dale

An article by Elizabeth Farrelly | 4^th July 2023 | ArchitectureAU | Click here to view the article

Elizabeth Farrelly considers an under-acknowledged modernist ally – grass – and how the lazy overuse of synthetic substitutes is leading to overheating, increased toxicity and degradation of the natural and urban environments.

Grass, as a species, is overused, downtrodden and wildly under-acknowledged. Its velvety coolness underfoot as the earth gently exhales on a cicada-spangled evening is just one of its astonishing properties. Now, grass is back in the news – but it’s not the familiar debate over cow-fart. This time, it’s that time-honoured question of whether nature or technology knows best. If nature plays difficult, should we just go ahead and fake it?

Last week, the New South Wales government finally released the chief scientist’s long-awaited report on the dangers of synthetic turf. The report stopped short of recommending a ban on synthetic turf containing toxic “forever chemicals,” as in California and elsewhere, but it did raise significant concerns.

At a meta level, you’d think our species’ lazy and lamentable history of substituting the synthetic for the natural might give us pause. Consider, for example, errors of overreach like industrial food (with its links to epidemic obesity), chemical pesticides (with their links to cancer and bee death) and the replacement of breast milk with formula.

Small, [grass] underpins our food chain, turning sunlight into nutrients. Tall, as bamboo up to 30 metres high, it has the strength and suppleness required for scaffolding and structure.

Yet, the use of synthetic turf – or “astroturf” – is skyrocketing. The chief scientist’s report notes a six-fold increase in four years, from 30 synthetic sports fields in New South Wales in 2018 to around 181 in 2022. (In fact, that count is probably conservative, since it excludes sports like lawn bowls and the growing deployment of synthetic turf in schools and private homes.) Other states are no doubt folowing a similar trajectory.

Before considering the evils of astroturf, though, let’s consider the goodness of natural grass. Grass is versatile. Small, it underpins our food chain, turning sunlight into nutrients. Tall, as bamboo up to 30 metres high, it has the strength and suppleness required for scaffolding and structure. As ground cover, it nurtures an elegant unseen symbiosis with the microbiome, feeding with special sugars the microbes that supply it with absorbable phosphates and other nutrients.

At a symbolic level, grass has long offered egalitarian metaphors – from Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass poetry collection (1855) to the idea of “grassroots democracy,” which plays on both its uniformity and its connective underground resilience.

Mostly, though, we in the suburb-ocene consider grass a servant species, both subject and agent in our dominion over nature. In Manet’s 1863 painting Le Déjeuner sur l’Herbe (Luncheon on the Grass), the grass mediates between the sombre, serge-clad commerciality of the men – serious and work-minded – and the woman’s stark white flesh. As nature tamed, grass-as-lawn manifests man’s power to dominate nature and woman, both.

The city would never have been vacated for business had not the entire act of dwelling been sent centrifugally to grass. So perhaps, as both tool and threat, grass was always a candidate for modernism’s competitiveness, its determination to not only dominate nature but outdo her.

This tension between dominance and subversion made grass a modern favourite, yet its potency remains under-acknowledged. Quite as much as steel and concrete, grass was the enabling material of modernity. The city would never have been vacated for business had not the entire act of dwelling been sent centrifugally to grass. So perhaps, as both tool and threat, grass was always a candidate for modernism’s competitiveness, its determination to not only dominate nature but outdo her. Now, grass is seen as little more than an outdoor flooring material. I’m reminded of that old joke about husbands and carpet tiles: lay it properly the first time and you can walk all over it forever.

Which brings us neatly to the idea of faking it. Astroturf, first manufactured in the US in 1966, was always considered the ultimate kitsch. Sadly, we’ve lost those inhibitions and artificial turf is very much on the rise in sports fields across the country. This push is driven by supposedly practical considerations of cost and wear. But how practical is it, actually, to invest in a product whose environmental impacts include water contamination, biodiversity loss, canopy loss, soil death and intensified urban heat? And all this in the face of climate change!

Synthetic grass comprises several layers: the plastic blades, then a layer of infill – most commonly rubber crumb made from old tyres, but sometimes cork – set into a waterproof membrane. Tyres are not manufactured in Australia, meaning we have little or no control over the chemicals contained therein. But rubber crumb – which is used in “safe” children’s playgrounds and sports surfaces as well as synthetic turf – contains heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs, called “forever chemicals” because they hardly degrade in the natural environment) and other nasties. It is known to leach zinc, rubber polymers and vulcanizing chemicals, including the fabulously named N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine-quinone and other toxins that, together, have given rise to the “urban runoff mortality syndrome” observed in salmon exposed to untreated stormwater.

The teeming microbiome dies, leading to soil compaction and root death in nearby trees, which causes more biodiversity loss and shade depletion, and further accelerates degradation of the synthetic materials, intensifying the toxic runoff.

