Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Tonnes Of Radioactive Waste Casts Doubt Over London's Olympic Stadium Legacy

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/20/radioactive-waste-olympic-site

The development of the Olympic site in east London after the Games have finished could be in jeopardy because of radioactive waste buried beneath the site, experts have warned.

According to a Guardian investigation, any development of the site risks unearthing a hundred tonnes of radioactive waste dumped at the former landfill site decades ago. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) rules reveal that, contrary to government guidelines, waste from thorium and radium has been mixed with very low-level waste and buried in a so-called disposal cell under, or close, to the Olympic stadium.

After the Games, the demolition of the Olympic stadium in Stratford to make way for housing is a possibility because government and sporting authorities so far have been unable to agree on its future use. Despite a possible bidding war between AEG, which runs the O2, and Live Nation to possibly turn the stadium into a music venue, bookmaker William Hill recently made demolition of the Olympic stadium 5/1 third favourite behind its continued use for athletics or conversion into a home ground for West Ham United. "There seems to be no obvious usage for the stadium after the games," a William Hill spokesman said.

But while officials insist there is no risk from the waste to athletes or spectators during the event, further development of the site could expose the waste, which some experts claim should have been moved to a safe site.

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst, said: "The Olympic site's hurried and unplanned development may have resulted in a great deal of public harm to the local communities remaining around the site. Overall, there is some doubt about the applicability and validity of the radiological risk analysis undertaken for the future legacy use."

His sentiment is shared by Andrew Boff, a member of the London Assembly and Conservative spokesman on the Olympics. "I thought the £9.3bn cost would provide a remediation level sufficient for future development. But what we are left with is remediation which is just enough for us to hold the Games. The ODA is very proud that it came in under budget on remediation. I wish it had spent the whole amount and made the site fit for the future."

Genius, who picked this site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

WE had Atomic clocks at the turn of the centry?

Mike

Look up 'The Radium Girls'.

It was the luminescent paint on the clock face.

Oh . . . a hundred tonnes. Geez, that's 5 tipper loads. Really going to stop a development that. :lol:

Edited by Noodle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up 'The Radium Girls'.

It was the luminescent paint on the clock face.

Oh . . . a hundred tonnes. Geez, that's 5 tipper loads. Really going to stop a development that. :lol:

I think all this "run out of money blox" is due to the process of tendering. Cheapest gets it and then they up their income by claiming there are problems they didn't forsee.

Should all be set fixed budgets with no negotiation and penalties for delays. (or directly employed people doing the work not private profit making enterprises)

Same with trams in oldham. Apparently all the bridges need major work, which means all the embankments etc now need more work which no one could have guessed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

I think all this "run out of money blox" is due to the process of tendering. Cheapest gets it and then they up their income by claiming there are problems they didn't forsee.

Should all be set fixed budgets with no negotiation and penalties for delays. (or directly employed people doing the work not private profit making enterprises)

Same with trams in oldham. Apparently all the bridges need major work, which means all the embankments etc now need more work which no one could have guessed...

For the scale of the job, there wasn't that much money in it. The £9.2Bn refers to the cost of the complete development including land acquisition. There wasn't that much scope for contract claims either.

This is minor. But expect lots of this as 'experts' point with shock and awe at bits of nothing looking for the bucks. It's the posh end of tin foil hat like stuff currently coming out of the Gulf of Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all this "run out of money blox" is due to the process of tendering. Cheapest gets it and then they up their income by claiming there are problems they didn't forsee.

Should all be set fixed budgets with no negotiation and penalties for delays. (or directly employed people doing the work not private profit making enterprises)

Same with trams in oldham. Apparently all the bridges need major work, which means all the embankments etc now need more work which no one could have guessed...

Sounds like the Edinburgh trams. Total joke. It's not Bilfilger Berger doing the Oldham ones as well is it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Sounds like the Edinburgh trams. Total joke. It's not Bilfinger Berger doing the Oldham ones as well is it...

Oh dear . . . I shall depart from this thread now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the Edinburgh trams. Total joke. It's not Bilfilger Berger doing the Oldham ones as well is it...

I think it's MPact-Thales

but I'm not 100% sure...

(The M-Pact Thales consortium is made up of Laing O’ Rourke, GrantRail and Thales UK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the fascination with trams anyway?

Surely it makes more sense to use a transport system that's flexable ie busses?

Also, how can they justify the HUGE cost involved to implement them?

Was the motivation job creation, back handed greed or just plain flamboyancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

What is the fascination with trams anyway?

Surely it makes more sense to use a transport system that's flexable ie busses?

Also, how can they justify the HUGE cost involved to implement them?

Was the motivation job creation, back handed greed or just plain flamboyancy?

I do keep mentioning Baht buses.

Look 'em up.

Fantastic, flexible system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the fascination with trams anyway?

Surely it makes more sense to use a transport system that's flexable ie busses?

Also, how can they justify the HUGE cost involved to implement them?

Was the motivation job creation, back handed greed or just plain flamboyancy?

I think the greens in Manchester asked for a report to be done on whether implementing a light rail system on the same line would be cheaper and better value. More small trains on the same route would have perhaps encouraged more to use it.

The trams are heavier than the trains - and this I've been assured by GMPTE - will stop them suffering the same fate as being affected by the autumn leaves on the line. (In autumn rail services get cut in half cos they can't keep to a timetable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the fascination with trams anyway?

Surely it makes more sense to use a transport system that's flexable ie busses?

Also, how can they justify the HUGE cost involved to implement them?

Was the motivation job creation, back handed greed or just plain flamboyancy?

They're less hassle to use than busses, the Manchester ones only run on the streets in the city centre, and then almost all on streets that other traffic can't, so they're less affected by traffic. It's a joke that the extension to Oldham should be a huge cost because it was running as a railway line until last year. Put some wires up, put a few connections in with the rest of the tram, and hey presto tram extension where you previously had a perfectly functional railway line doing the job with connections to the rest of the country. I could've understood the point if it was an old disused railway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're less hassle to use than busses, the Manchester ones only run on the streets in the city centre, and then almost all on streets that other traffic can't, so they're less affected by traffic. It's a joke that the extension to Oldham should be a huge cost because it was running as a railway line until last year. Put some wires up, put a few connections in with the rest of the tram, and hey presto tram extension where you previously had a perfectly functional railway line doing the job with connections to the rest of the country. I could've understood the point if it was an old disused railway...

Re: Trams.................. why don't they just use hybrid trollybuses?

Smaller captial investment, able to run off the wires if needed on a efficent diesel engine, and if it breaks down you just go around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Re: Trams.................. why don't they just use hybrid trollybuses?

Smaller captial investment, able to run off the wires if needed on a efficent diesel engine, and if it breaks down you just go around it.

Right and at the same time have the domestic car firms (bailed out) manufacture them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.