65,000 tonnes of chemical sounds humongous, but picturing the volume makes it look a lot smaller (not trying to diminish the potential gravity of the problem).
Assume the chemicals have a density of 1 g/cm^3, the same as water, which seems reasonable for organic liquids and such. Then a cubic meter weighs a metric tonne. So 65,000 tonnes is the same as a cube that is 40 meters on a side.
Another visualization: 1/5 of the volume of oil that can be carried by a Very Large Crude Carrier supertanker according to Wolfram Alpha:
EDIT: Without diminishing the potential gravity of the problem, but trying to visualize what 65,000 tonnes looks like, I'm surprised it doesn't look as big as I thought it would.
Maybe I just have a hard time reasoning about large numbers, but thinking about it terms of 1/5 of the capacity of a supertanker makes it seem much more serious to me than just reading the number 65,000 tonnes.
It may sound small by volume, but it sounds pretty big by potential effect. Especially if we're talking about compounds that can bioaccumulate and move up the food chain. We worry about the mercury content of tuna, what happens when the tuna has an appreciable amount of whatever-mustard-gas-breaks-down-into?
Not only Baltic Sea is really, really small and shallow sea with small circulation of water, but also it is one of the (or the most depending on source) dirtiest one. There are huge projects to return sea life to it - and now with chemical waste leaking all this can be pointless.
Also Baltic Sea is important for fishing industry for some countries - so there is huge danger of getting heavy metals etc getting in to food circulation and causing long term effects on whole populations.
Well, all the gold in the world is a cube 21m on a side. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold ) So this is 8 times as much as all the gold in the world. Which seems like a lot.
Assume the chemicals have a density of 1 g/cm^3, the same as water, which seems reasonable for organic liquids and such. Then a cubic meter weighs a metric tonne. So 65,000 tonnes is the same as a cube that is 40 meters on a side.
Another visualization: 1/5 of the volume of oil that can be carried by a Very Large Crude Carrier supertanker according to Wolfram Alpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=65000+m^3
EDIT: Without diminishing the potential gravity of the problem, but trying to visualize what 65,000 tonnes looks like, I'm surprised it doesn't look as big as I thought it would.