Isotope reactor could cost $500M: Wall
By James Wood, The Star Phoenix July 9, 2009
The province's quest for a research nuclear reactor that would produce medical isotopes in Saskatoon isn't necessarily a competition with other jurisdictions, said the government official co-chairing the working group on the issue.
The province, the University of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency are working on a proposal to be submitted by the end of the month to the federal government. Ottawa is seeking a long-term solution to the production of the isotopes used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease.
Iain Harry, a vice-president with the provincial Crown Investments Corp, expects Saskatchewan's plan to be one of several proposals to go to the federal government. He believes more than one project could be approved.
"The federal government is not interested in putting all their eggs in one basket. Neither is the rest of the world," he said in an interview Thursday.
"The future of isotope production in the world is going to be from multiple sources and likely from multiple technologies."
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. announced Wednesday its problem-plagued Chalk River reactor -- supplier of one-third of the world's medical isotopes before being shut down in May -- will remain closed at least until the end of the year, fuelling a worldwide shortage of the invaluable isotopes.
Harry said he expects proposals to come from the University of British Columbia and McMaster University in Hamilton.
Ontario-based Bruce Power Ltd., which is contemplating a two-reactor power plant capable of producing 2,000 megawatts in Saskatchewan, said Thursday it's not interested in an isotope reactor.
Richard Florizone, the U of S vice-president who is the other co-chair of the working group, said much will depend on the approach taken by the panel appointed by the Conservative government to deal with the isotope issue.
Questions it will have to address include whether the intent is to supply only Canada's isotope needs or to provide for export markets, the cost of having diversified sources versus one large supplier such as Chalk River and the relative viability of creating isotopes through particle accelerators such as the one at UBC instead of nuclear reactors.
Florizone said the Saskatchewan proposal will be more modest than Chalk River's National Research Universal reactor, which produces 200 megawatts of power.
Similar to the relatively new OPAL research reactor in Australia, a proposed Saskatoon reactor would be about 20 megawatts, with a projected capacity of producing enough isotopes to meet Canada's needs, he said.
"The way that we're approaching it with our expression of interest is kind of up-the-middle, if you will," said Florizone, who also chaired the government-appointed Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) designed to "add value" to the province's uranium supply.
Premier Brad Wall estimated Wednesday the cost of a research reactor could be in the area of $500 million, although that is understood to be a rough calculation.
The Opposition NDP said the government needs to provide more details about its plan.
Facing criticism that the pursuit of a research reactor comes before the end of public consultations around the UDP report, Wall has said the government is working against tight federal timelines and it will be responsive to public opinion on whether to go ahead with such a project.
But NDP environment critic Sandra Morin said that doesn't cut it because the public is in the dark about the government's plans.
"This is something that literally falls on the heels of the consultation process and yet there was no real information given to the consultation process through the Uranium Development Partnership as to proceeding with something like a project of this nature," she said.
jwood@sp.canwest.com
MORE TESTS POSTPONED
The continuing shortage of medical isotopes will cause the postponement of 20 more bone scans this week, says a Saskatoon Health Region (SHR) news release.
The 20 postponements will bring the total close to 208 since Canada's only isotope facility went down for repairs May 14. The Chalk River, Ont., facility's shutdown has sparked debate about the stability of worldwide medical isotope supplies.
Aside from the postponed bone scans, nearly 40 other procedures have been postponed, from cardiac to renal studies, the health region says. The region continues to receive only a portion of its normal allotment of isotopes.
But the news release also said 43 of the postponed bone scans, six of the heart studies, six hepatobiliary studies and seven kidney studies have now been completed.
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source
_____________________
Think long term on isotope issue
By Prof. Robert Mann, Special to The Star Phoenix July 9, 2009
Following is the viewpoint of the writer, president of the Canadian Association of Physicists.
Canadians and the world have turned their attention to Canada's nuclear research program. The necessary shutdown of the Chalk River NRU reactor has caused an international shortage of medical isotopes, giving rise to dire issues for patients needing isotope-based medical interventions, and the threat of lasting damage to Canada's reputation.
The appointment of an expert panel by Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt to seek a sustained supply of medical isotopes is a welcome and important step. The Canadian Association of Physicists has considerable expertise in this area and would be happy to assist the panel.
We would urge taking a long-term and focused view that takes into account the full range of Canada's growing role in nuclear science and engineering. What is needed, and needed promptly, is a candid and informed assessment as to what is best for Canada.
Several options are already worth considering.
McMaster University has offered to produce medical isotopes in the short term until a longer term solution can be found. The Canadian Institute for Neutron Scattering has proposed a Canadian Neutron Centre to be constructed for medical and research purposes, and the premier of Saskatchewan has stated interest in having such a facility.
TRIUMF, the national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, if fully funded for its next five-year cycle, may make feasible the production of medical isotopes with accelerators, transferable to the private sector.
Canada's nuclear program over the past 50 years has yielded the first-rate CANDU power reactor system, a Nobel prize, and production of radioisotopes of molybdenum, technetium, and cobalt for medical use worldwide. Canada now needs cutting edge, high technology solutions that provide the range of isotopes needed for medicine, energy and basic research, along with a workforce trained in the basic and applied sciences.
The health of our citizens and the prosperity of our country depend on it.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Source
__________________________
Selective data led to one-sided report
By Doug Boreham, Special to The Star Phoenix July 9, 2009
Following is the viewpoint of the writer, senior scientist and environment manager for Bruce Power.
