In a report given to the CVSD on Thursday, the Burlington firm concludes that composition of soil, underlying bedrock patterns and planned stormwater mitigation will keep Hinesburg water safe.
We've been told by The Hinesburg Record (I assume the text was written by the Hydrogeologists) that they reviewed the scientific literature on artificial turf fields. I'd like to see their bibliography and whether it included this review article: Ryan-Ndegwa, S., Zamani, R., & Martins, T. (2024). Exploring the Human Health Impact of Artificial Turf Worldwide: A Systematic Review. Environmental Health Insights, 18, 11786302241306291. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241306291
It concludes that: we don’t know enough yet to say artificial turf is safe, so it’s a good idea to wait and do more thorough research before putting in more of these fields
Review articles like this are valuable contributions to the scientific literature that help researchers understand the bigger picture. A review article is a comprehensive report that brings together and compares the results from many scientific studies on the same topic. Instead of reading each study individually, a review gathers all the available information, examines how the studies were conducted, and explains what the overall findings mean. This is especially important because it makes complex scientific information easier to understand for people who are not experts. Review articles show where most studies agree and where they differ, helping readers see the bigger picture.
One key reason review articles are valuable is that they help build confidence in the results. When different studies use various methods but still reach similar conclusions, it suggests that the findings are solid and reliable. Using multiple methods reduces the chance that the results are due to mistakes or biases, because if different approaches point to the same outcome, it strengthens the evidence. On the other hand, if results vary depending on the method used, the review highlights this inconsistency and indicates that more research is needed.
The review article by Ryan-Ndegwa, Zamani, and Martins (2024) looks at many studies about artificial turf and its possible effects on human health. They found that the current evidence is not clear enough to say for sure whether artificial turf is safe or harmful. The chemicals in the turf, like heavy metals and other substances, could potentially cause problems, but the levels people are exposed to are usually low.
Because of this uncertainty, the authors recommend being cautious. They suggest that it might be better not to install new artificial turf fields until we have more solid information from long-term studies that carefully measure how much people are really exposed to and what health effects might happen over time. They also stress the need for better and more consistent research methods.
In simple terms, the review says: we don’t know enough yet to say artificial turf is safe, so it’s a good idea to wait and do more thorough research before putting in more of these fields, especially since children and athletes spend a lot of time on them. This cautious approach helps protect people’s health until we have clearer answers.
Who paid the consulting firms fee? This isn’t just some snarky comment. I worked for many years as a highly paid consultant and let me assure you, our firm always concluded what the client wanted us to conclude. Just tell me, who paid these consultants?
The consultants had someone who contacted them, helped them scope the project, and interacted with them throughout its development. I think it would clear the air if we knew who that was. That is usually referred to as the "client" and it wasn't the entire Champlain Valley School District (CVSD). That's obfuscating the facts. I want to know if the client had a pony in the race or if it was an outside observer that really wanted the honest truth. If it's not, I think it would be wise for the Town to hire a qualified consulting firm to conduct its own assessment. I know first-hand how companies and individuals use reports like these to convince you that they're impartial assessments when they're absolutely not. So who was it?
In the movie 🍿🍿🎥, " The 🎓 Graduate", at his graduation 🎓 party 🎉 he is counseled by a man ♂️ about what career Ben should pursue. The man says, " I can tell you in one 🕐 word :: PLASTICS ‼️✌️🤠"
We've been told by The Hinesburg Record (I assume the text was written by the Hydrogeologists) that they reviewed the scientific literature on artificial turf fields. I'd like to see their bibliography and whether it included this review article: Ryan-Ndegwa, S., Zamani, R., & Martins, T. (2024). Exploring the Human Health Impact of Artificial Turf Worldwide: A Systematic Review. Environmental Health Insights, 18, 11786302241306291. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241306291
It concludes that: we don’t know enough yet to say artificial turf is safe, so it’s a good idea to wait and do more thorough research before putting in more of these fields
Review articles like this are valuable contributions to the scientific literature that help researchers understand the bigger picture. A review article is a comprehensive report that brings together and compares the results from many scientific studies on the same topic. Instead of reading each study individually, a review gathers all the available information, examines how the studies were conducted, and explains what the overall findings mean. This is especially important because it makes complex scientific information easier to understand for people who are not experts. Review articles show where most studies agree and where they differ, helping readers see the bigger picture.
One key reason review articles are valuable is that they help build confidence in the results. When different studies use various methods but still reach similar conclusions, it suggests that the findings are solid and reliable. Using multiple methods reduces the chance that the results are due to mistakes or biases, because if different approaches point to the same outcome, it strengthens the evidence. On the other hand, if results vary depending on the method used, the review highlights this inconsistency and indicates that more research is needed.
The review article by Ryan-Ndegwa, Zamani, and Martins (2024) looks at many studies about artificial turf and its possible effects on human health. They found that the current evidence is not clear enough to say for sure whether artificial turf is safe or harmful. The chemicals in the turf, like heavy metals and other substances, could potentially cause problems, but the levels people are exposed to are usually low.
Because of this uncertainty, the authors recommend being cautious. They suggest that it might be better not to install new artificial turf fields until we have more solid information from long-term studies that carefully measure how much people are really exposed to and what health effects might happen over time. They also stress the need for better and more consistent research methods.
In simple terms, the review says: we don’t know enough yet to say artificial turf is safe, so it’s a good idea to wait and do more thorough research before putting in more of these fields, especially since children and athletes spend a lot of time on them. This cautious approach helps protect people’s health until we have clearer answers.
Who paid the consulting firms fee? This isn’t just some snarky comment. I worked for many years as a highly paid consultant and let me assure you, our firm always concluded what the client wanted us to conclude. Just tell me, who paid these consultants?
CVSD paid for the study.
The consultants had someone who contacted them, helped them scope the project, and interacted with them throughout its development. I think it would clear the air if we knew who that was. That is usually referred to as the "client" and it wasn't the entire Champlain Valley School District (CVSD). That's obfuscating the facts. I want to know if the client had a pony in the race or if it was an outside observer that really wanted the honest truth. If it's not, I think it would be wise for the Town to hire a qualified consulting firm to conduct its own assessment. I know first-hand how companies and individuals use reports like these to convince you that they're impartial assessments when they're absolutely not. So who was it?
In the movie 🍿🍿🎥, " The 🎓 Graduate", at his graduation 🎓 party 🎉 he is counseled by a man ♂️ about what career Ben should pursue. The man says, " I can tell you in one 🕐 word :: PLASTICS ‼️✌️🤠"
This is a DRAFT hydrogeology report. When will the final report be released?