Podcasts about chalk river

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. -------------------- 01 Introduction This is a follow up to my 8 part series on nuclear power. In this episode I will answer questions posed by listeners in the comments to the series. I would like to start by thanking these people for taking the time to submit interesting questions. -------------------- Costs of Small Versus Large Reactors 02 brian-in-ohio asked two questions The first was for a cost comparison between large and small reactors. The second was for nuclear plant safety compared to conventional power plants. 03 Answer I think that any answer to the second question is going to be perceived by some people as politically controversial, so it's probably not a good topic for HPR to address. 04 The first question though about cost of small versus large reactors is an interesting one, although not one that is easy to give an answer to. I will restrict the answer to just grid scale electric power production and ignore use cases such as industrial process heat or power for remote mines and communities. 05 This question comes down to economies of scale versus economies of replication. Economies of scale centre around increased efficiencies of use of materials and labour when making something bigger. For example, the amount of steel used by a pipe increases linearly with its diameter, but the amount of fluid that it transports increases with the square. 06 Economies of replication come from increasing efficiencies which result from serial production. As you repeat the same design over and over again, you learn how to do things better and make fewer mistakes. 07 The exact same principles apply to shipbuilding. Indeed, a lot of the inspiration for Small Modular Reactors comes from the shipbuilding industry. If you build a series of identical ships, then each subsequent ship will cost less and be built faster. There are of course diminishing returns to this process, so the improvements are less with each additional unit and after a sufficient number of units the cost and time reductions level off. 08 However, this doesn't discount the benefits of economies of scale. What it does mean is that there are two ways of approaching the problem, and which way works in any given scenario depends on such conditions as how big the local electricity market is how fast the demand for electricity is growing, the ownership and financing structure of the electricity market, and the geography of the area, which may pose limits on the number of sites. 09 According to the finance people who have crunched the numbers, there are two sizes of reactor which make the most sense in the above context. These are 300 MW and 1000 MW. However, take those as very rough numbers rather than immutable laws of nature and other sizes may work as well. 10 The key point is that there are cases to be made for both small and large reactors, with the large reactor being several times the size of the small one. 11 An additional factor is that building only one reactor does not reap the benefits of efficiency of replication. You need to build a series of them on the same site. So if you are building a power plant, you don't build a power plant that has just one reactor unless you are in a small market which can only use that much power. Instead, you should build between 4 and 6 reactors in sequence next to one another. 12 If you are supply a large population with a growing demand for electricity, then 4 or 6 large 1000 MW reactors gains both economies of scale and economies of replication. If you are supplying a smaller population with slow growth in demand for electricity, then 4 or 6 300 MW reactors at least gets you economies of replication. 13 There is what could be viewed as an interesting example in terms of the above taking place just east of Toronto. There they are building four 300 MW SMRs on a site next to an existing nuclear power plant. 14 Here are the cost estimates from the Government of Ontario. All costs are in Canadian dollars. Unit 1 is $6.1 billion, plus $1.6 billion in costs which are shared by all four unit.s Unit 2 is $4.9 billion. Unit 3 is $4.2 billion. Unit 4 is $4.1 billion. 15 As you can see, building a series of reactors sequentially on the same site results in declining overall costs. They are very confident in these costs as they used data from a series of major nuclear power plant refurbishment projects in Ontario which have been coming in on time and on budget. 16 Construction began last year and the plant is expected to have a 65 year operating life. 17 However, the province of Ontario also has plans for expansion of electrical generation by about 15,000 MW by 2050 in order to meet net zero targets. 18 Given the heavy concentration of population in the Toronto region, and the very high cost and difficulty of building long distance transmission lines, and the limited number of sites which could host new power generation facilities of any sort, I suspect it is quite likely that subsequent reactors will be large 1,000 MW ones rather than SMRs. 19 The Wesleyville site (which is further east of Toronto) is tentatively scheduled for a 10,000 MW nuclear power plant. That would seem to make ten 1,000 MW reactors more likely than 34 300 MW reactors. 20 I don't have a comparable set of numbers for building large reactors to give an exact apples to apples comparison of costs. Different countries use different accounting and financing systems, and finance makes a huge difference to overall costs for nuclear power as operating costs are a relatively small share of the total. 21 Now to look at another side of this equation, the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick wish to replace their coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants. The populations of these provinces are too small to absorb a large new power plant into their grids, and studies assuming large reactors have foundered on this issue. 22 New Brunswick already have a nuclear power plant, but it was build in the days when reactors were much smaller. Both provinces however are very interested in small reactors, even individual ones, in order to replace the coal fired plants that are of similar size. 23 I think this covers the cost versus size issue. The more I look into it, the more it becomes apparent that there is no simple one size fits all answer but rather there are a series of trade-offs which must be taken in light of local circumstances. -------------------- MOX Fuel in the USA 24 The next question comes from mnw who asked about the use of MOX fuel in the USA. 25 mnw asked I am enjoying and look forward to the rest of the series. Do you think the US will ever wake up and start recycling its spent fuel? It seems like such a huge waste just to try and keep a small amount of fuel away from"the bad guys" or whatever they are imagining. Answer 26 My answer to this is as follows. I think I've addressed this in the original series, although not directly with respect to the US so I can provide some more detail on that aspect of it. 27 First though I will review what plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is. As mentioned in previous episodes, military grade plutonium is not the same as the plutonium which comes out of commercial power reactors. Just as military grade uranium requires nearly pure U-235 isotope, military grade plutonium requires nearly pure Pu-239 isotope. 28 What comes out of a commercial power reactor as spent fuel is not usable for weapons purposes as the proportion of Pu-239 is much too low. However, plutonium recovered from spent fuel can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors in place of uranium 235 when mixed with uranium 238 either left over from enrichment or extracted from spent fuel. This is what is known as MOX fuel. 29 To look at the US history of this however, here's the sequence of events. The US banned fuel reprocessing in 1976. However, this ban was repealed in 1981. 30 In 2005, the US began building a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel plant at Savannah River in the state of South Carolina. However, this plant was not intended as a normal commercial operation and it was not intended to recycle commercial nuclear power plant fuel. It was instead intended to convert surplus military grade plutonium into commercial fuel in order to get rid of it as part of an arms control program. 31 The program was suspended in 2018. There were apparently many complex political issues involved in these on-again off-again decisions and I won't pretend to have the time or interest to explore all the details nor do I think most listeners would be interested in hearing abou them. 32 As of March 2026, the US are looking at reviving part of the Savannah River plant to produce limited amounts of fuel for testing of advanced reactors. The issue driving this is the shortage of uranium enriched to just below 20%. This fuel is used in certain types of small SMR. 33 The main commercial supplier of this material was a plant in Russia, but "certain events in Europe in recent years" shall we say, have resulted in that supply no longer being available to commercial operations in the US. MOX fuel based on surplus weapons grade plutonium is intended as a short term quick fix for that problem. 34 Another driving force is legal requirements following from domestic commitments for the US government to dispose of certain stockpiles of weapons grade plutonium from certain sites in the US where it is "temporarily" stored, and the solution to that is seen as burning it up in power reactors. 35 So the history is the US banned fuel reprocessing. Then a few years later they un-banned it. Then the US government started building a MOX plant which was intended to get rid of surplus weapons grade material by burning it up in power reactors. Then they decided they didn't want to do that. Then they decided they may want to make MOX fuel after all to replace supplies of special grades of fuel for experimental or prototype reactors. 36 What is missing from the above history is any actual interest from the US commercial nuclear industry in MOX fuel. The reason for this is, as mentioned in the previous episodes, uranium is so cheap and abundant that fuel made from fresh uranium is cheaper than MOX fuel. 37 Some countries such as France wish to recycle spent fuel to reduce their dependence upon imports. Recall that France's drive to build nuclear power plants was in response to the 1970s era energy crisis when oil imports from the Middle East were suddenly cut off. However, the US are not concerned about this issue and so do not make it national security policy as France did. 38 As a result, US commercial demand is for cheaper fuel made from fresh uranium rather than for MOX fuel. Until such time as fresh uranium greatly increases in price there is little economic incentive for the use of MOX fuel in the US. 39 However, there is another aspect to this. If you recall in previous episodes I described molten salt reactors which used dissolved uranium fuel. These reactors inherently reprocess fuel as part of their normal operation. They just do it as part of maintaining the molten salt chemistry at the correct values rather than doing it as a separate process. 40 If these types of reactors become widely used then they would be achieving the same thing as creating MOX fuel, but without an explicit separate step. 41 As a final footnote to the above, the US has almost exclusively use enriched uranium light water reactors. As mentioned in previous episodes, there are ways of recycling spent fuel from light water reactors which do not involve chemically reprocessing it to make MOX fuel. 42 Experiments have been done involving South Korea, China, and Canada which take spent fuel from light water reactors and repackage it to fit it into natural uranium heavy water reactors. What is used up or "spent" fuel for a light water reactor is high grade fuel to a natural uranium reactor. However, the US has, for whatever reason, never built commercial natural uranium reactors such as are used in a number of other countries around the world. 43 If they were to do so, then nuclear fuel could be used twice, once in a light water reactor, and again in a natural uranium reactor, all without having to turn it into MOX fuel in a separate reprocessing step. However, this particular alternative would likely face the same issue in the sense that fresh fuel would still be cheaper than reusing spent fuel. -------------------- A Variety of Questions from Clinton 44 Next we have a variety of questions from Clinton. Clinton asked I would like some commentary in the current situation, why has hinkley gone off the rails, the new american approach, the odd things done after fukushima, the new radiation rules in the states. 45 Question 1 why has hinkley gone off the rails, 46 Answer The question refers to cost overruns at the Hinkley Point nuclear power project in the UK. The UK government looked into this issue in a more general sense in 2025. They published a report on it titled Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 Enabling nuclear delivery through regulatory reform John Fingleton There is a link to the report in the show notes. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692080f75c394e481336ab89/nuclear-regulatory-review-2025.pdf 47 As the report is 162 pages long, I won't try to cover it all in this answer. I will however give a few simple examples. The report focuses on civilian nuclear power and the defence nuclear industry as well. However it also draws examples from outside the nuclear industry to show that the problem is not limited to nuclear. It shows that the same problems exist in the offshore wind industry, and in the HS2 High Speed Rail project. 48 In the view of the authors of the report, the essence of the problem seems to be a lack of any degree of proportionality in terms of mitigating negative effects from any project. Big nuclear projects make the headlines because they are inherently big projects, but as I have just mentioned, they affect things like wind power development and rail transport as well. 49 I will pick one example from Hinkley Point specifically. This is "Case Study: Hinkley Point C Fish Protection" A summary of this is that they spent £700 million of additional money on the cooling water intakes to protect an estimated 0.083 salmon per year, along with 0.028 sea trout, 6 river lamprey, 18 Allis shad, and somewhere between 100 and 528 twaite shad. The report points out that there are ways to protect far more fish for far less money by spending it in other areas, and gives some examples. Again, this problem is not limited to nuclear power, and they give similar examples connected with offshore wind development and HS2 High Speed Rail. 50 I would like to emphasize that I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not any of these decisions were good or bad ones or whether the money was well spent. I am just summarizing the report's explanation of why large projects of all sorts initiated and approved by the UK parliament were not turning out as initially expected. I will leave it up to people in the UK to decide whether or not they are satisfied with the current situation. 51 Question 2 the new american approach, 52 Answer The US have apparently announced changes to their regulatory system. I don't know enough about the subject to really judge the practical effects of regulation within the US. However, I have read and listened to many interviews of people from both the industry and the regulatory side of things who are from outside the US but are familiar with it. They generally contrast two different approaches to regulation. On the one hand there is the US approach, which they see as being more of a box ticking exercise than an in depth safety review. This makes it very hard to get a design other than a traditional PWR or BWR approved in the US. 53 It has the advantage from the regulator side of things though in that it reduces the amount of work required as it primarily requires just following a set of defined procedures. These people then contrast that approach with the one used in the UK and in Canada, both of which they see as being very similar to one another. In those two countries, regulators work with industry to review designs from basic principles rather than just seeing if it meets a pre-defined list of criteria. This is a results oriented system rather than a process oriented system as used in the US. 54 As a result of this, designers of new nuclear reactors are going to the UK and Canada first to go through preliminary review there, and only going to the US later. What designers are looking for is feedback on their design as they go along in order to align the design with what safety regulators see as being required from their standpoint. They want to go into a review process before the design is finalized so they can get guidance on how they should approach things rather than trying to add safety as additional features on top of a finished design. 55 It would take someone with deep familiarity with nuclear regulation systems to understand the practical effects of recent changes in US regulatory systems, but it is quite possible that people within the regulatory structure in the US have been taking the above on board and trying to adapt to current circumstances. However, I can only speculate on that. This is about the best answer that I can give. 56 Question 3 the odd things done after fukushima, 57 Answer This covers a lot of topics, some of which are probably political and so are not suited to HPR. I will try to list a few events however. As a brief summary if the Fukushima events go however, a historic scale earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011 caused huge loss of life and widespread damage. About 20,000 people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami. Three nuclear reactors based on 1960s era GE BWR designs were seriously damaged by hydrogen explosions caused by loss of power to backup generators when they were flooded by the tsunami. However, there were no radiation related deaths or cases of radiation sickness. 