Natural turf VS synthetic turf
The World Cup was in full swing in Russia and the title of world champion was awarded to the Blues. In the hands of the soccer’s stars or rather their feet, an essential element: the lawn. Grass in Russia, but for years the synthetic world in power. Comparative study of the environmental balance on the choice of turf.
Environmental footprint : natural turf 0 – synthetic turf 1
The grass is king among the English and it is not a coincidence, rain is for something. To maintain your lawn, you need water. In the context of climate change this resource is valuable and watering is likely to be difficult. But that’s not all, fertilizer and lawn care are heavy and it’s not counting on the mowers which are singled out for their pollution and whose contribution is estimated at 2% of the smog from engines. The match is not over .
Health risk : natural turf 1- synthetic turf 0
Synthetic turf is not neutral and risks are pointed out. Composed of aggregates from recycled tires, some of these substances are accused of being toxic or carcinogenic. The dangerousness of these aggregates and posed, especially since they can easily come into contact with the skins, hair and wounds of the players. Faced with these concerns, the government has seized the food safety agency, the environment and labor (Anses). The results are to follow and should not delay. The choice of the lawn remains to be done and should not be harmless, not possible to throw up but by the opinion of ANSES, the extensions are announced.