Prime Minister John Howard said that the closure and non-replacement of the Lucas Heights reactor would "strike a blow at medical research". But ...
* many doctors (including the President of the Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine) didn't even notice the three-month closure of the HIFAR reactor from Feb-May 2000
* in 1997, when the new reactor plan was being sold with lies about 'life-saving' medical isotopes, the government also announced a plan to cut NH&MRC medical research funding by over 30%
* ANSTO runs a reasonable isotope supply service (though it has been significantly pared back in order to turn a profit), but it's medical research has generated few if any breakthroughs of value (relevant international comparative data available on request)
* cyclotron-based positron emission tomography (the cutting-edge of nuclear medicine) has been starved of funding while $300 million has been allocated for the reactor.

Howard claimed that one-third of nuclear medicine procedures (very few of which are for cancer therapy) would be affected. Rubbish. Data supplied by ANSTO in 1997 indicates the real figure is about one-third of one percent! In other words, 99.7% of nuclear medicine procedures use isotopes which can be produced in cyclotrons and/or imported. The tiny slither of about one-third of 1% can easily be covered by alternative technologies such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computerised Tomography.

In Australia, just 1-2% of nuclear medicine procedures are therapeutic. All or almost all of the therapeutic procedures use isotopes which can be (and have been) imported, such as iodine-131. The other 98-99% of nuclear medicine is diagnostic - important, but rarely 'life saving', especially given the plethora of alternative diagnostic modalities (CT, MRI, US etc.) And the cutting-edge of nuclear diagnosis is cyclotron-based positron emission tomography (PET).

Howard said closure and non-replacement of the existing HIFAR reactor would be an "anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-knowledge decision". Why then did the government not consult any of its scientific advisory bodies - the Chief Scientist, the CSIRO, or the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council - about the planned new reactor (which, as we're frequently reminded, will be the largest single investment in a science facility in Australia's history)? The only reason I can suggest is that the CSIRO concluded in 1993 that "more productive research could be funded for the cost of a reactor".

More information on medical isotopes: http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/index.html#isotopes

The Coalition Government has mounted a scare campaign about the "need" for a new nuclear reactor to produce medical isotopes.

The President of the Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine, Dr Barry Elison, has admitted that he did not know that the Lucas Heights reactor was shut down for maintenance for three months last year. Isotope supply was interrupted very little, if at all - a fact confirmed by scientists from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in a letter to the Sutherland Shire Council.

Professor Barry Allen, a former Chief Research Scientist at ANSTO who now works at the St George Cancer Care Centre, said that: "the $300 million reactor will have little impact on cancer prognosis, the major killer of Australians today."

The new reactor would come at the expense of medical advancement by swallowing vast amounts of scarce funding.

As Professor Allen says: "The question is really what the tax-payer of Australia wants. Do they want new therapies or do they want the reactor to be the centre of all research?"

Thankfully, we can have our cake and eat it, too: medical advances and no nuclear reactor with its toxic legacy of radioactive waste presenting an obvious terrorist target in the southern suburbs of Australia's most populous city.

Jim Green

Congratulations to Fred Brenchley for another fine piece of investigative journalism on the planned new reactor at Lucas Heights (July 10, Faulty Powers).

That said, I want to take issue with his final words: "Lucas Heights is Australia's one shot at guaranteeing medical isotope supplies and a front row place in future nuclear research."

In fact, many doctors, including the President of the Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine, did not know that the Lucas Heights reactor was shut down for maintenance for three months last year. Isotope supply was interrupted very little, if at all.

As for scientific research, the government did not even consult its own science advisers before its September 1997 decision to build a new reactor. Moreover, the neutron flux of the proposed new reactor is far down the list in the international context - 25th on the list when I last counted, in 1999. And keep in mind that performance rarely matches predictions in these matters. The proposed reactor simply won't be capable of 'front row' science.

On the other hand, Australia does have an opportunity to take the lead in closely related fields, such as the production of radiopharmaceuticals using particle accelerators (including cyclotrons). As an example of the potential, in recent years the reactor supply of palladium-103, a cancer therapeutic, dried up. Scientists in the United States took up the challenge and successfully developed a cyclotron method to produce the same isotope. Problem solved.

Non-reactor technologies offer broadly equivalent medical and scientific benefits - with very little or no legacy of radioactive waste.