58 Following events in Japan was a general review of designs around the world, with various improvements made in some areas, particularly backup generators and hydrogen management. It seems to be conventional wisdom that the Fukushima event caused a number of countries to decide to phase out nuclear power. 59 However, when I tried to make a list of such countries for this episode I found things were not as is often heard. The countries which decided to get rid of nuclear power had largely started down that road at least a decade before then and generally for reasons unrelated to any specific events outside of their own country. In other cases they reversed that decision or are in the process of doing so. Japan itself has restarted many of their nuclear power plants and plant to replace decommissioned nuclear power plants with new ones, although many of the older and smaller ones were considered not economically worth upgrading at this point in their life to restart them. 60 The one possible exception to this may be Taiwan which decided to phase out nuclear power in 2016. However, I don't know enough about Taiwanese politics to state with any confidence that their decision in 2016 was based on anything related to events in Japan, or whether in fact they were a byproduct of other political changes within Taiwan and the shut down of nuclear plants happened to be carried along with those. Currently Taiwan get their electricity primarily from natural gas and coal. 61 Meanwhile across mainland Asia from Turkey to China, large numbers of nuclear power plants were built or are under construction. Taken together on a global scale, did anything really change after Fukushima, or did the countries which had already decided to close down their nuclear power plants simply continue to do so, and those countries who decided they wanted more of them continue to build them? That's a good question for which I don't think anyone has the perspective to answer at this point. 62 Another side of this which is hard to disentangle from it though is the increased use of natural gas for electric power generation which was happening at around the same time. Increased use of fracking in a number of countries, plus increased supplies from Russia and LNG from the Middle East and other places resulted in falls in natural gas prices in many places. Since combined cycle natural gas turbines form the main competitor to nuclear power, anything which improves the economics of natural gas will act to reduce demand for nuclear power. This makes it hard to decide to what degree the reduction in the number of reactors being built was due to the political effects of the earthquake and tsunami and to what degree it was due to cheaper natural gas through fracking and other means. I'll leave that question at that. 63 Question 4 the new radiation rules in the states. 64 Answer I'm not deeply familiar with US radiation rules, but I will attempt to answer the question. Apparently there are wide variety of different things being addressed, only some of which have any relevance to the nuclear power industry. One of these is an epidemiological study on the current exposure limits for workers in the nuclear industry. This study will take place over about 5 years. In the end it may not result in any changes. This is for a number of reasons. 65 One is that US exposure thresholds for workers are currently aligned with international standards. It would be difficult for the US industry to operate on a different basis than the rest of the world when supply chains are global and kit is designed to meet currently recognized standards. Another is that apparently the nuclear industry are not, so far as I can discern, asking for any changes to limits. They instead are looking for changes to how some of the details are being applied, such as for example the criteria for deciding when respirators are required in low risk environments. 66 Some point to recent changes in UK regulations as an example of what they are looking for. I will post a link to the new (November of 2025) UK regulations in the show notes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-industry-principles-to-guide-the-application-of-as-low-as-reasonably-practicable-alarp-and-best-available-techniques-bat/ways-of-working-principles-to-guide-the-application-of-alarp-and-bat-in-the-nuclear-industry-accessible-webpage This is about as much detail as I think I can comment on when it comes to this question, as I think it is a subject that requires a fair bit more practical knowledge of than I have in order to give a thorough and balanced answer. -------------------- 67 Question from Antoine Were/are the designs patented? Hi, Whiskeyjack. Nice ep. You said AGR, based on Magnox, was a nuclear reactor type that did not sell well outside the UK. I then started thinking if it were (is) possible to another countries to develop by themselves based on that project, or if it had (has) a commercial restriction for exploration of the technology. I have yet to listen to the following episodes (doing little by little) and may learn better on the choices, but I felt free to present the question by now... Thanks! 68 Answer This is a very good question because it offers the opportunity to talk about a number of interesting things that haven't been touched on yet. Let's cover a bit of background first. 69 A patent is a time limited right to exploit a defined bit of valuable technical knowledge. Patents were involved from the very earliest days of commercial nuclear power, and I will give an example of this later. A key point to keep in mind though is that the nuclear power field moves very slowly and it takes a long time for new knowledge to make it from the lab to commercial application. Patents will often expire before they reach the point where they can be used. 70 Contracts on the other hand are legally enforceable agreements between two parties. A contract may have a time limited life, but that is an arrangement between the parties. A commercial nuclear power plant is a very large and complex bit of kit and not easily copied in detail. It can be far more effective to cover designs under contracts and licenses than to rely on patents. If a country wished to build their own nuclear power plants rather than buying them from someone else, there are a large number of companies who have commercial designs they are willing to license to third parties for them to build themselves. Indeed a number of these companies base their business around licensing of designs or have other reasons for wishing to do so. 71 From a licensee perspective, it could take decades of work and hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to take a design from first principle to the ready to build state, wheras licensing a design give you a proven design right away. As mentioned in previous episodes, there many types of reactor in the world. The selection of what sort of reactor a country decides to buy often depends more on commercial considerations revolving around licensing terms and conditions than it does with respect to any technical considerations. Here's an example which shows how South Korea decided to license a design, build it for themselves, and then export it to other countries. 72 KunMo Chung - Professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, stated in an interview in 2019 that South Korea wanted to standardize on a single reactor technology in the early 1980s. They had reactors from multiple different vendors, but wanted to license an existing successful design to produce for themselves and for the export market. One of the major factors in deciding to standardize was to allow them to improve operator training by focusing on one design. Professor Chung stated that one of the key factors in selecting a design from ABB-Combustion Engineering was that he personally knew and had a good relationship with the Chief Technical Officer of ABB-Combustion Engineering going back to a time when Professor Chung had been studying and working in the USA. 73 On their side, ABB-Combustion Engineering were having financial problems and they needed a partner to help further develop their new PWR design. Also they stood to gain revenue from this partnership as well. Based on this relationship, the two sides came to a business agreement and South Korea began producing reactors based on this design, while also continuing to develop and improve it further. 74 Here's an example of a case where the developers of a promising technology decided that they had more to gain by not patenting their technology. Instead they decided to freely share their information in order to get other researchers elsewhere to help to advance the technology so that all could benefit from it. 75 In an interview Wacław Gudowski - Prof. Emeritus, Royal Institute of Technology KTH Stockholm stated that the Soviets and later the Russian were the leaders in lead-bismuth cooled reactors. These reactors use lead-bismuth liquid metal alloy as a coolant. In the 1990s the Russian institute working on commercializing this technology were working with Western partners on nuclear technology in general. They considered patenting this technology, but in the end decided to simply publish it openly. 76 Professor Gudowski had even smuggled $60,000 in cash into Russia to finance the patent application in order to get the Russian institute to publish their technology, but the money was not needed. They based this decision on the judgment that it would take 20 years of R&D before the technology was ready for the commercial market, so they wouldn't see a penny on any patents anyway. They were right on this, as it was another 20 years of R&D in Europe, Russia, China, and Korea before lead-bismuth technology was ready for commercial use. 77 It had already seen use in submarine reactors, but the commercial market demanded a more thoroughly developed technology to satisfy commercial needs. By deciding to not patent the technology, the original developers gained from shared R&D rather than chasing the illusary gains from patent licenses on technology that was not ready for the commercial market anyway. 78 I said that patents were involved in nuclear technology from the very earliest days, and I will now turn to that story. When I say the earliest days, I mean probably earlier than you are imaging. I am talking about before WWII. 79 First though I need to give some background information. France and Britain were working on nuclear weapons from the very earliest days of WWII. In Britain's case this was called Tube Alloys. Canada also was conducting nuclear experiments, including building an "atomic pile", but it's not clear if this had any clear practical goals or was done to understand the physics better. 80 If you read the Wikipedia version of history, it states that Tube Alloys was merged into the Manhattan Project. However, participants have stated in interviews that this was not the case, and the Quebec Agreement which supposedly merged them makes no such mention of any merger of the projects, just the setting up of a board to coordinate efforts between the three countries, that is the US, UK, and Canada. In fact the two projects didn't get along that well, and as we shall see below, a big part of that was disputes over patents. ### 81 The following is based on a paper written by Bertrand Goldschmidt, a French nuclear scientist. Two of his colleagues, Hans Halban and Lew Kowarski played a critical role in early nuclear research. Halban in particular was one of the greatest scientific names in nuclear fission. In March of 1939 Halban conducted an experiment showing that neutrons were emitted by the fissioning of uranium. 82 In April Joliot, Halban, Kowarski and Perrin had a pretty good idea of how to use nuclear fission to produce energy and to make an explosive device and decided to file patents on their invention. Each of the four would receive a 5% share of any benefits and the other 80% would go to the research instittute they worked at in Paris. I will now quote from Goldschmidt's paper. 83 The first two patents concerned energy production and were entitled "Device for energy production" and "Method for stabilizing a device for energy production." They roughly defined the principles of the main components of our present power reactors: moderator in heterogeneous or homogeneous arrangements, cooling fluid, control rods, protection shield. The third patent called "Method for perfecting explosive charges" was less brilliant from a foresight point of view though it proposed valid solutions for the trigger, the tamper, and the rapid obtainment of the critical assembly of a possible explosive device. Finally, nearly a year later, after Alfred Nier's experimental confirmation in March 1940 of Niels Bohr's theoretical prediction that uranium 235, the rare isotope of the mixture in natural uranium, was responsible for fission by slow neutrons, the French took out an additional patent on the advantage of using enriched uranium for the chain reaction. End of quote. 84 In May of 1940, the CNRS, the French research institute in Paris, negotiated an agreement with Belgian mining company Union Miniere, who were the world's biggest producer of uranium, at the time a byproduct of radium mining, about a partnership for the world wide exploitation of these patents. However the agreement was not finalized due to the ongoing events in the war. At the beginning of the war, the French government had approved the development of an energy generator - or a nuclear reactor as we would say today, with the intention of creating an engine for submarines. 85 With the fall of France, Halban and Kowarski travelled to the UK with their supply of heavy water where they were received by their UK counterparts, James Chadwick and John Cockroft. The British were already working on an atomic bomb. In the UK the two conducted an experiment showing that it was possible to create nuclear energy using natural uranium and heavy water. In 1941 the British nuclear project was reorganized and given the name Tube Alloys. In 1942 it was decided to move the work on a plutonium bomb to Canada, and Canada would pay for the project. A lab was set up in Montreal and Halban was put in charge of the project. 86 Halban had negotiated this arrangement by offering to arrange to have the French patents for world wide rights outside of France and the French empire transferred to the UK. In return the French team were to be given a key role in the British nuclear project. The author of the paper I am referencing, Bertrand Goldschmidt, was a section leader in Montreal and a colleague of Halban from France. The Montreal group cooperated with the American Manhattan Project and the two shared information and exchanged visits. 87 However, relations between the two began to break down, with a major cause of this being the Americans being unhappy about the French patents and Halban's arrangement to give the British world wide rights to them. The postwar commercial potential for nuclear power was seen to be huge, and this was a major bone of contention. The extensive participation of ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) engineers in the Tube Alloys project was also objectionable to the Americans. Presumably this had something to do with potential for ICI being involved in future commercialization of the technology. The American Dupont company, a commercial rival of ICI, was also heavily involved in the American atomic bomb project. The eventual result of this was that the US cut off cooperation with the UK-Canada nuclear project. 88 Finally Halban was forced out of the project at the insistence of the Americans, and he was replaced by John Cockroft who moved to Montreal to take charge of the project. The Americans now restore limited cooperation. Kowarski was put in charge of building a heavy water moderated natural uranium reactor at a new site north of Ottawa at Chalk River. This reactor was turned on on the 5th of September, 1945, three days after Japan's surrender. So in what was supposedly a titanic war for survival, key allies were falling out with respect to their ultimate weapon over issues of patents covering post war commercialization. 89 With the end of the war, the nuclear weapons project in Montreal and Chalk River was wound up. Halban, Kowarski, and Goldschmidt returned to France and Cockroft to the UK where they all played senior roles in the nuclear programs of their respective countries. John Cockroft played an important role in the development of the Magnox reactors which Antoine asked about. The Chalk River Site remains as Canada's main nuclear research centre to this day, and Canada was to continue development of heavy water moderated natural uranium reactors. 90 The first commercial nuclear power plant was commissioned in the UK in 1956, roughly 17 years after the original French nuclear patents. At that time, UK patents had a term of 16 years. While I am not a patent lawyer, it would appear that these patents would likely have expired before nuclear power was ever commercialized. So to answer the question about patents, the first patents on nuclear energy date to before WWII started, and the very first two were about nuclear power plants and it was only the third one which covered nuclear weapons. -------------------- 91 Thanks to other listeners. A number of other listeners made comments saying they were really enjoying the series. I would like to thank the following for their kind words of encouragement. They helped make the work required to do this worthwhile. They are brian-in-ohio mnw Clinton Antoine bjb Kevin O'Brien Trey L'andrew Archer72 Jim DeVore If you have commented but I have forgotten your name, or if the show was recorded before I got a chance to read your comment, I would still like to thank you. 92 Conclusion I would like to thank all the listeners for their kind comments and insightful questions. I hope that I have answered these questions to the satisfaction of everyone. I look forward to hearing from all of you in future podcast episodes including those on other topics. -------------------- Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Association and 10th annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society. V. 1-3 https://inis.iaea.org/records/m2s41-40917 This has a paper by Bertrand Goldschmidt about the work of the French scientists in Canada. -------------------- Provide feedback on this episode.

