Lead in artificial turf
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24204179

I was rather amazed by this. I am a highschool soccer player and have played on numerous artificial turfed fields (my school is now inserting them in our fields as well)and it scares me that by just falling over I could possibly have lead in my system.

I have never been a fan of artificial turf(just because I love "mudbowls")But really do you want your children playing sports or any activities on potentially hazardous grounds?

That's pretty worrying. I hope it is just a scare.

Yeah, lead fibers? The field could soak up all sorts of nasty bits, being in NJ and all, but I don't think that the manufacturer would be doing it.

(Does this really belong in Discussion?)

This is clearly just a scare. Notice the complete lack of any details. I tutor analytic chemistry at university and I could find lead in pretty much any substance you cared to name.
What is important is how much, what form the lead is in and how accessible it is.
Ridiculous.

Apparently officials found ten times the allowed amount in the fields, though. I'm just saying, it is something worth investigating. Better safe than sorry.

They did investigate, they closed the fields. Also the 10x number doesn't tell what PEL they're going by or what the source was. Again, this is in New Jersey! The air down there has ambient carcinogens and when you lay down a permeable surface as large as a field it is going to leach junk up.

They may have found 10 times but that is completely irrelevant without talking about what form they found the lead in. It is critical in establishing if there is any danger to discuss the nature of the lead.
Also without publishing the methods used and the data obtained its hard to comment. I request this because analytical data has a history of being terribly analysed or obtained as people don't train often enough in it. All the most common methods used to detect lead traces have a fair bit of interpretation involved due to signal overlaps so more clarity is needed.

The common method for lead sampling is swabs, and then a count via microscope of particles, which is loads of fun. There is also air sampling that is done and processed over a time weighted average, but that is very easily screwed up, again, because its in an open field in NJ.

I should hope not. Cause that method would be terribly terribly inaccurate. And if that's how it's been done, they should get real analysis done because there is no way you could conclude anything from that to any degree of accuracy.
The most common method used in proper analysis would be AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy) but Pb sampling in common AAS instruments is difficult, but often the problems are unacknowledged.
There are also issues of sample gathering but that's a whole nother story.

It is terribly inaccurate, hence why I'm saying its junk. I worked in the hazmat clean up industry for 5 years, and i avoided lead jobs like the plague because they are impossible to pass for clean even if they are.