Earlier this fall, when Bengals franchise quarterback Joe Burrow limped off the field with turf toe, it wasn’t the result of an awkward tackle or a dirty hit. It was the playing surface beneath him.
In recent years, NFL fans have watched some of their favorite players suffer non-contact lower-body injuries that have the potential to derail seasons and alter careers. In a league built on speed, jukes, and explosive movement, the ground players stand on matters more than we seem to acknowledge.
In a league built on speed, jukes, and explosive movement, the ground players stand on matters more than we seem to acknowledge.
While injuries are inevitable in professional sports, growing evidence suggests one factor is making them more likely: artificial turf. Research shows that lower-body injuries, especially non-contact injuries like ACL tears and foot injuries, occur more frequently on turf. If the league truly prioritizes player safety, it can no longer turn its back on this issue.
The decision is clear: the NFL should require all stadiums and practice facilities to use natural grass instead of artificial turf.
Figure 1. Comparison of lower-extremity injuries on artificial turf and natural grass. Data from Mack et al., 2024.
What the Injury Data Shows
In 2024 the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine conducted a study that found significantly higher rates of lower-extremity injuries on artificial turf than on natural grass. Notably, non-contact injuries were particularly more common. This is no coincidence. These kinds of injuries reflect measurable biomechanical differences between surfaces.
Artificial turf is stiffer than natural grass and creates greater rotational resistance when players plant and cut. If you’ve ever watched a football game, you know that ball carriers and tackler positions are doing this constantly. During these rapid changes of direction, turf often increases the torque placed on the knee and ankle joints.
Natural grass, however, allows some give and release where synthetic turf would otherwise cling onto cleats. That added resistance increases ligament stress and raises the risk of injuries like ACL tears.
Players Are Asking for Change
Of course, this issue goes far beyond just keeping the fans happy. NFL players themselves have voiced their dissatisfaction. The NFL Players Association has repeatedly advocated for a league-wide shift to natural grass, arguing that turf is harder on the body and contributes to preventable injuries.
When the athletes whose careers depend on their physical health are calling for change, the league should listen. Some players work their entire life just to earn a spot on the practice squad. How agonizing must it feel to have that opportunity taken away by an injury that could’ve been prevented?
The Business Case
If player safety isn’t enough to push the needle, we can also take a more economic approach. The NFL strategically markets its biggest stars like franchise quarterbacks, elite wide receivers, and pass rushers. Teams invest in these athletes often to the tune of nine-figure contracts.
When a star suffers a season-ending injury, the ripple effects are devastating to their team’s season. Playoff hopes tank, fan engagement plummets, and the overall product suffers. As a result, the financial implications of losing even one key player can far exceed the annual expense of maintaining natural grass.
The Turf Argument
The main argument against a leaguewide switch to natural grass is that artificial turf is more durable and easier to maintain, especially in multi-use stadiums that host other events such as concerts. Additionally, turf performs consistently in harsh weather conditions and does not require the same level of upkeep as grass.
These are valid claims. However, convenience should not outweigh player safety, especially concerning a league that generates more than a whopping $20 billion annually.
A Standard Other Sports Already Use
Other prestigious global sports organizations have already taken action to protect their players. FIFA will be requiring all stadiums hosting the 2026 World Cup to use natural grass, even if they currently operate with turf.
The NFL is prepared to revert all its affected stadiums back to turf after the World Cup has concluded. As it does so, it will be hard not to wonder: if the world’s grandest sporting event demands natural grass for performance and safety reasons, why doesn’t the NFL?
The League Has the Power to Act
Of course, football is inherently physically demanding and switching to grass will not eliminate injuries entirely. However, reducing entirely preventable risk should be the league’s responsibility. With the data staring executives in the face, every ongoing game and practice without change is a liability.
The league often emphasizes its commitment to safety with acts like updating concussion protocols, adding guardian caps, and adjusting rules to protect quarterbacks. Mandating natural grass would align with those efforts. It would show genuine care to player safety and remove doubts about performativity.
Fans deserve to see the best athletes competing at full strength. Players deserve a surface that does not increase their risk of injury. And the NFL, with its abundance of resources, has the power to make this change. The future of the league couldn’t be any clearer.
Gould, H. P., et al. “Lower Extremity Injury Rates on Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass Playing Surfaces: A Systematic Review.” PubMed, 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35593739/.
Mack, Christopher D., et al. “Lower Extremity Injuries in the National Football League: Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass.” Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11363235/.
Most people my age care about climate change and clean energy. We support solar panels, wind farms, and electric cars. But when nuclear power comes up, the mood often changes.
People think of disasters, radiation, or nuclear weapons. I used to feel the same way. Nuclear just sounded risky and outdated. But the more I have learned, the more I think we need to take a second look at it, especially because of how fast our electricity demand is growing.
But the more I have learned, the more I think we need to take a second look at it.
