Slashdot Mirror


CDN Forces Reactor Online Against Safety Regulations

Socguy writes "The Canadian government has passed legislation that will reopen an Ontario nuclear reactor that produces most of the world's supply of critical medical isotopes, even though the site has been shut down for safety maintenance. Witnesses and experts were called in to the House to face questions about safety concerns and all parties eventually voiced support for the bill, which would effectively suspend CNSC's oversight role for 120 days. The Chalk River reactor ceased operating on Nov. 18. Pressure on the government to restart operations began to build after delays in the shutdown of the government-run site, which generates two-thirds of the world's radioisotopes, began to cause a critical shortage of radioisotopes."

12 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. I was going to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...why they couldn't have stockpiled their products before the shutdown, but then realized that the half-lives for the sort of thing they're offering are probably measured in days or hours, right?

    1. Re:I was going to ask... by C_L_Lk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it was set to be shut down for exactly a week and to be brought back online. Unfortunately when it was brought offline and the inspection began, it was found that backup pumps for the cooling system, which Chalk River had believed to be optional from documentation they had, were found to be non-existent. At that point the safety commission told them they couldn't restart the reactors until all that work was completed and the backup systems were tested and online. THAT process takes much more than a week - it was estimated it could take until the end of January to engineer all the production changes, obtain all the items needed, and implement the changes.

      Considering the reactor that produces these radio isotopes is extremely critical to nuclear medicine around the globe, the government felt that delay was unacceptable and the extremely minor risk (as the reactor has operated many years just as it is without any incidents) was acceptable -- thus they said "Damn the backup pumps! Run the reactors! (just for 180 days)" -- in my opinion - the right choice. In the ensuing 180 days the engineering work can be completed, the pump systems can be obtained, and the reactors can be prepared for another week-long shutdown during which "short-time stockpiled isotopes" can be used (remember, even if it reaches its half-life, it's still working - and even after another half life it's still working - just need 4 times as much material to get the same amount of decay).

  2. What a sound idea.. by cephalien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if nothing goes wrong, they've set a dangerous precedent of basically telling their watchdog group "Well, we'll let you do your thing, but even though we know little about the engineering behind a reactor, we are also going to basically feel free to disregard you and tell you to suck it if we don't like what you say."

    A spectacular idea. Why aren't we, maybe, wondering how we ended up with only ONE reactor that can produce this stuff in the first place?

    --
    If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
    1. Re:What a sound idea.. by Iobor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's OK, the watchdogs are also, some of them, chosen for their lack of knowledge of nuclear engineering.

      Also, an isotope production reactor doesn't produce electricity, so it doesn't compete with natural gas-fired electricity producers. With natural gas at $4 million per uranium-tonne-equivalent and the real thing at only $0.24 million, and hidden taxes on the $4 million, an electricity production reactor has enemies in government that an isotope production one does not.

  3. Re:Got to love it... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't business taking priority to safety. This is the old demographic overruling the young demographic.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  4. Re:Got to love it... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. when business takes priority to safety especially at a nuclear reactor.
    You're missing the point. The nuclear materials they produce there are used for medical diagnoses. Ceasing to give people medical care may very well outweigh the risks of keeping the reactor open.
  5. your wife's water just broke by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you rush her into the car, strap on the seatbelt, and start heading towards the hospital. on the way there, the "check engine" maintenance light comes on

    do you:

    1. stop the car, and call for an ambulance
    2. drive on, ignoring the light

    i think we all know what the obvious answer is

    folks: people could die without these radioisotopes. additionally, the safety issue is probably something extremely circumspect

    please, no more scolding lectures about safety first, the canadian government did the right thing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:your wife's water just broke by Turbowaffle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your engine contains a nuclear reactor, then I'd say yes, stop the car.

    2. Re:your wife's water just broke by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, you need to make an -informed- risk assessment. Are you?

      On the other hand, if a problem occurs at the plant best case is that the plant is shut down for much longer. Worse case is obvious and... unpleasant.

      I've heard at least one person here report that at least some of the 'safety problems' amount to missing signage, and stuff like that.

      People need these isotopes to save their lives, should we really keep the facility shutdown because the first aid kit doesn't have its full stock of bandages, a few water pipes aren't labelled as hot or cold, an inspection of the fire extinguisher in the cafeteria is overdue? I think not.

