Tonnes of radioactive waste casts doubt over London's Olympic stadium legacy

Source: Guardian (UK)

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...

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...

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

---

Private profits and public pain: Once again, the sporting of Kings and Contractors bears bitter fruit.

In a sane world, any politician who proposes bidding to host would be run out of office. I see no good reason why the world could not gather in Greece every 4 years. Montreal is still paying just to keep the empty stadium from falling down. Sarajevo uses theirs as a cemetery now.

Many think that the host city gets TV$s from the games -- they don't. The politicians will talk about how wonderful it will be to host and then if the city "wins" hosting, they will start telling locals to plan a vacation for those 2 weeks and get out.

With predictions of mega traffic jams that traffic during the Olympics was the easiest it has been in decades..

The Olympics were a disaster for Atlanta financially.

Most common description of Atlanta by visitors at that time: 'This place is boring.'

Yep. Atlanta is basically a bubble of office buildings, some restaurants, and a bunch of strip clubs. If you are a suit coming in for business it is pleasant enough, but this is no vacation destination.

and then there was 'Izzy.' sigh...

And ersatz sex. :eyes:

But Izzy looks good next to Wenlock and Mandeville, the London 2012 Olympic mascots (it's remarkably hard to find images of them now for some strange reason).

Universities got new dorms, facilities, etc. that they would never have gotten otherwise. And these were badly needed.

Downtown was a complete disaster zone pre-Olympics. Now there are apartments, restaurants, etc. Centennial Park provides a nice destination in downtown. The largest aquarium in the world is there, as is the new Coca-Cola Museum.

The airport was modernized and is now the busiest in the world.

Midtown and downtown were reconnected with the rest of the city with improved infrastructure.

Many Atlantans were forced to use MARTA and realized that they it was actually safe and convenient.

The city was technologically equipped for the 21st century, partly a reason for the city's boom in the 90s and last decade.

Every single venue has been reused successfully (or returned to original use). The only facility that may have been a waste is the Equestrian park. Even the tennis center at Stone Mountain has seen regular use.

Atlanta was put on the map as a destination to visit, do business, and live. All of which happened in the ensuing years in large numbers.

With this, there were a lot of problems no doubt. Forced relocation being the biggest one I feel. However, any revitalization of neighborhoods (for whatever reason) usually involves such things, so it's hard to change that. Not saying it's right, but should redevelopment of urban areas stop completely?

Also, some neighborhoods were not touched at all and in fact became even more burdened due to the forced relocation.

So hosting an Olympics is not all bad, if it's done right (a balance of private/public involvement is key). There's always going to be bad news with any sort of development, but let's not totally ignore the positive aspects of it.

That's always a big plus for any city.

...it was the worst part of it.

With any city redevelopment or major infrastructure project, this happens. The new development brings in new tax revenue, new businesses, upgraded infrastructure, etc. But forced relocation never, ever works well. In fact, things almost always become worse for the people/businesses who are relocated.

But then should all development/redevelopment stop?

I wish there was a smarter solution to relocation.

I'm sure the politicians won't find other and more interesting and worthy uses for the lucre..

All of the US actually back to the Native Americans. Since all development in the US has relocated Native Americans into very difficult lives.

Is that the solution to development?

Anyways, I think this is going off-topic now.

Though not the largest, putting on a show for royalty and our corporate masters with taxpayer money is a terrible idea.