AI Is Increasing Power Demand
AI is blowing up right now and every new AI tool, chatbot, and data center uses a lot of energy. “15 questions, 10 images, and 3 videos generated by AI can use as much energy as riding an e-bike for 100 miles.” We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. Here’s the story you haven’t heard.
As AI grows, so does the strain on the grid, and that electricity must come from somewhere. If it comes from fossil fuels, emissions go up, which hurts our climate goals and can raise energy costs.
If it comes only from renewables like wind and solar, there can be problems when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Batteries can help this issue, but they aren’t always enough for super large-scale, nonstop demand.
Why Nuclear Belongs in the Mix
I believe this is where nuclear warrants more attention. Nuclear energy is one of the few low-carbon sources that can produce large amounts of electricity 24/7. It doesn’t depend on the weather or emit carbon during operation. And modern reactors are built with multiple safety systems designed to prevent accidents.
But public stigma is still a huge barrier. Many people still associate nuclear power with Chernobyl, Fukushima, or bombs. These fears are understandable, but they don’t always reflect the true nature of nuclear power and how much technology and safety standards have improved. Today our reactors are very different from older designs, and safety rules are stricter than ever.
No Energy Source Is Perfect
Other energy sources also have downsides. Huge wind farms affect landscapes and local climates. Solar needs lots of land and materials. No energy source is perfect, which makes the real question to our problem: which mix of energy sources gives us reliable, low-carbon power?
It appears we act like nuclear and renewables must compete, but in reality they can work together. Renewables can handle variable generation, and nuclear can provide steady baseline power.
I am not saying that we should build a bunch of nuclear plants everywhere without thinking. Safety, waste management, and cost all matter. Communities deserve a say in the matter. But rejecting nuclear power completely because of fear or old perceptions could limit our options at a time when we need cleaner energy, not fewer choices.
Demand Is Not Waiting
If AI, electric vehicles, and modern technology keep growing at our current pace, the electricity demand will grow with them. Ignoring that reality will not make it go away. Waiting until blackouts or price spikes happen will only make solutions more expensive and rushed.
Global power demand will continue to grow rapidly over the next decade, jumping about 30% by 2035.
For students, voters, and everyday people who care about clean energy, it might be time to update how we think about nuclear technology. We need to look at it as a tool in a larger clean energy tool kit.
“The U.S energy mix today is still dominated by oil and natural gas, which together make up over 70% of domestic energy production.” U.S. Energy Mix iea.org. The future grid will probably need a mix of wind, solar, hydro, good storage, and nuclear power.
The goal of this writing is not to win an energy debate, but to keep our lights on without abusing our planet. I believe nuclear can help us do that safely, and at least deserves to be talked about.
Media Note
I’ve lived on Maui for the past four years!
Figure 1: Personal photo from Maui included in the media section.
Beneath the Game: Why the NFL Must Replace Turf with Natural Grass
COMP 2300 Winter 26 / Myles Durant
Earlier this fall, when Bengals franchise quarterback Joe Burrow limped off the field with turf toe, it wasn’t the result of an awkward tackle or a dirty hit. It was the playing surface beneath him.
In recent years, NFL fans have watched some of their favorite players suffer non-contact lower-body injuries that have the potential to derail seasons and alter careers. In a league built on speed, jukes, and explosive movement, the ground players stand on matters more than we seem to acknowledge.
While injuries are inevitable in professional sports, growing evidence suggests one factor is making them more likely: artificial turf. Research shows that lower-body injuries, especially non-contact injuries like ACL tears and foot injuries, occur more frequently on turf. If the league truly prioritizes player safety, it can no longer turn its back on this issue.
The decision is clear: the NFL should require all stadiums and practice facilities to use natural grass instead of artificial turf.
What the Injury Data Shows
In 2024 the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine conducted a study that found significantly higher rates of lower-extremity injuries on artificial turf than on natural grass. Notably, non-contact injuries were particularly more common. This is no coincidence. These kinds of injuries reflect measurable biomechanical differences between surfaces.
Artificial turf is stiffer than natural grass and creates greater rotational resistance when players plant and cut. If you’ve ever watched a football game, you know that ball carriers and tackler positions are doing this constantly. During these rapid changes of direction, turf often increases the torque placed on the knee and ankle joints.
Natural grass, however, allows some give and release where synthetic turf would otherwise cling onto cleats. That added resistance increases ligament stress and raises the risk of injuries like ACL tears.
Players Are Asking for Change
Of course, this issue goes far beyond just keeping the fans happy. NFL players themselves have voiced their dissatisfaction. The NFL Players Association has repeatedly advocated for a league-wide shift to natural grass, arguing that turf is harder on the body and contributes to preventable injuries.
When the athletes whose careers depend on their physical health are calling for change, the league should listen. Some players work their entire life just to earn a spot on the practice squad. How agonizing must it feel to have that opportunity taken away by an injury that could’ve been prevented?
The Business Case
If player safety isn’t enough to push the needle, we can also take a more economic approach. The NFL strategically markets its biggest stars like franchise quarterbacks, elite wide receivers, and pass rushers. Teams invest in these athletes often to the tune of nine-figure contracts.
