What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's All Laugh At West Ham

chrissivad

Staff
May 20, 2005
51,646
58,072
Yeah good luck with that especially in London and so close to the Thames. Likewise all the foundations have already been laid as it is now, you simply can’t dig down 10 metres let alone 25 without pretty much having to rebuild the entire thing.

s-l300.jpg
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Nuclear waste from some of the rumours ive heard!

Sure you are not confusing that with the fact that trains carrying nuclear waste go past the stadium and that chelsea's proposal was to build a tunnel with part of the stadium above it?
 

midspur

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
1,056
1,054
that depends on whats below, but if viable, and won't hit the sewage then I suppose its possible. would still take some doing though as aren't the 1st 2 or 3 rows are the retractable?
I think you’ll find most of the sewerage is on the pitch!
 

Mornstar

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2005
4,897
1,589
Sure you are not confusing that with the fact that trains carrying nuclear waste go past the stadium and that chelsea's proposal was to build a tunnel with part of the stadium above it?
Same fing innit.....you say potatoes, i say tomatoes
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,386
21,685

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,874
49,706
I thought it was more oil/ chemical pollutants but my memory is terrible

Probably a lot of that as well, brownfield stuff.

But I do know about the rubble on the marshes -there were over 200 football pitches down that way in the 1950's and 1960's. It may have been crowded in places but by heck the drainage was always superb.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
The land was indeed contaminated. That's one of the main reasons why the £500m+ headline cost of the OS was a misunderstanding. It included the remediation of the whole site.

There are two usual ways to deal with contaminated land. You can do one or the other or both, depending on the severity and nature of the contamination, the depth to which the ground is compromised and the use to which the land is intended to be put.

You can either remove and replace the contaminated soil, taking the old soil to a specialist hazardous waste tip, or you can cap it with a suitable membrane that will prevent the contaminants from escaping. Often you do both: cart away 0.5m or 1.0m of soil, lay down a capping membrane and then import replacement soil. I don't know the details at the OS, but the contamination was severe, so I'd expect them to have done both.

In theory: if they only reduced level to remove all the contaminated soil, then they could excavate and lower the pitch if that were otherwise feasible (which I doubt); if they capped it, then they can't reduce level at all without redoing all the containment measures, which would be ££££; if they did both, they could reduce level down to the cap and no further.

It's not a practical idea.
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,386
21,685
The land was indeed contaminated. That's one of the main reasons why the £500m+ headline cost of the OS was a misunderstanding. It included the remediation of the whole site.

There are two usual ways to deal with contaminated land. You can do one or the other or both, depending on the severity and nature of the contamination, the depth to which the ground is compromised and the use to which the land is intended to be put.

You can either remove and replace the contaminated soil, taking the old soil to a specialist hazardous waste tip, or you can cap it with a suitable membrane that will prevent the contaminants from escaping. Often you do both: cart away 0.5m or 1.0m of soil, lay down a capping membrane and then import replacement soil. I don't know the details at the OS, but the contamination was severe, so I'd expect them to have done both.

In theory: if they only reduced level to remove all the contaminated soil, then they could excavate and lower the pitch if that were otherwise feasible (which I doubt); if they capped it, then they can't reduce level at all without redoing all the containment measures, which would be ££££; if they did both, they could reduce level down to the cap and no further.

It's not a practical idea.

Saw in the links I posted above they dug down a bit (31in), washed the soil & reused it. They also used a membrane too. I would imagine that due to the spiraling costs that they dug as shallow as was legally or buildability required, then put the membrane down and used the washed soil where required. If that was the case then as you suggest, lowering the pitch etc... would be very costly.


From Express link: -
The Sunday Express has obtained documents which reveal London 2012 chiefs have covered up land that is possibly contaminated with asbestos and radioactive materials with a huge, bright orange sheet.
Spanning more than 600 acres —equivalent to some 400 football pitches--it is buried at a depth of 31ins to protect the health and safety of future builders and homeowners.

Even after the Games have finished, the site will still be classified as brownfield, with the onus on future developers to fund extra decontamination work, outside the giant Olympics budget.
The risks are likely to concern anyone considering living on the regenerated Olympic Park after 2012 and have major implications for recouping money from land sales.
Last night, John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said: “If a future developer is required to bear extra costs for decontamination, that will reduce the value of the land and that’s something of concern.”
Games organisers set aside a budget of £364million to remediate what they claimed was one of Europe’s most heavily contaminated sites, which had been home for a century to landfill tips and heavy industrial use, including scrap cars and batteries and a mini test nuclear reactor.
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
I haven't seen it but seems unlucky to only have committed four fouls (BBC stats) and yet get a player sent off for two yellows.
 
Top