ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY
3. THE 1993 RESEARCH REACTOR REVIEW
4. OVERVIEW OF ANSTO'S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
5. PROPORTION OF REACTOR DEPENDENT RESEARCH
6. THE BROADER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONTEXT
7. ALTERNATIVES: SPALLATION SOURCES
8. ALTERNATIVES: PARTICLE ACCELERATORS
9. ALTERNATIVES: SYNCHROTRON RADIATION SOURCES
10. ALTERNATIVES: SUITCASE SCIENCE
11. INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS / SPIN-OFFS
12. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH / APPLICATIONS
13. REFERENCES

AAEC - Australian Atomic Energy Commission
AAS  - Australian Academy of Science
Adonis - Accelerator-Driven Operated Nuclear Isotope System
AINSE - Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering
AMS - Accelerator mass spectrometry
ANBF - Australian National Beamline Facility (Photon Factory, Japan)
ANSTO - Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
ANTARES - Australian National Tandem Accelerator for Applied Research
ANZAAS - Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science
APS - Advanced Photon Source (USA)
ARC - Australian Research Council
ASRP - Australian Synchrotron Research Program
ASTEC - Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council
CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
HEU - Highly enriched uranium
HIFAR - High Flux Australian Reactor
IBA - Ion Beam Applications (company) or ion beam analysis
IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency
LEU - Low-enriched uranium
R&D - Research and development
RRR - 1993 Research Reactor Review
S&T - Science and technology

There are four main reasons put forward for the operation of a research reactor in Australia:
* so called national interest/security issues, which revolve around the maintenance of a pool of nuclear expertise for various purposes and contingencies;
* scientific research;
* the production of radioisotopes, mostly for nuclear medicine; and
* commercial applications and spin-offs, such as mineral radioassays, and silicon doping for the electronics industry.

The national interest/security issues appear to be the most important concerns of the federal government and government departments such as the Department of Foreign Affairs. Scientific research (a.k.a. neutron science) may be a significant, if secondary, concern. According to ANSTO, approximately 90% of HIFAR's neutrons are used for scientific research, and there is no indication that this percentage figure will change dramatically if a new reactor is built. However the importance of neutron science in the government's deliberations should not be overstated. Indeed, the government did not even consult the Chief Scientist, or the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council (ASTEC) before the September 1997 decision to replace HIFAR.

It should be noted that there is some overlap in the four aspects of the overall debate over the replacement of HIFAR. For example scientific research ties in with national interest/security issues to some extent, and scientific research can also have commercial spin-offs.

The purpose of this paper is to make a small contribution to our understanding of two crucial issues:

First, is a new reactor a good investment in the context of scarce funding for scientific R&D programs in Australia? This question is open for endless debate. Certainly it has not been established that a reactor is a good investment in the overall context of Australia's science and technology (S&T) sector. In fact little or no effort has been made to justify the reactor in the broader S&T context.

Second, to what extent could alternatives such as spallation sources, particle accelerators, synchrotron radiation sources and "suitcase science" (accessing overseas facilities) obviate the need for a reactor? Which research areas would be given a boost if alternatives were pursued instead of a reactor, and which research areas would be curtailed? How do the alternatives compare with a reactor in relation to financial costs, radioactive waste, safety, and other parameters?

It is the responsibility of the federal government and ANSTO to demonstrate beyond doubt that:
i) a new reactor can be justified in the context of shrinking budgets for scientific, medical, and environmental research; and
ii) alternatives to the proposed new reactor will not suffice.

It appears that ANSTO wishes to avoid addressing these issues. ANSTO's September 1997 "Notice of Intention" document states that "The only alternative to replace HIFAR with a modern research reactor at the Lucas Heights site is to locate the replacement reactor at a site other than the Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre." To the limited extent that ANSTO has addressed non-reactor alternatives, ANSTO's material includes unsubstantiated assertions, selective quoting, misrepresentation, misleading half truths, exaggerations, countless sins of omission, and assorted other faux pas (see Green, 1998). It also appears that ANSTO is unaware of the current status of important non-reactor research programs overseas, such as the Belgian Myrrha/Adonis spallation source project, and the University of California research into cyclotron production of technetium-99m.