This leachate is marginally less toxic where cork is used as an infill instead of rubber. But in either case, the increased breakdown caused by both Australia’s intense UV radiation, and the extreme heat and rain events associated with climate change, can only accelerate the degradation and subsequent contamination. The fact that Australia’s sporting fields are usually treeless and unshaded, and often located on marginal land that is especially prone to flooding, only exacerbates this. The chief scientist – with input from 24 other highly credentialled academics – estimates that a single Australian synthetic sporting field will generate, per year, 10–100 kilograms of rubber-crumb pollution and hundreds of kilograms of microplastic pollution in the form of lost grass blades.

Then there’s soil death. Synthetic turf’s waterproof layer, pierced only by horizontal or vertical drainage mechanisms, leaves the soil beneath profoundly parched. The teeming microbiome dies, leading to soil compaction and root death in nearby trees, which causes more biodiversity loss and shade depletion, and further accelerates degradation of the synthetic materials, intensifying the toxic runoff.

More dangerous still is the heat. Australia is getting hotter faster than most of the world. Sebastian Pfautsch, an associate professor at Western Sydney University and an expert in urban heat, says that by 2050–60, we could experience three months of days above 35 degrees Celsius. Already, air temperatures hit 50 degrees Celsius in some parts of Sydney. Far from cooling its surrounds as natural grass does, synthetic turf can be several degrees hotter than the ambient temperature, increasing heat-stress on both people and the already degraded soil.

The arguments for synthetic turf hinge on cost of maintenance and intensity of use. But need it be quite so intense? Soil scientist and sports turf specialist Nick Battam notes that, given standard hours of work and school, it is rare for sports field demand to exceed 40 hours per week. And if the usage is any higher, the lifespan of synthetic turf is reduced, raising significant questions about the disposal and recycling of these toxic ingredients, not to mention the cost and embodied energy of replacement. This cost is significant and tends to result in councils barring public access. (Nobody wants doggy-do and chip papers on their expensive plastic grass.) And then there’s the smell, the outgassing, the fungicides used to kill the greeblies that breed in the infill layer …

Rather than offering public land for private development, as the premier of New South Wales Chris Minns proposes, surely it would be better to use such public land to ensure that the necessary densification of our cities is accompanied by enough natural green space. When fully hydrated, properly shaded and equipped with water-recycling and planting programs, such spaces enhance local cooling, biodiversity and carbon absorption. And that’s in addition to the mental and physical health benefits of biophilia. I think it’s called long-term public benefit. Wouldn’t that be a nice change?

This article was posted by Jennifer Steinmetz and Lucy Richman | July 6, 2023 | Reuters. Click here to view article

Many may remember a dramatic moment from the 2022 Super Bowl, when star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. suffered a serious non-contact knee injury while catching a pass. Beckham Jr. took the following season off to recover, and his injuries reignited a longstanding debate about the safety of artificial turf fields. Many National Football League (NFL) players and their supporters took to social media, speaking out against turf and supporting a campaign, #FlipTheTurf, to pressure NFL teams to switch from turf fields to grass.

Artificial turf has long been used in sports as a replacement to natural grass. This alternative has both practical and cost-saving benefits as it does not need sunlight or water, so it can be used year-round in enclosed stadiums.

Turf consists of three components: (1) plastic grass blades bundled into individual “tufts;” (2) a backing material to which the tufts are attached; and (3) an adhesive used to secure the tufts to the backing. The turf is stabilized by the presence of “infill” — typically ground rubber or sand — placed between the artificial blades to provide added support.

As early as the 1970s, players’ observations and concerns about turf sparked research into its safety. A study by K. Douglas Bowers Jr. and R. Bruce Martin at the University of West Virginia in 1974 responded to players’ observations that their turf had gotten “harder” over the years and showed that the school’s turf field’s ability to absorb impact decreased over time. A 1992 study specifically focused on the relationship between turf fields and football injuries, finding a statistically significant increase in injuries in some, but not all, lower extremity injuries during games played on turf. John W. Powell and Mario Schootman, “A Multivariate Risk Analysis of Selected Playing Surfaces in the National Football League: 1980 to 1989,” 20 Am. J. Sports Med. 686 (1992).

Synthetic turf surfaces can be problematic because they do not create the same divot as natural grass and therefore lack the ability to release a cleat in a potentially injurious overload situation. Christina D. Mack, et al., “Higher Rates of Lower Extremity Injury on Synthetic Turf Compared With Natural Turf Among National Football League Athletes,” 47 Am. J. of Sports Med. 189, 192 (2019). This generates greater sheer force and torque on the foot and throughout the lower extremity, potentially contributing to increased injuries. Id.

As turf products have evolved over time, new research findings have followed. Some continue to find that turf is less safe for athletes than natural grass, while others find little to no difference, or even that turf has safety advantages over natural grass. What remains the same is that players and researchers alike continue questioning which surface is safer.

The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) has taken a strong public stance against turf fields, advocating that “NFL clubs should proactively change all field surfaces to natural grass.” J.C. Tretter, “Only Natural Grass Can Level the NFL’s Playing Field,” NFLPA, (last visited Jun. 28, 2023). In an April 2023 statement, the NFLPA accused the NFL of twisting historical injury data to support the NFL’s contention that turf fields are safe. J.C. Tretter, “Why the NFL’s Approach to Field Surfaces is Uneven,” NFLPA, Apr. 19, 2023.

