Finland`s Nuclear Waste Disposal Case Study

Finland’sNuclear Waste Disposal Case Study

Finland’sNuclear Waste Disposal Case Study

Finland’sdumping of the high-level nuclear wastes at sea cannot have an effecton the world’s massive igneous rocks as claimed by the anti-oceancontamination campaigners. Besides, it is quite harmless andenvironmentally safe. In addition, it is simple and cheap to dump thenuclear wastes in the sea. As opposed to the widespread hazards ofthe coal fired energy stations, the nuclear wastes in the sea deptare much more non detrimental (Miller,2000).There is no evidence to prove that the nuclear wastes dumped at thesea has had or can lead to unfavorable impacts.

Tobegin with, the ocean, similar to the earth’s crust is by now avery radioactive region. The total quantity of radioactivity withinthe oceans, alone from potassium-40, totals twenty zetta becquerels.In addition, there are arrays of other naturally occurringradioactive elements within the ocean ecosystems. As a result, evenif a firm dumps nuclear wastes on radioactive materials, there isvirtually no possible effect. More importantly, these elements do notfloat on water in a way that they can affect the aquatic lives. In anevent of any future ocean clearance, it would only be blocks ofsynthetic ceramics with radioactive atoms making the basic componentof the crystal structures but not the nuclear wastes. This means thatthe ocean s the best place to empty these wastes (Miller,2000).

Moreover,the bottom of the ocean is continuously being roofed as the debrisfrom the dead sea lives falls on it. As a consequence, when a firmdrops the nuclear wastes, they gradually get covered. Besides, mostareas within the oceanic floor are layers of sediments that no factorhas interfered with for several millennia. Scientist now have provesof the locations of the uninterrupted sediments as well as thepositions of the edges of the tectonic plates making it impossiblefor the Finn industries to deposit blindly the nuclear wastes.Therefore, they can deposit or even bury the nuclear wastes inceramic forms in these deposits and be sure that they will remainunmoved from there (Miller,2000).

Withjust a few exemptions, the old wastes are least 3,500 meters beneaththe sea surface. In essence, this is past some thousand units belowthe area occupied by the aquatic lives not to talk of humans. Thereis no possibility of several species below the areas when oneconsiders the issue of food chains. This means that even if there aresome animals that get affected, the impact is not as much as in acase where the dumping can happen in an open land. As a result, aclaim of any harm from Finland’s past ocean dumping can beunreasonable in the absence of credible argument (Miller,2000).Even though the consumption of the sea fish has led a majority ofpeople in tragic consequences, there has never been a suggestion ofany occurrence where nuclear wastes disposed in the oceans has everhad to a significant impact.

Consequently,if throwing nuclear wastes in the sea is safer and moreenvironmentally friendly than any other method, there is no need forthe community to fight against the dumping. Not considering what theanti-ocean contamination campaigners can suggest, the stoppage of theissue of nuclear wastes in the ocean is baseless (Miller,2000).The method is the cheapest, safest and more ethically optimal way ofprotecting the society from possible hazards from open air disposals.

Reference

Miller,W., (2000). Geologicaldisposal of radioactive wastes and natural analogues(Vol. 2). Elsevier.