Hugh Guidlerson: Many questions unanswered

Dear School Committee,

Thank you for opening the discussion on the possible use of carcinogenic materials on the playing fields of Mt. Greylock school. I hope last night's discussion is the beginning of a public decision process. I left the meeting last night concerned that the school committee members did not respond to citizens' questions and concerns. Three issues have not been resolved: the health and safety risks of playing in extreme heat; the costs of maintaining artificial surfaces v. the costs of organic grass and soil; the fact that there is no legal and safe place to dispose of the toxic artificial materials after their 18 year service life.

We were told that there is no conclusive evidence that playing on surfaces 30-40 degrees above the ambient temperature is a risk to children's health and safety, yet anyone who has made their living working outdoors, as I have, will tell you that there is a world of difference between working at 70 degrees and working at 90. At 90 degrees, the work is exhausting; work must be interrupted at frequent intervals; dehydration, heat stroke and heat exhaustion can and do occur. Above 90 degrees, work for many trades people stops. Yet we were led to believe that children, whose bones and internal organs are not fully formed, are not at risk playing in 120 degrees, which is often the temperature on artificial playing fields. My high school football practices were cancelled when the ambient temperature reached 90 degrees, not 120, despite the fact that most of us were in excellent condition, in the days before sports medicine and artificial turf. You would think that this health and safety risk in itself would be reason enough to pass on the "opportunity' to build artificial playing fields. We were told that artificial surfaces would be cheaper to maintain, yet a landscaping contractor, a graduate of Mt. Greylock and of the UMass turf maintenance program, explained to us in detail that organic surfaces cost less to maintain and do not need to be replaced in 18 years. Perhaps the committee stopped listening when they heard the contractor's ad hominem comments. Nevertheless, the fact that the cost estimate for the artificial turf system did not include costs for the legal and safe disposal of the components after 18 years should have been a concern to the school committee, as well as the fact that no one, not the architect, nor the gentleman from the building committee, challenged the assertion that there is no safe or legal method or site for disposing of the toxic artificial materials. Will the graduates of Mt. Greylock  be left with thousands of cubic yards of carcinogens on the campus of their school? Will their children be able to play there, or study there? Or will the entire campus be declared a hazard and off limits for any use? Or will the grownups make the prudent and fiscally responsible decision to build natural playing fields and not risk the health and safety of their children? Respectfully submitted, Hugh L. Guilderson, PhD Williamstown