Our lead story: as proceedings begin at the Federal Court of Appeal, some 50 supporters gather outside to back Kebaowek First Nation's efforts to keep blocking proposed radioactive waste disposal site at Chalk River, ON.

Our lead story: the Kebaowek First Nation stages a joint press conference in Ottawa ahead of a judicial review of their legal challenge to construction of a nuclear waste disposal site at Chalk River, ON.

Parlons nucléaire. Les restes de la centrale nucléaire Gentilly-1 à Bécancour, qui a cessé d’être en opération en 1977, seront démantelés pour être envoyés sur le bord d’une source d’eau potable à Chalk River sur la frontière entre le Québec et l’Ontario. Entrevue avec Anne Caroline Desplanques, journaliste au Bureau d’Enquête Regardez aussi cette discussion en vidéo via https://www.qub.ca/videos ou en vous abonnant à QUB télé : https://www.tvaplus.ca/qub ou sur la chaîne YouTube QUB https://www.youtube.com/@qub_radio Pour de l'information concernant l'utilisation de vos données personnelles - https://omnystudio.com/policies/listener/fr

Our lead story: King Charles' whirlwind tour Tuesday of Ottawa—a speech from the throne, plus a stop at the National War Memorial—includes key roles for Indigenous people. . . . . . . . . .  Interstitial: ZapSplat.com

California Legion members standing strong and supporting communities devastated by wildfires. THE INTERVIEW Patrick Murphy, who joined the Army at 19, worked his way up to become the 32nd Army Under Secretary and America's first Iraq War veteran to serve in Congress. Today, he continues to serve his brothers and sisters. SCUTTLEBUTT Happy Birthday Coast Guard How Navy veteran Charles Sanna changed hot chocolate forever Remembering President Jimmy Carter Special Guest: Hon. Patrick J. Murphy.

Why are we 3D printing nuclear fuel at Chalk River Labs? It's a question we're answering this episode with fuel...

That's what we're exploring this episode with the help of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories' new head of radiobiology Dr. Marcelo Vazquez,...

Découvrez le podcast Dollars et cents ici: https://bit.ly/dollars-cents-ib 10 janvier 2024 Québec a donné une première autorisation ministérielle à NorthvoltCette autorisation permettra à l'entreprise suédoise d'entamer dans les prochains jours des travaux préparatoires sur son immense terrain à Saint-Basile-le-Grand et McMasterville, en Montérégie.Le gouvernement prévoit 300 millions $ pour son plan de rattrapage scolaireLes élèves qui en ont besoin auront accès à des heures de tutorat en dehors des heures de classe. Des activités de rattrapage seront offertes sur une base volontaire pendant la semaine de relâche.Des cours d'été gratuits seront proposés aux élèves de 4e et 5e secondaire.Un entrepôt de déchets nucléaires sera construit sur un terrain fédéral, près du Québec La Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire a autorisé hier la construction au niveau du sol d'un entrepôt de déchets légèrement radioactifs sur le site des Laboratoires de Chalk River, en Ontario, tout près de la rivière des Outaouais.L'eau des bouteilles en plastique contiendrait beaucoup plus de nanoplastiques qu'on le pensaitSelon une étude menée par des chercheurs de l'Université Columbia et publiée dans une revue scientifique américaine, un litre d'eau provenant d'une bouteille en plastique contient en moyenne 240 000 particules de plastique. C'est jusqu'à 100 fois plus que ce qui avait pu être mesuré auparavant.Les nanoplastiques font moins d'un micromètre (un micromètre, c'est un millionième de mètre, ou si vous préférez un millième de millimètre). Le danger potentiel est que ces infimes particules peuvent être absorbées par les cellules et les organes, dont le cerveau.La Nasa repousse d'environ 1 an ses 2 prochaines missions lunairesLes banques canadiennes sont accusées de pratiques trompeuses par le groupe Investors for Paris Compliance (les investisseurs pour la conformité à l'Accord de Paris). La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec fait un nouveau prêt important à AppDirect, une plateforme transactionnelle spécialisée dans l'abonnement à des services infonuagiques pour entreprises. Le cours du bitcoin s'est envolé après un faux tweet des autorités américainesDuolingo remplace 10% de ses sous-traitants par l'intelligence artificielle--- Détails sur ces nouvelles et autres nouvelles: https://infobref.com S'abonner aux infolettres gratuites d'InfoBref: https://infobref.com/infolettres Voir comment s'abonner au balado InfoBref sur les principales plateformes de balado: https://infobref.com/audio Commentaires et suggestions à l'animateur Patrick Pierra, et information sur la commandite de ce balado: editeur@infobref.com Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Seventy-eight years ago, on August 6, 1945, the US dropped a uranium-enriched fission bomb, code named ‘Little Boy', on the Japanese port city, Hiroshima. Three days later, they dropped a second bomb, a plutonium-implosion device — Fat Man — on Nagasaki. When the dust settled, between 130 and 225,000 people were dead or dying. To this day, casualty numbers vary widely. One thing is clear: almost all were civilians. Thousands more would sicken and die in the years to come. America's public rationale for its nuclear bombing of Japan: avoiding the huge casualties that would supposedly have resulted from putting boots on Japanese soil. Other, more cynical reasons would emerge in time.This is a story about America's development of Little Boy and Fat Man, featuring interviews with German-American nuclear physicist Hans Bethe, head of the theoretical physics division of the Los Alamos Laboratory, where America's first nuclear ‘device', Trinity, was developed, and the winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physics. Host David Kattenburg interviewed Bethe in his office at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York. You'll also hear from Martin Johns, late Professor Emeritus of physics at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario, and researcher at Canada's Chalk River nuclear facility, about the history of Canada's involvement in the development of America's nuclear bombs.Find more Green Planet Monitor, and support the show, at https://www.greenplanetmonitor.net/

Seventy-eight years ago, on August 6, 1945, the US dropped a uranium-enriched fission bomb, code named ‘Little Boy', on the Japanese port city, Hiroshima. Three days later, they dropped a second bomb, a plutonium-implosion device — Fat Man — on Nagasaki. When the dust settled, between 130 and 225,000 people were dead or dying. To this day, casualty numbers vary widely. One thing is clear: almost all were civilians. Thousands more would sicken and die in the years to come. America's public rationale for its nuclear bombing of Japan: avoiding the huge casualties that would supposedly have resulted from putting boots on Japanese soil. Other, more cynical reasons would emerge in time.This is a story about America's development of Little Boy and Fat Man, featuring interviews with German-American nuclear physicist Hans Bethe, head of the theoretical physics division of the Los Alamos Laboratory, where America's first nuclear ‘device', Trinity, was developed, and the winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physics. Host David Kattenburg interviewed Bethe in his office at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York. You'll also hear from Martin Johns, late Professor Emeritus of physics at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario, and researcher at Canada's Chalk River nuclear facility, about the history of Canada's involvement in the development of America's nuclear bombs.Find more Green Planet Monitor, and support the show, at https://www.greenplanetmonitor.net/

This was a longtime coming, but we were super excited to meet and welcome our guest this week on Where's That Bar Cart.  It's former CityTV/Sportsnet/Fan 590 broadcaster and current Brand Ambassador for Golf Town/Sporting Life, it's High Burrill!! Hugh talks about his humble beginnings in Chalk River hitting golf balls at his best friend, his favourite GTA course at TPC Toronto at Osprey Valley, and what it was like to play a round with the legendary Walter Gretzky. Check out Hugh's new podcast “Come Out and Play” wherever you get fine pods, like this one! Follow Hugh @hughbinsta.Thanks for listening, and play well out there. Follow us at:- @wheresthatbarcart- linkt.ree/wheresthatbarcart- @dpurcomic- @montymofoscott- @nickdurie- @ginalouisephillips- @comedyrecordsMusic by Devin BatesonThank you to Betstamp and Comedy Records

1) The history of Chalk River and how Canadian Nuclear Laboratories covers the whole spectrum of nuclear projects 2) How Joe's career path lead him into the broader energy and nuclear spaces - A ‘how to' on entering the nuclear industry 3) The public perception of nuclear energy and how CNL focuses largely on environmental remediation and cleanup 4) A deep dive into medical isotopes and the Vision 2030 Plan

Indigenous groups say they must lead investigations into former residential school sites; that time Jimmy Carter helped contain a nuclear disaster in Chalk River, Ontario; the ever-growing buzz around the breakout Indian blockbuster RRR; can Hogwarts Legacy stand apart from J.K. Rowling?; how one entrepreneur became the go-to source for tracking tech sector layoffs; how Pentecostal Christianity is shaping global politics; and more.

Engineering News – Imaging Technology for Autonomous Cars (3:20) This week's engineering failure is the Chalk River Nuclear Accidents (11:05). The Chalk River Nuclear Facility north of Ottawa suffered two nuclear accidents in the 1950s. The first with the NRX reactor in 1952 (17:00) and the second with the NRU reactor in 1958 (27:35). Check out our Patreon page for Mini Failure bonus episodes - https://www.patreon.com/failurology Photos/Sources/Summary from this episode - https://www.failurology.ca/ Ways to get in touch Twitter - https://twitter.com/failurology Email - thefailurologypodcast@gmail.com Linked In - https://www.linkedin.com/company/failurology-podcast YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh1Buq46PYyxKbCDGTqbsDg

En 1952, une perte de contrôle du réacteur nucléaire de Chalk River a contaminé l'eau et l'air environnants. Cet incident s'est reproduit en 1958, dans une centrale pourtant réputée pour être ultramoderne, située au confluent de la rivière Chalk et de la rivière des Outaouais, en Ontario. Le journaliste scientifique et physicien Jean-Marc Carpentier nous rappelle ces événements.

