18 Nov 2016 10:28:02
does anyone else think it wasnt a coincidence scotland today ran the story last night about the rubber on artificial pitches being dangerous to players the day before we played on the shocking kilmarnock surface where this rubber is all over the pitch?
18 Nov 2016 13:48:33
What are you getting at?
18 Nov 2016 14:25:01
Think its just a coincidence, is a bit scary about that rubber stuff, don't know if all artificisl pitches use the same technology.
18 Nov 2016 14:33:19
I doubt any professional footballer hasn't heard about this claim. I would suggest your trying to make a link to suit a paranoid agenda or are they trying to unsettle killie players who play on it every second week?
18 Nov 2016 14:59:33
I'm as suspicious as the next paranoid supporter when it comes to the slanted reports, leaks, smears and malicious gossip, but I think this one should be a concern for ALL clubs who have these pitches either in their stadium or training facilities?
18 Nov 2016 15:33:50
Not seen this story. What's dangerous about it.
18 Nov 2016 16:12:48
The rubber crumb breaks down into smsll pieces and might be injested or inhaled and is supposed to contain carcinogec substances, they doing a study into it.
18 Nov 2016 17:22:57
There is not enough research to say that these pitches cause cancer.
To paraphrase Richard Feynman, you need to put in years and years of study before you can even start to think something is true.
Too often people say something is true before putting in the necessary amount of study to make the claim with any degree of certainty.
{Ed001's Note - hmmm actually there is a lot of evidence, and it is patently obvious that they should never have been used considering that it is well known the rubber used contained carcinogens.}
18 Nov 2016 19:38:09
Was reading online that some states in america used material made out of rubber crumb in the playgrounds of primary schools and kindergardens, and now three federal agencies are to do a full investigation into the toxicity of the materials, you would have thought they would have checked this well before before putting their children at any possible risk.
18 Nov 2016 19:49:44
Not seen the article but we train and play bounce games on Astro all the time and our training pitches are littered with the wer black rubbers.
18 Nov 2016 20:30:47
I am not saying there isn't evidence that backs up the hypothesis that these pitches can cause cancer. What I am saying is that not enough research has been conducted to make this into a highly likely fact. This is a view that I strongly share with a noble price winning physicist (Richard Feynman) who knows better than anyone on here, as he devoted his life to scientific pursuit and was one of the great minds of our time.
18 Nov 2016 23:27:31
We're all breathing it in everyday anyway with all the tyres on the road. God help the simpsons with that forever burning pile of tyres, no wonder they're all yellow.
18 Nov 2016 23:42:48
Cant remember that saying goes something like erring on the side of caution, you look back thru human history, do we have to wait till something is proved wrong, Rabmac, or should we err on the side of caution, I could mention a lot of stuff, but don't feeel like doing it, think about it youself.
19 Nov 2016 01:10:52
"It's your turn in nets mate" "naw I'm fine pall"
19 Nov 2016 06:35:16
Yes it may be wise to be more cautious about their use until more research is conducted.
Anyway let me go back to my point, in science when you first set out to prove something you usually start with a hypothesis. Next you will devise a fair test to see if your hypothesis was wrong or right. If your test didn't agree with the hypothesis then you need to work out why. If it did agree with the hypothesis, then you keep repeating the test to see if you keep getting the same results. After this others will carry out the same fair test many times and check their results . Against your results to see if they match to within a certain tolerance. You will then have people devising other fair tests that try and disprove the hypothesis. It is only after years of extensive testing that something will become a theory, assuming it has stood up to all the tests.
Physicists tend to be the most rigorous and this is why their theories tend to last the longest. Too often you see research carried out where the team has not done enough rigorous testing but yet claim things to be true. Food scientists and psychologists tend to be the worst offenders and this is why they tend to be proven wrong further down the line or only partly right.
{Ed001's Note - actually the main problem is the funding. Food scientists tend to get their funding from corporations with a vested interest in finding one thing to be true over another. So the scientists usually end up making false conclusions in order to win further funding. That is why we spent years being told margarine was better for you than butter, despite it being unhealthy. That is why we are only now being told that unsaturated fat is not actually healthier than saturated fat.}
19 Nov 2016 08:51:42
You are right Ed, as you always need to question who commissioned the research and who carried out the research for the reason you cited. However, it is also true that both these groups are notoriusly bad at not doing enough tests to back up their assertions. I personally wouldn't call them scientists, more like pseudo-scientists, saying that I wouldn't even call most bioligists scientists lol.
19 Nov 2016 09:03:18
Lol! This string is brilliant, here I was about to slag off Stevie G or have a laugh at Kris Boyd and I'm now wondering if I should peer review a few psychology experiments I've seen with too lenient a level of significance. Nah, I'll just stick with my original plan, Gerard's legs are gone and Kris Boyd is clearly a brain donor ;-P.