The 1993 Research Reactor Review (RRR).

Supporters of a new reactor - such as ANSTO and Hughes MP Danna Vale - have been misrepresenting the findings of the RRR. The Review's conclusion on the scientific uses of a new reactor was that "at present the case for a new reactor on science grounds cannot be sustained, however compelling the need for such science."

Proportion of reactor-dependent research.

While there are conflicting opinions, it is likely that, at most, one third of ANSTO's research is reactor-dependent.

The broader science & technology context.

Funding for scientific, medical and environmental research has been cut substantially in recent years. No effort has been made to justify the reactor in the broader S&T context. The proposal to build a new reactor has attracted little if any support in the S&T sector outside of those groups with a direct interest in the construction of a new reactor. For example Prof. Barry Allen, former Chief Research Scientist at ANSTO, argues that "the cost of replacing the reactor is comparable to the whole wish list that arguably could be written for research facilities by ASTEC."

Alternatives to a new reactor for scientific research.

There are several alternatives to a new reactor, including particle accelerators, spallation sources, and synchrotron radiation sources. In all cases, the alternatives are preferable to a reactor in relation to radioactive waste and safety. There is insufficient information on which to base cost comparisons.

Inevitably there is a degree of divergence (and thus complementarity) between reactors (neutrons), spallation sources (usually pulsed neutrons), particle accelerators (charged particles) and synchrotron sources (mostly X-rays, also other forms of radiation). Nevertheless, claims that synchrotron, accelerator and spallation facilities complement (but cannot replace) reactors tend to understate the extent to which different facilities can be used for identical or similar applications. In some cases non-reactor alternatives can replace reactors for precisely the same purpose: for example the use of spallation sources to produce molybdenum-99. In other cases there is a more general overlap: for example spallation sources, particle accelerators, synchrotron sources and reactors all have uses in materials research, even if each instrument has strengths and weaknesses in particular areas of materials research.

There have been major advances in spallation, accelerator and synchrotron technology in the past 10-20 years and further improvements can be expected.

Alternatives to a new reactor were not properly evaluated prior to the September 1997 decision to fund a new reactor. Thorough evaluations will not be carried out in 1998 unless there is sufficient public and political pressure.

Alternative neutron sources: spallation sources and suitcase science:

Spallation sources. The applications of spallation sources are expanding to encompass broader areas of scientific research as well as medical and industrial applications. Cost comparisons may be favourable. Spallation sources are certainly preferable to reactors in relation to radioactive waste. They also have safety advantages because they do not require a self-sustained uranium fission reaction (as in a research reactor).

Suitcase science, i.e. funding for Australian scientists to access overseas research facilities. There is no doubt that greater funding for suitcase science could partially compensate for the lack of a domestic reactor, although the extent of future access to overseas facilities is an open question. It is argued that a basic level of reactor competence is usually necessary before access to overseas facilities is granted, and that a domestic reactor is also necessary as a bargaining chip (to be made available to overseas scientists). Such claims sit uncomfortably with the fact that Australian scientists have access to overseas spallation sources and synchrotron radiation facilities although Australia does not have either of these instruments. If non-reactor facilities are further developed in Australia as an alternative to a reactor, these facilities could serve as bargaining chips. Already this occurs to some extent; for example overseas scientists use the tandem accelerator at Lucas Heights.

Non-neutron instruments: particle accelerators and synchrotron radiation sources:

Particle accelerators (cyclotrons and linear accelerators) have many applications in radioisotope production, medical research, scientific research, environmental research, etc. Several accelerators are already in operation in Australia and a good case can be made for further investment in accelerator technology. This investment would partially compensate for the lack of a reactor in Australia.

Synchrotron radiation sources. These instruments are used for a growing range of research projects in areas such as chemistry, materials research (ceramics, polymers, minerals) and biological research. Australian scientists have access to synchrotron facilities in the USA and Japan.

Industrial applications / spin-offs.

It is unlikely that revenue from a new reactor (e.g. from radioisotope sales, silicon doping, etc.) would off-set the costs of construction, operation, decommissioning, waste management etc.

