News & Noteworthy

A special section to keep you up to date on events, research, and stories relevant to the NWMO’s proposal to site the Deep Geological Repository in South Bruce. It will be updated regularly. Sign up for updates here.
  • Nuclear reactor pressure tubes are deteriorating faster than expected. Critics warn regulators are ‘breaking their own rules’

    By Matthew McClearn

    The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has allowed utilities to operate tubes beyond licensing limits, a crucial concession for the nation’s aging reactors

    Early in the summer of 2021, Canada’s nuclear safety regulator received alarming news.

    Inspections had revealed that two pressure tubes from different reactors at Canada’s largest nuclear power plant, the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, had deteriorated far more quickly than expected. This meant the station’s operator, Bruce Power, had violated the terms of its operating licence. The revelation put the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in a tight spot. How were its leaders to respond?

    Pressure tubes are commonly described as the heart of the CANDU reactor, Canada’s homegrown nuclear reactor design. The tubes contain uranium fuel bundles and heavy water, which serves as coolant.

    Each of Canada’s 19 operating CANDU reactors – including the eight at Bruce – contains several hundred pressure tubes. They deteriorate as they age, gradually increasing their propensity to fracture. So the industry has developed elaborate systems to monitor that deterioration, and mathematical models to predict when tubes will no longer be fit for service. CNSC officials have reassured outsiders that this approach is systematic and thorough.

    But the news from Bruce Power revealed that the system had broken down. In an e-mail to colleagues written shortly after the discovery, Vali Tavasoli, director of the CNSC’s operational engineering assessment division, noted that the regulator already knew pressure tubes absorb deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) more quickly as they near the end of their lives, making them brittle and more prone to failure.

    “But the rate of increase was not expected to be this much,” he wrote.

    Inquiries from elected officials and the media soon followed. This was a delicate matter: More than half of Canada’s CANDUs had already exceeded their original 30-year design lives.

    Continue reading this article at The Globe and Mail →

    Read more
  • Dismantling Sellafield: the epic task of shutting down a nuclear site

    by Samanth Subramanian

    Nothing is produced at Sellafield anymore. But making safe what is left behind is an almost unimaginably expensive and complex task that requires us to think not on a human timescale, but a planetary one

    If you take the cosmic view of Sellafield, the superannuated nuclear facility in north-west England, its story began long before the Earth took shape. About 9bn years ago, tens of thousands of giant stars ran out of fuel, collapsed upon themselves, and then exploded. The sheer force of these supernova detonations mashed together the matter in the stars’ cores, turning lighter elements like iron into heavier ones like uranium. Flung out by such explosions, trillions of tonnes of uranium traversed the cold universe and wound up near our slowly materialising solar system.

    And here, over roughly 20m years, the uranium and other bits of space dust and debris cohered to form our planet in such a way that the violent tectonics of the young Earth pushed the uranium not towards its hot core but up into the folds of its crust. Within reach, so to speak, of the humans who eventually came along circa 300,000BC, and who mined the uranium beginning in the 1500s, learned about its radioactivity in 1896 and started feeding it into their nuclear reactors 70-odd years ago, making electricity that could be relayed to their houses to run toasters and light up Christmas trees.

    Sellafield compels this kind of gaze into the abyss of deep time because it is a place where multiple time spans – some fleeting, some cosmic – drift in and out of view. Laid out over six square kilometres, Sellafield is like a small town, with nearly a thousand buildings, its own roads and even a rail siding – all owned by the government, and requiring security clearance to visit. Sellafield’s presence, at the end of a road on the Cumbrian coast, is almost hallucinatory. One moment you’re passing cows drowsing in pastures, with the sea winking just beyond. Then, having driven through a high-security gate, you’re surrounded by towering chimneys, pipework, chugging cooling plants, everything dressed in steampunk. The sun bounces off metal everywhere. In some spots, the air shakes with the noise of machinery. It feels like the most manmade place in the world.

    Since it began operating in 1950, Sellafield has had different duties. First it manufactured plutonium for nuclear weapons. Then it generated electricity for the National Grid, until 2003. It also carried out years of fuel reprocessing: extracting uranium and plutonium from nuclear fuel rods after they’d ended their life cycles. The very day before I visited Sellafield, in mid-July, the reprocessing came to an end as well. It was a historic occasion. From an operational nuclear facility, Sellafield turned into a full-time storage depot – but an uncanny, precarious one, filled with toxic nuclear waste that has to be kept contained at any cost.

