Medical Isotopes and the Proposed U of S Research Reactor:

Making the Link to the UDP Report

Last spring, like so many of us, I had just heard the latest “buzz”, that medical isotopes can be made without nuclear fission.  At the time, I knew little beyond that fact.  Since then, the importance of the issue and the public demand for more information on medical isotopes has led me to learn more about the topic.  I am obviously not an expert on medical isotopes, but I have been able to draw on the information of experts so that I can help to provide more information about the relevance of the research reactor being proposed for the U of S.  To the local experts who gave their advice and spent their time gathering much of the information I am passing on, I offer much gratitude.

When the UDP report proposed a research reactor at the U of S as part of its recommendations for expanding the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan, many of us likely recognized that medical isotopes would be an important issue in the nuclear debate and a potential area of confusion.  This is probably because the nuclear industry implies that nuclear power is necessary if we want medical isotopes.  The reality is that many currently used medical isotopes can be (and are) produced without nuclear reactors, using linear accelerators or cyclotrons. Although accelerators do create small quantities of lingering radioactivity, they do not pose the staggering high-level waste and proliferation problems associated with nuclear reactors, nor do they have any potential for catastrophic accidents of any kind, nor are they capable of producing weapons materials in militarily significant amounts.  Radioisotopes have been used in nuclear medicine, industry and scientific research, starting around 1900 -- half a century before the first nuclear reactors were built.

So what exactly are medical isotopes? 

Medical isotopes (or radioisotopes) are short-lived radioactive forms of chemical elements that are used either in diagnosis or in treatment of disease.  About 80% of radioisotopes in nuclear medicine are used for diagnosis, not for cancer treatment.  Canada has been one of the world’s main suppliers of medical isotopes.  Now, the leaky old Chalk River reactor is too unsafe to operate, and the federal government has abandoned the MAPLE reactors due to escalating cost overruns and major safety problems. The federal government recently began accepting applications from other provinces and locations interested in producing medical isotopes for the Canadian market. While the University of Winnipeg has put in a proposal to produce medical isotopes within three years using a cyclotron at a cost of $35 million, the Government of Saskatchewan and the U of S have put in their proposal to build a $750 million research reactor.  So why would Harper even consider Saskatchewan’s proposal? For the answer, we must look to the UDP Report. The key figure at the university involved in the research reactor proposal is Dr. Richard Florizone, Vice president of Finance at the U of S who was also the chair of the government sponsored Uranium Development Partnership which recommended that the province invest in a research reactor at the university.  According to the report on the public consultations on nuclear in Saskatchewan, the people of Saskatchewan overwhelmingly rejected nuclear power, including the proposed research reactor. So why is our government still pursuing a $750 million research reactor at the U of S when the University of Winnipeg has put in a proposal to produce isotopes for only $35 million using cyclotron technology?

As the UDP report makes clear, a research reactor at the U of S would not be used to research medical isotopes, but rather for other areas of research, including small reactor technology.  There is interest in small reactor technology from mining companies looking to use small reactors for mining at remote locations, or in other words, for “nuclear powered mines”. In the case of the tar sands, the main purpose of small reactors would be remote deployment – using nuclear power for tar sands extraction, reformation and refining, which raises questions around emissions monitoring and regulation, waste transport and disposal, security, and preventing diversion of materials for use in nuclear weapons.  Offering this technology to an industry already known for its appalling environmental record and its disregard of the rights of Indigenous peoples would be a mistake, to say the least. 

In their UDP Stakeholder presentation on June 23rd, the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses rejected a nuclear reactor of any size in Saskatchewan stating that they could not support the health and safety risks that a nuclear reactor would pose to the people of this province.  In the Saskatchewan Medical Association’s UDP Stakeholder presentation later that same afternoon, the SMA called for a baseline health study of the entire population of Saskatchewan.  According to Dr. Dale Dewar of the SMA, this study would take ten years, cost $10 million dollars, and would provide insight into a number of illnesses caused by environmental factors, including cancers and autoimmune illnesses. 

It’s important to note that safer alternatives are being developed and are taking over. For example, the most frequently used procedure in nuclear medicine uses technetium-99m to scan internal organs after the patient ingests the isotope. One alternative to Technetium-99m is the use of PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography scans). PET scans often give better pictures than technetium-99m. Saskatchewan does not have any PET machines, and Saskatchewan may need PET scanners for the improvement of patient care. PET machines are expensive, about 2-3 million dollars each, but when compared to $750 million, they are not so expensive.  As safer alternative technologies continue to be developed, the use of some medical isotopes, such as cobalt-60, may be phased out altogether.

The amount of uranium used for medical isotopes is an extremely small fraction of the uranium used by nuclear power reactors. Even if no new uranium mines were opened up, there would be plenty of uranium to produce medical isotopes for a very long time to come. According to Dr. Dewar, it may be that in a number of years we will look back on radioisotope diagnosis and treatment as beneficial when we didn't know how to do anything else, but "out of date" because it will have been replaced with better, less risky treatment.

But developing safer alternatives, PET machines, and a baseline heath study will all require money.  In this time of economic uncertainty, shouldn’t the federal government be providing our province with funding for these measures instead of accepting a $750 million application from the Government of Saskatchewan to fund Florizone’s research project?   The conflict of interest is easy to see as is the enormous financial risk, especially when one looks at Chalk River and the failed MAPLE reactors.  The youth of this province should not be forced to clean up the mess of toxic waste and debt left behind by a research reactor. 

The youth of this province deserve green jobs.  Why not a research center at the U of S for renewable energy and energy conservation?  Far too many people have been forced to work in unsafe conditions in jobs that, like the natural resources they rely on, run out.  These same people could be working in green jobs that do not require them to sacrifice their personal health and safety.  The people of Saskatchewan are demanding a green energy future that can meet our energy needs while providing long-term solutions to the current economic crisis. It’s time to say no to nuclear and yes to renewable energy for Saskatchewan!

Larissa Shasko,

Leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan.

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. See, http://www.ccnr.org/isotopes.html 

“Manitobans tout low-cost isotope plan” Winnipeg Free Press, Aug. 1, 2009, Pg A4

“Firm raises eyebrows with their suggestion of nuclear powered mines” - Montreal Gazette, Aug. 18, 2009

See, http://www.saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=eacad89c-7b3f-4e4b-96e7-f681d03ad6ad&l=English

See, http://www.saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=2f1fc51f-9d99-48ad-a1ff-9fc630f5af35&l=English

Information in this section provided by Dale Dewar, MD., Past President, Physicians for Global Survival and Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.