Close
today i learned (til)

The Artificial Turf Epidemic

April 17, 2026

Introduction:

Over the years, a growing trend in sports has emerged with schools, professional teams, families, and even city parks switching from real grass to artificial turf. In my life alone, I have seen my friends’ families remove beautiful grass lawns, and my high school get rid of grass fields in favor of more expensive artificial turf. 

History:

First installed in 1966 at Houston’s Astrodome, artificial turf originally consisted of nylon carpet over compacted soil, and the trend of replacing natural grass with so-called AstroTurf continued due to its durability and low maintenance requirements (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Even back then, many shared concerns about the grass, as, for the first time in human history, people ran on a human-made version of a natural surface. These issues have laid the foundation for modern discourse around playing surfaces, whether we should prioritize convenience or player opinions. 

Current Use:

Now, artificial turf uses synthetic polymers, with the top layer consisting of polymers attached to a textile with latex backing, and the infill made of recycled tires (Cheng et al., 2014). To emulate the shock absorption of real grass, artificial grass makers use sand laid over a shock pad made of materials such as rubber. These moves have increased its energy and water costs; however, they remain lower than those of maintaining a real grass field. 

The new turf only needs water to cool it down at times due to its material’s high heat absorption and the lack of evaporation seen in normal grass (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). The new turf also excels in durability, with strong polymers preventing the grass from tearing and avoiding the dirt spots and rough patches characteristic of a normal grass field.

While the new turf clearly excels in many areas, the areas it does not excel in have become the greatest sources of conversation, with its impervious surface limiting water infiltration and the synthetic grass having lower permeability to water (Cheng et al., 2014). Normal grass serves as a runoff area; as anyone who has played sports remembers, practice gets canceled because of heavy rainstorms. Furthermore, plastic pollution also becomes a major issue with artificial turf as microplastics, which do not biodegrade, linger in the environment and account for 15% of plastic debris in aquatic environments (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Artificial turf also produces significantly more greenhouse gases than natural grass, and maintaining the grass increases the use of pesticides and cleaning solvents. Suppose you thought that you should just get rid of the synthetic grass and replace it with natural grass; even more issues emerge, as we do not have proper recycling facilities for artificial turf. 

Health Risks:

Health-wise, synthetic grass also raises serious concerns, as high surface temperatures increase the risk of dehydration and heat stroke (Reiad et al., 2025). The high presence of forever chemicals in artificial turf can also cause developmental issues, liver damage, and an increased risk of cancer (Reiad et al., 2025). Furthermore, athletes dislike the grass because of the increased risk of injury. In a study by John Powell, he linked artificial turf surfaces to increased knee injuries in professional football, and just from the top of my head, I can think of 10 bad lower extremity injuries from artificial turf, like Aaron Rodgers tearing his Achilles on his debut with the Jets and Dre Greenlaw doing the same in the Super Bowl. The NFL even conducted a poll in which 92% of athletes said they preferred natural to synthetic grass (The Associated Press, 2024). However, some studies have seen a greater concussion risk associated with natural grass, so you cannot simply say x is better than y in terms of injury risk. 

Hopefully, this article has guided you to my research question: Why would anyone ever use synthetic grass? The NFL has proven, through this year’s World Cup, that it can switch fields quite easily. In Europe, nearly all professional soccer teams use grass, so why would baseball and football team owners use hated synthetic grass fields over nostalgic, beloved grass fields? The answer to your question is likely effort and money. 

Appeal of Turf:

When you walk on a field of grass, you may not realize the effort it took to avoid rolling your ankle on a divot or accidentally stepping on an ant hill, but maintaining a proper grass field requires continuous, multifaceted effort. It requires seasonal reseeding, watering, mowing and cutting, fertilization, and changing costs based on weather conditions. The costs behind these actions tend to add up, leading to high and even unpredictable costs at times, which has led organizations and teams to stray away from grass in favor of turf. To maintain a turf field, all you might need to do is brush the surface of artificial grass to make it stand up straight or remove any debris or stains on the field, but other than that, and maybe a light watering for cooling, the cost associated with cleaning and maintaining turf remains relatively steady. Turf withstands heavy use and weather better than grass, making it ideal for the US’s multipurpose stadium venues. Artificial turf appeals to owners because of its low-cost marketing, consistent playability, and stable costs, which allow them to more easily manage the tight budgets they deal with. Europe, in contrast, has a more holistic approach to sports, where the fans and players come first, prioritizing tradition over costs, making real grass a cultural priority in sports infrastructure.

Conclusion:

The grass vs. turf debate underscores the broader theme of convenience versus quality. While turf saves money and lasts longer, artificial grass can cause adverse health effects, may increase lower-body injuries, and sacrifice the traditional, beloved feeling of grass. In debating grass vs. turf, we are asking what we should prioritize. As technology advances, we must ensure our answer to the question not only makes budgeting easier but also maintains the quality that players love.

References:

Cheng, Hefa, et al. “Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 48, no. 4, 2014, pp. 2114–2129. American Chemical Society, https://doi.org/10.1021/es4044193.

Cumberbatch, Iman S., et al. “Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost.” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 14, 2025, article 6292. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146292.

Macy. (2025). Artificial turf vs. natural grass football fields: The complete difference. Mighty Grass. https://www.mightygrass.com/artificial-turf-vs-natural-grass-football-fields/

Reiad, Timothy A et al. “Comparing Sports-Related Orthopedic Injury Trends on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass: A 20-Year Nationwide Analysis of the NEISS Database.” Rhode Island medical journal (2013) vol. 108,7 41-47. 1 Jul. 2025

The Associated Press. (2024, February 8). NFLPA head says 92% of players prefer playing on grass. FOX Sports. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nflpa-head-says-92-percent-of-players-prefer-playing-on-grass 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Probiotics in Food
today i learned (til)
Hydrogel-Semiconductor Hybrids: Blurring the Line Between Biology and Technology
today i learned (til)
Mindcraft: The Science of Flowers & Flower Pressing
today i learned (til)
Wildlife around campus

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.