    Nothing is produced at Sellafield any more. Which was just as well, because I’d gone to Sellafield not to observe how it lived but to understand how it is preparing for its end. Sellafield’s waste – spent fuel rods, scraps of metal, radioactive liquids, a miscellany of other debris – is parked in concrete silos, artificial ponds and sealed buildings. Some of these structures are growing, in the industry’s parlance, “intolerable”, atrophied by the sea air, radiation and time itself. If they degrade too much, waste will seep out of them, poisoning the Cumbrian soil and water.

    To prevent that disaster, the waste must be hauled out, the silos destroyed and the ponds filled in with soil and paved over. The salvaged waste will then be transferred to more secure buildings that will be erected on site. But even that will be only a provisional arrangement, lasting a few decades. Nuclear waste has no respect for human timespans. The best way to neutralise its threat is to move it into a subterranean vault, of the kind the UK plans to build later this century. Once interred, the waste will be left alone for tens of thousands of years, while its radioactivity cools. Dealing with all the radioactive waste left on site is a slow-motion race against time, which will last so long that even the grandchildren of those working on site will not see its end. The process will cost at least £121bn.

    Compared to the longevity of nuclear waste, Sellafield has only been around for roughly the span of a single lunch break within a human life. Still, it has lasted almost the entirety of the atomic age, witnessing both its earliest follies and its continuing confusions. In 1954, Lewis Strauss, the chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission, predicted that nuclear energy would make electricity “too cheap to meter”. That forecast has aged poorly. The main reason power companies and governments aren’t keener on nuclear power is not that activists are holding them back or that uranium is difficult to find, but that producing it safely is just proving too expensive.

    Strauss was, like many others, held captive by one measure of time and unable to truly fathom another. The short-termism of policymaking neglected any plans that had to be made for the abominably lengthy, costly life of radioactive waste. I kept being told, at Sellafield, that science is still trying to rectify the decisions made in undue haste three-quarters of a century ago. Many of the earliest structures here, said Dan Bowman, the head of operations at one of Sellafield’s two waste storage ponds, “weren’t even built with decommissioning in mind”.

    As a result, Bowman admitted, Sellafield’s scientists are having to invent, mid-marathon, the process of winding the site down – and they’re finding that they still don’t know enough about it. They don’t know exactly what they’ll find in the silos and ponds. They don’t know how much time they’ll need to mop up all the waste, or how long they’ll have to store it, or what Sellafield will look like afterwards. The decommissioning programme is laden “with assumptions and best guesses”, Bowman told me. It will be finished a century or so from now. Until then, Bowman and others will bend their ingenuity to a seemingly self-contradictory exercise: dismantling Sellafield while keeping it from falling apart along the way.

    Continue reading this article at The Guardian →

  • Don't hold your breath

    By Malone Mullin

    In Baie Verte, N.L., a mine that once brought prosperity now symbolizes pain, suffering and death. Nobody knows how to get rid of it.

    This is Part I of a three-part series on contaminated sites in Newfoundland and Labrador.

    In Émile Zola’s 1885 novel Germinal, a French mining town, filled with families dependent on coal, is plotting a strike.

    It’s not an idyllic existence, living in 19th-century Montsou. Workers and their families sleep in shacks, eat mostly bread and rarely embrace leisure.

    Eventually, they’re consumed by the massive beast whose tendrils reach deep underground.

    The mine, named Le Voreux, holds such sway over the townspeople’s lives that it transforms into a character in itself; figuratively speaking, by the end of the book, it eats its servants alive.

    Conditions have improved since Zola’s scathing portrait of the extraction industry.

    But for workers who toiled somewhat more comfortably a century later — afforded lunch breaks, pensions and good salaries — in the now-defunct Baie Verte Advocate Mine in central Newfoundland, Germinal’s vicious ending, at least for some, still rings true.

    Continue reading this article at CBC News →

  • We the Nuclear Free North and Protect Our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste Petition

    We the Nuclear Free North and Protect Our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste are asking for your help in collecting signatures for a provincial petition supporting the Proximity Principle as an alternative to transporting, burying and then abandoning all of Canada's high level nuclear waste in a single location.

