A global shortage of a radioactive drug crucial to tests for cardiac disease, cancer and kidney function in children is emerging because two aging nuclear reactors that provide most of the world’s supply are shut for repairs.
From the NYTimes.
Most Surprising Sentence I Read Today
Previous post: Behavioural Economics 101: What to do with the olive pits
Next post: Assorted links
This has been an ongoing problem. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article801893.ece.
Two Alex posts in one day, to what do we owe the pleasure?
Basically, although the nuclear reactors in question are only the size of a trashcan, have no self-sustaining reaction and therefore can’t possibly melt down, don’t produce any waste (the most hazardous “waste product” of the reaction is the isotope itself), and far far more people will die right now from this isotope shortage than they would from even the most outlandish and unlikely worst-case scenario… the whole irrational nuclear paranoia is still far too extreme.
The medical industry will just have to accept the intermittant shortages, or be willing to pay a high enough price when the primary sources are offline, to make it cost effective to maintain an alternative supply source.
Otherwise, the industry might have to adopt ‘availability payments’, to ensure a steady backup supply from secondary sources, even if it doesn’t get consumed.
The economics might not be much different from those of a gas turbine power plant that can’t match hydro, coal or nuclear on cost, but can be readily available when supply shortages are experienced.
Russ, Renee, the (long term) prices for isotopes are currently rising, perhaps as a start towards a scenario Russ describes. Current prices paid to the reactors are very, very low, and there is plenty of stretch.
One of the underlying problems is that this isotope business grew out of research reactors, who were built from research money and originally provided isotopes at some nominal fee, more the way research is done than as a commerical business.
The isotope business has grown out of that stage, but there still isn’t really a purely commercial market, and the market never had to take the cost of new reactors into account.
It might be that in a fully developed market prices and demand will be high enough for loads of new reactors (or the conversion of existing reactors into isotope producers), or it might turn out that the market could never bear the cost of even one new reactor. It’s all a bit uncertain.
Just deny treatment to all anti-nuclear persons and their children.
Comments on this entry are closed.