[The reactor] produces about 20% of the world's supply of technetium; the rest comes from six other aging reactors in Europe, Australia and South Africa. These reactors bombard highly-enriched uranium targets to produce molybdenum-99, which decays into technetium. Stockpiling the radioisotopes is impossible because of their short half-lives — 66 hours for molybdenum-99, and six [hours] for technetium-99m. As a result, supply disruptions can quickly translate into shortages at hospitals, as happened when two reactors shut down for repairs and maintenance in 2009.
One of the most common medical uses for technetium is single-photo emission computed tomography (SPECT), which can be used to monitor blood flow in the heart and brain and scan bones for tumours.
[...] The United States currently provides the bulk of the world's [highly-enriched uranium] targets but plans to halt shipments of highly enriched uranium by 2020. However, Russia has indicated that it may begin production of molybdenum-99 in the future, and has not yet committed to using [low-enriched uranium] targets.
http://www.nature.com/news/reactor-shutdown-threatens-world-s-medical-isotope-supply-1.20577
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_emission_computed_tomography
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:38AM
Let's spend several hundred million USD of investors' money developing a gadget that depends on better than daily refresh from one particular nuclear power plant in Canada.
(Score: 5, Funny) by butthurt on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:20AM
The molybdenum isotope is what's shipped to hospitals. There, the technetium isomer with the 6-hour half-life (along with "regular" technetium) is eluted out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m_generator [wikipedia.org]
Since the molybdenum isotope has a 66-hour half-life, intercontinental shipments by air ought to be feasible. The North Koreans, it appears, are working on a system to deliver an assortment of fission products to North America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:29PM
also, don't forget after free dispersal of the north korean gift, many abnormal growth might occur so there will be an even greater need for isotopes
to research the gift .. uhm .. fallout. maybe the north koreans can help us out with that too?
(Score: 1) by driven on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:35AM
More information on why they are shutting it down: World's oldest operating reactor, in Chalk River, to close in 2018 [ottawacitizen.com]
Quoting:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:41AM
not to be confused with the NRX reactor at the same site, which had a melt-down in 1952 [cnn.com] that was rated 5 on the International Nuclear Events Scale
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:25AM
Back in 2010 and 2011 they did evaluate the possibility of producing molybdenum-99 in candu-reactors and found that it was very much a viable route.
(Four bundles each in six channels would be enough to meet 110% of the world demand - a normal Candu-6 has 360 to 380 channels with 12 bundles in each)
The processing facility needed are expected to cost some 50 million usd. However it would take a couple of years to build.
Also can be done in virtually any pool-type reactor or any reactor with online refuelling as long as you have decent control over its behaviour (so, we have a couple of hundred reactors capable of doing this - since this pretty much is what research reactors are built to do). The main issue is the processing facility needed.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:25PM
I looked at two earlier Nature articles, from 2012 and 2013. They explain that 99mTc could in theory be made by using particle accelerators instead of nuclear reactors and that efforts to do so had begun.
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/504202a [nature.com]
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2012.10064 [nature.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:45AM
(You may know by now that I'm biased and not in favour of nuclear power plants for energy production)
AFAIK there are two reactors in Europe used for production of radiochemicals for medicine:
The one in Mol in Belgium: BR2 [wikipedia.org]. Built between 1956 and 1964. Not much information about it. Probably a terrorism target for Daesh, after the larger reactor in Doel next to Antwerp, that they already tried to infiltrate [wikipedia.org].
And the one in Petten in north-holland (the Netherlands): Petten nuclear reactor [wikipedia.org], built in 1961, which is suffering from cracks in the concrete, failing safety culture, leaks (tritium, which fortunately only poison the surrounds for a hundred years or so), and corrosion of the coolant pipes.
It's in the dunes [wikipedia.org], but I believe it can't explode, which is good, because those dunes protect half the country from flooding at high tide.
I understand how important these three reactors are for medicine. But it's not a very good idea to build them in some of the most densely populated countries in the world.
Cancer patients that need radiotherapy seem to be screwed...
(Apropos why do countries build their nuclear power plants 10 kilometers from the border with their neighbour closest to the prevailing wind direction [wikipedia.org]???)
wiki:
(that's about the Doel power reactors, not about one of the medical/research reactors. sorry i'm being unclear)
<tinfoil_hat>
I suspect the Dutch and Belgian governments struck a secret deal: "if you don't sue our country for our dangerous crumbling reactor next to your border, we won't sue your country for your dangerous leaky reactor next to our border"
</tinfoil_hat>
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:41PM
You guys just need to import the French 100% Radiation-Proof Border technology, widely advertised in May 1986 when the Germans were busy panicking about some silly cloud.