Environmental research / applications.

A very large majority of ANSTO's so-called environmental projects do not use HIFAR. It is inconceivable that the environmental benefits of a new reactor would outweigh the environmental costs (emissions, waste, etc.).

It is worth revisiting the comments made by the 1993 Research Reactor Review (RRR, a.k.a. the McKinnon Report) on neutron science. The RRR (pp.24-25) said:

"Neutron scattering is a powerful tool for application in a wide range of scientific fields: physics, chemistry, biological sciences, materials technology, and nuclear medicine, at basic and applied levels. ...... Leaving aside for the moment cost considerations, the Review concluded that there are strong arguments for Australia to maintain a neutron source. Without this tool, Australia would lock itself out of several rapidly advancing areas of science."

But when cost considerations are factored into the equation:

"A new neutron source would only be justifiable ultimately if the money required for its construction were to be additional and not at the expense of the current Science budget." (RRR, p.xx.)

The Review considers that funding a new research reactor or a major upgrade of HIFAR should not be at the expense of existing science expenditure." (RRR, p.120.)

And there are other issues as well ......

"The Review considers that, for scientific use at least, there is a strong case for a research reactor, that is, a neutron source, to be available nationally. It is essential to ask, however, whether Australia has the scientists and the intensity of effort in this field to make such a purchase a good scientific investment, whether there are alternatives and whether our industry would be able to exploit its potential if Australia were to buy a new one." (RRR, 1993, p.28.)

Having examined these questions, the RRR was sceptical. In relation to the "crucial" question posed by the Terms of Reference, whether the science at ANSTO is of sufficient distinction and importance to Australia to warrant a new reactor, the RRR (pp.65-66) said:

"The Review is not convinced that that is the case - at least not yet. ANSTO scientists are held in esteem by other scientists here and overseas. Peer reviews of recent scientific output were more mixed. Nobody advanced the view that Australian scientists working at HIFAR are at the cutting edge of science. The Australian Research Council Review pointed to a facility not fully exploited. The evaluations of publications were also mixed. A picture of a vibrant field of science, energised by young people excited by the challenges and opportunities, did not emerge. HIFAR is not at present and has not for many years been the focus of scientific effort equivalent to that evident in several other scientific fields."

"The Review was not even convinced that (reactor-based) science has been a major focus of ANSTO activity. The full flowering of recent vigour might not be evident yet in publications, but at present the case for a new reactor on science grounds cannot be sustained, however compelling the need for such science."

"The number of scientists and the range of scientific activities undertaken using HIFAR, even taking into account its limitations, are more limited than would alone carry the case for a new research reactor."

There is no need here for details on ANSTO's research programs. For more detail, a useful source is the 1993 report of the Research Reactor Review.

Historically, the research of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC, the forerunner of ANSTO) was specifically geared towards the development of nuclear power. The potential use of beryllium (or beryllium compounds) as moderators of nuclear fission was the main research project from the late 1950s to the mid 1960s. HIFAR was also used for other research projects relating to nuclear power.

Through the 1950s and 1960s, there was considerable interest in i) the purchase of nuclear weapons from the UK and/or the USA, ii) the stationing of American or British nuclear weapons in Australia, and iii) the development of nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons capability in Australia. Sir Phillip Baxter, AAEC Chairman until 1972, was a key supporter of nuclear weapons. (See Walsh, 1997; Cawte, 1992; Martin, 1980.) The extent to which this interest in nuclear weapons was reflected in the activities of the AAEC remains an open question.

Since the early 1970s, there has been very little interest in, or support for, the introduction of nuclear power into Australia or for the development of a nuclear weapons capability. Therefore, it is not surprising that the raison d'être of the AAEC/ANSTO has frequently been questioned by independent reviews.

In the early 1970s, the AAEC assumed a significant role in the uranium industry, but this involvement was reduced by the Fraser government. Uranium enrichment R&D continued, and by the early 1980s this was the largest of the AAEC's programs, absorbing a quarter of the AAEC's total research effort. However the enrichment R&D was terminated by the Hawke government in the mid 1980s. The raison d'être of the AAEC/ANSTO became still less clear.