The Saskatchewan government initiated a public consultation process to assess recommendations proposed in the report, Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan. This report also addresses the feasibility of nuclear power in the province.
In response to the public consultation process, a commissioned report entitled Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes was submitted. The author of the report, Mark Lemstra, claims to have produced an independent summary of the scientific evidence about the health effects of nuclear energy.
This is a challenging task that requires extensive expertise and consultation on the subject. Unfortunately, this report does not present a balanced, scientifically based review. The intent seems to be to convince readers that all nuclear power is bad.
There are too many issues and flaws in the report to address in a comprehensive way here, but I will point out a few of the issues. A formal scientific review is in preparation to help people better judge the validity of the conclusions.
The stated aim of the Lemstra report was to investigate exposure to low level radiation from nuclear power plants and determine the health consequences. However, the selection of research articles to support this aim and the interpretation of results was biased.
The report concluded nuclear power increases cancer risk. These conclusions were largely based on information from cancer incidence seen after high dose exposures.
In the past, high dose risk estimates were used to "guess" about the effects caused by low doses, because no adverse health effects from low doses could be directly observed. Workers receive doses that are low even by scientific low dose standards, and dose to members of the public is so low that it is difficult to measure accurately.
The Lemstra report references a scientific journal article that claims Canadian nuclear workers are at extraordinarily high cancer risk. Interestingly, that same article shows that there is no increased risk in 14 other countries. That result alone (14 out of 15 countries having no increased risk) demonstrates that nuclear power is safe.
Incidentally, the reported excess Canadian cancer risk in that study is controversial. Questions have been raised by qualified scientists regarding the way that important confounding factors, such as the effects of smoking, were addressed in the original report. Furthermore, the conclusion of the Lemstra report is completely contrary to other published epidemiological reports that show Canadian nuclear workers are healthier and live longer than the general public.
Finally, the Lemstra report highlights that there is a suspected increased cancer risk in children living near German nuclear plants. However, it does not mention the fact that even the authors of this report concluded these cancers were not caused by radiation exposure and state this clearly in the original research articles.
For decades, scientists have been trying to estimate cancer risk associated with low-dose exposure to radiation by estimating the risk from high-dose exposures. The fact is, it's incorrect to estimate risk from high acute exposures down to very low dose exposures without scientific data to support the conclusions. It is generally acknowledged that there is no consistent scientific information to show that there is increased cancer risk below an acute exposure of 0.1 Sv (Sievert).
There are important biological reasons why risk extrapolations from high doses are not consistent with real risks at low doses. First, cancer risk estimates from high dose exposures come from epidemiological data such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, called the Life Span Study (LSS). Radiation-induced cancer risk was increased in the LSS after high instantaneous exposure to the bomb blast. These Japanese survivors were exposed to radiation under extreme wartime conditions (poor nutrition, poor health, and high physiological and psychological stress).
Their risk then (1945) is used today to predict radiation risk in other human populations. It is clear that cancer risk was increased when Japanese were exposed to high acute doses of radiation from the A-bomb. However, occupational and public exposures from nuclear plants are not high. They are at the extremely low end, where no increase cancer risk was observed in the A-bomb survivors.
Almost every conclusion stated in the Lemstra report has been scientifically refuted.
Low levels of radiation are a part of the natural environment. And even when natural levels are very high (100 times higher than occupational exposure from nuclear plants) there are no reported health risks. Excess cancer risk related to radiation is caused by large acute doses and there is no consistent data that show occupational levels are harmful to workers or the public. Large doses of almost anything (food, water, essential minerals, exercise, etc.) are harmful, but this doesn't mean that low doses are also harmful.
Nuclear power in Canada is a proven technology and has commercial viability, which is competitive with other base load electricity sources. Nuclear power is virtually emission free and is currently the only known source of energy production with sufficient capacity to supply demands while reducing emissions associated with climate change.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Source
_______________________________
Isotope reactor not needed
The Star Phoenix July 10, 2009 4:05 AM
Re: A new face of nuclear medicine; Other materials may be able to take the place of isotopes (SP, July 4). These "other materials" are also radioisotopes, not substitutes for them.
The difference is that they are produced in cyclotrons rather than in nuclear reactors. In fact, the first technetium-99m (the favoured isotope mentioned) was produced in a cyclotron about 12 years before the first reactor was built.
Also a correction: Chalk River produced molybdenum-99 which decays to technetium-99m. The "m" is important, because it means the substance is "metastable," decaying with pure gamma radiation. While technetium-99m indeed is a very short-lived isotope, it decays to technetium-99, a beta-emitting radioisotope with a half-life of 231,000 years.
As Dr. Ruddy states, an enormous amount of research is being conducted into alternative means of visualizing coronary arteries, non-viable tissue and cancer tumors.
Many people have lauded PET scans as a way to avoid the radioactivity of radioisotopes. Not so. PET scans usually use gamma waves from fluoridated sugar molecules (fluorodeoxyglucose), which have a half-life of about two hours.
Many members of the public know that exposure to X-rays and gamma rays increases an individual's total body and lifetime risk of cancer. Are we aware of the exact increase in the risks of CT scans (much greater exposure than X-rays), radioisotope studies and PET scans?
This is not to criticize the use of these very useful imaging techniques, but to have my colleagues and their patients ask themselves: "What exactly are we looking for?" and "How will the knowledge gained change the treatment?"
Does Saskatchewan need a nuclear reactor to produce radioisotopes? Probably not.
Dr. Dale Dewar
Wynyard
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source