LETTERS
SEND YOUR VIEWS AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: DON@NANTUCKETINDEPENDENT.COM
TIME IS OF ESSENCE

To the editor:

Erosion has been an issue literally looming on the horizon in 'Sconset and across the island for generations. Over the past 50 years the beaches to the east of the village have been steadily receding by approximately three feet per year on average. In the past these beaches extended out away from the coast and provided a line of defense for the bluff and dunes against the forces of waves during storms. However, the beaches have receded so much along the coast that in many areas the bluff and dunes now erode with each big storm and the coastline is effectively pulling back. At this point there are several areas in 'Sconset where the problem is acute just as in other coastal areas of the island. If erosion continues to eat away at the coast at the same rate that it has over the past 50 years, many residences (both historic and non-historic), public infrastructure and private and public lands in 'Sconset may well be at risk in the near future. The same can be said for many parts of the south coast of Nantucket and Tuckernuck.

The 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund is currently proposing a plan to address this erosion and protect the coast through "beach nourishment." The 'Sconset Trust does not have the expertise required to evaluate the specifics of this project - we will leave it to the various town authorities and erosion experts to figure that out. However, in a very tangible way the Trust recognizes the real threat posed by erosion to both 'Sconset and the island as a whole - we just lived through the challenges involved in moving Sankaty Head Lighthouse. We believe it is increasingly important for the town, organizations like SBPF and the community as a whole to work together to address the growing threat to the island. Time is of the essence.

- Bob Felch

President, 'Sconset Trust, Inc.

CONCERNING ARTIFICIAL TURF

To the editor:

Bravo to the people of town Parks and Recreation for their abiding interest in providing more playing fields for Nantucket. More sports facilities make for better public health. However, I urge us all to consider what is happening around us in the increasingly-challenged world of artificial turf fields.

Consider these facts:

• Crumb rubber fields are now banned in Norway, Sweden, and Italy;

• New York City's Trust for Public Land has placed a moratorium on their installation;

• Legislation has been filed in New York, Minnesota, and California proposing a state-wide moratorium;

• Wellesley, Mass. has unanimously voted against their use, recommending to an upcoming town meeting another, safer alternative;

• Fairfield, Conn. Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission denied plans for a turf field based on possible risk of contamination to groundwater supplies from the run-off;

• Greenwich, Conn. selectwoman Lin Lavery is requesting a moratorium on new artificial turf fields.

• Towns like Wayland and Weston, Mass. are debating the posting of "heat advisories" for their fields because of the unsafe amount of reflective heat from tire-crumb rubber.

• The need for further investigation relating to the potential health risk to children playing on these fields is being recommended by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, researchers at Rutgers and doctors at Mt. Sinai Hospital.

It is recommended that Nantucket have two artificial turf fields. This means:

• Importing approximately 240 tons of crumb rubber onto the island and laying it upon fast-draining sand that is in dangerously

close proximity to our sole water source. "Crumb rubber" comes from ground up tires. Lined up tread-totread, this represents a distance three times the distance of Milestone Road. Tires are technically considered hazardous waste and/or "special waste" with documented health and environmental concerns. Each tire contains about 100 chemicals, many of them toxic heavy metals like arsenic, zinc, lead, chromium, antimony, thallium and copper, all of which have been demonstrated to harm or kill aquatic life including algae, minnows, trout and frogs;

• Consultants will say that their tests have revealed that artificial turf fields do not contaminate water. Yet, for some reason, most water quality testing does not even measure for a vast majority of the roughly 100 chemicals that are in tires.

• Finally, the fields will most likely need to be replaced after about 10 years.

Recommendation: Until more testing is done, the jury will still be out on "crumb rubber" fields. But because of public health concerns, their future does not look bright. By all means, let's support more playing fields, but let's heed the warnings from an expanding number of other communities by placing a similar moratorium on crumb rubber tire fields. I am pleased to know that leaders in our Parks and Recreation Department are eager to investigate these issues, and they have said as much at the two public hearings I have attended.

This initiative will come up at Town Meeting on April 7 (Articles 26/7). In the meantime, if you wish to learn more about the firestorm of concern that is developing over these fields, please look to www.synturf.org, or watch the Google video, "Are Artificial Turf Fields Safe?"