The activities at Lucas Heights have become extremely eclectic. And whereas nuclear power and weapons were seen to be of inestimable importance through the Menzies era, contemporary projects could hardly be described as cutting-edge. For example, a 1997 press release gives details on the carbon dating of a giant egg from a prehistoric Madagascan Elephant Bird. An almost endless series of reviews and reorganisations, beginning in the early 1970s, has not fundamentally addressed the lack of focus and direction: ANSTO is to a considerable degree an organisation in search of a mission, the reactor a technology in search of a mission.

Commercial activities have become more important, partly because of a government-imposed target for external revenue-raising (initially 30%, now 20%).

ANSTO's main research programs are as follows (Wilson, 1993):

ADVANCED MATERIALS - waste conditioning (Synroc), ceramics, materials assessment, plasma and surface, solid state chemistry, etc.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS - accelerator applications, radiation detectors and standards, neutron scattering, reactor applications, neutron sources, etc.
BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH - radiopharmaceuticals, radiochemistry, supercomputer applications in biomedicine, cytogenetics, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - environmental chemistry, chemical and waste engineering, geosphere applications, biological impacts, environmental physics, Alligator Rivers analogue.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY - isotope technology, radiation technology, etc.

The uses of HIFAR include:
* a wide range of research, such as materials research; HIFAR is used for about 7000 hours of research time annually by university researchers
* radioisotope production, mostly for medical purposes, also numerous small niches in industry
* silicon doping (for the electronics industry)
* radioassays for the mining industry

There is a core group of 120 neutron scientists in Australia - about 50 from universities, 10 CSIRO staff, 20 PhD students, 30 from ANSTO, and a small number of overseas visitors. (RRR, 1993, p.54.)

What proportion of ANSTO's programs are dependent on the operation of a reactor? Conflicting opinions were expressed in submissions to the Research Reactor Review (1993, ch.6):
* Prof. Geoffrey Wilson (1993, pp.31-32, 41-43) analysed ANSTO's program expenditure. His findings were that in 1991-92, reactor-dependent research cost $8.35 million (31%), reactor-independent research (including the Japanese Photon Factory) cost $18.45 million (69%). Radioisotope research was considered to be reactor-independent. The figure of 31% reactor-independent research would fall still further if the CSIRO facilities at Lucas Heights are included.
* drawing on ANSTO's 1992-93 Program of Research, former AAEC/ANSTO/CSIRO employee Murray Scott concluded that HIFAR and MOATA were used in 8 of 17 projects. In person-years this amounted to 45/215 or 21%. The figure fell to 14% when the adjacent CSIRO facilities were included.
* ANSTO said that 54% of its research was reactor-dependent, but if Synroc was considered independent then it fell from 54% to 36%. ANSTO included radioisotope research in the reactor-dependent category and the figure falls below 36% if this is not counted (since radioisotopes can be imported, produced in cyclotrons, etc.) The radioisotope-related research includes radiation detectors and standards, environmental science, isotope technology, and radiation technology.
* the Sutherland Shire Council argued that just 8% of ANSTO's research expenditure is reactor-dependent.

ANSTO (RRR submission) says that about 10% of ANSTO's total staff are directly involved in reactor operation.

It would be useful to have up-to-date information on the proportion of ANSTO's projects that are reactor-dependent. Whatever the figure, it is clear that most of ANSTO's work could continue uninterrupted if HIFAR is shut down without replacement.

ANSTO's Executive Director, Helen Garnett, says that funding for the proposed new reactor is a "whole of government allocation". However according to science journalist Peter Pockley (1997), writing in the ANZAAS journal Search, forward estimates for research funding are foreshadowed to drop substantially in future budgets. Pockley goes on to say that: "It is conceivable that a 'whole-of-government' approach was only possible by dipping into hard-won pools of funds: the universities, the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Cooperative Research Centres and the research agencies."

According to Pockley (1997B), cuts to scientific R&D over the Coalition's first two years of government now total a projected 10.9%.