      What if one of the generators is slightly overdue for maintenance, but the maintenance schedule is known to be extremely aggressive. (e.g. like doing on an "oil change" every 1500mi, even though the engine and the oil are spec'd for 3000mi. its a nucear reactor and all, and you want to be safe.) Is it really worth shutting the facility down if we're at 1600mi, given that people certainly lose their lives if you shut it down while its extremely unlikely to fail if you continue running it? And if it does FAIL, you've got a backup, and a contingency if that fails?

      Point is, we need more information about the actual safety concerns and real risks before we applaud or condemn this move.

  6. It's not as terrifying as it sounds by WoTG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I have to agree with the forced reopening of the reactor. It sounds terrifying, and it's a disgrace that we're in this situation, but the risk is very minimal. The story has been playing in the media here in Canada for a few days now.

    This is not a large-scale power generating reactor. It's a relatively small "research" reactor and it is more or less middle of nowhere.

    From what I recall from the news stories, the current hold up is the backup power to the second pump is offline. The backup power to the first pump is online, and only one pump needs to be operating at any one time. The truly disgraceful thing is that the plant has been improperly operating without any proper backup power lines for months and months. The current unexpectedly long shut-down occurred because the improper backup systems were discovered by the regulators during a shorter planned down time.

    On the flip side, critical medical scans are being canceled by the thousands across North and South America. You can't point at any specific case, but given the large number of procedures being delayed, I'd bet that someone out there is going to die on a daily basis because a scan is postponed.

  7. Bah! by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And you only say that because you've been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power is more dangerous than fossil fuel power.

    Stupid Russians aside (and trust me, Chernobyl wasn't an accident--it was the direct, foreseeable result of extreme stupidity. Quick analogy: Its crappy design made it the Pinto of nuclear reactors, and then the operators in charge basically went around slamming on their brakes randomly until they got rear-ended and the fucking thing blew up), pollution from fossil fuels (including--*gasp!*--radioactive pollution) outweighs pollution from nuclear power by many orders of magnitudes. People die every day due to the direct effects of using fossil fuels (and this isn't a snide criticism of Iraq, though that argument could certainly be made as well.) They explode. And cause cancer and respiratory illness. And then there's the whole greenhouse gas thing. Three mile island, on the other hand, dumped enough radiation into the area that they calculated there is a 50% chance that one extra person died from cancer. Eventually. Years later.

    You see, what people fail to grasp is how utterly surrounded they are by radiation. Have you ever watched television on anything other than a flat screen? If so, you've been staring directly into a cathode ray tube. Wanna know what a CRT really is? A particle accelerator. It's beaming beta radiation (and some side-effect X-Rays as well) directly into your eyes. They actually have to add lead to the glass in TV sets to prevent the radiation from reaching harmful levels. I am not making this shit up; every day, millions (if not billions) of knee-jerk anti-nuclear hippies sit around for hours and stare directly into a particle accelerator. (Yes, you can argue that the power levels and leaded glass makes it a pretty safe activity, but that's PRECISELY my point. Just because radiation is involved doesn't mean something is inherently dangerous. Radiation is a danger like high current electricity or poisonous chemicals are a danger. We're surrounded by all three, all of the time, yet sane design renders these things fairly safe.)

    And, of course, almost everyone will (at least a couple times in their lives) suffer a radiation burn--more commonly known as a "sunburn". Many people suffer these radiation burns repeatedly, even though they (like all radiation exposures) cause cancer, and even though they're fairly trivial to avoid.

    I'm not arguing that we should have a cavalier attitude towards nuclear power--just a little sanity and appropriateness. I don't know the specifics in this case, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the safety requirements were minor and/or highly redundant. Personally, I'd rather we get decent air filters put on our coal-burning plants first. They're far more of a threat to our well-being.

    1. Re:Bah! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Who are these anti-nuclear hippies, anyway? I've never met one.

      I have however, lived two hours away from a Canadian reactor which was mis-managed and unmaintained to the point where the thing was leaking radioactive water into the landscape. This was discovered in a big-scandal-stink, and the power company shortly after held a big public press-conference apologizing for their mistakes and promised transparency and honest ties to the community. Then a week later they were caught hiding another giant fault. The offending reactor went off-line shortly after.

      I can't speak for the (imaginary?) anti-nuclear hippies, but can certainly say that while I don't mis-trust the technology, I certainly mistrust the government and corporations responsible for handling it.


      -FL