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."
I was going to ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I was going to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I was going to ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
If you make "enough" then your stockpile can last for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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:I was going to ask... (Score:5, 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:
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:
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:
Kind of missing the point, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OK, a show of hands... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From the point of view of the governments that make the decision, it will probably be OK not to have backup, whereas having backup will definitely cost.
What a sound idea.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:What a sound idea.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Scientists: "No, we can't run the reactor safely at that capacity."
Government: "Mother Russia needs those Megawatts beotch."
Reactor: "Poof! Now your faces will melt and your kids won't have arms."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That which is unknown is definitely scary though. It's a choice between how many definitely die due to lack of medical radioisotopes, versus how many
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They were ordered to fix this 3 years ago. (Score:2)
Fortunately, where I live in western Canada, we get our isotopes from the Netherlands. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
those who don't learn from history...
Re: (Score:2)
Why you and I would think that was an unsafe situation, it is only with our hindsight of what went wrong along with other experiences that we know about. The Russians thought t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was *shocked* by some things I observed there. Yes, to get in for a tour, I had to get all sorts of permissions, go past armed guards who checked my passport, etc. BUT, on the way out, I asked my guide why I didn't have to go through the r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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."
As I read the article, the government asked the watchdog "Can it wait" and the watchdog said "Yes". That doesn't look to me as if anybody is being steamrollered.
Politics... meh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Politics... meh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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 answe
Re: (Score:2)
your wife's water just broke (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to those questions is that the most likely worse cases are engine dies, only the person owning the car is affected.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs at the plant best case
Re:your wife's water just broke (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No way. The car will roll over and then explode. Outside a school. I saw it on TV. Or maybe it was a movie. But the point is, I saw it and you should think of the children!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:your wife's water just broke (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this [wikipedia.org] particular case of (spectacular) mismanagement has nothing to do with radiation release, although this [wikipedia.org] one does.
My beef with nuclear isn't so much the environmental issues, it is the financial issues. Nuclear is becoming relatively safe, but for the complete life-cycle of the plant (dirt lot to dirt lot), it is extremely expensive.
If you believe in open market solutions, nuclear just
Radiation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the current shortage of radioisotopes, I'd hurry along with the repairs, but would keep the damn thing closed until they're done for fear of losing the plant altogether. Ration the radioisotopes if needed until it's done.
Also, start planning to construct a new plant so that this situation doesn't occur again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 surrou
bad analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
And people could die in a nuclear accident.
i think we all know what the obvious answer is
That's because you're no worse off calling the ambulance from your broken down car on the highway as you would be from home.
please, no more scolding lectures about safety first, the canadian government did the right thing
No, they did not, because this action will make it even harder to convince communities to permit nuclear facilities to be located near them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Water broke? I got at LEAST 3-4 hours yet. no hurry at all. where we are I can put her on a wheelchair and walk her there in time. Why? because the last time my check engine light came on it was because of antilock brake failure. I had NO BRAKES. they failed to a point where they barely grabbed as the Antilock was pulsing all the time.
Fool rush around and take risks without knowing what they are.
so where do you stop? (Score:2)
what about the autistic?
how about the socially awkward?
how about the elderly?
where do you draw the line?
howabout only super-optimal fit and intelligent 20 somethings allowed to live, the rest turned into protein shakes? sounds good? do you fall in that group?
or maybe turn the less fit into slaves?
nah, i have a better idea. because in the path from the caves to the cities, we made some progress. one of the
Radio 1 report. (Score:5, Funny)
Then someone asked the question : why don't they make a four-month-reserve?
Re:Radio 1 report. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
4 months @ approx. 30 days / month * 4 half-lifes per day = 480 half-lifes.
So, just to supply the one 6-hour period 6 months later, you would need 2^480 times as much material as you would need producing it right then. That's 3.1 × 10^144. The number of atoms in the Universe is often estimated at between 4 × 10^78 and 6 × 10^79. Conservatively, that's 5.2 × 10^64 times more atoms than are contained in the entire Univer
How did we get to this? (Score:2)
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."
How does this one site belonging to a single country generate two-thirds of the worlds radioisotopes? How is this possible?
Who are the other [major] suppliers? The world has so several nuclear powers and I wonder what these powers are doing.
The fact that this reactor was built in the fifties is a blessing in disguise! You see, it shows that the engineering even back then, was sound.
On the other hand, it points to ineptness of successive Canadian governments that have failed to install better and more
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps because they are expensive to build/maintain but one reactor can satisfy a lot of demand?
Australia has a research reactor [wikipedia.org] that is used to (among other things) produce medical isotopes, I have no idea what sort of volume it produces compared to that Canadian one though or whether we even export them.
Oh, that reactor is shut down too (nt) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which isotopes? (Score:2)
Green Party of Canada press release (Score:3, Informative)
Green Party demands inquiry into AECL negligence
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper should save taxpayers money on the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry and instead perform a useful inquiry, says the Green Party. The party is calling for a full inquiry into the behaviour of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., focusing on safety concerns arising from AECL's severe lack of accountability, its repeated failures to comply with instructions from its regulator, radioactive dumping practices and other environmental transgressions along with the recent incident at Chalk River, where AECL ignored licensing conditions.