Funding for medical research has, at best, been stable in recent years despite a 1995 survey which indicated strong popular support for increased biomedical research funding. Moreover, forward projections reveal that funding for medical research is to be cut by 30% over the next two years, from $174 million to $128 million. (Doherty, 1997; Pockley, 1997D.)

Federal government funding for universities is also being reduced. The 1997-98 budget reveals that a 5% reduction in operating grants to universities has been increased by an extra 1% for a fourth year. The cuts amount to $1.8 billion over four years. (Pockley, 1996, 1997B.)

Non-nuclear environmental research has, by and large, suffered in recent years. For example, the 1997-98 federal budget revealed that funding for the Energy R&D Corporation (ERDC) is to be terminated (having been reduced from $12 to $6 million the previous year), and a 50% cut in the National Energy Efficiency Program to $1.8 million (Pockley, 1997B).

Clearly the decision to spend $300+ million on a new reactor comes at a time when funding for scientific, medical, and environmental research, and education, is under threat. Can the new reactor be justified in the context of the broader funding cuts? Will it bring greater overall benefits than, say, maintaining the medical research budget and restoring some funding to the universities? These questions are open for endless debate. Just to pull out a couple of threads of the debate:
* it is highly unlikely that a new reactor would bring greater medical benefits than a restoration of the projected cuts to medical research
* the scientific value of a new reactor was seriously questioned by the RRR. It has also been question by Barry Allen, Professor of Pharmacy at Sydney University, and former Chief Research Scientist at ANSTO. Prof. Allen (1997) says: ".... the reactor will be a step into the past ...... (it) will comprise mostly imported technology and it may well be the last of its kind ever built. More importantly, anticipated developments in functional magnetic resonance imaging may well reduce the future application of reactor-based nuclear medicine. Certainly the $300 million reactor will have little impact on cancer prognosis, the major killer of Australians today. In fact, the cost of replacing the reactor is comparable to the whole wish list that arguably could be written for research facilities by the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council (ASTEC). ...... Apart from the neutron-scattering element of the reactor, there will be little research and development yet it will make a large dent in the budget for Australian research, which at this point is so badly needed in order to take us into the next century. ...... The decision to proceed with a new reactor is not wrong, but it is a far cry from the optimal expenditure of funds that Australia badly needs in science and technology. Did ASTEC review the arguments given to the Minister for Science, which led to this decision? If not, then someone certainly should."

Prof. Allen's comment that the proposed new reactor may well be the last of its kind ever built may be an exaggeration, but there is a clear trend towards the closure and non-replacement of research reactors around the world. Over 600 research reactors have been built around the world since World War II, but only about 270 research reactors are now in operation. This downward trajectory is certain to continue. In fact a large number of the existing research reactors were built in the 1960s or thereabouts and will be shut down in the next 10-20 years. Funding restraints, waste management problems, public opposition, and advances in non-reactor technologies are the major reasons for the downward trend.

Dr. John Stocker, who holds the government position of Chief Scientist, and is also Chair of the government's advisory body the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council (ASTEC), says that neither he nor ASTEC were consulted by the government before announcing the decision to replace HIFAR (Pockley, 1997C). It is clear that the proposed new reactor has not been thoroughly evaluated against other areas of S&T. Federal ALP shadow science minister, Martyn Evans, says: "The money should have been competitively offered and judged against other needs for science." (Quoted in Pockley, 1997C.)

There is also the view that too much of the research at ANSTO merely duplicates overseas research. Former AAEC/ANSTO/CSIRO employee Murray Scott made the following comments in his submission to the RRR:
* ANSTO's research is facility-driven, i.e. it is driven by a perceived need to make use of ANSTO's facilities, in particular expensive instruments such as HIFAR, rather than being driven by practical problems. This results in expensive facilities such as HIFAR functioning as "technologies in search of a mission". A better model would be "small science", more flexible, problem-based rather than facility-based.
* much of ANSTO's research is redundant, adding little if anything to overseas knowledge - dotting the i's and crossing the t's. "This tunnel vision tends to be perpetuated as the students in turn become supervisors and promote their own little corner of whatever field they were herded into."
* Scott says: "Though HIFAR has become indispensable to the people involved, e.g. in neutron diffraction and activation analysis, it has commanded resources which would have supported considerably more effort in closely related fields such as X-ray diffraction and mass spectrometer or atomic absorption analysis. .... (The proposed new reactor) would continue to drain students, research effort and money away from more productive fields for many decades."
* generally the uptake by industry of ANSTO's research has not been good, with industry preferring cheaper, more accessible alternatives.

