I do not entirely agree with my colleagues on the subject of substitution. We, in Europe, are absolutely convinced that technetium has a life expectancy of several decades, if only because developing countries will need it and because the ratio of PET scanners that my colleague Urbain was just referring to is 1 to 10 compared with regular scanners. Tests using technetium are perfectly achievable.
We have a tendency to mix the two up. Currently, the main area of use of PET is oncology. This is not as a substitute for technetium tests, but it really is a whole new field. Take France for example, where we developed a new program called “Cancéro” six years ago. We have set up 80 PET machines that are entirely dedicated to cancer treatment and in no way substitute for technetium tests, which are now, in many centres, the first tests that patients will undergo.
Therefore, do not confuse PET and technetium. In my opinion, technetium will still be in use for several decades, which leads us to believe that a project such as the one we are attempting to build around new reactors is credible in terms of the lifespan of a reactor.