    You can download the petition HERE


    The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is aggressively pursuing a site for a deep geological repository (DGR) to bury all of Canada's high level nuclear fuel waste.

    Posing as a not-for-profit organization but acting fully on behalf of the nuclear industry, the NWMO launched a site search in 2010 and persuaded 22 economically struggling communities to allow the NWMO to investigate their area. By 2020 the list of communities had been whittled down to two municipalities: South Bruce in southwestern Ontario and Ignace in northwestern Ontario.

    In South Bruce, the "candidate site" is in the midst of rich farmland and under the Teeswater River and adjacent to the Greenock Swamp Wetland Complex. In the northwest, the "candidate site" is forty kilometres downstream from the NWMO's proxy community of Ignace and is at the height of land for the Turtle River and Wabigoon River watersheds, in the heart of Treaty 3 territory. These two landscapes are strikingly different but have so much in common: they are beloved, they are beautiful, they have precious water resources, and they are home to residents who strongly oppose any notion that they should be sacrificed to become the dumping ground for all of Canada's high level nuclear waste.

    We the Nuclear Free North and  Protect Our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste have been working in their own regions and together to stop the Nuclear Waste Management Organization from selecting EITHER community for their experimental and ill-conceived plan.

    We are asking for your help.

    Read more
  • Is Nuclear Energy a Solution to Climate Change?

    By Javier Yanes

    “My opinions on nuclear technology and nuclear power have changed drastically over the decades. I used to be an anti-nuclear leader.” Brice Lalonde headed the French branch of the Friends of the Earth organisation, created by and for anti-nuclear activism. In 1973, he was arrested by the French navy on board a ship attempting to block his country’s atomic tests in Polynesia. In later years, he became environment minister under President François Mitterrand and founded one of France’s four environmentalist parties. But as he told Nature magazine in September 2022, his perspective changed in 1988 with the creation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Like him, many people today argue that an energy source without greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be an ally to help break the dependence on fossil fuels. Many people, but not all.

    From 1954, when the Soviet Union commissioned the Obninsk nuclear power plant, the first to be connected to the electricity grid, this energy source embarked on an explosive expansion that continued until the beginning of the 21st century, despite a turbulent history of nuclear incidents and accidents. The earliest ones, in the USSR and the United Kingdom, occurred only three years after that first Soviet power plant was switched on. Then came Three Mile Island in the USA (1979) and Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986), but not even the massive catastrophe of the latter could deflate the growth of nuclear power. This did happen after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, but it was only temporary; although the second most serious accident in history led the following year to the biggest drop in production since this technology has existed, and even to the rethinking of energy policy in several countries, it bounced back in 2013.

    Continue reading this at OpenMind: BBVA

  • Goetz’s 'misinformation campaign' must be challenged

    To the editor,

    Coun. Mark Goetz of South Bruce – and now also candidate for mayor – spread at least two pieces of misinformation at the Oct. 5 all-candidates meeting in Formosa. Representing the host organization, Protect Our Waterways (POW), I feel the need to correct the record.

    The first significant piece of misinformation Goetz told the audience of approximately 250 people was, “the majority of people want to hold off any referendum until they are more informed.” He has no basis in fact to make this claim, yet he cited the 2021 GDH Willingness Study as his source of this information.

    That study found that of the 229 people who participated, there was an “overwhelming preference for a public referendum.” The study also found that there were “differing perspective on the timing of the referendum.” In that section, the study states that participants raised a “diversity of comments” related to timing including, “as part of the 2022 municipal election”, “as soon as possible”, “held separately from the municipal election,” and “more time should be taken before a referendum is held.” In no part of the GDH Study does it state, claim or even infer that the majority want to hold off a referendum until they are more informed.

    More to the point, POW presented 1,754 signed petition cards to council in January 2022. Goetz dismissed the petition, repeating his misinformation about what most people wanted and the study from which his facts were drawn.

    Perhaps Goetz just doesn’t read studies as well as he should. This was evident in his claim at the debate that any statement about the dairy industry being concerned about a DGR affecting their sales was “just a statement”, “never proven to be said”, and a “fear tactic.”