If you listened to last week's episode, you already know Denys Elliot, Commercial Lead for the Advanced Reactor Directorate at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL). In this episode of the YPE Podcast, Denys talks with hosts Mark Hinaman and Sean McGhee about CNL's strategic research initiatives, the exciting work being done with small modular reactors (SMRs), and Denys's insights on the future of the industry. Show notes: 01:29 Denys's background 07:11 The mission of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) 09:04 How the nuclear industry is viewed in Canada; advantages of the CANDU reactor design; ongoing and future nuclear projects 14:04 CNL's three strategic research priorities; the importance of the actinium-225 isotope to cancer research 22:54 Supporting small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies; CNL's relationship with Canada's nuclear regulator; Chalk River's SMR demonstration project 35:16 Denys's work with the North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NAYGN) 38:58 What excites & scares Denys most about the future of the energy industry 44:26 Denys's advice for young professionals in the energy industry 47:07 Where Denys sees the nuclear industry in the next decade Denys's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/denys-elliot-87984399/ Find an NAYGN chaper near you: https://naygn.org/chapters/ More about CNL's mission, the SMR siting project, and actinium-225: https://www.cnl.ca/about-cnl/corporate-profile-mission-and-values/ https://www.cnl.ca/clean-energy/small-modular-reactors/siting-canadas-first-smr/ https://www.cnl.ca/health-science-2/actinium-225/

5G is the enabling technology for a new generation of smart phones and IoT connected devices, promising low latency, high-bandwidth communications. The commercial potential for the technology is massive, and as it rolls out in the US, an unexpected consequence of 5G has emerged: interference with aircraft radar altimeters. Radar altimeters are safety critical, basic flight instruments for commercial airliners, and the use reflected beams of radiofrequency radiation there similar to the signals emitted by wireless service providers. 5G towers operating the vicinity of airports could jam radar altimeters signals during final approach to a runway, which in low visibility conditions could be safety critical. The FAA is scrambling to certify which radar altimeter models and aircraft are safe for use in 5G environments, but not all airplanes have yet been approved, and regional jets are still under study. Small modular reactors represent the new wave of nuclear fission technology which promises to deliver clean, carbon free power at low cost. Compared to traditional light and heavy water reactor designs, SMRs are designed to operate without large containment structures or the complex and layered safety systems necessary for traditional reactors. Hyundai Engineering has taken a $30 million equity stake in Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, were building a test reactor to demonstrate the company's novel single pass uranium fuel cycle. Using encapsulated TRISO fuel, the design will deliver 5 MW-e in HR transportable form factor that can be deployed almost anywhere. The reactors pre-fuels at the factory and is simply replaced after 20 years of operation. The high-temperature gas cooled design requires minimal human monitoring and shows interesting possibilities for process and space heating applications as well as thermal power generation. The test unit is scheduled to go online in 2026 at Chalk River in Ontario, Canada. Access all episodes of https://www.engineering.com/viewAll?category=this-week-in-engineering (This Week in Engineering) on engineering.com TV along with all of our other series.

Canada's main site for nuclear innovation...and accidents. Follow the trail of nuclear wastes across our country to ground zero of Canada's nuclear ambitions: Chalk River, Ontario. Ole Hendrickson is president of the Ottawa River Institute, member of Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. Learn more about the dangers of tritium exposure at Tritium Awareness Project.

Understanding Energy Crises of the 1970s and Avoiding Problems Today. If you were alive and living in the U.S. during the 1970s, you probably remember waiting in long lines to fill your car with fuel. Yet, gasoline wasn't the only item in short supply during the “Me Decade”—natural gas was seemingly running out and electricity demand was growing so much that new power plants were going up all over the country. “I would argue, and I think a lot of historians would agree with me, that the 1970s was the most important decade in U.S. energy history, and I say that because of the gasoline interruptions. We had three big crises in the Middle East that reduced our supplies of oil, and that got so bad that at one point, in some states, less than 50% of the stations had any gasoline to sell at all,” Jay Hakes, author of the forthcoming book Energy Crises: Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Hard Choices in the 1970s, said as a guest on The POWER Podcast. “It was also a time where electric demand was expanding at a very rapid rate. There was a lot of optimism that nuclear would fill most of that void,” Hakes said. However, as fate would have it, the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979 pretty much put an end to the nuclear power construction heyday. In addition to writing books, Hakes has served as the administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration during the Clinton administration and as director for Research and Policy for President Obama's BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Commission. He was also the director of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library for 13 years, and he has had access to some of President Carter's personal diaries, giving him unique insight into the events that occurred during Carter's presidency. “Jimmy Carter worked for Admiral Rickover when they developed the first nuclear submarine,” Hakes pointed out. “So, he actually knew the technology of nuclear reactors—obviously better than any president and better than some of the people that worked at the Atomic Energy Commission.” Carter had also spent time on recovery efforts after the world's first nuclear accident, which was at the Chalk River site in Ontario, Canada, in 1952. Carter was part of a group that was sent into the containment vessel to clean it up. “So, he would be the best president you'd want to have if there was a nuclear accident.” Hakes noted that reports being sent to the president during the first couple of days after the TMI accident were mostly positive. However, on the third day, Carter decided he needed someone with technical expertise at the site to provide him with better details, so he had a direct phone line set up with Harold Denton, who was onsite following the situation as the head of nuclear reactors for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “The short story is the coolant system, which keeps the core from melting, broke down, but the containment vessel—that four-feet thick concrete structure that is around the reactor—did its job, and so, very little contamination reached the public,” Hakes said. Following the incident, Carter formed a commission to investigate and recommend reforms for the nuclear industry. “I think that commission did an excellent job,” said Hakes, noting that many improvements were made based on the lessons learned. “The industry and the government both did a good job of fixing those safety problems. So, you know, in that sense, it's a good model for dealing with energy crises.” Hakes explained some of the policies, not only of Carter's administration, but also of Nixon's, that exacerbated the energy crises of the 1970s, and he shared his insight on how President Biden's agenda could affect the energy industry going forward. He noted that Biden has put a pause on leasing on federal lands, but said he doesn't expect that to affect production, at least for several years.

