In Turf Field Debate, Washington D.C. Think Tank Fails To Consider Our Student Athletes

To the editor: Nantucket’s student athletes rely on fields that must handle far more use than traditional grass surfaces were ever designed to support. A recent letter from Dr. Diana Zuckerman of the National Center for Health Research, a Washington, D.C. based think-tank, urged rejection of the proposed artificial turf field at Nantucket High School without considering the issues our Nantucket athletes face today.

Nantucket’s playing surfaces support more than 1,300 hours of use each year, often with multiple teams scheduled on the same field in a single day. Professional stadium grass fields may see fewer than 60 hours of play annually before being closed for maintenance and restoration. Under the level of use Nantucket requires, natural grass does not simply wear thin. It becomes bald, compacted, uneven, and unsafe.

Our grounds crew does impressive work maintaining six fields with limited staff and resources, but this is not the NFL and we do not have the luxury of closing fields for weeks at a time to allow recovery. Just this week Nantucket athletes were shoveling snow off the town owned turf field at Nobadeer simply to have a place to practice.

The choice Nantucket faces is not between perfect grass and turf. It is between an overused grass field that continues to deteriorate and a durable surface designed to handle the level of play our students need.

Concerns about synthetic turf deserve context. Dr. Zuckerman notes that PFAS may include thousands of compounds and raises concerns that turf products are tested for only a small number of them. Federal drinking water standards currently regulate six PFAS compounds identified as potential health risks.Is the letter suggesting that a turf field, which we neither drink nor eat, should be tested to a higher standard than the one used to regulate drinking water?

Large studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have not found evidence linking synthetic turf use to increased health risks for athletes. Nantucket’s sole source aquifer is an important resource, and the proposed turf system would include engineered drainage and containment layers specifically designed to manage runoff and protect underlying soils and groundwater. Something our current grass fields are not engineered to do. Weston and Sampson, the environmental consulting firm retained by Nantucket Public Schools to independently review the science and testing associated with the proposed field materials, recommended testing the specific lot of turf intended for installation before it ships to the island. This reflects a balanced and responsible approach that prioritizes both environmental protection and the safety of Nantucket’s students.

Environmental tradeoffs should also be part of the discussion. Maintaining heavily used grass fields requires irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and fuel powered mowing equipment. Grass fields require roughly 1.7 million gallons of water per field annually along with repeated chemical treatments to remain playable. Turf does not.

Concerns about microplastics also deserve perspective. Microplastics are now found throughout the modern environment and research suggests major sources of microplastics include tire wear and synthetic textiles, which contribute significantly more to environmental microplastics than athletic fields.

Injury claims should also be viewed in the context of Nantucket’s real conditions. Many studies compare synthetic turf to well maintained grass. That is not the choice Nantucket faces. Our fields absorb about 1,300 hours of play each year, and it shows. The relevant question for Nantucket athletes is whether an overused, deteriorating grass field is safer than a consistent surface designed to handle heavy use.

If we do not convert one field to turf, Nantucket Public Schools may face difficult decisions. Continued closures, limited play, expensive repairs, and heavy water and chemical use are likely. In the worst case, schools could be forced to limit sports participation simply to keep fields playable. That would run directly counter to what most parents want for their children. We should be expanding opportunities for kids to be active, not restricting them.

Anyone who walks our fields after a full season of use can see the reality for themselves.

It is also important to remember that this project is about more than a playing surface. The proposal includes ADA-compliant grandstands, a new track, dark sky-compliant lighting, and improved facilities that will make the stadium more accessible to families and residents.

For anyone who struggles to reach the stands to watch a game or attend graduation, these improvements matter. For residents who would welcome a safe and reliable track for walking and exercise, they matter as well.

Nantucket has always been a community that shows up for its kids. On May 4th our community has the opportunity to come together and support the Nantucket Public Schools athletic facilities plan. We hope to see you there.

Graham Veysey, Erin Meyers, Kim Latlippe, and Kate Garrette