"How safe is safe?" That was the essential question before the Senate this evening as we debated the government's emergency bill to remove the National Research Universal Reactor (NRU) at Chalk River from regulatory constraints placed upon it by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The CNSC's safety assessment called for seven upgrades to the NRU's operating standards. Six had been completed by August last year. The seventh has yet to be installed, a fact that only became apparent when the CNSC conducted a routine inspection in November of this year.

At issue is the supply of isotopes used in radionuclear diagnoses and treatment of cancer. With the NRU temporarily out of commission, our supply of isotopes has been exhausted and many patients cannot get the type of medical attention preferred by their doctors.

Naturally, Senators (like MPs who debated the bill yesterday) were keen to get the supply of isotopes flowing again. Nevertheless, they worried about whether it would be safe to let the NRU operate with reduced safety measures. Unfortunately, the CNSC could not give a definitive response. They've been asking the NRU to prove their case for some time now but have yet to receive the information they need to make a full assessment. The best they could say was "our expectation is that with [six safety measures], the likelihood of an accident having a negative impact on the reactor would be reduced by about 100 times .... With [all seven safety measures], our expectation, and these are just relative numbers, is that the improvement in safety ... would be 1,000 times better".

Safe enough? The government thinks so, and a majority of Senators supported them. What it boils down to is this: we're taking a gamble that no accidents will happen in the short term, but if the unthinkable does happen, then consequences from a nuclear accident at the NRU will be less severe than those experienced by cancer patients denied treatment over the next month or so. Let's hope the gamble pays off.

Well, it is a gamble but perhaps the odds are in favour.  One in a hundred's not too bad (if that's what the CNSC meant).  The trouble with scientists is that they always talk in terms of probabilities, not certainties.  I have a hard time following that kind of reasoning.  Say there's only one in a million chances of getting hurt, and I say, sure but that one could be me!  So I want to know that there are 0 chances in I don't care how many cases, just to make sure I'm not hurt!  Hardly realistic, but it's what my gut tells me anyway.

The only thing that worries me here, really, is the willingness to suspend CNSC's regulatory role even if it is for a good cause, helping cancer patients improve their odds.  Maybe I'm being a bit over-sensitive, but with Harper so keen on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and pushing the nuclear option as a way out of climate change, then at least I'd be happier knowing there's some respect for the nuclear regulators (in this case the CSNC).  What we're seeing in this NRU/isotope incident is a blatant disregard for the scientists and experts on the CNSC.  What does that say about Harper and responsible nuclear developments?  Nothing good, is my guess.