Synthetic beats real in turf debate
Original post made on Oct 13, 2011
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, October 13, 2011, 12:13 PM
on Oct 13, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Rossta is a registered user.
Interesting that no one in the article mentioned talking to any of the actual users of the fields. I did - I asked my 11 year old son who attends Graham and played soccer there last year. He really doesn't like the artificial turf - he says it hurts to fall on.
If you wouldn't want to picnic on it, do you think playing on it is somehow okay? I guess the point of that is - I won't be using it, so it is good for others.
on Oct 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm
As a dog owner local to Crittendon, with its conveniently enclosed grass field, I don't recall being consulted either. We and our dogs love having a grassy field to romp in. We can and do clean up droppings to the point where the soil and grass, with routine watering, can absorb any residue very well. I have no idea how any residue would ever "decompose" to harmlessness in AstroTurf. (Can it leach into the underlying soil? What enzyme or chemical sprays should we tote to hasten the process? How will they affect the VOC emissions?) Instead, I can already see the "Dogs Must Be On Leash" signs replaced by "No Dogs Allowed" (after the damage is done). The new signs, however, will no doubt be enforced. Oh now I get it: Another revenue stream!
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm
So this is what going green really means. Artificial grass over real nature. And it doesn't look like the owl stands a chance against the city.