If the response to the lack of industrial uptake is to beat the drum for "basic" research, then that is a fine argument in general terms, but according to Murray Scott the basic research at ANSTO adds little or nothing to overseas research. According to the President of AINSE, basic nuclear physics research "can scarcely be seen to be flourishing widely in Australia." (Orphel, 1997.) Staffing in university physics departments fell by 16% from 1994-97, with more cuts expected. According to Prof. Eric Weigold, Chairman of the Australian Academy of Science's National Committee for Physics, Australia is lagging well behind other OECD countries in the level and proportion of funding for physics and engineering. (Pockley, 1998.)

Prof. Ian Lowe (1993), from Griffith University, analysed the reactor/science debates during the RRR and concluded thus:

"In summary, science policy considerations suggest strongly that a new research reactor should not be a high priority for Australia's small public sector research budget."

"Although the construction of HIFAR and other facilities at Lucas Heights have resulted in about 3% of Australia's public science expenditure going into the ANSTO operation, the returns have been comparatively modest. The output of scientific papers is modest, whether measured per researcher or per unit of expenditure, and it is not possible to show the impact of this work as being unusual. The rate of invention and patenting makes little contribution to the nation as a whole."

Prof. Lowe (1993) also commented on the importance of neutron sources:

"A key argument presented to the (RRR) was that neutron diffraction is now such an important analytical tool that no self-respecting industrial nation can afford to be without a state-of-the-art source of neutrons. I have discussed this argument with several physicists who do not have direct vested interests. All agree that neutron diffraction is a useful tool but by no means the most important investigative technique. They agree that useful science could be done if we were to have a state-of-the-art reactor, but do not see it as the highest priority for research in the physical sciences."

"If it were really true that a research reactor is a necessary tool for an advanced industrial society, it would not be possible for those nations which lack a reactor to be successful in modern technology. But Ireland, listed by ANSTO as one of the nations not having either nuclear power reactors or a research reactor, manages to produce four times the value of Australia's high technology exports, despite only having a population about a quarter of ours. Thus the argument that a research reactor is essential for advanced manufacturing industry is clearly invalid. It may be useful and beneficial, but it is not essential."

Will a new reactor improve the quality of ANSTO's reactor-dependent scientific research? Perhaps, but the proposed new reactor will still be a modest instrument by world standards. Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (1994) indicates that about 20 research reactors around the world have a higher neutron flux than is proposed for the new reactor in Australia (3 x 1014 neutrons/cm2/sec). Another variable is investment in reactor instrumentation such as a cold neutron source. The price-tag for the new reactor - variously given as $286 million or "about" $300 million - suggests that the reactor may not be equipped with much advanced instrumentation.

In 1993, the head of the CSIRO said that it could not support a new reactor if funding was not addition to usual science funding, and that more productive research could be funded for the cost of a reactor. The current head of the CSIRO has declined to comment on the proposal to build a new reactor.

The proposal to build a new reactor has however received some support from the S&T sector. Prof. John White, from the Australian Academy of Science, says in a press release that: "the decision is consistent with earlier Academy advice to the Government that a new research reactor was essential for developing national capacities in nuclear medicine and materials technology as well as for maintaining a number of critical research competencies. The intended reactor neutron source complements rather than supersedes synchrotron radiation sources and spallation neutron sources to which the research community currently has access."