Nuclear is a word with numerous applications that mean wildly different things: nuclear family, nuclear bomb, nuclear war. In this episode, we chat about nuclear energy with Matthew Mairinger - a technical engineer at Ontario Power Generation and the Canadian Operating Officer at The North American Young Generation in Nuclear - and debunk some of the most common myths associated with it. Is it safe? What impact does it have on the environment? Is radiation something to be concerned about? Tune in to hear why there’s nothing forced about Matthew’s positivity over the future of nuclear energy.   Related Content & Links:  - Matthew Mairinger Twitter: @MattwithchipsLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-mairinger-p-eng-19524380/  - The North American Young Generation in Nuclear Twitter: @NA_YGNWebsite: https://naygn.org/   Transcript: Dan Seguin  00:02 Hey, everyone, welcome back to another episode of the ThinkEnergy podcast. Nuclear is a word with numerous applications that mean wildly different things, nuclear family, nuclear bomb, nuclear war, and the Springfield nuclear power plant where someone like Homer Simpson seems to be the sole control room operator "d'oh". Nothing scary about that! When most people think of clean energy, they immediately conjure up images of solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro power. But how many of you also thought of nuclear reactors? The truth is nuclear power is often left out of the Clean Energy conversation despite it being the second largest source of low carbon electricity in the world. In fact, according to the American Nuclear Society, the third most popular myth about nuclear energy is that it's bad for the environment. But the reality is that nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases. And over their lifetime, they have comparable emissions to wind and solar. Here in Canada, nuclear plants have been producing electricity since the early 1960s. And with 19 nuclear power reactors, mostly in Ontario, nuclear energy produces about 15% of the country's electricity. That's 13.5 gigawatts of electrical power capacity. Despite producing massive amounts of carbon free power, nuclear energy also produces more electricity on less land than any other clean air source. A typical 1000 megawatt nuclear facility will occupy approximately only one square mile for its operations. Recent estimates of the Canadian nuclear industry reveal that it employs approximately 30,000 people and creates another 30,000 indirect jobs through contracting. It also generates revenues of $6.6 billion and contributes $1.5 billion in federal and provincial taxes. So here's today's big question. What does the future of nuclear energy look like for the next generation? And how is Canada leading the way internationally with some exciting developments in nuclear technology? To help us better understand the role nuclear plays in Canada and the talented people behind the scenes, we have with us today, a nuclear engineer from the Ontario Power Generation, and the Canadian Operating Officer for the nonprofit organization, North American Young Generation in nuclear. I'm very pleased to have Matthew Mairinger on our show. Welcome, Matthew, could you maybe start by telling us a bit about yourself and what attracted you to the career in nuclear energy?   Matthew Mairinger  04:13 I guess I really got interested in nuclear in high school. It was just an essay that we got to do about any topic in science. I started looking into nuclear power. And I was just like, Wow, this is amazing the energy density, how it can fight climate change the medical isotopes we get from it so that really got me hooked. And from there, I went to University of Ontario Institute of Technology, where I studied nuclear engineering. I've been working full time at Ontario Power Generation at both the Darlington and Pickering nuclear stations ever since. And on the side I'm also a board of director with North American Young Generation Nuclear, Canadian Nuclear Association with the International Youth nuclear Congress. I'm also on the Energy Council of Canada as a young professional member. So lots of things, but it's all focused around energy and specifically nuclear,   Dan Seguin  05:09 Generally speaking, what important role does nuclear energy play in Canada? In your opinion? Why should Canada and other countries around the world continue investing in nuclear energy?   Matthew Mairinger  05:22 Yeah, so nuclear plays a huge role in Canada, and especially for Ontario. So nuclear technology, each year displaces 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, which is around 17 million cars. Also 70% of the world's supply of cobalt 60, which is used for cancer treatment, to sterilize medical equipment, to sterilize food and to do inspection of materials comes from Canada as well. So it's a huge portion of the world's cobalt 60. In terms of jobs and the economy, it contributes $17 billion to Canada's economy each year. And it has 76,000 direct and indirect jobs. So it's a lot of work behind the scenes. And it's a huge backbone of well paying stable jobs here in Canada. So why should other countries around the world continue investing? So really, it's to do with uranium and nuclear itself. So uranium 235, which is one of the isotopes that we use for nuclear fission, contains two to 3 million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal, so you're just getting so much more bang for your buck for that. And that means that it can use a much smaller land footprint, use less materials and produce less waste, it also has a huge capacity factor. So if you're looking at what's going to produce stable, dependable energy, it's really nuclear, which is over 90% capacity factor. So if we're looking to electrify the grid, we're looking to charge electric cars overnight. If we're looking to run hospitals reliably, you know, it's the nuclear facilities that have a 60 to 80 year lifespan, high dependability, high capacity factor. And if we look at the countries that have been able to decarbonize the fastest, so Sweden, France, United Arab Emirates, they've actually used nuclear to get there. So contrary to what people may think that nuclear takes a long time to build, to get going. It's really quick at decarbonizing countries.   Dan Seguin  07:30 Okay, Matthew, you're on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, North American, young generation in nuclear. What is your organization's mandate? And what is it that you hope to provide the future nuclear enthusiasts and professionals like yourself?   Matthew Mairinger  07:50 Yes, so there's 50 young generation and nuclear organizations around the world. Typically, either countries or big organizations will have their own youth nonprofit group for NAYGN. It's all across North America. And really, we provide opportunities for young generation of nuclear enthusiasts to develop leadership and professional skills, create lifelong connections, engage and inform the public and inspire today's nuclear technology professionals to meet the challenges of the 21st century. So, so mouthful, really, we're trying to develop leaders to energize the future of nuclear. And we do that through professional development. So we put on facility tours, where members get to go see how the fuel is made, or what a research reactor looks like. We do work with Toastmasters. So to increase your public speaking abilities, we do community service, so we go out, we work with Habitat for Humanity, we work with other groups in the communities to give back as well. So we give them an avenue to give back to the community and also to put a positive spin on nuclear, but also young people as well. You know, there's this, this misconception that millennials are lazy, and we're this not the best type of group out there. So we're trying to fix that. We also do networking events. So again, just an avenue to get to know other people in the industry. So we'll do Blue Jays games, we'll go to sporting events. And we work on public information as well.   Dan Seguin  09:24 Maybe you can expand now on how your organization is working to be a source of science based information about applications of nuclear science and technology for use by the media, policymakers and the general public.   Matthew Mairinger  09:42 Yeah, so that's a huge backbone. So one of our board of directors is the public information officer. And so under that board seat, there's actually student education and government relations. So two separate committees that have a big focus for any NAYGN. So for student education, Each year we run a drawing contest. So we go to elementary schools, we have a different topic. So we'll talk to them about nuclear. And we'll get them engaged thinking about it. At high schools, we have an essay contest again. So just trying to make nuclear not a secret, not this unknown. You know, we're going to schools, we're talking about it. We actually developed our own children's books a couple years ago. So the first one is Marie's Electric adventure. And the second one, the sequel is George's energy adventure. So we bring that to schools, we do school readings. And really what we're trying to do is we're trying to talk about nuclear, in a friendly tone, we're trying to expose students at a younger age to think about it as a career to promote it as a stem opportunity as well. So just trying to debunk some of the myths out there, get them interested at an early age, for government relations, we do postcard push days. So we encourage our members to send postcards to Washington and Ottawa, we do rallies, we do stand up for nuclear, we participate in Clean Energy Ministerial United Nations Climate conferences, so really trying to advocate for nuclear from a nonprofit youth organization. So it's a little bit different than having company representatives there that we are in our free time, volunteers advocating for climate change.   Dan Seguin  11:27 Okay, Matthew, your organization recently signed a memorandum of understanding with electricity, Human Resources Canada. What can you tell us about the importance of this collaboration?   Matthew Mairinger  11:40 Yeah, being a youth nonprofit organization, we try to work with other organizations out there, we're not trying to create everything from scratch. So EHRC really has a huge network of not just nuclear groups, but clean energy groups, as well. So a lot of expertise out there that we could tap into. And really what it is, is they have a great focus for diversity. And they have a great focus for the young generation. So they've done specific surveys about young people across Canada in the electricity sector. So it made a lot of sense for us to share what we're doing with them. And then also for us to learn about what they're doing in the industry as well.   Dan Seguin  12:23 Now, your organization has also been an advocate and champion for diversity and inclusion within the nuclear sector. Can you maybe tell us about what it means to you and what it means to the nuclear industry.   Matthew Mairinger  12:41 So I think it was really, especially during COVID, and the events that happened around the world last year, that really brought diversity and inclusion to the forefront. And we saw a lot of the statements that were made across the electricity sector across other companies as well. And we want to make sure that when we said something as a board that we made it part of our long term strategic initiatives, it wasn't just a shallow statement that, you know, as soon as it went out of the public's attention span that it would go away. So every two years, we actually run our own career report, we send out survey questions to our members. And we found that the gender diversity was pretty close to the industry, but still lagging. So that's around 35% women, and the rest were men. So because of that, we also found that our diversity in terms of minorities and representation, were actually lagging in the industry. So this was kind of a shock to us. And we thought, as a nonprofit, we're doing really well on this. And really, we took a strong look at ourselves. And what we did was we had an external audit of our organization for diversity and inclusion. And really, they had a number of things that we could change. So, you know, we noticed that when we did our survey, we had a binary gender collection, so it was male or female. So we're going to change that going forward. We noticed when we had speakers, were we considering the diversity of the speakers. So that was another thing for us to self reflect on. We have a book club, where we choose diverse authors and diverse types of topics to discuss, our website -where the picture is being shown that it shows diverse and inclusive crowds, the video content, and this was really interesting. We didn't have captions on our videos. So we were actually, you know, a bias against muted viewing and hearing impaired. So again, just simple things like this, targeting our reach and amplifying NAYGN's diverse communities as well. So from that we started creating an unconscious bias webinar series. We had chapter recognition so we have awards now specifically to recognize diversity and inclusion at the chapter level, we're changing our nomination process or elections. And we actually signed on to existing types of initiatives. So that equal by 30, and then through EHRC's leadership accords, and we signed an MOU with women and nuclear and National Society of Black Engineers we're working on as well.   Dan Seguin  15:22 Now, Matthew, are you seeing a shift in what nuclear professionals care about? What are some of today's challenges for nuclear technology professionals?   Matthew Mairinger  15:34 Yeah, so I'd say young nuclear professionals today, they care more about that work-life balance, and especially now with COVID, we've seen that you know, the work from home, and having more flexible hours, that's a big thing. If you're taking care of a family, you want that flexibility. And we also see that a lot of the young nuclear professionals really care about the impact to the community. So what is that company doing to give back to the community? Are they involved in community outreach events? Are they involved in supporting local types of initiatives? So really, that's what we're starting to see more of a focus for the young professionals is, you know, they really want the company to reflect their values they want to have that are part of their core mandates. And some of the challenges right now, I'd say are the energy uncertainty right now. So, you know, nuclear does require an investment from the government. So if Pickering nuclear is shutting down, that is the uncertain future is what is the long term Energy Outlook going to look like? Will there be a job for them? Is it worth studying in school? Because it takes a long time to license to do the environmental assessment. So that's kind of always on the top of people's minds. What does the government think of nuclear energy?   Dan Seguin  16:56 So I hear that you work at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario. Maybe now you can help me better understand why nuclear power plants, particularly Canada's, are considered among the safest and most secure facilities in the world. And can you talk to us a bit about plans for the refurbishment of existing plants and why it's so important?   Matthew Mairinger  17:26 Yeah, so I think it's, it's almost like an aircraft. When people get on an airplane, you know, they may hear of an accident and they think it's unsafe. But the most unsafe thing you do for air travel is driving to the airport. It's a human's ability to risk perceive. So Nuclear Generating stations are actually among the safest in the world. And we take that down to the lowest level. So when you go to the OPG sites, hold the handrails, there's a defensive driving type of computer based training that we take. And also after the Chernobyl accident, the World Association of Nuclear Operators was created. So they do external audits for safety all across the world. There's also insurance inspections. There's the United Nations inspections. So there's all these different groups doing independent reviews for safety. But safety is the number one priority. And we definitely see that reflected in the company culture. In terms of refurbishment. So Ontario began refurbishing 10 of its 18 power reactors in 2016. And refurbishment is expected to create over 30,000 jobs for the duration of the project. So just a huge amount of jobs being created. And if we look at the cost of nuclear, it averaged around 6.9 cents per kilowatt hour, which was 30%, below the provincial average. And after the refurbishment, we're looking at the cost of nuclear in 2015 speed eight cents a kilowatt hour. So Still, the second cheapest after hydro. So that's why it's so important. It has such a big contribution to getting to net zero to reducing emissions for providing well paying jobs and fighting the climate change that we need to have as a focus.   