Talk:Artificial turf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to Merge Field Turf article[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal was withdrawn by the user. The page was not moved.--Joshua Issac (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge of article on Field Turf brand of artificial turf. It's just a brand and should have at best a section along with the other commercially available brands of rubber crumb turf -- like "Game Day" and "Sportexe".99.142.2.135 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Field Turf is clearly notable enough to have its own article. Have a look at the number of references used there. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSome of the sources are press releases and garbage but FieldTurf is notable enough. The expanded use in US soccer (somewhat controversial) and other professional teams' stadiums is important. I think the article still needs tons of cleanup, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is largely a duplicate of the ideas here. It could be dealt with by a single paragraph, just as AstroTurf and the other commodity brands of rubber crumb turf could be.99.142.2.135 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a knee jerk reaction. A single paragraph is an exaggeration and improvement is better in this instance. Removing the fluff and adding some sources will make a couple alright articles. If someone wants to go nuts they could even get somewhere respectable on the assessment scale. In regards to FieldTurf, other editors should have been diligent enough to not let employees and/or sales reps (see the edit log's user to contribution ratio) turn it into a series of press releases. Subjects still meets guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Separate thing, separate entry. Funny how there isn't a suggestion to merge Astroturf in, just to merge their main competitor into obscurity. A case of astroturfing if ever I saw one. SFC9394 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is supposed to already have "astroturf" direct here to this entry on the commodity of artificial grass.99.142.2.135 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no discussion on that, either historically here or on the Astroturf talk page, so I am not sure why it is "supposed" to be already redirected here given no discussion has occurred and the Astroturf article has existed for almost 7 years. SFC9394 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
astroturf directs here separately from the article devoted to the corporation of the same name.99.142.2.135 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? AstroTurf/astroturf/astro turf has an article. It is only in the see also because it is sometimes used as a generic description of artificial turf.Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on artificial turf. AstroTurf and FieldTurf are two companies in the business of marketing artificial turf, the Wikipedia entry on FieldTurf was apparently written by the head of marketing, it was a complete sales presentation. Artificial turf, no matter the brand, should be dealt with here and not duplicated in the articles on the individual commercial entities.99.142.2.135 (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your view, but I am afraid as you can see everyone else disagrees (including our own house rules on notability). So sorry, they stay. Your statement is akin to saying that Coca Cola and Pepsi should just redirect to Cola as they are nothing but commercial brands - that is not how Wikipedia works. SFC9394 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. There is sufficient notability to retain the article, in general and in some form as it pertains to the company itself, on the corporation. The tag has been removed. 99.144.252.140 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to merge FIFA Recommended 1-Star and FIFA Recommended 2-Star articles in the Association football section[edit]

These two articles were created to show the standards of artificial turfs as designated by FIFA. Sources may not be available to merge them together and this article's context is relevant.Cptnono (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turf confusion[edit]

The Association Football section makes repeated mentions of "turf" but it isn't clear if the author is referring to "artificial turf" or just plain "turf" (i.e. organic grass in soil). Could someone clarify this and any other unqualified mentions of "turf" please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL[edit]

I have removed the external links since most did not meet the standards. Listed below in case a couple of them are found to be acceptable as citations or external links:

External links[edit]

Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete[edit]

The word concrete does not appear in the article. It should, as AstroTurf is normally glued onto a slab of concrcete, and the concrete is the real cause of the injuries blamed on AstroTurf. Donfbreed (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention of concrete to the article. But bear in mind that when injuries are blamed on artificial turf, they're talking about the entire system: artificial grass plus whatever base it's put on. Ball players aren't engineers, they don't care about the particulars of the application, they just know how it (the entire installation) affects their bodies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages/Disadvantages section[edit]

The disadvantages section says that an increase in MRSA outbreaks has been linked to skin abrasions caused by artificial pitches and links to a New England Journal of Medicine article. This article doesn't make this claim. It is a study into an outbreak of MRSA at an American Football club and it links the outbreak more to poor personal hygiene and a lack of hand cleaning facilities for physios treating players on the pitch.

The fact the club plays on an artificial pitch is coincidental. Although there is anecdotal evidence from players that artificial pitches cause more skin abrasions, this study doesn't explore this and it doesn't conclude that the artificial pitch was a factor in the outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.208.103 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming and Artificial Turf[edit]

Undid revision 538402854. "Seems wrong" may be good for lawyers, but it is not how we do science. We use math. I'm putting the HIGH SCHOOL math and physics showing the calculation on the talk page.