Several comments need to be made in response to the AAS:
* the support of the AAS is conditional: "Before commenting further, the Academy awaits details on the specifications of the reactor, its instruments and the way in which is can be most efficiently coupled to Australian research and technology."
* the AAS press release followed a meeting of the Academy's National Committee for Crystallography. No doubt the members of this committee - and it appears there are just four members - know a great deal about materials science, but their understanding of numerous other issues (e.g. radioactive waste, national interest/security issues, the radiopharmaceutical industry) is open to question.
* the Academy's claim that a new reactor is essential for nuclear medicine cannot be sustained (Green, 1997, 1997B, 1998B)
* the argument that reactors "complement" spallation sources is too general. In Belgium, the clear intention is to replace the BR-2 research reactor with a spallation source for scientific, medical and industrial applications (discussed later). This is an option for Australia which needs thorough investigation.
* The AAS fails to make the link between the generous funding for the new reactor and the substantial cuts to other areas of S&T. Yet the AAS is certainly critical of S&T funding cuts. In late 1997, it was revealed that only 20% of proposals for 1998 Australian Research Council Large Grants were successful. In a press release, the AAS President, Sir Gustav Nossal, argued that funding should be increased so that at least 33% of qualified proposals receive funding. Sir Gustav said: "We are very worried about the effect that funding cuts and shortfalls are having on morale in universities, especially on younger scientists. At this stage of Australia's history, we should be nurturing and cherishing our young talent."

* These figures exclude AINSE publications, except when co-authored by an ANSTO staff member.
** This figure includes a number of areas not listed above.

With reference to the first three areas - Nuclear Science and Technology, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, and Ceramics - Prof. Wilson (1993) says that: "It can be concluded that ANSTO staff have made a substantial contribution to Australian output in these fields; indeed the contribution to world output by ANSTO (0.1 to 0.3%) is also quite substantial." That is a generous reading. Even in its strongest field, Nuclear Science and Technology, ANSTO is responsible for little more than a quarter of Australia's scientific output and the contribution in most areas of S&T is very small. (If AINSE contributions were included, the figures may or may not rise substantially; the relevant data is not available.) Certainly ANSTO's contribution to total world research, in all fields, is extremely small.

Federal Member for Hughes, Danna Vale, claims that: "Three independent reviews have concluded that a replacement reactor should be constructed - the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) review of 1992; the Research Reactor Review of 1993 and the Bain International / Battelle Memorial Institute ANSTO Strategic Review of 1994."

Similarly, the federal Department of Industry, Science and Tourism (1998, pers. comm.) still points to the 1992 ASTEC review of major national research facilities as evidence of scientific support for a new reactor. This is absurd. The 1992 ASTEC review was nothing more than a cursory, preliminary examination of almost 100 proposals. During the RRR, ASTEC said a decision on a new reactor

".... must not be based solely on the needs of scientific research and industrial production. It must also take account of a number of social, political and cost factors. .... The detailed, rigorous evaluation advocated by ASTEC has yet to be made - ASTEC sees this as the responsibility of the RRR."

It is equally dishonest for supporters of a new reactor to be claiming that the RRR concluded that a replacement reactor should be constructed (see the earlier section). As for the 1994 Bain/Batelle Report, the independence of this review is debatable since it was commissioned by ANSTO, and in any case the report fell a long way short of being a systematic analysis of the arguments for and against a new reactor.

Spallation sources generate a neutron flux without the need for a self-sustained uranium fission reaction. Thus spallation sources have advantages over reactors in relation to waste and safety. To date, the primary use of spallation sources has been scientific research, but accelerators have been used to produce radioisotopes via spallation reactions and the prospects for large-scale production of radioisotopes are good.

Spallation sources comprise a particle accelerator (usually a cyclotron) which is used to direct a proton beam onto a heavy element target (e.g. uranium, lead, bismuth). Proton bombardment of this target (the primary spallation target) generates neutrons. The primary spallation target is surrounded by a moderator (e.g. water) and a neutron reflector. The moderator-reflector systems vary greatly depending on the applications of the facility and the method of operation. (Boldeman, 1995.) About five spallation sources are operating around the world, mostly used for scientific research (in particular condensed matter research). Spallation sources have been competitive with research reactors for neutron beam research for 15 years or so. According to scientists at the ISIS facility in the UK (the world's leading spallation source), spallation technology would advance beyond reactor technology in 10-20 years for scientific research (Research Reactor Review, 1993, pp.43-44).

