 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Birds
- In April 2012, A flock of migration birds was found dead in Talvivaara treating basin. Talvivaara denies any connections between dead birds and its operations, claiming founders planted the dead birds. Finnish Environment Institute confirmed that birds were probably killed by chemicals in the water. Authorities describe founding "exceptional".[1]
Dear editors, the article is not supposed to be a collection of news, especially if copied verbatim from the source. --vuo (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this article is not supposed to be a collection of news, however this topic continues to be news, which is reported through the news media. For example; today's YLE news from Finland http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_waste_water_leaks_into_environment/6363459 Aside from such news, we can only rely on talking points from this company, or to have no discussion at all. Which of these choices would best serve the interest of wiki readers?: 62.241.230.184 (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
And more news from YLE on this nasty mess: http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_ceo_fixing_leak_surprisingly_difficult/6366085 Good thing that most of the migratory birds have already left, to bad for the ones that stayed... 62.241.230.184 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
And this one, today : http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_waste_water_under_scrutiny_for_uranium/6365471 Yes, I am not a fan of environmental pollution, if anyone is wondering. This is shameful!62.241.230.184 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
And another one for today: http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_struggles_to_find_leak/6366349 with this wonderful verbatim quote to share: "A significant amount of waste water has not leaked beyond the mine," said Talvivaara Head of Communications Olli-Pekka Nissinen. Would this imply that an insignificant amount of waste water has already leaked beyond the mine? Hard to imagine how they can determine this "fact" when they can't even find the leak!!! Now just waiting for the classic "no danger to the public" quote...62.241.230.184 (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just one more, from today's news (so much "progress"!): http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_waste_water_leak_located/6367543 The precise source of the toxic leak, which was finally acknowledged, has finally been found! The down side is this; bio-leaching produces a LOT of liquid waste. Perhaps more than anyone would like to admit. This is one of the main draw backs for this technology. In a practical sense- LOTS of toxic water sitting around, which is now leaking at a rate of about 5 – 6,000 cubic meters per hour, according to company officials, and some (unspecified amounts) have apparently leaked into the environment. Most of the leaked effluent is being pumped back into holding ponds. It is unclear if these are the same ponds that are still leaking (...). Back-up pools are already reaching capacity, according to officials, and now there are plans to allow the excess waste to be drained off into the neighboring Vuoksi water system during the next 24 hours. Gravity requires it to be so. Engineers at the Talvivaara Mining Company should look into the laws of gravity and hydrodynamics some day, when they are not so busy. Perhaps this once pristine water system can now be used as another dumping site for this toxic waste, once it has been contaminated beyond repair. Thanks Talvivaara Mining Company, hopefully all those jobs were worth it to the community that uses (oops! used...) the Vuoksi water system! But, let's look ahead, to all the new jobs that should be created to clean up this mess in the coming decades. Hopefully, as a responsible business in Finland, the Talvivaara Mining Company has prepared for such an unfortunate event (?), or will the tax payer pick up the tab? 62.241.230.184 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
8 November 2012, Finland's Environmental Minister says the Talvivaara mine should be shut down, after calling it "a serious environmental crime", and pointed out that results from waste water samples indicated that the environmental permits issued were incorrect for its current operations: http://yle.fi/uutiset/ministry_chief_talvivaara_mine_should_be_shut_down/6367983
8 November 2012, the firm posts a loss in Q3 of 4.3 million euro, blaming weak output and low nickel prices: http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_posts_loss_in_q3_results/6368073 62.241.230.184 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
8 November 2012, according to YLE, the CEO of the Talvivaara mining company claimed this morning that a leak at its gypsum/waste pond had been blocked. However by late morning, Helsingin Sanomat reported that there was renewed leakage. Estimates suggested that over 10,000 kilos of nickel and unknown amounts of uranium may have leaked into the surroundings environment. It is presently not clear if this estimate refers to actual amounts of nickel or nickel-contaminated waste water, yet it is clear that this leak has contaminated the local area with nickel and uranium. The mining company is ”... quickly constructing a safety dam that will contain everything,” according to CEO Harri Natunen added. This hasty effort is now being organized as early winter conditions envelope eastern Finland. On the upside, this environmental disaster is creating 150-200 additional jobs in the area. http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_waste_water_leak_plugged/6369461