Jim Green

Hello, I need to know the factual basis of the PM's assertion on Channel Nine's Sunday program on November 4, 2001 that: "If the Lucas Heights reactor is closed, we will lose a capacity to supply up to one-third of the radioisotopes used for cancer treatment in Australia."

Which isotopes would not be available, how frequently are they used etc ... in short, how was the figure of one-third arrived at?

Thanks in advance for your response, Jim Green

September 25, 2001

Dear Dr. Green,

Thank you for your letter of 30 April 2002 to the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, concerning medical radioisotopes. Your letter has been referred to the Minister for Science, the Hon Peter McGauran MP, as he has ministerial responsibility for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Minister McGauran has asked me to reply on his behalf.

In your email you refer to an appearance by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard, on Channel Nine's Sunday program on 4 November 2001. In an interview with Reporter Laurie Oakes, Mr Howard noted the importance of an Australian research reactor for the production of medical radioisotopes for the treatment of cancer, and you sought information relating to his comments.

Radioisotopes are used in cancer treatment for diagnosis, therapy and palliation of pain. I understand that the reactor-produced radioisotopes Molybdenum-99/Technetium-99, Iodine-131, Samarium-153, Iridium-192, and Yttrium-90, and the cyclotron-produced Gallium-67, Iodine-123, and Fluorine-18 are the radioisotopes most commonly used in cancer treatment in Australia at present. ANSTO uses the HIFAR research reactor and the National Medical Cyclotron to make the bulk of Australia's requirements of these radioisotopes.

Without a research reactor, Australia would lose the capacity to make all the reactor-produced radioisotopes listed above. Dependence on imports is problematic in so far as Molybdenum-99/Technetium-99m, Samarium-153 and Yttrium-90 are concerned, given their short half lives. Experience has shown that imports of these radioisotopes cannot be used to supply hospitals and nuclear medicine centres throughout Australia on a basis that maintains the levels of reliability required by these institutions and their patients. These radioisotopes represent about one-third of those mentioned above as commonly used for cancer treatment.

I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter.

Yours sincerely,
Mr P.J. Davoren
Acting Branch Manager
Science and Technology Policy Branch
Dept. of Education, Science and Training
GPO Box 9880, Canberra ACT 2601.

Most of Davoren's letter is bullshit. For example, in ANSTO’s Draft EIS on the proposed new reactor (p.6-11--6-13), the list of isotopes for which “importation for routine clinical use [is] possible” includes Mo-99 and yttrium-90. Mo-99 is imported every week, from Europe.

Samarium-153 has also been imported into Australia, from South Africa. Some ANSTO staff members claimed that importation was curtailed because successful importation undermined the case for a new reactor. In any event, strontium-89 chloride - Metastron - is at least as effective as Sa-153-based Quadramet (they are both used to alleviate pain), and Metastron is routinely imported.

As ever, no evidence is supplied to justify claims made about problems relying on imports.

The term 'treatment' is used by Howard and by Davoren to encompass therapy, diagnosis and palliation, although many people would assume the term refers specifically to therapy.

Jim Green
26/4/03

Resent 26/4/03. Six months and still waiting for answers ...
Resent 1/12/02
Resent 4/11/02
First sent: 1 October 2002

To: Mr P.J. Davoren
Acting Branch Manager
Science and Technology Policy Branch
Dept. of Education, Science and Training
GPO Box 9880, Canberra ACT 2601.

Dear Mr. Davoren,

Thank-you for your letter of 25/9/01. I accept the apology for the five-month delay responding to my question regarding the Prime Minister's pre-election comments.

You say: “These radioisotopes represent about one-third of all those mentioned above as commonly used for cancer treatment.”

(a) Does “these radioisotopes” refer to the three radioisotopes mentioned in para. 4, i.e. Mo-99/Tc-99m, yttrium-90 and samarium-153?

(b) Does “all those mentioned above” refer to the eight radioisotopes listed in para. 3, i.e. Mo-99/Tc-99m, yttrium-90, samarium-153, iodine-131, iridium-192, and the cyclotron-produced isotopes gallium-67, iodine-123 and fluorine-18?

(c) How did the Prime Minister arrive at the figure of one-third? Is it by dividing the 3 isotopes in para. 4 by the 8 isotopes in para. 3, i.e. 3/8? Or does it take account of data on relative usage of the isotopes - in which case can you please provide supporting data?

Thanks in advance for your response. A response by email to <[email protected]> would be fine.

Jim Green.