"It is apparent that AECL has become a rogue force and pays no heed to safety instructions from its regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Mr. Harper must look into this serious situation at once to gain control over AECL," said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. "We urgently need answers. Why was AECL operating the NRU reactor in violation of its license and why did the Harper government allow this to happen?"
The CNSC ordered the installation of a backup power supply system at the Chalk River reactor as a crucial safeguard, yet AECL operated the reactor without the backup system until it was caught red handed last month.
"Canadians also deserve to know why the government was unprepared for the shortage of medical radioisotopes when the Chalk River facility was shut down for routine maintenance. The government saw this coming from a mile away, so why did the Harper government fail to source the isotopes from other reactors? Why is he only now scrambling to do something about the situation? How is it that AECL is years behind schedule and at least $160 million over budget on bringing online the two Maple reactors which could have prevented this shortage?"
Ms. May said the inquiry should also investigate AECL's former practice of dumping thousands of litres of radioactive waste into Chalk River daily.
"We know that AECL continued to dump up to 4,000 litres of radioactive waste a day into Chalk River despite repeated commitments to stop. Furthermore, does AECL have a plan for the decontamination of Chalk River? We demand to know how AECL was allowed to get away with dumping radioactive contaminants into the river and what have been taken to clean up this mess."
In 2003, AECL told the CNSC that the cost of a clean up would be at least $2 billion.
"For too long, the AECL has been permitted to operate as it pleases - defying orders from its regulator, keeping its practices secret and avoiding accountability. Mr. Harper must rein in this rogue force for the safety of all Canadians."
It's not as terrifying as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [google.ca].
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.
Blame the regulators (Score:2)
The current unexpectedly long shut-down occurred because the improper backup systems were discovered by the regulators.
Should AECL have been more diligent in hiding the improper backup systems from the regulators?!!!
What happens if the only working pump fails?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As it is, it's working fine, and a pump is not a thin red line separating "life goes on" and "catastrophe"--this isn't even a big power reactor.
If both of the main pumps were to go offline, it would be a bad call not to shut down the reactor at that point, but even if they waited for the backup to fail (three pump failures in a row? What are the odds?), it's still pos
Re: (Score:2)
someone is going to die at most once, not on a daily basis
Also, they'll likely only die *earlier*, I seriously doubt they were going to avoid being at their own funeral in the first place.
This is all the fault of Linux (Score:2, Funny)
"Real Men don't make backups. They upload it via ftp and let the world mirror it. -- Linus Torvalds"
Unfortunately, this doesn't work for generators, nor does it for reactors.
Running short of isotopes, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 instea
This is why I'm not a politician (Score:3, Insightful)
Leave the reactor closed, definitely kill people.
Behind door number 2: Violate safety regs on a reactor, possibly kill people.
Politics is definitely a game more fun to play from the bleachers. For what it's worth, I live in the country and I agree this is the best of a bad situation.
Min
Too many grasshoppers, not enough ants (Score:2)
(Of course, this argument could app
Why Aren't There More? (Score:2)
Because they are VERRRRRRRY expensive. And for the U.S.'s part, they haven't put a reactor online since 1996. Maybe they'll build some appropriate reactors after 2013 when Watts Bar 2 goes online (hopefully).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second-sourcing radio-isotopes (Score:2)
However I have found that there is at least one other reactor in the world that produces the at least one of the isotopes (molybdenum-99) as the Chalk River reactor, and it's in The Netherlands (Europe) (see http://www.nrg-nl.com/public/medical/valley/node6.html [nrg-nl.com]). I gather that some of the other
"world supply" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ad says they have two sources (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take a look at the advertising from the company that actually sells the medical isotopes made at Chalk River:
MDS Nordion [nordion.com] is the global leader in the supply and distribution of short-lived medical isotopes. It's what sets us apart.
There's a "Molybdenum-99 Shortage Resource Center" [snm.org] 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 [comcast.net] 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.
Chalk River and President Jimmy Carter (Score:3, Informative)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Got to love it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Got to love it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Got to love it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you dont care about a gigantic ecological disaster that's fine. I suggest getting another plant online that can do the same thing
Re:Got to love it... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
A few corrections. . . (Score:3, Informative)
The Chalk River reactor does supply energy to the power grid. It also makes money from the sale of isotopes; government or not, money matters. The reactor is also 50 years old.
During a routine 5-day maintenance shut-down, it was decided that the reactor needed some new safety features installed designed to protect during natural disasters. It doesn't sound as though there was a fundamental problem of immediate conc
Re:A few corrections. . . (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"We're running behind schedule, could you use the machine with the broken guard? You'll probably get your hair tangled in it, leaving you horribly disfigured for life".
or
"We need this stuff shipped out tonight, could get in that forklift and grab the crates from the highest shelf. It will probably tip over and you'll break your neck".
I was reminded of t
Re: (Score:2)
They will more than likely continue with the maintenance later once the demand has settled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re:Asking for disaster? (Score:5, Informative)
And no, this isn't capable of "spectacular" failure for most values of spectacular.
Media hyperbole... (Score:2, Informative)
Anyhoo, they don't really produce a large fraction of the world's supply of isotopes, simply because transporting the stuff all over the place would be extremely wasteful due to the short life thereof - that is pure media hyperbole. It would be true in an Ontario sort of way, where Ontar
Re:Media hyperbole... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
]{
Re: (Score:2)
Typo EDIT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)