10 November 2012, Despite confident claims from the company, the Talvivaara waste water pond is still leaking. According to Talvivaara Head of Communications Olli-Pekka Nissinen, the main leak has been plugged, but another smaller rupture has emerged nearby. “We need a lot of material to patch-up the leaks,” Nissinen commented. This forth dam is expected be completed by Sunday morning. If so, then there should be no need to diver more contaminated water into the local environment, outside the mining area. http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_waste_water_pond_still_leaking/6371489 62.241.230.184 (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
11 November 2012, according to YLE, Talvivaara leak continues, while teams of army conscripts from the Kainuu Brigade and local volunteer fire fighters continue to work with the company "around the clock" http://yle.fi/uutiset/talvivaara_leak_continues/6371975 The winter weather has continued to bring more rain and freezing rain to the site, making this difficult work even more dangerous. An unnamed company spokesman told Yle that a hastily built safety dam is expected to be soon completed, to stop the leakage of toxic waste water into the local environment. Similar hopes and expectations during the past week have continued to support a growing feeling of unhappiness and disappointment. Around 200 people continue to be involved in the repair effort. 62.241.230.184 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
12 November 2012, interesting headlines from YLE today; the typical "no danger to the public" message from the National Institute for Health and Welfare (abbr. THL) http://yle.fi/uutiset/thl_talvivaara_leak_has_no_serious_health_effects/6373462 , and the persistent message that the environmental impact from leaking waste water from the mine worsens http://yle.fi/uutiset/mine_leak_environmental_impact_worsens/6373577 . Despite the cheerful "no danger to the public" claims from THL, which tries to shift the burden of potential damage on the fear and worry this environmental crime has caused on the public. Recent results on the spread of contamination from the leak show that the environmental load of heavy metals has risen over the past week in areas both north and south of the Talvivaara mine. Fortunately as of Monday, no dangerous levels of radioactivity have been detected outside the mine area, according to the report from YLE. However, heavy metals have been detected in local waters, outside of the mining area. The level of contamination may be high enough to cause the death of fish, and affect both plants and bottom-dwelling organisms in local lakes and waterways. Most lakes should recover from such an insult after several years, assuming the leak is now contained.
12 November 2012, in a separate "no danger to the public" announcement, this time by Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), informs that uranium-contaminated water that has leaked does not pose a threat. In their reasoning, uranium levels outside the mine area are "low", and for this reason they are not a danger to either humans or the natural environment, unless it makes its way into the local drinking water. THL chimes in by informing that people will not be directly exposed to impurities in the lakes and rivers around the mine site, or even in the lower reaches of the Vuoksi and Oulujoki waterways, if they do not use lake or river water for drinking or cooking. Again, this assumes that all the toxic waste will be continually diluted as it passes down steam and out of the immediate area. Apparently, this reasoning goes back to and old principle that the solution to pollution is dilution! THL also noted that it is presently unclear whether or not other "currently unknown impurities in the water" are associated with unpleasant skin symptoms that have been previously reported in the area. Mining authorities have been quick to suggest that the health effects of the naturally occurring manganese in the lake water are not known. Unnamed officials stated that it was "not thought at this time necessary to issue any general restrictions on consumption of fish, as the real concentrations of impurities in local fish are not yet known". Further testing is anticipated. Information in this paragraph comes from the two YLE articles mentioned in the paragraph above. 62.241.230.184 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
13 November 2012, Speaking to YLE's current affairs programme A-studio on Monday evening, CEO Harri Natunen stated that "We have legally mandated liability insurance that covers expenses if we’re unable to pay", according to YLE's online news in English: [2] It was not clear, however, if all cleanup expenses would still by covered if the company went into bankruptcy. YLE's online news article informed that Natune also looked deeply into the future, and sought to reassure viewers by stating that the risk for future leaks would be eliminated. He also promised that the leak at the mine would be its last. It is not reassuring that the Finnish language lacks a future tense. 62.241.230.184 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
