Canada's nuclear-science brain trust is hanging in the balance as an expert panel begins pondering the future of the country's medical isotopes program.
With problems continuing to plague the aged Chalk River reactor, once the source of more than half the world's supply of the radioactive material vital for cancer and cardiac testing, the four-member panel has been charged with recommending a new source by Nov. 30.
Years ago, the decision would have been simple: where to build new reactor, how big and what kind.
But now their choice is complicated by a rush of upstart groups promising to solve the isotope crisis with cheap, clean particle accelerators rather than billion-dollar nuclear reactors. Industry observers warn, however, that the accelerator option could cost Canada its lofty place in the world of nuclear know-how.
"That entire body of expertise would hollow out," said Dominic Ryan, president of the Canadian Institute for Neutron Scattering. "We have been leaders for a long time and that would disappear."
At least three proposals submitted to the panel before last Friday's deadline advocate an unproven process of using particle accelerators to create molybdenum-99, an isotope that decays into the technetium-99m used in roughly 85 per cent of diagnostic imaging procedures in nuclear medicine.
Momentum is shifting in the challengers' direction. The accelerator-based plans are distinctive for their low sticker price, short development times and lack of radioactive waste.
Proponents of one plan, the Prairie Isotope Production Enterprise based at the University of Winnipeg, promise to build an electron accelerator capable of handling the entire Canadian market for tech-99 at just $35-million. All the work could be done within three years. And what's more, the accelerator wouldn't use bomb-grade uranium, unlike reactors.
Compare that to the University of Saskatchewan's reactor construction plan: a $500- to $750-million price tag and a seven-year timeline.
"To pursue the reactor route at this point and time would be foolish given the other options," said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
"The thing about the accelerator technology is that it's relatively inexpensive and fundamentally pretty simple."
The process still has a few kinks, however.
The accelerator proposal put forth by TRIUMF, a subatomic physics lab at the University of British Columbia, uses an electron accelerator to fire a photon beam at uranium, producing moly-99. But it's an untested process creating an unfamiliar product and a whole lot of questions.
For instance, reactor-based tech-99 is "milked" from moly-99 using a device called a generator, or moly cow. But the accelerator-based moly-99 may differ from reactor-based moly-99 just enough that an entirely new model of cow would have to be manufactured, adding considerably to the startup costs.
"It's a real long shot," Dr. Ryan said. "These accelerator ideas have been floating around for years. I don't know exactly what's stalled them, but I'm guessing that the economics just don't work out."
But the TRIUMF team doesn't pretend to have the process completely priced out.
"TRIUMF does not want to be in the business of producing moly-99," said Nigel Lockyear, director of the lab. "We are interested in demonstrating the technology so that it could be picked up by the private sector."
A decision by the panel in favour of accelerators, however, could signal an end to Canada's leadership in worldwide atomic research at a time when many industry observers are predicting a nuclear reactor renaissance.
"They could very well decide to go solely with an accelerator approach," Mr. Lockyear said. "That's a big decision for the country, though."
Chalk River has been a front-runner in atomic research for decades. It is where Atomic Energy of Canada developed its CANDU reactors and where stress-testing has been conducted on everything from the welds used aboard the ill-fated Columbia space shuttle to steel used in building construction.