In pushing back on the NFL’s reporting of synthetic turf safety data, the NFLPA cited to a recent study finding that “[p]lay on synthetic turf resulted in a 16% increase in injuries as compared with play on natural turf…across all lower extremity injuries resulting in any missed football participation.” Mack, et al., supra.

While some turf-safety studies appear to be independent, the Mack study was funded in part by the NFL. Some studies coming to opposite conclusions — that turf is as safe or safer than grass — have been funded in part by turf manufacturers or other professional organizations. Should the various studies ever be used for authority in litigation, their authors’ potential conflicts of interest may become a point of contention.

So when will the turf debate enter the courtroom? At least one turf manufacturer is already facing a number of lawsuits alleging that its product did not live up to durability or lifespan promises represented in advertising and marketing materials. See generally Consolidated Amended Class Action Compl., In re Fieldturf Artificial Turf Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., No. 3:17-md-2779 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2017). Counts against the manufacturer include fraud, breach of warranty and violation of consumer protection laws.

Given recent publicity and the NFLPA’s involvement in the issue, lawsuits claiming personal injury resulting from play on turf may be just around the corner. This could generate a mass of prospective plaintiff athletes just as we saw with the concussion litigation of years past. An August 2019 settlement required the NCAA to pay $70 million to fund concussion screens and testing for former college athletes, with an additional $5 million toward medical research. In October 2021, the NFL reached a $765 million settlement over concussion-related brain injuries among its 18,000 retired players.

Plaintiffs alleging injuries from artificial surfaces can look to several potential target defendants including: (1) turf manufacturers; (2) companies that manufacture the various component parts of turf; and (3) turf purchasers, particularly high schools, universities and major sports franchises. Expected allegations would follow a traditional products liability model, involving counts for both design defect and failure to warn.

Certain elements of a turf field’s design may have an impact on safety, as noted in the Mack study above, in that they do not release a cleat in the same way as natural grass. Players may claim that turf manufacturers failed to design their fields to protect players from foreseeable lower extremity injuries, given the speed and force that high caliber athletes reach while practicing and competing. The availability of a feasible alternative design — natural grass — may also carry weight in some jurisdictions.

Failure to warn claims are also likely, particularly given that turf manufacturers tout safety — some including that their artificial turf is a safer alternative to grass — as a focus of their product development and as a key selling point.

Plaintiffs (and their counsel) will face a considerable challenge, however, identifying sound authority linking turf to non-contact lower extremity injuries. It may be that additional studies are necessary before waging litigation. Plaintiffs may also need to spend resources testing their theories and/or working up credible expert witnesses to back their allegations. Other contributing causes to the claimed injuries, such as a player’s weight or choice of footwear, may create additional obstacles for these plaintiffs.

The debate over the safety of artificial turf does not end with lower extremity injuries. A March 2023 report from the Philadelphia Inquirer recently publicized a possible link between glioblastoma, a rare brain cancer, and turf fields. David Gambacorta and Barbara Laker, “Field of Dread,” Phila. Inquirer, Mar. 12, 2023.

The connection follows the deaths of six former Philadelphia Phillies baseball players, all of whom died from glioblastoma after spending the majority of their careers playing for the Phillies. The Phillies played on a turf field from 1971 to 2003.

The Inquirer article points to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contained in artificial turf as a possible cause of cancer, noting that testing of samples from the old Phillies’ turf field found 16 different types of PFAS present in the turf. See Laker and Gambacorta, supra.

PFAS, referred to as “forever chemicals” because they are highly resistant to breakdown in the human body and environment, have been linked to a variety of serious health conditions including low birth weight, reduced immune response, liver damage and cancer. While evidence of PFAS in turf fields causing glioblastoma is only anecdotal at this point, plaintiffs’ lawyers have latched on to the Phillies story and are using it to solicit clients for “artificial turf cancer” litigation via firm websites and/or social media.

The effects of PFAS are already widely debated and litigated, including through the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2873, District of South Carolina). In June 2023, four defendants in that litigation reached settlements of over $11 billion related to claims that PFAS chemicals contaminated drinking water around the country. This type of result (and publicity) may pave the way for PFAS claims related to artificial turf, and it seems as though plaintiffs’ lawyers already have an eye on it.

One thing is clear — the dispute over the safety of artificial turf is not going away. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential health effects surrounding turf fields and, until we have more clarity, plaintiffs are going to face an uphill battle. On the other hand, as many know, the courtroom sometimes becomes a place where the seeds of science are tested. And with the public voice of the NFLPA speaking out and inspiring other injured athletes to do the same, litigation may be closer than we think.

By Penny Travers | 5^th July 2023 | ABC News | Click here to view the article

With your lawn turning brown from the winter frost and an El Nino weather event on the horizon, you may find yourself considering artificial turf to keep your lawn or front verge looking green.