Dan Seguin  19:18 Matthew, all nuclear power reactors in Canada are candu reactors, correct? Okay. First, what does CANDU stand for? Second, I was made aware that several other countries use our technology. At a high level, what sets Canada's reactors apart?   Matthew Mairinger  19:40 Yeah, so we have 19 reactors here in Canada, 18 of them in Ontario, and all of them are the CANDU type reactors, so CANDU is actually an acronym for Canadian, deuterium, uranium. So that's what it actually stands for. What that means is, that's really how it So Canadian self explanatory, deuterium is heavy water. So instead of using light water, which is the normal water that everyone's used to, heavy water actually has an extra neutron in it, which is really good for slowing down neutrons to make a really efficient reactor. And really, that's what set ours apart from other types of reactors. So around the world, there's gas cooled reactors, there's light water graphite reactors, there's fast breeders, pressurized heavy water reactors, pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, so lots of different types of technologies that they use. Fundamentally, there are three big ones, pressurized water reactors, they pressurize the one side of the system, so that the water never boils, boiling water reactor, it just has one open system. So as soon as the water is heated up from passing over the reactor, it boils, it's all open to the same type of system. And the candu type of reactors, they're really different, because instead of enriching the fuel, we use natural uranium. But what we do is we use that heavy water as the moderator. So we actually spend some money upfront and change the water to this different type of properties, which is good at slowing down the neutrons, so then we don't have to enrich the fuel. So what this means is, we don't need enriched fuel. And then when we're done with our fuel, it's a much lower enrichment. So when we're having that spent fuel put away, it's a much lower radioactivity than if we had enriched that. So it's, it's really hard to say which one is better. They all have their pros and their cons. The good thing about the candu technology as it has two independent shutdown systems, because it uses your natural uranium, it is much safer to handle and to dispose of, we have a vacuum structure. So I quite like the Canadian technology, I think it's really good. We have a really good supply of uranium here in Canada. So it made sense for us to use that natural product rather than building enrichment facilities and going through those extra steps.   Dan Seguin  22:17 Now, there's still a myth that nuclear energy is not safe. Some associate nuclear bombs with nuclear reactors. I'm not sure if you watch the HBO series Chernobyl. But can you explain to the audience why an incident, like what occurred in the Soviet Union in 1986 is very unlikely to happen here. Perhaps you can also talk a bit about radiation.   Matthew Mairinger  22:48 Yeah. So I always just like to start off with a quote, this comes from the book A Bright Future. It says, "In thinking about nuclear power safety, one should always ask compared to what? And the answer is compared to coal, the world's dominant and fastest growing fuel, the leading cause of climate change, the fuel that kills a million people a year - compared to that." So I think we always have to ground ourselves in what we are actually comparing to. And if you look at the numbers, the best analysis for safety is called the death footprint. What it does is it compares coal, it compares oil and hydro, compares nuclear, solar and wind, to the worst case scenarios from Fukushima, Chernobyl. And it says how many people are actually dying from this energy source at the same amount of energy produced, so it puts it all on the same scale. And what it actually shows is that nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than coal and oil, because it doesn't produce pollution. So millions of people every year are dying from pollution from respiratory issues. And nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal. So it is just so clean. And again, it's this people see a Chernobyl miniseries on HBO, it's you know, produced by Hollywood, they say a large number of people died, where people hear about it in the News, the news and everything else is to amplify the message. So it's trying to do this scare tactic to really, you know, show nuclear disaster in Japan, but no one really follows up on it. So it is amongst the safest. It produces no carbon dioxide, it doesn't produce mercury, and it doesn't produce all these harmful things that burning coal and gas does as well, and why it's very unlikely here compared to Chernobyl. So Chernobyl was a nuclear design that used graphite as a moderator. It had no containment structure. It was run during the, in the Soviet times during the Cold War, where they had no external agencies looking at it, they had political appointees in the control room, just almost everything wrong you could possibly imagine was done there. So, so now we have independent shutdown systems, we have containment structures, we have external agencies looking at the safety records. So there's just so much that has changed from that. And nuclear technology is so new people forget that, you know, it's only in the last 50-60 years that we learned about it. So there was obviously going to be some bumps in the road at the start. But you know, we've learned from that, especially these new designs, they're passively safe. They're inherently safe. So we've taken those lessons learned. And it's very, very, very unlikely here. So in terms of radiation,  one thing I just want to get right off the bat is, radiation is a form of heat transfer, there's conduction, there's convection, and then there's radiation. And radiation as a form of heat transfer is how we actually heat up the planet. So across the vacuum, radiation is the only way to transfer heat from the Sun to the Earth through space, which is a vacuum. Now, the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes x rays, gamma rays, but also radio waves, and microwaves and visible light that we see, we can only see a billionth of a billionth portion of that electromagnetic spectrum. And for non ionizing radiation, that ionization means that the radiation's energy can produce ions, which are charged atoms by knocking negatively charged electrons off of a neutral atom. So non ionizing radiation, there is no proven biological mechanism whereby non ionizing radiation might cause cancer. So those are the radio waves that we come in contact with. That's all the microwaves that we see out there. It's only when we come into the higher energy, which are the X rays, and the gamma rays, which are actually higher frequency waves, that they are considered ionizing radiation. So with that in mind, just want to say that, on average, we all receive around two to three millisieverts of radiation each year. And that varies considerably based on how high up you are, you'll get more radiation at higher altitudes, and also the environment that you live in. So for resonance in Ramsar, Iran, they can receive up to 260 millisieverts per year, which is around 100 times the global average, just due to naturally occurring radioactive elements around them. But there's actually no evidence of any adverse health effects in those areas. So this is always good to keep in mind that there's no just standard level of radiation that people are exposed to. And it also depends on how many medical treatments you have. So some of the chemotherapy or medical imaging can introduce quite a bit more radiation into different people, radio sensitivities. So really the best analysis is the ICRP estimates that around 200 millisieverts raises the risk of cancer (fatal cancer) by 1%. So that's always good to keep in mind when we hear all these numbers and we see the dose charts after Chernobyl or Fukushima, and sometimes people forget, but the baseline lifetime cancer risk for females is around 38%. And for males is around 45%. So there's actually quite a bit of cancer, regardless of radiation just from the cells dividing. But radiation actually has a lot of positive things that it does. So when we have food, we can actually bombard it with radiation. So gamma rays, and this doesn't make the food radioactive. It doesn't make it harmful, but it destroys the bacteria which can cause a lot of problems around the world which has a lot of health issues. We can sterilize medical equipment with this. With radiation, we can treat cancers, we can do medical imaging, we can look for defects and products that we produce. So radiation is all around us. There's radon in your basement, there's potassium 40 in your bananas in the soil, there's radiation, actually, coal burns, releases quite a bit of radiation as well because they're just burning natural elements from the ground. So you'll release thorium, you'll release uranium, release polonium, so actually the stack from coal actually releases around 100 times more radiation than the nuclear station. So being around that. So I think that's always key, as well as to compare the radiation to other things around us. But radiation has been around since the start of the universe. It's, it's, it's there forever. And we're still living with the products there as well. Hope that explained it,   Dan Seguin  30:18 Matthew, how has the pandemic changed the nuclear landscape for Canada. Did you need to pivot, whether in terms of production or operations?   Matthew Mairinger  30:31 COVID, has actually really opened people's eyes to risk. So you know, now every day you go to the grocery store, you're taking a slight risk. And it really shows that there's always risks in the world. And we just need to define what we're comfortable with. And nuclear has also really been a backbone here during COVID. Because we need the hospitals, we need our homes to be heated, we need the grocery stores, we need these fundamental sources of electricity. And we need to be assured that while everyone's running around scared about toilet paper, I saw no one panic about electricity, which was really important. So I think people are learning more that electricity needs to be stable. We don't want blackouts, blackouts cost lives. And that was something that I think people are starting to become aware of. We did need to change some of our outages, so across the nuclear sector for refurbishment and outages, they do have a large amount of contractors and other people coming together. So some of those were deferred a couple of months due to COVID. But other than that, we've had stable electricity being produced across North America and across the world, to nuclear.   Dan Seguin  31:47 Let's talk about the future and Canada's role in nuclear innovation. I know this is something your organization is part of. But can you talk to us a bit about small modular reactors? What are they? And what are their benefits?   Matthew Mairinger  32:06 So I think we saw in the nuclear sector a growing trend to get bigger and bigger and bigger. You know, we started out with very small reactors, and then they got to 1000 megawatts electric 1300-1400. Because as you get a bigger type of reactor, in terms of neutron efficiency, it does have some advantages. But what we saw then was, you know, the only countries that could start to build these were countries that had fully developed nations, they had a lot of government support. And really, we're starting to exclude some of the key sectors. So for example, in the mining communities, for remote communities, for developing nations, they couldn't have access to this. So what small modular reactors really are, are, they're smaller. So you know, we're looking at the order of 300 megawatts electric and smaller, all the way down to under one megawatt electric, which is very good for remote communities for mining communities as well. They're modular, so they're prefabricated in manufacturing. So instead of doing everything on site, you can almost do it through economies of scale, where you produce all the components together and then that reduces the cost as well. And that also allows countries or organizations to start with one type of module. And you know, if the community expands in size, they can add a second one, so it's a modular design that allows them to expand as they need to. And again, this is the new type of designs that they're doing. So they would put these in the communities, they can't melt down, you can't make weapons from them. So they're using the latest type of physics in these types of designs. So there's many different types of designs, but really, what they're doing is they're taking the latest learnings, the latest operating experience, just to make them the safest. The other advantage of small modular reactors as well as they operate at a much higher temperature. So now what you can do is you can use that waste heat, you can split water into hydrogen, so you could be producing hydrogen for the transportation sector, you could look at desalinization, you have all these other type of benefits, since they operate at a much higher temperature, and they could be placed within communities   Dan Seguin  34:32 Per the small modular roadmap, when do you expect the first ones to come online?   Matthew Mairinger  34:39 Yes, so the first demonstration unit is going to be cited at Chalk River by 2026. And the first on-grid small modular reactors are actually going to be built at the Darlington site as early as 2028. But again, small modular reactors really have been in existence since the start of nuclear. They've been in submarines. They've been in demonstration units. So I think some people are concerned that this is a new technology, but really, we've had them for quite a long time. But now they're getting focused. They're trying to do new designs. But we've already seen this in the nuclear sector since the early 50s.   Dan Seguin  35:21 Okay, Matthew, are you ready to close this off with some rapid fire questions?   Matthew Mairinger  35:27 Sure.   Dan Seguin  35:28 Let's go with the first one. What is your favorite word?   Matthew Mairinger  35:32 Got to say, verbosity, it's just the quality of using more words than needed. wordiness I just think the word itself is so pretentious to describe pretentiousness, it's great.   Dan Seguin  35:45 What is one thing you can't live without?   Matthew Mairinger  35:48 Oxygen.   Dan Seguin  35:49 What habit or hobby Have you picked up during shelter in place?   Matthew Mairinger  35:55 So with the gyms closed, I really got back into running. So I ran my first marathon during that. So opened up a positive trait, I guess.   Dan Seguin  36:03 If you could have one superpower, what would it be?   Matthew Mairinger  36:08 Oh, time travel for sure.   Dan Seguin  36:11 If you could turn back time and talk to your 18 year old self, what would you tell him?   Matthew Mairinger  36:17 I'd say to get more involved in nonprofit into these types of organizations through high school through university. They provide a lot of benefits. And I really wasn't aware of them until after I graduated.   Dan Seguin  36:30 And lastly, what do you currently find most interesting in your sector?   Matthew Mairinger  36:37 So I think it's really our impact on fighting climate change, fighting pollution, you know, we're still kind of the underdog out there. So we're still fighting to get recognized but lots of opportunities. And I really think it's going to be the sector that makes the difference.   Dan Seguin  36:53 Well, Matthew, we've reached the end of another episode of The ThinkEnergy podcast. Again, thank you so much for joining us today. And I hope you had a lot of fun.   Matthew Mairinger  37:03 Yeah, no, thanks for having me. And great to be part of this.   Dan Seguin  37:11 Thank you for joining us today. I truly hope you enjoyed this episode of The ThinkEnergy podcast. For past episodes, make sure you visit our website hydroottawa.com/podcast. Lastly, if you found value in this podcast, be sure to subscribe. Anyway, this podcast is a wrap. Cheers, everyone.

