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."

28 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 ottawanker · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, considering you linked to the article:

      Technetium-99m is used in 20 million diagnostic nuclear medical procedures every year. Approximately 85 percent of diagnostic imaging procedures in nuclear medicine use this isotope. Technetium-99m is made from the synthetic substance Molybdenum-99 which is a by-product of nuclear fission. It is because of its parent nuclide, that Technetium-99m is so suitable to modern medicine. Molybdenum-99 has a half-life of approximately 66 hours, and decays to Tc-99m, a negative beta, and an antineutrino (see equation below). This is a useful life since, once this product (molybdenum-99) is created, it can be transported to any hospital in the world and would still be producing technetium-99m for the next week. The betas produced are easily absorbed, and Mo-99 generators are only minor radiation hazards, mostly due to secondary X-rays produced by the betas.
    2. Re:I was going to ask... by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ah, but then you have the problem of purity. The byproduct of the radioactive decay is no doubt a heavy metal - i.e. you really would want to minimize the amount going into the patient's bloodstream. So, for the sake of the test, you would desire a substance that is fairly pure - i.e. you can minimize the dose but maximize the activity level to gain a better reading.

      So yes, while it's possible (but not feasible) to create a large stockpile, you will still need purification facilities to constantly re-process the decayed material out of your stockpile, which is really quite pointless.

    3. 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).

    4. Re:I was going to ask... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Informative

      This was the grandparent's point:

      Let's say you have substance A that decays into substance B. Substance A is what you want, and substance B is dangerous in large quantities.

      Let's say you introduce 16 mg of substance A into a patient's body. This is what you'll get over time:

      Time|--A---|--B---
      ----+------+------
      00h | 16mg | 00mg
      06h | 08mg | 08mg
      12h | 04mg | 12mg
      18h | 02mg | 14mg
      inf | 00mg | 16mg

      Now, let's say that the substance is already half decayed. So, to introduce 16 mg of substance A into the patient's body, you need to introduce 32 mg of the A+B alloy. Then you get:

      Time|--A---|--B---
      ----+------+------
      00h | 16mg | 16mg
      06h | 08mg | 24mg
      12h | 04mg | 28mg
      18h | 02mg | 30mg
      inf | 00mg | 32mg

      So to get the same dose of substance A, you've already had to double the dose of substance B.

      ...

      This is what you wrote:

      Ha ha, that was good, it's going to decay in your body anyways.

      Kind of missing the point, isn't it?

  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. Politics... meh by detritus` · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've done a lot of work out at chalk river with neutron diffraction, and talking to some of the people there apparently a lot of the "issues" are petty little things like signage for hot pipes, etc. The largest issue is back up generators for 2 key pumps, but in reality there are back up pumps with seperate power supplies that could take over in a worst case senario (not likely though). It all appears to be political gesturing as usual but unfortunately this time peoples lives are truly at stake. But then again considering the previous actions of the liberal party i'm truly not that suprised, just saddened that a grab for political power is so negatively affecting peoples lives world wide

    1. Re:Politics... meh by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      why not truck backup pair of generators on-site for those pumps (hell, those can't be anything like the generators for coolant systems of 2.5GW PWRs I've been at, gotta be tiny), get any needed priority ISI & FAC inspections done and leave all the chicken shit for another outage?

  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Re:Got to love it... by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you even read the article? The isotopes this reactor produces are for medical purposes.
    FTA
    Doctors around the world depend on the nuclear material for life-saving diagnostic scans, and imaging for fractures, cancers and heart conditions.

    Further, the reactor is owned by Canada, the country. It is not an independent business. Everything you've just said is complete anti-business bullshit.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  7. Re:Asking for disaster? by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a small reactor (ie, not a power reactor), way the hell in the middle of nowhere north of Ottawa. It's upstream from Camp Petawawa (large and mostly empty Cdn Forces base), which itself is way out in the boonies.

    And no, this isn't capable of "spectacular" failure for most values of spectacular.

    --
    -- Alastair
  8. 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.

  9. Radio 1 report. by plsavaria · · Score: 5, Funny
    On the radio channel of Radio-Canada (french CBC), there was a report on the subject. Said the reactor woulf be closed for four months. Also said the half-life of the isotope, technétium-99, is 6 hours.

    Then someone asked the question : why don't they make a four-month-reserve?

    --
    The answer IS 42.
    1. Re:Radio 1 report. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reactor doesn't produce Tc-99m directly for medical imaging. This would be nearly useless anywhere except at the site of the reactor, due to decay during the time it would take to ship with only a 6 hour half life.