Here it is. The Stefan Boltzmann law is F = s T^4 is the energy flux, the amount of energy radiated over all wavelengths by a blackbody at temperature T per second, where s= 5.67 E-8 Watts/m2-T4 is the Stefan Boltzmann constant. With a temperature of 60 K (140 F, 273+60 = 333 K) that yields from the formula (which uses degree K) about 700 Watts per second per square meter. Seven light bulbs. Multiply by the size which I took to be 300 m on a side gives about 63 MegaWatts. The amount of ENERGY is found by multiplying this by the amount of time. I took 10 hours of daylight x 1/2 for some cloud cover for a month, yielding 9.4 GigaWatt-hours. A typical house uses 1000 Kw-Hours each month. (KW=1000 W, MW= 1,000,000 W, GW = 1,000,000,000 W) So that is equivalent to 9400 houses (9,400,000,000 W-hr/1,000,000 W-hr/house). Please don’t remove this, Lou; it is correct. You can disagree with the temperature, but we measured it on the surface of an artificial turf field with an industrial thermometer when it was 87 F outside. Smaller or larger fields will change the total amount of energy of course. The actual formula requires multiplication by the emissivity, but for plastics emissivity is about 0.95, but that doesn’t consider the filamentary structure of artificial turf which retains the heat via multiple radiation/absorptions; at most the calculation could be reduced by 5%. Handsomeransom (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with its removal at this time. Although I'm not disputing the "math" of it all, to make the claim that it affects global warming appears to be original research and would require a third party source. Further, your claim that "you measured it" is a further indicator that this is an original research comment. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your studies. Publish your studies elsewhere, and then we'll reference them in Wikipedia. (Nice enthusiasm, though!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Stefan Boltzman law is only a part of the calculation you need here. Both an artificial field and a natural grass field will receive the same power from the Sun. The question is, how much remains on Earth to do warming? The first question is how much they absorb from the Sun, which you do not address here. The second is how much of the energy they return stays on Earth. Yes, the higher temperature artifical field loses more to radiation, as you calculate. But this may actually contribute *less* to global warming, as some of this IR will penetrate the atmosphere and be lost to space. On the natural grass field, on the other hand, the solar energy must be lost to conduction, convection, and transpiration. Where all of this heat goes is complex, but likely most of it stays on Earth. Anyway, you need to consider a lot more factors than just temperature and radiation before you can say artificial turf contributes to global warming. LouScheffer (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your input fellows. Paul: Original research issue? We’re really pushing it here, aren’t we? Putting a thermometer on the ground to simply verify that the artificial turf can burn your feet – which is why we did it - is just displaying some element of reason. It’s as much “original research” as reading the thermometer outside your window. Original research, I would think, is something that could possibly be considered as suitable for submitting to a journal. And this little high school math would be mocked at by any editor as “original research.” No one in his right mind would even consider submitting such a trivial calculation.

Lou: You’re wrong. It is the conversion of visible rays to IR that is a cause of global warming. The heat rays (IR) CANNOT get through the atmosphere and get trapped. Oh boy. I have to be a science teacher. By the Wiens displacement law, a BB at 333 K has its peak radiation at 10^4 nanometers, smack dab in the middle of the IR band. That’s why it feels so hot!! The grass and the solar energy establish an equilibrium, providing the temp of the surface. The sun’s rays are converted by the water in natural grass to internal energy. Water has an extremely high heat capacity and most living things, including water, are composed mainly of water. So it can absorb immense amounts of heat without having an increase in temp. That’s why people find it “cooler” to lie on the grass on a hot day.

“Transpiration” is not a mode of energy transfer. There are three: radiation, conduction, and convection. I considered radiation. I discussed convection as the “shimmering” air. That’s the cause of the shimmering. Conduction would only be to the air adjacent to the ground and the soil. I didn’t want to get into it, but the water table under real turf conducts the energy away and helps reduce the temperature of the real grass. The material under artificial turf is … artificial. Drainage is provided to remove the water. Hence, little conduction occurs from the heated artificial blades of grass. Guys, I have a Ph.D in this stuff. With all respect, please don’t tell me “you have to consider a lot more factors.” You sure sound like a lawyer, using authority as the basis of truth just like Aristotle and the Popes, one of whom imprisoned Galileo, rather than rationality. And, trust me, Paul, I know the difference between original research and a math-based opinion, which is what this is.

That ANYBODY can edit WP articles and throw in their opinions is exactly why 1. academics stay away from wasting their time editing WP, 2. no WP article is acceptable to academic journals as a citation.