When a star suffers a season-ending injury, the ripple effects are devastating to their team’s season. Playoff hopes tank, fan engagement plummets, and the overall product suffers. As a result, the financial implications of losing even one key player can far exceed the annual expense of maintaining natural grass.
The Turf Argument
The main argument against a leaguewide switch to natural grass is that artificial turf is more durable and easier to maintain, especially in multi-use stadiums that host other events such as concerts. Additionally, turf performs consistently in harsh weather conditions and does not require the same level of upkeep as grass.
These are valid claims. However, convenience should not outweigh player safety, especially concerning a league that generates more than a whopping $20 billion annually.
A Standard Other Sports Already Use
Other prestigious global sports organizations have already taken action to protect their players. FIFA will be requiring all stadiums hosting the 2026 World Cup to use natural grass, even if they currently operate with turf.
The NFL is prepared to revert all its affected stadiums back to turf after the World Cup has concluded. As it does so, it will be hard not to wonder: if the world’s grandest sporting event demands natural grass for performance and safety reasons, why doesn’t the NFL?
The League Has the Power to Act
Of course, football is inherently physically demanding and switching to grass will not eliminate injuries entirely. However, reducing entirely preventable risk should be the league’s responsibility. With the data staring executives in the face, every ongoing game and practice without change is a liability.
The league often emphasizes its commitment to safety with acts like updating concussion protocols, adding guardian caps, and adjusting rules to protect quarterbacks. Mandating natural grass would align with those efforts. It would show genuine care to player safety and remove doubts about performativity.
Fans deserve to see the best athletes competing at full strength. Players deserve a surface that does not increase their risk of injury. And the NFL, with its abundance of resources, has the power to make this change. The future of the league couldn’t be any clearer.
Works Cited
Nuclear Energy Deserves a Second Chance
COMP 2300 Winter 26 / Rhys Jones
Most people my age care about climate change and clean energy. We support solar panels, wind farms, and electric cars. But when nuclear power comes up, the mood often changes.
People think of disasters, radiation, or nuclear weapons. I used to feel the same way. Nuclear just sounded risky and outdated. But the more I have learned, the more I think we need to take a second look at it, especially because of how fast our electricity demand is growing.
AI Is Increasing Power Demand
AI is blowing up right now and every new AI tool, chatbot, and data center uses a lot of energy. “15 questions, 10 images, and 3 videos generated by AI can use as much energy as riding an e-bike for 100 miles.” We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. Here’s the story you haven’t heard.
As AI grows, so does the strain on the grid, and that electricity must come from somewhere. If it comes from fossil fuels, emissions go up, which hurts our climate goals and can raise energy costs.
If it comes only from renewables like wind and solar, there can be problems when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Batteries can help this issue, but they aren’t always enough for super large-scale, nonstop demand.
Why Nuclear Belongs in the Mix
I believe this is where nuclear warrants more attention. Nuclear energy is one of the few low-carbon sources that can produce large amounts of electricity 24/7. It doesn’t depend on the weather or emit carbon during operation. And modern reactors are built with multiple safety systems designed to prevent accidents.
But public stigma is still a huge barrier. Many people still associate nuclear power with Chernobyl, Fukushima, or bombs. These fears are understandable, but they don’t always reflect the true nature of nuclear power and how much technology and safety standards have improved. Today our reactors are very different from older designs, and safety rules are stricter than ever.
No Energy Source Is Perfect
Other energy sources also have downsides. Huge wind farms affect landscapes and local climates. Solar needs lots of land and materials. No energy source is perfect, which makes the real question to our problem: which mix of energy sources gives us reliable, low-carbon power?
It appears we act like nuclear and renewables must compete, but in reality they can work together. Renewables can handle variable generation, and nuclear can provide steady baseline power.
I am not saying that we should build a bunch of nuclear plants everywhere without thinking. Safety, waste management, and cost all matter. Communities deserve a say in the matter. But rejecting nuclear power completely because of fear or old perceptions could limit our options at a time when we need cleaner energy, not fewer choices.
Demand Is Not Waiting
If AI, electric vehicles, and modern technology keep growing at our current pace, the electricity demand will grow with them. Ignoring that reality will not make it go away. Waiting until blackouts or price spikes happen will only make solutions more expensive and rushed.
For students, voters, and everyday people who care about clean energy, it might be time to update how we think about nuclear technology. We need to look at it as a tool in a larger clean energy tool kit.
“The U.S energy mix today is still dominated by oil and natural gas, which together make up over 70% of domestic energy production.” U.S. Energy Mix iea.org. The future grid will probably need a mix of wind, solar, hydro, good storage, and nuclear power.
The goal of this writing is not to win an energy debate, but to keep our lights on without abusing our planet. I believe nuclear can help us do that safely, and at least deserves to be talked about.
Media Note
I’ve lived on Maui for the past four years!