      Rather, the reactor likely produces Mo-99, with a half life of 2.75 days (66 hours). Mo-99 decays into Tc-99m, and the two can be easily separated chemically. Hospitals have a "generator" that contains Mo-99, that continually decays into the useful Tc-99m, which is periodically extracted and used.

  10. Re:Got to love it... by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...especially when the reactor is not near me.

  11. 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.

  12. Running short of isotopes, eh? by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe the plan is to deal with the isotope shortage by putting isotopes EVERYWHERE ...

  13. Re:Media hyperbole... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Completely missing the point.

    If you were to consider total medical isotopes by the kilo then true, chalk river is a small player, which is sort of like considering the total amount of fossil fuels used in the world when half the worlds oil production has stopped for 4 months.

    If you look at Tc99 production worldwide (in terms of the commericalized amounts) chalk river is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of production. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less depending on who you ask.

    Any sort of functional imaging probably involves Tc99, blood pool organ imaging etc... There are lots of reasons why Tc99 is the choice, but in short, that's what we use, so that's what detectors are designed for so changing to something else is impractical.

    The isopotes produced in 'hot labs' at cancer centers etc... are for different kinds of imaging (e.g. PET scans). These can still be done of course, but they aren't the same kind of imaging as Tc99 tends to provide.

    In short, yes, they load it on planes and fly it all over north america and Asia, from chalk river.

  14. "world supply" by locust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to yesterday's interview on CBC's As It Happens, its not the world's supply, but rather the North American supply. In the past when the reactor has been down, the company that supplies the isotopes (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd runs the place, but another company produces the isotopes) buys isotopes from reactors in australia, south africa or Europe (holand I think). Its just this time they decide to make it a big issue. (so they don't have to pay for the isotopes). The interview in question is, I think, in part two of the broadcast... see: http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/AS_IT_HAPPENS/20071212.shtml The segment is: "ISOTOPES: KUPERMAN"

  15. The ad says they have two sources by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's take a look at the advertising from the company that actually sells the medical isotopes made at Chalk River:

    MDS Nordion is the global leader in the supply and distribution of short-lived medical isotopes. It's what sets us apart.

    • Our world-renowned rapid, reliable and customizable distribution, and logistics system ensures shipments are where they're needed, when they're needed - anywhere in the world.
    • Our capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to routine orders as well as unexpected requests and emergencies is a hallmark of our operations.
    • Our four cyclotrons and access to two reactors located in North America and Europe guarantee an uninterrupted supply for research and manufacturing.

    There's a "Molybdenum-99 Shortage Resource Center" page which has more useful background on the subject. There are about five places in the world that make this stuff, and not much excess capacity.

    The U.S. Department of Energy started a project in 1995 to convert a research reactor at Sandia to medical isotope production. This was done after the last US commercial producer, in Tuxedo, NY, shut down. The Sandia effort was canceled, after it was working and able to produce isotopes, on July 30, 1999, by the Office of Isotope Programs at DOE.

    There's a startup that claims they will start making this stuff with a linear accelerator in early 2008, but they sound flakey.

  16. 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

    2. Re:Bah! by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And when was the last time you heard the big, scandalous story about the radiative particles that coal burning plants dump into the air supply? Oh, right, there never was one, because people don't care about radiation unless it's coming from a nuclear power plant. Nevermind that coal burning plants release much more radiation than nuclear plants. Nevermind that the total yearly release is greater than that of Three Mile Island.

      If you want me to care about a specific instance of mis-management, I'm going to have to see some numbers first. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the total radioactive "contamination" was still less than that of a typical coal burning plant (granted, drinking water contamination vs. air contamination is different.)

  17. Re:A few corrections. . . by ifdef · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Chalk River reactor does supply energy to the power grid. I have no idea where you got that information.

    I worked in the Canadian nuclear power industry in the late 1970's and in the 1980's, and before that I had a summer job at CRNL (Chalk River) in 1977. I'm pretty sure that NRU has *never* supplied energy to the power grid. There is no turbine there. It has been used for *research* into fuels and technologies that were eventually used in CANDU power reactors, but that's not the same thing.

    The very first Canadian reactor to supply energy to the power grid was NPD (Nuclear Power Demonstration) at Rolphton, Ontario, about 30 km upstream of Chalk River. NPD was built about 5 years after NRU, and used to demonstrate the feasibility of using a reactor to produce electricity. It was later used as a Nuclear Training Centre by Ontario Hydro, until it was shut down in the late 1980's.