13 November 2012, The Finnish Environment Institute (Syke) has observed high levels of heavy metals in water courses around the Talvivaara mine,[3]. Especially increased levels of cadmium, aluminum and uranium were detected, in addition to the previously-observed high levels of nickel that are now present in the waterways that are downstream (south) from the mine. The reported levels are poisonous to fish and other organisms, and will probably cause fish deaths in the area. Tero Varjoranta of the Radiation and Nuclear Authority (STUK) said that uranium levels were elevated, but only 3.5 times higher than the recommended limit, but "not a danger to humans". The mining company is expected to provide more information on how it will secure the mine's leaky gypsum pond, and ensure the safety of nearby water courses, despite CEO Harri Natunen's recent promises that this will never happen again. It seems that the authorities would like more than just words and good intentions at this point. 62.241.230.184 (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Reflist
Neutrality Disputed November 2012
Someone has put up an objection in the Environmental Impact section of this article, apparently due to the information that I have posted on the recent Talvivaara Leak. Let's all hear what you have to say about your apparent concern of my POV on this matter. Until then, please do not make further changes to my posts (Advance thanks!). 62.241.230.184 (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Environmental administration
According to the reacent news the environmental administration has not received the report of the previous leak for the permission control. Please explain: How does the Finnish environmental administration work? If company is not cooperative, shouldn't the administration employ several persons for permenant supervision at place? This should be invoiced from the company. Watti Renew (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's basically a crisis management model, which forms a core part of the training procedure for being a civil servant in most countries. Industries are expected to regulate themselves, you see. They effectively have rights, but without the nuisance of responsibilities. In response to your question; How does it work? In this case, you will soon see how badly it works when the warmer weather returns, and last autumn's repairs become soft, with the rest of the pond's integrity. It has been held together by freezing conditions for the last four months. Your other question; yes, they should! But, they probably won't. No crisis = no management. Again, it's in the training. On your last point, they are insured, or at least claimed as much in the media. Not sure if this applies in the case of bankruptcy. Hopefully. This is really a nasty mess in a beautiful area.Ditherbuggy (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Environmental administration
French TV discussed the reasons in the nuclear accident in Japan yesterday. Expert pointed out that a reason that contributed was the close relationship and lack of independence of the governmental control authorities and the power plant. In comparison the same could be contributing in Talvivaara environmental emissions. Please explain in the article how the responsible environmental minister Paula Lehtomäki Centre Party (Finland) husband and children bought a significant share of Talvivaara shares while Paula was responsible to make decision of the permission to the Talvivaara mining. Further significant is that Finland shut down independent environmental administration. New environmental administration is like in Russia under the Ministry of Trade and Economic Affairs. As I understand the trade politics make the final decisions. The environmental experts can only include a differing opinion. As I understood, the environmental organizations have demanded independent environmental administration and control back. Watti Renew (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Rv opinion piece added
In reference to this edit:
- The project was doomed to be an environmental damage from the beginning.
WP:VERIFY (who said this in 2003?). WP:SOAPBOX.
- This was something unusual, and at the same time a thing that received remarkably little attention.
Reason being, the previous owners had rejected bioheap leaching and thought the find was worthless.
- Like Talvivaara, Outokumpu which sold the rights to Perä, was told to be owned in remarkable amount of shares by Kela, the public pension fund.
I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say.
- In the beginning of the publicity of the water issue, it was told in the media that a person who had made the evaluation of the impacts of the mine to nature, was already a shareholder in the company.
Attempt to WP:VERIFY, not refer to "told in the media": Interesting tidbit on its own.
- This excuse were made despite the fact that the Finnish climate conditions had been dramatically changed before the beginning of the millenium.
WP:NPOV. Sometimes companies really f* things up and that doesn't need any sinister background motives. No, wait, not just sometimes.
- In the beginning of the media circus, it was told that some the pods were insulated at the bottom by plastic sheets. Workers who had been working in the area, told about rumours that these insulations had been deliberately damaged.
WP:VERIFY. Also, conspiracy theories like this are not encyclopedic (unless of course reliable sources confirm them). Each of the ponds were isolated from the ground by a plastic sheet, that's how they were designed. A design like that is a design failure from the outset. And it doesn't like overfilling. Why you'd need deliberate damage?
- The case of disaster capitalism
This sections is original research, soapboxing, unsourced and you couldn't say it would represent any neutral point of view. It reads like someone's political blog post.
Articles like this are often in a perpetual need for editing to make them shorter and more to the point. They don't need more unsourced opinions or unedited news. --vuo (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)