1. Chemicals in Our Environment: Synthetic Turf Fields in the 2015 Pan Am Games in Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Throughout the course of history, human interests have collided with those of the environment. Sometimes, humans benefited at the expense of the environment. And other times, humans have fought against their own interests in order to save the planet. This paper explores a situation where the interests of humans and the environment are in conflict from the point of view of chemicals in the environment. The particular case involves the Toronto 2015 Pan Am games and University of Toronto, who are two parties that intended to introduce turf on their grounds for sporting activities. This decision was rejected by Toronto councillor, Adam Vaughan, who vowed to protect the environment from chemicals used in synthetic turf (The Star, 2013).
Introduction
The University of Toronto’s St. George Campus boasts a lot of green space. Moreover, it contains a field that the 2015 Pan Am Games and University of Toronto officials believed should be used for sports. On the other hand, city council decided against this move. They made it clear that they wished for this field to remain green and to think of the field as a part of Toronto’s heritage. This came as a great surprise to the University of Toronto and Pan Am games officials especially, who had spent millions in preparation for their new project. It is important to note the legendary Canadian author, Margaret Atwood, supported the Vaughan and architect Ken Greenberg (The Star, 2012). Moreover, Vaughan’s main concerns were the long-term health of the community arising from the biocides that were to be used in implementing a turf field. Additionally, he was concerned about the damage to the elm trees and the 5,000 seat stadium on the University of Toronto field. He refused to allow for short-term gains to outweigh the benefits of long-term health. The University of Toronto officials argue that a turf field will give students more access to the field all-year round. In this article, the field was referred to as being a “mud put” for most of the year (The Star, 2012).
Method
In obtaining the information stated in this paper, I conducted an Internet search of the topics of interest. And since I am an avid sports fan, I was intrigued by the Pan Am turf safety controversy that was being debated in the media and by Toronto politicians in the news. As such, I completed a news report search, and I also looked into the scientific data. In order to further examine the claims made in the media, I studied the journal articles published by the journals of peer-reviewed scientific community members. I found several sources on this topic and will these topics in the next section.
Discussion
In order to provide judgement towards resolving this conflict, it is important to take a critical look at evidence in the literature regarding the long-term impact on the environment by turf fields. It is true that there are concerns over the health of users who live or reside and use these artificial turf fields. This is because of the high surface temperature that can lead to physiological stress of athletes. Moreover, another issue is the contraction of bacterial skin infection by athletes (Serensits et al., 2010). Schiliro et al. (2013) have studied the tire crumb elements that are associated with artificial turf, and they found that there were no mutagenicity exposure risks compared to those in the rest of the city and those on the turf. But they did, however, acknowledge the public’s concern with potential health and environmental risks associated with artificial turf. Additionally, Simcox et al. (2011) have found that concentrations of chemicals such as Napthalene, BZT, and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) were found in indoor turf fields compared to outdoor fields. And finally, Ruffino et al. (2013) have studied the inhalation of particles in two groups of people: 1) those who were breathing gases and