It’s an increasingly popular choice, particularly in newer suburbs where block sizes are smaller.

But while synthetic grass offers an even, green surface that requires little maintenance, it comes with a big environmental price tag.

Here are some of the environmental impacts of artificial turf worth considering before you roll it out in your own backyard.

Burning hot in summer

In summer, fake turf gets hot. Very hot. So hot in fact, that Sebastian Pfautsch, an associate professor in urban management and planning at Western Sydney University, warns the surface can give babies and young children “second or third-degree burns”.

Associate Professor Pfautsch was one of more than 30 experts who contributed to an independent review of the impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces by the New South Wales chief scientist and engineer.

“This material on a sunny day, with let’s say 30 degrees Celsius in the sun unshaded, will be about 80 to 90 degrees hot,” he said.

“Compare that to natural turf, which will be just slightly above the temperature, meaning slightly above 30 degrees.

Not only can it be burning hot to touch, fake turf also radiates heat, making you and your home hotter.

“You get radiant heat so your thermal comfort is impacted negatively and then you also have, from the combination of the sensible heat flux and the warmer air temperatures, warmer air around your home,” Associate Professor Pfautsch said.

“That means your whole house is warmer, your walls are warmer, your windows are warmer, everything is warmer, the air intake for your air conditioning system is warmer — you need more energy to cool that down.

The heat impact goes beyond just having a warmer microclimate around your home.

“You may think it’s only me having a bit of synthetic turf but it’s now 20 other neighbours and then of course, when you add this, it has a collective impact on your suburb microclimate where it gets warmer,” Associate Professor Pfautsch said.

“Collectively the whole suburb will be warmer which has impacts on night-time temperatures, but also on the environment where certain critters just need certain temperatures and certain plants need certain evolutions of day-night temperatures.

Unsustainable life cycle

As the name suggests, synthetic turf comprises of synthetic fibres typically made from nylon or polypropylene and connected to a backing material, all of which came from crude oil.

The lifespan of artificial turf depends on how it’s installed, maintained and used, but it tends to be about 10 years, though some manufacturers of newer products say it can last upwards of two decades.

When it does reach the end of its useful life, unlike some other plastics, artificial turf is difficult to recycle due to contaminations, colours and stabilisers within the material.

“What we’re finding in the US, is a lot of the artificial turf that is being replaced with other surfaces is just ending up in landfill which is not a good end for these products,” John Ting, Assistant Professor at the University of Canberra’s Faculty of Arts and Design, said.

“In terms of the life cycle for these kinds of plastic, it is not really a very sustainable thing.

“Whereas things like tiles, or stone paving, or concrete, even gravel, a lot of that can actually be incorporated into other materials or can actually be recycled themselves.”

Professor Mark Howden, director of the Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions at the Australian National University, says the greenhouse gas component also needs to be considered.

“Normal grass can absorb a bit of carbon, compare that with artificial grass or asphalt or concrete, those latter ones have a big greenhouse gas footprint,” he said.

Microplastics in waterways

While there is a wide range of artificial turf products on the market with varying composition and durability, synthetic fibres can break off and end up in waterways, especially in periods of heavy rainfall.

“Because they come into contact with feet, because people walk over them and so forth, and because they’re out in the weather, what we tend to get is bits of plastic that are actually falling off the artificial grass itself and getting into our waterways,” Assistant Professor Ting said.

Infill is usually spread over the turf to help the grass blades stand up and keep the turf flat.

In backyards, that infill is often silica sand which has sharp edges that can contribute to the grass blades breaking off.

Granulated rubber or crumb rubber, usually made from old car tyres, is also used as an infill — particularly on sporting fields.

“That just cries for disaster,” Associate Professor Pfautsch said.  “Now you’re not only having the natural disintegration of the green material, but you’ve introduced something that’s even smaller and loose that just goes everywhere. “You can find this material, many, many, many metres away from the fields in parks where it’s just piling up. It just starts to wander off.

“And there are studies in that report … that describe the impact of that on aquatic environments because it starts to enter the food chain.”

Lack of biodiversity

Artificial turf doesn’t just impact the environment above the ground, but also the carbon in the soil and the living systems below.

“Artificial turf doesn’t have an ecology like grass does,” Assistant Professor Ting said.

“All sorts of microbes, insects and other things actually live in the grass and in the soil around the grass.

“Natural grass and planted matter does actually promote biodiversity and does give back to the soil and make it stronger, more fertile and so on. Artificial grass doesn’t allow this to happen.”

Associate Professor Pfautsch describes synthetic turf as a biodiversity “blocker”.

“Once you start reducing the gas exchange between the atmosphere and the soil it has a huge impact on all the soil fauna, the critters that live in the soil, which is a huge storage of carbon,” he said.

“All of that is lost because you’re basically cutting off their supply pipelines for gas exchange.”

Lawn alternatives

The good news is there are some natural alternatives to artificial turf that don’t necessarily require the time and effort of a well-manicured traditional lawn and still look pleasant during dry times.

