appropriate. I'd go a step further though. First, that ball is rolling; studies have been done and likely more are being done (https://www.health.ny.gov/environmen...fact_sheet.htm). Second, not to be overly cynical, but it's fair to presume, whatever study you're reading, that you need to be careful to follow the money and conflicts of interest -- both ways.