    Yet, in the 2022 South Bruce Agriculture Business Impact Study, the chief operating officer of Chapman’s Ice Cream stated, “it’s the average consumer people like me have to worry about. Public perception is everything and I can’t criticize the public with associating bad things with nuclear and milk in this instance.” (page 107, Appendix C)

    The Chapman’s COO also stated, “A nuclear waste depository underneath farm country may erode confidence in the Ontario dairy industry. The perception of the safety of our food supply may not always be accurate, but it still effects the buying habits of Canadians. In our opinion, as one of the largest processors of Canadian Dairy in Canada, this is a lose-lose scenario for consumers, processors, and dairy farmers.”

    When asked by the consultant conducting the impact study on whether he had made that statement, the COO answered, “yes I did.” So, who are we believe? Mr. Goetz›s view of the facts or the COO of Chapman’s who made the statement? I know where my vote goes.

    Hope-to-be Mayor Goetz seems to pick and choose his facts with an eye to those that reflect his bias that the DGR will be good for South Bruce. Whether those facts are there or not seems not to matter.

    At the close of the session, he repeated his misinformation saying, “people made it clear, they want more information” and accuses the people who want a referendum as soon as possible as “not listening.”

    As the flag bearer for demanding people become more informed, we respectfully suggest to Coun. Goetz that he become better informed himself. Because, as he said about being the mayor, “you’re setting an example for all.”

    Anja van der Vlies

    Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste



    Continue reading this article at the Midwestern Newspapers Corp →

  • South Bruce Municipal All Candidates Meeting

    Below is the South Bruce Municipal All Candidates Meeting which was hosted by our group.

  • South Bruce All Candidates Meeting Overview

    Date: Wednesday October 5th, 2022

    Time: 6:30pm to 9:30 pm

    Place: Formosa Community Centre, 13 Community Drive

    Video: Video recorded and posted to YouTube, post event, with closed captioning



    • Candidate information tables open 6:30 pm

    • Introduction of council candidates 7:00 pm

    • Candidate debate (mayoral candidates only) 7:30 pm to 9:00 pm

    • Close of event 9:30

    For information contact: Anja Vandervlies [email protected] 230.226.1254


    • For MAYOR - Robert Buckle, Mark Goetz, Rita Groen

    • For COUNCILLOR, TEESWATER CULROSS, - Mike McDonagh, Mark Ireland, Michelle Stein, Gordon Ripley

    • For COUNCILLOR, MILDMAY CARRICK– Jeff Goetz, Audrey Bross

    • For COUNCILLOR AT LARGE - Nigel VanDyk, Mike Niesen, Sandy Bunker, Doug Kreller

    • All Council candidates will be provided with a table for their campaign materials and a chair

    • School Board candidates are also welcome, but space restrictions do not allow sufficient space to provide a table


    1. To provide all South Bruce voters with opportunity to meet with the candidates running for a place on municipal council.

    2. To provide all candidates with an equal opportunity to meet voters, hear their concerns, and answer their questions.

    3. For candidates to be able to share and distribute any campaign material they wish.

    4. To host a moderated debate between the candidates for mayor.


    • Tony McQuail, Lucknow, ON

    • Tony McQuail and his wife, Fran are semi-retired farmers helping their daughter Katrina on the farm near St. Helens. McQuail served as a Huron County School Board Trustee for three terms and also served as the executive assistant to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs. McQuail has a long-standing interest in democracy and is a member of Fair Vote Canada.


    1. Registration at the door, name, address, email (optional)

    2. Voters will be provided a card on which to write ONE question they would like answered by the mayoral candidates during the debate.

    3. The questions will be provided to the moderator who has sole authority have the question asked to the mayoral candidates


    • All candidates will be provided with a table and tabletop sign. The sign will provide attendees with the name of the candidate and the position they are running for. Candidates are responsible for providing campaign material and signage.