My trivial high school calculation is not original research. It could never be published anywhere. That the artificial turf gets so hot and then radiates that heat into the atmosphere contributes to an increase in atmospheric temperature. That’s an important element of global warming. Handsomeransom (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The temperature of the field is *NOT* relevant to global warming. Neither a grass nor artificial field is creating energy, and since both fields get the same energy from the Sun, the question is how much stays on Earth. The grass gives it up through convection, conduction, radiation, and transpiration (evaporation of water). The artificial turf does all of these but transpiration. It indeed gives off more as radiation, as you calculate, but that means less by other means (since they both, in the long run, give out exactly as much as they take in). And a lot of the IR *will* escape the atmosphere, see Infrared window - the atmosphere is about 80% transparent at 10 microns. LouScheffer (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, putting a thermometer in the ground and taking a reading is indeed original research. But even if it wasn't, the conclusions you are drawing are original research as well. It just doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lawyer Lou, you don’t know what you’re talking about. On WP one is supposed to be polite but this pseudo-science crap drives me nuts. You’re referring to TRANSFER of energy. Terrific. Good for you. So what !!! You write, “Since they both, in the long run, give out exactly as much as they take in.” What kind of crap is that!! “In the long run”???? What law are you referring to? “Give out exactly as much as they take in”???? What kind of crap is this??? What law are you quoting here, Lou??? There’s no room for opinion. The thermophysics tells us everything. The answer here is not in transfer of energy. There’s no such thing as “conservation of energy transfer” which is what you seem to be espousing. But there is conservation of something you seem to ignore.

It is conservation of energy you seem to ignore. The solar heating in real grass is converted into internal energy in the water of the grass. It doesn’t have to “give out” any of it, in the “long run” or the “short run” as BB radn or by convection or conduction. Those molecules just keep on jiggling, and rotating, and oscillating, don’t they, Lou? That’s internal energy. Read a book on thermodynamics or p-chem. So when they radiate they do so in discrete lines. See Herzberg’s book on spectra or Gottfried’s, Landau’s, or Messiah’s book on QM. READ, man, READ. Don’t just bluster and pretend to know something when your abysmal ignorance is on display.

Re the BB radiation, high heat capacity means the T doesn’t increase much. It radiates but far less than the artificial turf, the T of which gets very high because it’s got a low heat capacity. So conservation of energy is conserved, but that doesn’t imply anything about the comparative amounts that the two grasses radiate.

I told you before that nobody relies on WP for science, and this is exhibit #1. First, if you integrate the 333 K BB curve over the IR spectrum you’ll really see how much escapes. Second, if you divide 2900 by 333 you’ll get 8.7, so in fact the peak of the 333 K BB is right on border of the 100% opaque region, and of course the BB curve extends indefinitely in both incr and decr wavelength directions. Third, the IR spectrum itself extends nearly10 decades, to hundreds of microns. Hundreds. TEN DECADES!!! The graph in the “article” to which you refer shows only the range 1 to 15 microns and so you come up with the pathetically ignorant statement that the IR transmits radiation. Unreal. Just unreal. And you learned that from WP.

That’s why journals and books don’t allow WP as references. I suggest you buy a book on atmospheric physics or astronomy. Try Abell, Morrison, and Wolff, Chapter 10. Or Kraus Chapter 1. Or Snow, or King, or Shu, etc. etc. etc. IR is opaque, except for that tiny region. That’s why astronomy in the IR is done from balloons, rockets, and space telescopes. Read real books, written by real scientists after a stringent review process by peers, not crap in WP written by amateurs and miscreants with no life, low feelings of self-esteem, no wives or girl friends, and too much time on their hands who like to tell their friends that they are “editors” or “administrators.” (Great marketing model the WP founder came up with, to get people to spend their time, with no remuneration, and most in anonymity, giving them cyberspace awards. Brilliant business model.)

Because Paul believes in his infinite wisdom that putting a thermometer on the ground is publishable original research, I’ve changed the wording. Damn!! I wanted to publish that temperature measurement in the Proceedings of the NAS.

Now leave the science to the scientists and go back to your law books and your reliance on authority as the arbiter of truth. And find another article into which to place your uneducated WP-based rantings. Try economics. None of them know what they’re talking about.