“Native Australian grasses make wonderful turfs. You can even let that flower before you mow it and that comes with biodiversity benefits,” associate professor Pfautsch said.

“There will be insects that will be attracted to that, that also then, when you look at food chains, attract birds, attract this and attract that.”

A side path of a house with a gate, with stepping stones surrounded by leafy green and small purple flowers

For those who don’t want to maintain a natural lawn, Professor Howden suggests planting ground covers and shrubs, or growing a cottage garden.

“Increasingly there are some really great options. Walk around your suburbs and see where people have made those choices and how attractive they can be,” he said.

And if native grass and shrubs won’t work for your backyard, you could always lay down some bark or wood chip.

“You can just have bark chips like mulch over your earth, and that doesn’t heat up as much as artificial turf and does keep the ground healthy,” Assistant Professor Ting said.

By Richa Banka | 4^th July 2023 | Hindustan Times | Click here to view article

The court said that DDA’s proposed plan would result in the destruction of a significant part of the open and naturally green area of the complex.

Stressing the need to protect the environment, the Delhi high court has scrapped the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)’s project to convert natural grass football and hockey grounds at Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC) into artificial synthetic grounds.

“The proposed plan is impermissible and illegal. Therefore, such conversion of laying of artificial turf will have to be abandoned by the DDA… The laying of artificial turf will be an irreversible damage to not only the football and hockey fields but to the contiguous green area and is likely to affect the people using the immediately adjacent walking path,” justice Najmi Waziri said.

Making its February 4, 2020 order of status quo on the laying of artificial grass as “absolute”, the court said that the football and hockey fields which presently have natural grass shall not be destroyed or altered to artificial turf.

The court said that DDA’s proposed plan would result in the destruction of a significant part of the open and naturally green area of the complex.

He said that while land may belong to individuals and land-owning agencies, the environment belongs to all humans, indeed to all living creatures and each living being needs to be protected from damaged ecology.

“The environment is much larger than a simple football or hockey field. In a city like Delhi, the ecology of small pockets of green areas, serving as lungs for the city especially amidst densely populated residential, commercial and industrial localities is crucial and fragile. Therefore, greater caution and sensitivity has to be exercised, lest an inexorable harm is set in motion which may continue to blight the city for generations to come,” the court said in a judgment of June 30 made available on Monday.

The judge said that development is not always the creation of roads, buildings, civic or industrial infrastructure and in the world of technology, travel and tearing hurry, development is also manifested in the retention of delicate ecology and green area of a neighbourhood, so as to maintain the environmental equilibrium for posterity.

Land-owning agencies hold land in trust for future generations, they need to exercise such care and caution. There can hardly be a case for this city being robbed of its green spaces in a few years only because in one project or the other, there is resultant concretisation of the earth. Today it is two sports fields; tomorrow it will be something else. The creeping concretisation, through seemingly innocuous projects, need to be examined from the prism of ecological balance,” the court said.

The court was dealing with a petition by a member of SFSC, Sudhir Gupta seeking to stop converting the natural grass football and hockey grounds in Siri Fort Sports Complex into artificial synthetic grounds by cutting the trees/bushes/shrubs, etc. and in the process damaging/destroying the biggest green patch also known as lungs of south Delhi.

The plea had said that without consulting the members, users and players of the complex, DDA has initiated the work of construction for artificial synthetic football and hockey grounds by destroying/damaging the greenest part of the entire complex which will involve in the process uprooting or cutting innumerable well grown trees all around the natural mud jogging track.

Senior advocate ML Lahoty for the petitioner had contended that besides the degradation of the soil and environment, a lot of good quality water would be wasted on a daily basis to cool the heat which is generated from the artificial turf, both on regular days and especially so on hot days and to keep the artificial turf soft and moist and playable.

He further said it is contrary to the international trend, including decisions of FIFA and FIH to shift from artificial turf to natural grass for playing football and hockey.

He had argued that synthetic tracks are popular mostly in European countries and in the USA where the climatic conditions are altogether different from India.

Contending that there is a trend of synthetic tracks, the DDA counsel had said that there are many organisations in various parts of the country where artificial turf has been laid and FIFA as an organisation proposes artificial turf worldwide.

He said that the artificial turf proposed to be laid would be of approved FIFA standards; that there are many advantages of the use of artificial turf over the natural turf which includes conservation of water, elimination of harmful pesticides, reduction of noxious emissions thus being environment friendly, ideal for inclement weather, lower risk of injuries to players due to evenness of surface and cost effectiveness; that the artificial turf to be installed at SFSC is meant for training purposes and not for holding any international competition, the turf is to be used throughout the year; the proposal to lay the artificial turf is for the benefit of sportspersons.

Agreeing with the contentions of advocate Lahoty, counsel for the petitioner, the court said that in the recent past three FIFA related football World-Cup events were held on natural grass and even the FIFA World Cup in 2022 at Qatar was played on turf grass (natural grass), no artificial turf was used at any of the eight stadiums or even at the training grounds.

