Where are these studies from state agencies that say that rubber infill athletic playing surfaces cause cancer, or higher rates of cancer?
I am not making a claim one way or the other. But, as the resident expert on these issues, I expect you should have a number of studies you can point us to. It would also be nice if you could summarize in your own words what scientific information you found most compelling (or perhaps weakest) about each study.
First off, it's just typical angered up passive aggressive Chingon at work, playing the "whatever Dax says, I'll say the opposite game".
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Tires/2010009.pdfMy biggest takeaways from that study and similar studies is that while surface temps on artificial grass in-fill fields are higher, just a few feet above the surface there's very little difference in air temps between modern artificial grass and natural grass fields. The study did say that rate of abrasion for college athletes was 2x to 3x higher on artificial surfaces. However based on FIFA database research there are only 2 FIFA certified artificial grass pitches in California and it isn't known if they were part of the study. Also appears to be lower levels of infection causing bacteria in artificial grass fields in this study as compared to studied natural turf surfaces.
If history is our guide, than the chances of K-State maintaining a pristine natural grass field throughout the course of an entire season with practice and games is about 50%. I'll push that to 75% since we are in an era where K-State has more money than it had back when it had natural grass playing surfaces. When K-State had grass in the football stadium it was only in decent condition by season end, at best. When K-State had grass in the baseball stadium, teams used to complain about the infield all the time.
Plus, I'm not saying that K-State should roll out any old artificial grass surface.