Joyce Wayne has written a historical novel called The Last Night of the World  about a Soviet female operative, a key player in the Gouzenko Affair.  When Igor Gouzenko defected from the GRU to the RCMP in September of 1945 the west would see for the first time the extent of Soviet espionage activity in North America.   His 200 pages of documents would reveal a covert ring of dozens of operatives working for Soviet military attaché and GRU Rezident Nicholai Zolotkin in the capital city.  In this interview Joyce lays out the setting of wartime Ottawa, the unassuming spy city just north of the American border.  Aside from diplomatic and government centers, a target of intelligence collection was an hour and a half north of Ottawa at the atomic  facility called Chalk River, which is still  in use today as an active research facility.Joyce's fiction has the haunting credibility of a first-hand account. Her father was a member of Zolotkin's ring and managed to avoid detection and prosecution throughout his life. He left the communist party in 1947, disillusioned with Stalin's brutality. She explains the attraction of Communism in the 1930s and 40s and how this period, and the Gouzenko Affair, is not talked about much in Canada. TRANSMISSION 029More about the author at Joycewayne.comHer book The Last Night of the World is available on Amazon.Other works cited in this interview:How the Cold War Began, by Amy KnightThe Fall of a Titan, by Igor GouzenkoThe Spy Who Changed the World: Klaus Fuchs, Physicist and Soviet Double Agent  by Mike RossiterThe Sound of Neutrons - Deep River Players - Chalk River, OntarioSpybrary Episode with Joyce WayneJoyce Wayne on SpycastLive Drop theme on electric cello by Danica Pinner danicapinner.comMore available at show notes on  thelivedrop.comHello Listener, If you've enjoyed this episode and would like to hear more, please consider signing up as a contributing patron and join the community for exclusive commentary, and content.  A $10 a month donation will really keep us going ---> https://www.patreon.com/thelivedropAlternatively, if you would like to help make Season Three operational you could offer a one time donation of any amount right here ---> https://www.paypal.me/thelivedropThank you for listening and your support,Mark ValleyCreator/Host Get bonus content on Patreon Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we discuss... How Sean Donnelly was inspired by the dynamic and unique challenges of the nuclear industry How AR can help improve human efficiency in nuclear The important role Kinectrics has played in helping to develop nuclear technology How the U-Battery is revolutionizing the future of nuclear reactors Why triso fuels are the best choice for the U-Battery Kinectrics' hopes to deploy the U-Battery in Canada and the U.K. simultaneously Why placing U-Batteries at Chalk River and Urenco would be the best models for what this technology can do for costs and power generation Nuclear's pivotal role in the future of clean energy