Citing several international patterns, the court said that the temperature at Qatar and Delhi are similar during summer, and it is in keeping the suitability of turf grass, for football to be played in a high and humid environment and that the World Cup was played on natural grass.

The court said that “irrespective of ownership of the land, DDA will need to protect the green areas especially in a city where the ever burgeoning population and the concomitant increase in number of vehicles and dwelling units, adds to the environmental pressure and pollution”.

SFSC lies in the heart of South Delhi and the adjoining greenery needs to be protected at all costs, as the entire area is a green lung for the city. A park or a green area in the midst of a thickly populated residential area or commercial area is of a far greater value than a forest removed kilometres away from a human habitation,” it said.

The judge noted that the direction of the Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT) to DDA and to “ensure that the entire complex is duly maintained” is of much significance and was for the purpose of protecting the greenery in the entire area.

Synthetic vs Natural Turf – Get the facts from the experts

On 23rd June 2023, the NTA presented a Community Forum on Natural vs Synthetic Turf. Leading Scientists and Community Leaders presented latest information on this debate to over 120 representatives of community groups throughout Sydney.

PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY FORUM 

• To provide evidence-based information that upgrading sports fields with natural turf is the best choice for players, the environment, and the community.
• To provide evidence of the environmental, health, and safety dangers of plastic turf.
• Present the facts about how the processes used by the Ku-ring-gai Council to proceed with the construction of a synthetic turf field at Norman lacked proper environmental assessments and thorough community consultation.
• Provide an opportunity to ask the scientists, experts, and community members questions.
• Outline recommendations and suggest actions to ensure proper Governance.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE EVENT

CLICK HERE to read more about the Norman Griffiths Oval Development and Campaign

Report from ABC Radio | 20th June 2023

The New South Wales chief scientist has stopped short of recommending a moratorium on a common type of synthetic turf, despite finding little is known about its composition and environmental impact.

Key points:

• There are more than 180 synthetic turf sports fields in NSW, a sharp increase from 24 in 2014 and 30 in 2018
• Community groups have protested about the loss of green space and concerns about microplastics and heat
• In his report, the chief scientist recommended NSW adopt an “accelerated learn and adapt approach”
• There has been a six-fold increase in artificial turf replacing suburban grass sports fields in the past five years as sports clubs have embraced it as a reliable alternative.

But community groups have protested about the loss of green space and raised concerns about microplastics and heat, prompting the previous Coalition state government to ask the state’s chief scientist, Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte, to investigate.

His final report, quietly released earlier this month, found there were 181 synthetic turf sports fields in NSW, a sharp increase from 24 in 2014 and 30 in 2018.

Professor Durrant-Whyte has identified significant “knowledge gaps”, particularly when it comes to exactly what goes into commonly used rubber infill.

“There is insufficient information and a lack of standards about the materials and chemical composition of synthetic turf,” the review concluded.

The chief scientist acknowledged increased heat effects were a concern and raised doubts about the turf’s performance claims in Australia’s climate.

“It is not clear whether expectations about the longevity and carrying capacity of synthetic fields can be met under Australian climatic conditions, potentially influencing decisions about installation and cost-benefit considerations,” the report states.

The report also noted that improvements in natural turf management meant grass fields may allow for increased performance to meet demand.

Rather than follow overseas bans, the chief scientist recommended NSW instead adopt an “accelerated learn and adapt approach”.

With more artificial fields proposed across NSW, including a $10 million redevelopment of Tamplin Field in Hobartville in Sydney’s north-west and Westleigh Park near Hornsby, community groups had hoped he would recommend stronger action.

Hornsby Council plans to turn this area of Westleigh Park into three sports fields; two grass and one synthetic turf. (Supplied: Save Westleigh Park)

Convenor of Save Westleigh Park, Jan Primrose, said the recommended approach “risks leaving a legacy of environmental and health issues across Sydney’s open spaces”.

“The idea of using new fields as a testbed will simply exacerbate future problems by increasing the number of fields exponentially,” Ms Primrose said.

“Surely we’ve learnt the lessons that the legacy of PFAS contamination has left us with — a precautionary approach should prevail.”

Synthetic fields commonly have long blades supported by infill made from recycled tyres, called crumb rubber.

The European Union has banned this type of rubber infill due to concerns about microplastics ending up in waterways, giving the industry eight years to switch to alternatives such as cork and wood products.

Grant Humphreys, a director of Sports and Play Industry Association, said the chief scientist’s decision not to go down that path was a relief for the industry.

Mr Humphreys, who is a FIFA qualified sports field tester, said the EU ban would have flow on effects here anyway.

“We don’t actually manufacture any crumb rubber in Australia, it gets all imported, so we will have that issue with supplying it. We’ve gone to more of the cork, organic infills.”

Some councils are using a combination of synthetic turf and grass in public parks, but there is little data on how common it is. (

He called on the government to make standards, such as installing filters in drains, mandatory to prevent microplastics flowing into waterways.

