Comments on: Clicklist: Tweets, cheats, etc.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:41:14 +0000

OK, I’m trying to play nice here, but I have to tell you – If your efforts have to be in developing natural turf for large sports fields, then here is what you need to accomplish – You need to develop a live grass product that is – not just draught resistant but grows on NO water or doesn’t grow at all, will not wear away with regular use, will not leave bear dirt after it does wear away, can be damaged by everything from cars to kids to planes and be repaired good as new in one day, needs NO cutting trimming fertilizing, no pesticides, no herbicides, is maintained by no equipment or machinery of any type that uses fossil fuels, does not go away when the temperture goes below 30 degrees or so and looks green all year long and does all this indoors and out, for starters. Sounds like your advocating playing sports on rocks, except that rocks don’t produce O2 either. By the way, compare the total acreage of all the synthetic turf there is to all the grass and plants and you’ll find it is miniscule. We simply promote a system that addresses problems of the traditional crumb rubber field with components that are as environmentally sound as possible. We use no rubber, we reduce the heat island effect, our system is recyclable, and our synthetic turf will not harbor leptospirosis or toxicariasis (disease harmful to dogs and cats), as will any natural grass.

By: David Neault

David Neault — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:19:55 +0000

The choice is NOT better… Yes, we need more playing fields but not at the expense of public health and the environment. The internet is full of research that defines the carbon footprint of A.T. as well info on Heat Island Effect in the urban areas and health issues. The real research is in creating more drought tolerant, resilient natural turf varieties. Natural turf cleans the environment… it, along with all living plant material absorbs CO2 and gives off O2 as a byproduct. This is a remedy to Global Warming…not a contributor as your “green impostor.” 1 of 2

By: Duncan

Duncan — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:54:18 +0000

Wow, I have a lot of research on the standard synthetic turf field, but hadn’t seen those numbers, where can I find them? I can really use numbers on disposal, CO2, etc. As we have a system that uses no rubber, we are trying to provide a better alternative. Check our info, our system is 100% recyclable, an anti-microbial (no rubber) infill and is heavy metals tested EPA-OK. These fields, and the extreme use of them (that grass will not hold up to) is a fact of life now, why not offer a better choice?

By: David Neault

David Neault — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:23:23 +0000

There is nothing green about Artificial Turf except the profits the manufactures enjoy! Environmentally it is a disaster and I am glad the Jerry Brown is going after these charlatans. The research that is being done on the negative effects of A.T. both environmentally and as a health hazard are great, but all you have to do is stand on a field on a hot summer day to know that it CAN’T be good for anyone. The odor and heat generated is repulsive. Research has shown that with manufacturing, installation, servicing and eventual disposal of a 2 acre artificial turf field produces 55.6 tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The carbon footprint of this is staggering. …Add to this the loss of benefits that natural turf provides to the environment(like CO2 absorbtion) and you can easily do the math. There is no green in this equation except the green money that this industry is currently enjoying. I hope Jerry can take some of that away.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:18:55 +0000

LAG-your on the right track, but check the blog at syntheticturfmd.wordpress.com and get the truth. The problem is not really in the lead in the older fields, there are other issues.