    • Each candidate for council will be given 3 minutes on stage to introduce themselves

    • They will be invited to the stage by the moderator


    • Moderator will welcome audiences, introduce candidates, and explain the format and rules of the debate

    • ROUND 1: Each candidate has a 3-minute opening statement

    • ROUND 2: Moderator will take one question from attendees, from pre-registered community organizations

      • Protect Our Waterways

      • Willing to Listen

      • South Bruce Community and Business Association

      • Mildmay Chamber of Commerce

      • The question will be directed to one candidate, who will then have 2 minutes to answer the question. The other two candidates will have two minutes each to respond. Candidates will not be able to interrupt each other’s statements

    • ROUND 3: Moderator will take questions from the audience, taken from the submitted question cards. The questions may be directed to a candidate or all three. Candidates are limited to a 1-minute answers. Each candidate may response to the other candidates answer

    • ROUND 4: Each candidate will be one question of the other two candidates. Responses limited to 1 minute

    • ROUND 5: Closing remarks by each mayoral candidate (2 minutes)

    • CLOSE of event

  • NWMO extends timeline for site selection on heels of strong ‘no’ from Nishnawbe Aski Nation

    By Cory Bilyea

    Saugeen Ojibway Nation, Protect Our Waterways members respond

    TORONTO – The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) revised its timeline for the site selection for the deep geological repository (DGR), pushing the date for a final decision back by a year, from 2023 to 2024.

    The announcement released on Aug. 12 comes one day after news broke about the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) vehemently opposing the whole project being located near Ignace, Ont., one of the two remaining locations being investigated for the DGR.

    Forty-nine NAN chiefs passed a resolution at their recent 40th annual Keewaywin Conference held in Timmins from Aug. 9 to 11, sending a clear message to the NWMO: no nuclear waste on their traditional territory.

    The NWMO says they need more time to provide information to potential hosts for the project.

    “We have experienced significant delays in our face-to-face consultation and interaction activities, particularly in communities exploring their suitability to host the project,” said Lise Morton, vice president of site selection at the NWMO. “Making this small adjustment to our schedule will also give us and potential host communities additional time to review and absorb new information as they determine whether the project’s arrival will align with their vision and priorities.”

    Although Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) has not officially voted on the DGR project in South Bruce, some of its members spoke out after the NWMO’s announcement, reiterating the 2020 vote that shut down the low to intermediate-level nuclear waste DGR that the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) proposed to build near the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant in Kincardine.

    SON member Patrick Lavalley told Midwestern Newspapers that he is opposed to the DGR and believes that SON already made their decision when they voted on the matter in 2020.

    “The Saugeen Ojibway Nation voted 85 per cent against a low-level nuclear waste dump in January 2020,” Lavalley said. “Ontario Power Generation said they wouldn’t build the $2.4 billion underground facility under the Bruce Power site without the SON’s approval. That should have been the end of this issue. Instead, OPG doubled down and is now trying to inflict a medium- and high-level nuclear dump on us.”

    When asked if the decision to wait another year would affect his decision, Lavalley said, “OPG’s altering the nomenclature and re-issuing the question is breaking their original oath to us. My opinion will not change based on that alone. They cannot be trusted at their word.”

    Ephraim Sandy, also a SON member, has been following the DGR discussions for years and opposes the high-level nuclear waste project.

    “There is a giant elephant in the room; no one wants to bridge this subject,” said Sandy. “Look, this nuclear waste will not be shipped, railed, driven out of the territory, period. It’s not going to happen. We said ‘NO,’ however, this reality has to be discussed. We need to leverage what position we have today. And benefit from this impossible situation that isn’t going anywhere before our leverage is taken and they legislate us out of the storage equation.

    “There are no agreements with us for storage. We need to move forward and press them for payment before we even discuss this issue further. Rent is due before we talk about permanent storage.”

    Officially, SON has not decided on the high-level waste DGR being built on their territory, but a source close to the band who chooses to remain anonymous for now said that several “legacy” issues need to be addressed with SON before they would consider any new agreements.

    A source within SON indicated that there would be an announcement soon regarding SON’s position on the DGR.

    Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste (POW-NNW) responded to the NWMO announcement with several points, including questioning the timing of the announcement.

    “Why the sudden decision to delay site selection? Is it a coincidence that this was announced after Nishnawbe Aski Nation Chiefs voted to ‘vehemently oppose’ the NWMO’s concept of a DGR near Ignace?” POW said in an email.