By the way, I hope you both continue your “contributions” on this talk page. I have a contract for a book entitled “What’s Wrong With Extraterrestrials and Other Ruminations on Science and Math” (my 7th book – all published by real publishers) and I have a section entitled Astrology, Palmistry, and Other Pseudo-Sciences. I’m planning on including this nearly 2000 word interchange as evidence as to why no responsible (most of them) scientist, journal, or book publisher allows WP articles as references. That’s why I’ve been wasting my time here. Handsomeransom (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's compare a square meter of real grass with a square meter of artificial turf. During the day, roughly 1000 Joules/second from the sun falls on both. Over a day, assuming 1/2 get absorbed, that's about 10^7 joules absorbed per day for each surface. Now where does that energy go? If you come back a year later, the temperatures will be about the same as the previous year. Since both fields have finite heat capacity, by the first law of thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed), *both* surfaces got rid of just as much heat as they acquired, through one means or another. At least to some extent, the artificial field did so by increasing its temperature and radiating more, and the grass field by evaporating water and remaining cool, or perhaps conducting more to its watery underlayer. But the energy used to evaporate water does not leave the ecosphere - it's just released elsewhere as heat of condensation when the water vapor condenses out. Similarly, the energy taken out through the water beneath the grass field cannot leave the ecosphere either. So in terms of *global* warming, not the temperature of the field, almost all energy absorbed by the grass field is retained. For the artificial field, radiating in the IR, at least some of the energy will return to space. As you point out, the energy is distributed over a range of wavelengths, but at least some of them are therefore in ranges where the atmosphere is at least partially transparent. IR astronomy is done from balloons, rockets and space since (a) even a small atmospheric opacity is crippling when looking at faint sources, and (b) they would like to work in bands where the atmosphere is quite opaque. But a thermal source such as a 60 C field will still have a large fraction of its radiation get through the atmosphere. LouScheffer (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research Wikipedia:No original research -- this is why academics don't use Wikipedia as a source. It isn't a source. It is an encyclopedia that relies on other sources. The original sources (and therefore better sources) are someplace else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two other considerations in looking at global warming impacts of turf:

  1. Some of the solar energy falling on real grass is converted to chemical energy via photosynthesis, and this process also takes CO2 from the air and sequesters it in the soil. [1] (This report cites numerous primary studies.)
  2. The manufacturing processes for artificial turf create global warming emissions, estimated at 55 T/yr over an average 10-year life cycle, compared to an estimated -10 T from natural turf — a net difference of ~65 T/yr. [2][3]

Peterkc (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rodale Institute. Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming
  2. ^ Hefa Cheng. Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review
  3. ^ Meil, J.; Bushi, L. Estimating the Required Global Warming Offsets to Achieve a Carbon Neutral Synthetic Field Turf System Installation; Athena Institute: Ontario, Canada, 2007

Organization of this article[edit]

The extensive and sometimes misleading discussion of individual sports under applications should be moved to a separate article, for at least two reasons:

  1. By placing pages of discussion before the concluding sections, the structure tends to diminish the importance of these subjects. The health impacts, in particular, are of great public health significance and should not be minimized as they are here. [1]
  2. This discussion is not necessarily of interest to most readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkc (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the former, I don't think it minimizes it at all. To the latter, I don't think you can speak for most readers. Indeed, the fact that the article over the years has evolved to put those specific applications first leads me to conclude that many editors/readers are particularly interested in how artificial turf is used in those particular sports. So, no, it should stay where it is. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ David Brown. Artificial Turf. Environment & Human Health (2007)

Proposal to edit Health and Safety[edit]

The Health and Safety section of this article is limited in that it does not adequately discuss the impacts that rubber infill and polyethylene plastic have on health. It should be noted that artificial turf can cause developmental effects, systemic effects of the liver, kidney, and thyroid, allergic reactions, skin, eye, or respiratory irritation, and neurological effects. Flammability should also be mentioned as flame retardants can be dangerous when in close proximity and the controversy of VOCs in the rubber infill should be mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.150.110 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These claims need reliable sources. See WP:MEDRS for what constitutes a reliable source for health claims. oknazevad (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Artificial turf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artificial turf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3G turf, term not defined[edit]

The section on football mentions 3G pitches at Sutton and elsewhere, and uses the term "3G" which I understand to be "third generation" and indicates a pitch that uses rubber granules. The term should be clearly defined in the text, as well as the meaning (if any) of "2G", "1G" etc.

I think 2G is a sand based pitch, and 1G is retroactively defined as artifical grass from earlier - 1960 astroturf for example. I'm not certain, and I can't find a good source. 4G and 5G have no consistent definition and appear to marketing terms.

Is 3G equivalent to FIFA 2 Star pitch?

The generations are defined in the lead, and there is no fourth generation except for marketing, as you note. The association football section didn't really need the "3G" at all, as it's irrelevant to the one sentence, and the second could just spell it out (which I did). As for whether third gen turf is FIFA 2 star, it depends on maintenance as much as anything, the criteria are not exactly lined up with the generations of turf development. oknazevad (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need a "List of brands" section[edit]

Preferably a sortable table but a chronological list is fine too. Facts707 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact and tertiary studies[edit]

@Oknazevad: I agree with your comment in the edit history that we need more tertiary studies for the environmental impact section here. I've done my best to find them and as far as I can see there hasn't been a meta-study since 2014. If you or others find any I'd love to see them included. For now, I think that the best we can do is survey primary studies concisely. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Composition and Culture[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shaquilleoatmeal55 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shaquilleoatmeal55 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_turf&oldid=1218228777"