He said the new fields had proved a “win win” for councils and sports clubs by allowing more teams to play and train, relieving pressure on grass fields.

The proliferation of synthetic turf highlights an underlying problem, according to associate professor in urban management and planning at Western Sydney university Dr Sebastian Pfautsh.

“It really goes back to urban planning principles — where we densify or expand our cities but we’re not at the same time providing the necessary green space for recreation and recreational activities for these growing populations,” he said.

“That leads to the problem that the existing sports fields or other facilities are being loved to death.”

Dr Pfautsch called for a halt on new synthetic turf fields being installed until further research is conducted.

He is particularly concerned about the increased heat generated by artificial turf after measuring temperatures of more than 80 degrees Celsius at surface level.

He pointed to the unsuitability of plans to install synthetic turf at Tamplin Field in Hobartville.

“It’s particularly detrimental to put a field like that into a space that’s naturally really hot,” Dr Pfautsch said.

“I can just foresee that during warmer days, and then the hot summers that you get out west, those facilities can’t be used.”

The state government has until September to respond to the report.

Government scientists have growing concerns about the human health risks, environmental effects, and end-of-life management in synthetic turf and called for further investigation and regulation of its use.

A new report by the Chief Scientist of New South Wales (NSW) highlights the presence of toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals and volatile organic compounds, in the rubber infill of synthetic turf.

The release of this landmark report comes at a time when scientists and governments worldwide are questioning whether synthetic turf should be banned. It has significant implications for the Hawkesbury region in particular, where turf production is one of the largest industries, employing over 60 separate businesses and utilizing more than 4,000 acres of land. It also comes as Hawkesbury council prepares to spend $10 million dollar on synthetic turf sports field.

Titled – “Independent review into the design, use, and impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces,” the report coincides with a significant increase in the use of synthetic turf for sports fields in NSW over the past decade. It highlights the alarming environmental cost of synthetic grass.

The report reveals that NSW currently boasts a staggering 181 synthetic fields, a dramatic rise from just 24 in 2014 and 30 in 2018. Commissioned by the NSW government, the report emphasizes the need for increased scrutiny of the use of synthetic turf and a shift towards natural grass fields.

While acknowledging the benefits synthetic turf provides in terms of increased playing time and reduced maintenance costs, Chief Scientist Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte emphasized the importance of taking a precautionary approach. The report suggests that natural turf fields built to best practice were more cost-effective than alternative options, including synthetic turf when considering both lifecycle costs and carrying capacity.

Durrant-Whyte calls for further research and collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to address the identified concerns and develop guidelines for the safe and sustainable use of synthetic turf and explore the use of alternative products.

The report found that substances used in making the synthetic turf may leach into the surrounding environment and pose a risk to human health, especially for those who come into direct contact with the turf.  Still, the report stops short of calling for a ban on synthetic turf.

Styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) is known to contain toxic contaminants and heavy metals.

Studies conducted for the report found rubber infill and synthetic turf fibers in waterways across NSW, raising concerns about pollution and threats to aquatic life. Synthetic turf fields without proper measures to reduce infill loss, could wash tens to hundreds of kilograms of infill and hundreds of kilograms of turf fibres into stormwater systems or waterways each year, posing a significant environmental risk. “This is particularly relevant to SBR (styrene butadiene rubber) crumb infill, given the lack of import standards for waste tyres, which are known to contain contaminants and heavy metals, “it said.

The report also sheds light on the adverse impacts of synthetic turf on ecology and wildlife. The replacement of natural grass or vegetation with synthetic turf disrupts ecological balance, causes habitat loss, increases heat, and negatively affects nocturnal wildlife due to artificial lighting.

Furthermore, the report warns that the heat generated by synthetic turf can be significantly higher than that of natural grass, potentially leading to heat-related illnesses among sportspeople using the turf as well as increased ambient temperatures in urban areas. It calls for further research to better understand the extent of these health risks and to develop guidelines for safe use. But it also went one step further and warned against using synthetic grass in hot weather.

“The heat retaining property of synthetic turf surfaces is a characteristic that can impact health during hot conditions and their use should only be recommended during suitable weather for users on or around the field, in particularly for children and exercising individuals who are susceptible to heat exhaustion.”

This warning now raises questions over Hawkesbury Council’s decision to use synthetic grass for the $10 million redevelopment of Tamplin Field, Hobartville. In summer the Hawkesbury often experiences temperatures of 40 degrees and higher.

Additionally, synthetic turf has been found to have a considerable carbon footprint. The production and disposal of artificial grass contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, while the use of non-renewable resources, such as petroleum-based materials, exacerbates environmental concerns. The report stresses the need for more sustainable alternatives and urges policymakers to consider the life cycle impacts of synthetic turf in future decision-making processes.

Most artificial playing surfaces end up in landfill.

Another challenge highlighted in the report is the end-of-life management of synthetic turf. Currently, most artificial playing surfaces end up in landfill, posing a significant waste management problem. The report recommends exploring recycling and repurposing options to reduce the environmental burden and promote circular economy principles.

