Thank you.
As for the production of medical isotopes by a nuclear reactor, the panel of medical experts created in 2009 and I have always felt that this was the secondary mission and not the primary mission of a nuclear reactor. I think we need to properly establish the principle whereby a nuclear reactor is a device used mainly for research. Earlier, Mr. Koclas and other witnesses talked about the role of neutrons that come from those nuclear reactors.
Should the industry stop producing isotopes in nuclear reactors, there would still be other devices, such as cyclotrons and linear accelerators, that are used regularly to produce medical isotopes. It is certain that the production scale is totally different from that of a nuclear reactor. Let's take the example of a cyclotron. The cyclotron production of technetium is done on a provincial scale in Canada. The devices in Sherbrooke could produce enough isotopes to cover a maximum of 50% of the use and needs in Quebec. In comparison with a nuclear reactor, a paltry 20% of the NRU reactor would be used on a global scale.
Medical isotopes can shift toward those new less expensive and in-demand technologies. Should we some day need them, we only have to activate those devices to obtain isotopes. It's as easy as that. By comparison, when nuclear reactors are used, the process has to be started two weeks in advance to produce isotopes.
I feel that the nuclear reactor must be seen as a device for conducting research; that is its main purpose. The production of medical isotopes by a nuclear reactor is a secondary mission. Accelerators could help in that area.