Buried French Toxic-Waste 'Time-Bomb' Could Poison Drinking-Water For Millions in Europe (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0178148327
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/06/23/0954234/buried-french-toxic-waste-time-bomb-could-poison-drinking-water-for-millions-in-europe
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/23/french-mine-stocamine-waste-drinking-water-chemicals-alsace-aquifer-aoe
> A former potash mine at Wittelsheim in Alsace now entombs about 42,000 tonnes of toxic industrial waste, and scientists warn that, over time, contaminants [2]could seep upward into the Alsace aquifer , which in turn feeds the transboundary Upper Rhine groundwater system supplying drinking water to millions in France, Germany and Switzerland. Campaigners argue that leaving the waste underground instead of removing it creates a long-term 'time-bomb' for people and wildlife.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Bruce66423
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/23/french-mine-stocamine-waste-drinking-water-chemicals-alsace-aquifer-aoe
Salt Holds ... Until It Doesn’t (Score:5, Informative)
Cracks -> water -> salt dissolves -> collapse -> toxic waste leaks -> aquifer poisoned !
Salt mines look perfect for waste storage, dry, impermeable, ancient...
But extracting potash weakens the structure. Water finds its way in. Salt vanishes. Tunnels deform. Containers rupture.
Stocamine (France): 42,000 tons of chemical waste, now sealed under concrete and... under pressure... literally.
Asse II (Germany): same idea, but with nuclear waste. It’s collapsing. Radioactive brine is rising.
Salt lasts forever, until disturbed. Then it flows.
Re: Salt Holds ... Until It Doesn’t (Score:4, Funny)
"Nothin' lasts forever,
And we both know mines can change.
And it's hard to dodge Uranium,
In the toxic November rain."
- Flasks N' Doses
And put it where? (Score:3, Insightful)
Calls to remove it. Ok, where should it go? Dump it somewhere else? Transporting it will have protests against transporting it through their towns. Incinerate it? People freak out over that. So where should it go? You can't break down things like heavy metals, they are elements. Trap them in filters? Ok, now the filters need to be dumped somewhere.
People want modern life and comforts but can't accept the cost of it.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do with toxic waste? Not every location is equally bad.
It's the principle of: Don't shit where you eat.
Neutralizing agent X-Prize... (Score:2)
Why not put up an Xprize to develop broad spectrum neutralizing agents for Toxic wastes? Enzymes? Bacteria? Heating/Cooling processes? Membrane filtration? There must be some way science can better address this. We should reward anyone who develops such clean tech as "Heros" As they are likely the heroes we need most right now.
Re: (Score:3)
The solution to getting rid of waste of all kinds is to continue to reduce the cost of escape launches.
Starship is targeting $20/ kg and under.
The annual cost to store nuclear waste starts at $200 / KG and goes up to $2000 / KG.
IE, it is very soon going to be 10x, to 100x cheaper to just launch this stuff into space with a general solar trajectorm, than to store it.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah because those things never fail....
It is not in anyway much more risky that something like a slat mine leaking, than a rocket failing and spraying toxic soup across hundreds of square miles.
Trying to launch large volumes of toxic waste into space is CRAZY.
Re: (Score:2)
You can engineer around that. Its actually not a hard engineering problem at all to design a safety shell for the payload.
Re:Neutralizing agent X-Prize... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the price to low Earth orbit. The orbit will just decay and it'll fall back into the atmosphere. You want this thing in the sun. That's about the most expensive place you could try to get to in our solar system. Delta-V is a cruel mistress. We have the technology to store stuff in really good containers now, and put those in a geologically stable location. You don't need to just dump stuff down a hole anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not need to get to the sun.
It just needs to get out of orbit and on a general, slow trajectory into space.
Re: (Score:2)
It just needs to get out of orbit and on a general, slow trajectory into space.
In other words, continue to pollute. Only the location is different.
Wait until the French people realize (Score:2)
You need water to make both bread and wine.
How serious is this? (Score:2)
According to the article, the mine contains wastes like mercury and arsenic and cyanide. Arsenic is probably an issue, but it is already present everywhere. Cyanide despite being highly toxic is not likely to survive long in the soil or water and mercury is essentially insoluble and not going anywhere. The risk needs to be evaluated, but the chances are that removing and transporting, it will create a greater risk than leaving it where it is. Also, you need somewhere better to store it. Salt mines are
Was probably cheap to just bury it... (Score:5, Insightful)
And now it will get excessively expensive for socity. Evil at work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Evil? This is the price of modern life. You want your electronics, medical devices, cars, cozy homes, etc, etc? They all require manufacturing that generates lots of waste. It has to go somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
> Evil? This is the price of modern life. You want your electronics, medical devices, cars, cozy homes, etc, etc? They all require manufacturing that generates lots of waste. It has to go somewhere.
Fine. But maybe not somewhere near groundwater, hm'kay?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe price safe disposal in? Because society always has to pay for it, or, worse, pay a lot more for the disaster that results otherwise. Hence this is _not_ "the price of modern life", it is unfettered greed, willingness to accept a massive damage to society for a moderate personal gain. Evil does not get much more well defined than this.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Evil? This is the price of modern life. You want your electronics, medical devices, cars, cozy homes, etc, etc? They all require manufacturing that generates lots of waste. It has to go somewhere.
> Fine. But maybe not somewhere near groundwater, hm'kay?
Is there anywhere in Western Europe that isn't "near groundwater?"
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. But what is the alternative? Launch it into the sun? The reality is much of waste is simply best buried since we have no meaningful alternative in which to deal with it. The reality is putting it in old disused mines is one of the best waste management practices we have. There was also nothing "cheap" about this mine. Part of the waste management process involves sealing the mine to make it a suitable place for long term storage.
The issue here is that this mine was determined to be geologically u
Welcome to the wonderful world (Score:2)
Of externalized cost. Our oil and gasoline based transportation Network costs trillions of dollars more than you see at the pump. You still pay those costs you just don't realize it until your overall quality of life is lower than it should be...
That's the most obvious example but there are tens of thousands of others.