The NSW government is yet to respond to the findings.

This article was published on 12th June 2023 in the Hawkesbury Post – Click here

NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer

Synthetic turf has become ubiquitous in both public and private settings, and there is interest in understanding the impacts of materials used in its installation. In November 2021, the Hon. Rob Stokes MP, (then) Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, requested the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer (CSE) provide expert advice on the use of synthetic turf in public open space in NSW.

Following the Terms of Reference, the Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer (OCSE) has completed its independent review (the Review). To inform the Review, OCSE has drawn on available data and research, commissioned expert analysis, and undertaken consultation with key stakeholders and experts.

This report presents an overview of key insights and makes recommendations to guide the use of and improve the management of synthetic turf in NSW. Findings and recommendations will inform guidance being developed by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for councils that are proposing new synthetic fields, as well as informing applications and management of synthetic turf in other settings.

Detailed findings and the expert advice informing the review are also provided in the appendices of this report.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW AND DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Players want grass in all venues. Various NFL stadiums use artificial turf. The debate has not gotten much traction, yet.

As the U.S.-hosted 2026 World Cup approaches and as more people realize that stadiums like AT&T in Dallas and SoFi in L.A. will convert to grass fields for the soccer competition, more will ask why, if that can be done for soccer, it can’t be done for football?

When push comes to shove, sources connected to The Shield will point out (as they already are) that the World Cup surfaces will be a hybrid of grass and synthetic turf.

Fine, then why don’t the stadiums that currently use turf only permanently use the FIFA-required grass/synthetic hybrid for football, too?

Players who want all grass would surely settle for a grass/fake blend than all fake. Why not just keep the World Cup surface at AT&T Stadium and at SoFi Stadium?

The broader point is that, although owners like Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke won’t change surfaces because football players prefer grass, they’ll bend over backward when the soccer authority responsible for the World Cup demands grass, or at least a grass/turf hybrid.

The recent feature on HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel hammers the point home. Grass is far safer than turf. Football players want to play on grass. Why in the hell won’t NFL owners provide them with grass, or at least a grass/turf hybrid?

As one source within the NFL bubble who believes in grass fields recently told PFT, the NFL will warp and twist statistics in order to preserve the status quo. The league doesn’t want to force owners to incur the expense of installing and maintaining grass — especially in venues where a significant re-engineering of the building would be necessary to permit it.

And so the NFL will continue to ignore the noise and hold the line and force players to deal with the hazards of artificial turf, even as more and more evidence surfaces regarding the relative safety, both as to injuries and overall wear and tear, of playing on a softer, more forgiving surface.

Put simply, it’s a problem the NFL won’t solve because the NFL refuses to acknowledge that there’s even a problem. The willingness of some owners to swap out turf-only fields for the World Cup will hopefully get so many people to recognize the problem that the league will have no choice but to finally concede that a problem exists.

Comment from NTA. All over the world, community and elite sports groups are concerned about the proliferation of synthetic turf, in terms of its effect on the environment, community health and player’s health. There’s increasing focus on converting synthetic turf back to natural turf fields. Why won’t our local regulatory and government authorities listen?

This article is extracted from https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/05/26/world-cup-insistence-on-grass-becomes-key-player-point-in-turf-debate/.

The Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy (WaSM) released in June 2021 requires:

• Councils to provide FOGO (Food Organics and Garden Organics) services to all households by 2030
• Large food wasting businesses to source separate food waste by 2025 – hospitality, retail, and institution sectors (hospitals, schools, correctional centres etc)
• Larger supermarkets to report on food donation from 2025

The WaSM allocates $69 million to the Net Zero Organics program to 2027 to deliver on the following targets:

• halve organics waste to landfill
• 80% of all waste recovered
• halve food waste by 2030
• net zero emissions of organics waste in landfill by 2030 (Net Zero Plan commitment)

The source separation requirements will divert up to 800,000 tonnes of organics waste a year to be recycled into compost.

The NSW EPA is encouraging councils to support end markets by buying back FOGO organic compost  and using it on its parks and playing fields. Already, Penrith and other councils are using organic compost to build and maintain superior playing fields.

Properly developed and maintained natural turf fields can achieve capacity of 50 hours per week or more.

Cool Compost

• The EPA has been supporting end markets for the recycled product, compost, through a $7.5 million Organic Market Development (OMD) Program, delivering grants, industry training and research. Strong markets are essential to ensure the economic viability of organics processing.
• To leverage the outcomes from the grant projects, the EPA developed a project called ‘Cool Compost’
• Cool Compost aims to further increase awareness of the benefits of compost made from FOGO and increase demand for compost in five markets, including councils.
• The result is five videos and five podcasts telling the whole story for each audience, with Show Notes providing additional info and resources.
• The Council show notes include links to projects showcasing the benefits of compost in stormwater filtration and playing fields.
• More at www.epa.nsw.gov.au/fogo and https://circularag.com.au/compost/