CDN Forces Reactor Online Against Safety Regulations 338
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."
Re:Politics... meh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Politics... meh (Score:3, Interesting)
"Will the minister [of natural resources] or the prime minister, for that matter, tell Canadians what will happen if there's a nuclear accident?" Alghabra asked to raucous applause.
Harpers answer was:
"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be
Here's another quote from the people that you think did this:
"Attacking the regulator, taking [it] out of the process, is going to make the problem worse," deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Tuesday
Gotta say, that's about the level of logic and justification that I'm used to seeing from Harper. Sad isn't it.
It's pronounced NU-Cu-lar (Score:2, Interesting)
My boss tried to get me to dump it all into the dumpster, so he could pocket the ~$75000US instead. One day, walking through the adjacent building, a safety guy from the NRC cornered me and asked who's side I'd be on when called to testify: "Put me on the top of the list"! I said. Meaning, in no unslashdotted terms, I'd serve up the sob. Funny but I had to stand in for him to teach the nu-cu-lar safety class he was supposed to have instructed.
"world supply" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Too many grasshoppers, not enough ants (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I was going to ask... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I was going to ask... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Bah! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Except I didn't say that. In fact, I quite explicitly said the opposite. Also, FYI, beta radiation isn't electromagnetic, and the amount of radiation required to give you a sunburn isn't "small", nor is the amount of radiation dumped into the air by coal burning plants "small" (in fact, it's much greater than the amount of radiation nuclear plants dump into surround environment.)
The point isn't "radiation is safe". The point is, we're already saturated by it, plus more than a few nastier and deadlier things. A given source of radiation, therefore, should be evaluated objectively instead of saying "OMFG it's radioactive, get it away from me!" A small, modern isotope generating reactor probably has as much in common with the Chernobyl disaster as a butane lighter does with the firebombing of Dresden.
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I was going to ask... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Got to love it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Youtube is blocked at work here, but yep, I've had it shown as a safety video.
Of course, we also distributed pictures of the hand of an electrician who had his finger blown off when he was working with flourescent ballasts and some wires hit his wedding ring...
As well as some rather nasty pictures of DUI accidents...
Re:Bah! (Score:2, Interesting)
I have. I went to a fairly liberal college in the 90s. Think PCU, to a degree. There was some talk at the time about building a waste disposal facility for low-level waste in the area. Basically, there are a large number of research hospitals and one nukee lab in the area, so a lot of low-level waste was being generated there. Well, the keyword "nuclear" sent the protesters into a frenzy. I remember being asked to sign a petition against this facility, and having a "bang your head against wall" conversation with the (admittedly hot) chick about what she suggested be done with the waste if she didn't want a disposal facility being built.
"We need to cut back on nuclear waste b/c it is so dangerous!"
"Uhm, so we need to stop providing modern medical services?"
"No, we just need to produce less nuclear waste!" Rinse, lather, repeat.
I don't think she ever really understood what it was she was protesting against, other than "teh evil nuculars".