Canada Nuclear Waste Dump in Chalk River, Ontario –“Mobile Chernobyl” highway route waste would take from Los Alamos National Labs This Week’s Featured Interview: Dr. Gordon Edwards is president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and one of that country’s best known independent experts on nuclear technology. He has worked with the Canadian government,...

Canada plans to build PERMANENT 6-story nuclear waste dump at Chalk River, upstream of Montreal next to Ottowa River, source of drinking water f/millions. Dr. Gordon Edwards tears it apart w/facts, footnotes, history. First Nations leaders join in.

Canada plans to build PERMANENT 6-story nuclear waste dump at Chalk River, upstream of Montreal next to Ottowa River, source of drinking water f/millions. Dr. Gordon Edwards tears it apart w/facts, footnotes, history. First Nations leaders join in.

Canada plans to build PERMANENT 6-story nuclear waste dump at Chalk River, upstream of Montreal next to Ottowa River, source of drinking water f/millions. Dr. Gordon Edwards tears it apart w/facts, footnotes, history. First Nations leaders join in.

Cold open by Candace Neveau and Interview with Dr. Ole Hendrickson of Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County & Area. We talk about Chalk River, nuclear accidents and granting long term licences to get around having to hold pesky public hearings. Ole has been a researcher with the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area for 30 years   Good chapter comparing investments in nuclear and renewables         Canadian citizens only  

Activist Janet McNeill is in the studio for a chat about dealing with Canada's nuclear regulators, The CNSC. Durham regional Health Committee, emergency planning, and distribution of KI pills to 5 Million in the GTA Current campaign - Chalk River nuclear dump proposal hearings: from Jan. 23rd to 25th Janet McNeill - Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) Coordinator     Pembroke Ontario - From Jan. 23 to 25 Hearings start Tuesday, Jan. 23 at 1 p.m. at the Best Western Inn and Conference Centre, close to the intersection of Highway 17 and 41. There are more than 80 interventions for the hearing, with two-thirds of them expressing serious concerns. These are available online at   Why Close Pickering? Short YouTube clips             DNA links           Radiation monitoring - Safe Cast and the            

Featured Image:  Protesters against proposed Chalk River nuclear waste dump,intended to be sited next to the Ottawa River This Week’s Featured Interviews: Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor Oversight Project for Beyond Nuclear, gets into the complexities of what the abandonment of the V.C. Summer two-reactor build in South Carolina means.  For SC ratepayers, the news is not...

This Week’s Featured Interview: Dr. Gordon Edwards is president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and one of of Canada’s best known independent experts on nuclear technology.  He speaks on the Chalk River proposed Nuclear Waste Dump, its history, and the many ways it’s a dangerous, wrong-headed idea.  The first of three segments with Dr....

Carmel Kilkenny speaks with Gordon Edwards of the CCNR about the plan to transport 150 truckloads of HEU 1700 kilometres from Chalk River to South Carolina in the United States.

Isotopes médicaux: l'après Chalk River; Lumière réfléchie: La santé publique entre politique et réalité; Vingt mille lieues sous les mers; La science sous la loupe: Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur d'article scientifique?; Matière condensée; Zéro émission, le pari de l'auto-Québec; Le courrier des Années lumière: Le courant sans fil; L'auteur des Années lumière: Hélène Tierchant et Ces plantes qui ont marqué l'histoire.

Technetium is essential for medical imaging, yet supplies of this short-lived radioactive manmade element are far from guaranteed. Justin Rowlatt heads to University College London Hospital to see a technetium scan in progress, to view the clean rooms where technetium cows are milked, and to speak to nuclear medicine researcher Dr Kerstin Sander about a possible solution to cancer.Professor Andrea Sella explains why this element sparked a 70-year wild goose chase by chemists in the 19th Century. And, we dispatch Matt Wells to Winnipeg in Canada to meet the team hoping to come up with an alternative source of technetium, when the biggest current source - the Chalk River reactor in Ontario - shuts down in 2016.

Topics include: Government spending, Ornge air ambulance, NDP budget proposals, child care, social assistance, the Chalk River nuclear research facility.