    “Is this delay to allow more time for the NWMO to follow the Systematic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC)? SDIC is a strategy used by several of the NWMO consultants and employees who have participated in this training by Bleiker. Is it to give the NWMO a chance to spend more money in an attempt to manufacture ‘informed consent?’

    “Just because the NWMO is postponing its decision it doesn’t mean the community has to wait until 2024. The current council has time and time again told residents it is too soon for the community to make a decision, yet our current council continues to sign agreements with the NWMO to continue further into the process. We need a council that will listen to the community. Our risk. Our choice. We need a council willing to listen to the voices of the residents and ratepayers.”

    An Aug. 12 media release from the NWMO said, “This schedule change should not impact the overall Canadian plan schedule. Construction of the repository is still expected to begin in 2033, and operation of the repository is expected to begin in the early 2040s.

    “Since 2010, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization has been leading a process to identify a site for a deep geological repository. The selection of a site is a crucial step which will mark the beginning of a new series of activities, in particular the regulatory decision-making process.

    “With a project of such complexity and generational scope, we always anticipated that we would have to adapt things as we went along without losing sight of our longer-term goals.

    “As with all organizations and businesses, several provincial lockdowns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted our work. Reviewing our five-year implementation plan and considering the impacts of the pandemic, we have made the decision to postpone the timing of site selection. We now expect that we will identify the optimal site by fall 2024.”

    Continue reading this article at the Midwestern Newspapers Corp →

  • Medicine and Nuclear Power

    Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., September 2022

    Modern medicine does not depend nuclear power. All electricity producing reactors could be shut down permanently with little or no impact on best medical practices.

    1. X-rays and CT-scans are by far the most common forms of “radiation” used by doctors, dentists and nurses in hospitals and clinics. These have nothing to do with radioactivity or nuclear reactors.

    2. When X-ray machines and CT scanners are turned off, they are completely harmless. There is no more radiation emitted. There is no radioactivity at all associated with such machines.

    3. Some radioactive materials are used in medicine for diagnosis or therapy. In addition, some are used to sterilize instruments and equipment such as masks, needles, and other paraphernalia.

    4. Radioactive materials for medical use are called “medical isotopes” or “radiopharmaceuticals”. Some of them emit gamma radiation (similar to X-rays, but stronger). Some of them emit fast-moving subatomic projectiles – electrically charged alpha particles, beta particles, or positrons.

    5. All radioactive emissions are harmful to living cells, especially rapidly dividing cells. They can accordingly be used to destroy malignant growths or to kill micro-organisms in order to sterilize medical equipment.

    6. Radioactivity is hazardous, and it cannot be turned off like an X-ray machine. So the use of radioactive materials in medicine requires careful control at all times – before, during & after use.

    7. Some radioactive materials that are used in medicine, such as radium, radon and thorium, are extracted from naturally-occurring ores and have nothing to do with nuclear reactors.

    8. Some radioactive materials used in medicine are created in a “particle accelerators” such as cyclotrons or linear accelerator. These devices have nothing in common with nuclear reactors.

    9. Some radioactive materials used in medicine are created in small research reactors that do not generate electricity. They are typically 20 to 300 times smaller than nuclear power reactors.

    10. A few medically useful radioactive isotopes are produced in power reactors, but they can equally well be produced in research reactors. Sometimes the same radioactive material, or an alternative material that serves the same purpose, can be produced in a particle accelerator.

    11. Damage to healthy cells by radioactivity may lead to cancer years later or to undesired genetic mutations. Infants and foetuses are more readily harmed than adults because cell growth is rapid. Girls and women are more vulnerable than adult males.

    12. Some medical procedures that once relied on radioactivity have been replaced by procedures that are just as good or better and do not require handling radioactive sources.

    13. Many hospitals that used X-rays or gamma emitting cobalt-60 therapy to destroy cancerous tumors now use beams of charged particles. This more modern medical technology is very effective and has nothing to do with radioactivity or nuclear reactors.

    14. Powerful gamma-emittinng cobalt-60, created in a rector, is often used to sterilize medical equipment. But sterilization can be done in other ways use no radioactive materials at all.

    Hospitals do not need nuclear power, and never have.  Any isotopes (radioactive material) that are considered medically required can be produced by accelerators or small research reactors. Medical procedures that do not involve radioactivity are increasingly preferred.