- Bill Tramposch AS APPROVED - NOT EXPANDED

To the editor:

Acting in good faith the Quidnet Squam Assoc. expressed its support for what it believed was a serious attempt to get data which might lead to a better understanding of the feasibility of habitat mitigation along the eastern shore of Nantucket. Now that the SBPF has begun to seek approval for the entire Mitigation Project, it is hard not to conclude that there never was any intention behind the Pilot Project other than to create a pseudo scientific fog, under the cover of which the other, far larger project could go forward and at the same time undermine the objections to the SBPF Beach Nourishment Project raised by the fishing community, as well as island naturalists, environmentalists, and all others who enjoy the pristine beaches and clean waters in this area.

I am therefore now restating the official position of the QSA as follows:

Representing over 100 property owners in the neighborhood, the Quidnet Squam Association urges the entire Nantucket community as well as state and federal regulatory agencies to take whatever action possible to assure that the Pilot Project will be put into effect exactly as first approved and not expanded in scope until it has generated credible data, or been rejected by pending reviews and replaced by a better designed and thus more legitimate scientific study.

Several detailed and authoritative criticisms have already been offered and published (in both Nantucket papers) by individual QSA members, most recently by Richard Vogt and Derek Till, and I should like to call attention to them.

Sincerely,

- Richard Peterson,

President, Quidnet Squam Association GET TOUGH ON LITTER

To the editor:

I am writing in the hopes of bringing the island's attention to a severe (and so far not "officially" addressed) problem. Litter. Enclosed are photos of what I collected on Skyline Drive and Webster Road on Easter Sunday. It took me just a little over three hours. I collected nearly a full bag of bottles, two-thirds of a bag of aluminum, a full bag of plastic bottles, mostly beer cans and bottles, liquor, soda bottles, juice cans, plastic take out containers, etc., a discarded jugful of car oil. The rest of the trash which cannot be recycled filled a bag to overflowing and there was some pretty odd stuff. I was going to wait and pick up the litter on Earth Day but I just couldn't hold off any longer.

Each time I come home from a dog walk - I find myself discouraged, angry, and nearly depressed over the state of our neighborhood. I see constant reminders of human indifference and laziness and think about its impact on our community. It makes you wonder. These are residential streets with mostly year-round property owners, but also a fair share of transient and/or consistent renters.

And although there are some "unofficial" short cuts used by some - you would think these streets would be traveled mainly by residents - so why all the garbage? What are people thinking when they drive down our streets? Do they really think that the discarded motor oil, those takeout food containers, uncollected old newspapers in "colored" plastic bags, and containers of all sorts are going to disappear by themselves? What about the other toxic debris?

In our neighborhood we drink from wells. Our drinking water comes from beneath our properties. So, the litter thrown from passing vehicles affects my health and that of my neighbors. And it affects all of you, too, since we all share that same aquifer. So, what can we do about this problem? How can we educate those who seem so indifferent? Anyone out there have any good ideas? There is no statute, code or written policy existing in our town or county laws which directly addresses this problem. Private roads are used all over the island by the public for beach access or as shortcuts. Our town roads need protection, too. Litter laws that protect our only state road are not enough. It is time for action. We need to get tough and create laws which protect all island roads, public and private alike, or we shall see the entire island spoiled by thoughtless individuals.

- Sybille Andersen SHAMEFUL RECORD

To the editor:

The U.S. House and Senate recently rejected the use of torture - a tactic rubber stamped by high-ranking Bush administration officials - by passing the Intelligence Authorization Bill (HR 2082). The bill includes an important stipulation in the conference report which limits interrogators to the techniques permitted only by the U.S. Army Field Manual. It would prevent the CIA and other U.S. agents from using water boarding, sexual humiliation, dogs and other techniques that amount to torture and ill-treatment.

But President Bush vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Bill. Here's one more mark on his administration's shameful human rights record in the war on terror. Anything less than denouncing torture and cruel treatment is surrendering American values.

The world needs to know that his veto does not represent my view on torture. We must send a clear, resounding message to this president and to the next - do not torture in our name! Keep in mind what Ben Franklin said: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither

liberty nor safety." I

- Dorothy Vollans