Play It Green

Since Tiger Woods is such a media darling, golf is getting more attention than it has in years. As much respect as Woods deserves (and he gets a lot, thanks to his dominance, his charm and his drastic difference from those older white fellows on the course), it’s hard to characterize golf as anything but an environmental nightmare. Recycle the water, cut down on pesticides—it’s still a grotesque waste of land and resources, creating an idyllic, but entirely unnatural environment for just a handful of khaki-wearing members to enjoy.

But without chucking the sport altogether, researchers are looking at ways to make golf environmentally responsible. And those at the University of Massachusetts Amherst may have hit on a good first solution—plants that act as “living filters” at the edge of golf courses. While these plants won’t change the amount of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides applied on the courses to keep them so perfectly green, they will help prevent those residual chemicals from ending up in the soil and groundwater. According to the press release, 5 to 10 percent of the total pesticides applied are lost in runoff. And, says Guy Lanza, a professor of environmental science, “Once in the water, these chemicals affect the health of a wide variety of aquatic organisms, everything from bacteria and algae to fish and frogs. They may also pose a health risk to humans, but this is less certain.” Thanks to their large root systems, plants like blue flag and gamagrass could reduce pesticides by up to 94 percent—and they look real pretty, too.

1 Comment »

It’s great that those artificial turf fields require so little precious resources to maintain. As long as they’re not emitting lead, that is. Last week, state investigators found that the levels of lead in the College of New Jersey’s football field and two others had lead levels eight to 10 times higher than the state’s residential soil standard for cleanup of contaminated properties. Then the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) bought samples of residential turf online and found similar high lead levels. Of course, they don’t reveal the names of those companies because that would be providing too much information to the public. Now, says the Washington Post, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is beginning to investigate whether synthetic sports fields are dangerous. A commission spokesperson said there’s no reason parents should panic. Yet.

No Comments »

 An editorial comes in my own area paper regarding the necessity of testing artificial turf playing fields. It’s strange to imagine that in the “which is greener?” argument, artificial turf beats out natural grass. It requires little upkeep and zero water, but the stuff is made from plastic, silicon sand or granulated rubber. It’s even possible that under certain weather conditions, hot sun, say, or heavy rain, toxic gases from these plastic parts (particularly zinc) could leach into the air and into the lungs of athletes. New Haven, Conn. eco-group, Environment and Human Health Incorporated, called for a moratorium on artificial turf fields until more conclusive studies are done. But an editorial in the state’s Stamford Advocate a couple days ago chastised lawmakers for wasting $250,000 to study their safety. Turns out, residents in Stamford oppose two new synthetic soccer fields near their homes. A similar field scheduled for an upscale area in Fairfield, Conn., was called off in the face of organized community protests. My guess is, neither move had much to do with health concerns. While some home and business owners are installing artificial turf in place of pesticide and water-sucking lawns in places like Las Vegas, they’re becoming a contentious presence as playing fields on the Gold Coast, where water and resource use must contend with persistent homeowner vanity.

No Comments »