SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what's-green-and-smells-of-farts? dept.
After a week of trying to part with green tides in two outdoor swimming pools, Olympic officials over the weekend wrung out a fresh mea culpa and yet another explanation—neither of which were comforting.
According to officials, a local pool-maintenance worker mistakenly added 160 liters of hydrogen peroxide to the waters on August 5, which partially neutralized the chlorine used for disinfection. With chlorine disarmed, the officials said that "organic compounds"—i.e. algae and other microbes—were able to grow and turn the water a murky green in the subsequent days. The revelation appears to contradict officials' previous assurances that despite the emerald hue, which first appeared Tuesday, the waters were safe.
"Of course it's an embarrassment," Gustavo Nascimento, director of venue management for the Rio Olympics, told The New York Times . "We are hosting the Olympic Games, and athletes are here, so water is going to be an issue. We should have been better in fixing it quickly. We learned painful lessons the hard way."
Hydrogen peroxide is sometimes used in pools—often to de-chlorinate them. Basically, the chemical, a common household disinfectant, is a weak acid that reacts with chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds to release oxygen and form other chlorine-containing compounds. Those may not be good at disinfecting pools, but they still may be picked up by monitoring systems.
On Saturday, officials started draining and refilling one of the affected pools—the one used for synchronized swimming, a sport that requires underwater visibility. The 3,725,000-liter pool was refilled with water from a clean practice pool nearby. The diving pool, the first to turn green, is being filtered and treated to clean the waters.
By the end of last week, athletes and media reported that the waters had begun to irritate eyes and smell like farts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:57PM
You idea has merits, but I see three challenges to overcome for this model.
1) The "tragedy of the commons" type idea. When a single city/nation has responsibility, all the glory and all the shame falls upon them. Rio (and London, Beijing, and everywhere else) had a large amount of pressure to succeed. This raises the chances that they'll actually put forward the resources to make the games successful. In contrast, a shared project usually results in less effort from all involved. If Bumpkinville was only hosting the 400 meter dash, it would be easy for them to cut too many corners and end up with a terrible venue. People will notice Rio for "the 2016 Olympics were terrible," but short of murder who would say "we should avoid Bumpkinville, the 2020 Olympics were all good except for that long jump venue."
2) Logistics becomes much harder. It is definitely the case for the reporters and TV broadcasters, who would need to disperse to a much larger area to cover it all. It could also be a problem for certain athletes who compete in different events. Plus figuring out who is housed where, how to travel between venues, and everything else. The Olympics are already hard enough with events scattered all around a city (plus a few "elsewhere"). If everything was "elsewhere" then the existing limited economies of scale all vanish.
3) One could cynically suggest that the Olympic Committee just want money. The bribes and under the table agreements would be harder to pull off, and moreover they may receive less money (see point 1 above about communal items).