Other potential applications, including radioisotope production, have been discussed in the literature for many years, but further development was impeded by limitations in the performance of accelerators. These limitations have been overcome to a considerable extent with advances in accelerator technology. Consequently, a number of projects are being proposed and developed to build new varieties of spallation sources, and these proposals have a much higher probability of being realised given the improvements in accelerator technology. (Boldeman, 1995.)

Spallation sources do not require a sustained uranium fission reaction; in fact design features exclude the possibility of uranium fission criticality. Hence spallation sources are safer than research reactors. Another major advantage is that spallation sources generate less radioactive waste than reactors, because the primary power source is an electricity-powered accelerator rather than the uranium fission reaction in a research reactor.

Apart from neutron beam research, numerous possible applications are being explored, including transmutation of radioactive waste, power generation, radioisotope production, and commercial/industrial applications. There is also the possibility of using charged-particle beams directly from the accelerator, thus extending the range of applications.

SPALLATION SOURCES IN OPERATION

FACILITY > PROTON ENERGY (MeV) > MEAN CURRENT (µA) > BEAM POWER (kW)
ISIS > 800 > 200 > 160
LANCE (LAMPF) > 800 > 100 > 80
IPNS > 550 > -- > --
KENS > 550 > 10 > ~5
SINQ > 600 > 2000 > 1.2

All of the existing facilities are used almost exclusively for condensed matter studies, although LAMPF is primarily a medium energy nuclear physics facility which also provides photons for a spallation neutron target. All of the existing facilities are pulsed except for SINQ.

PROPOSED SPALLATION SOURCES

FACILITY > PROTON ENERGY > MEAN CURRENT > BEAM POWER > APPLICATION
AUSTRON (AUSTRIA) > 1600 MeV > 120µA > 200 kW > CONDENSED MATTER STUDIES
USA > --- > --- > 1 MW > CONDENSED MATTER STUDIES
JAPAN > --- > --- > 1 MW > CONDENSED MATTER STUDIES
ITALY (HYBRID) > 1000 MeV > 6 mA > 6 MW > ENERGY PRODUCTION
JAPAN (HYBRID) > --- > --- - 15 MW . TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE
USA ORNL (HYBRID)
EUROPEAN SYNCHO-TRON SOURCE > --- > --- > 5 MW > CONDENSED MATTER STUDIES
USA LANL (HYBRID) > 1600 MeV > 250 mA > 400 MW > TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE; ENERGY PRODUCTION
FRANCE > PRELIM. STUDY > TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE

Development of some of these systems will further extend the boundaries of accelerator technology, e.g. 1 GeV, 15 mA cyclotrons are being proposed.

SPALLATION SOURCES AND RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION

Spallation reactions generally result from interaction of >100 MeV particles (either neutrons or charged particles) with a nucleus. Spallation reactions are not very selective and elements ranging from the next element above the target down to hydrogen are produced in varying quantities. Chemical separation techniques have been developed to recover the radioisotopes of interest with both high radiochemical purity and yield. These chemical processes have also been required to reduce or eliminate the generation of mixed waste. Reaction products generally reach a maximum yield at 10-20 mass numbers below the target mass, drop off rapidly, and rise again in the low mass nuclei. For instance Be-7 is a common product in all of the targets. The choice of target has a large effect on the yield of various products and also on radiopurity. (Jamriski et al., 1997.)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has been at the forefront of radioisotope production using spallation reactions since it initiated a program in 1974. High-current accelerators have been used to produce about 75 neutron-deficient radioisotopes using spallation targets. The accelerators are located at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Research isotopes are also recovered from targets irradiated at the TRIUMF facility in British Columbia, Canada. The radioisotopes recovered are distributed for worldwide use in nuclear medicine, environmental research, physics research and industry. Products include Sr-82, Cu-67 (from ZnO targets), Ge-68, and some unique isotopes in quantities not available from other sources such as Be-10, Al-26, Mg-28, Si-32, Ti-44, Fe-52, Gd-148, and Hg-194. (Jamriski et al., 1997.)

As for future production of radioisotopes using spallation sources, of particular interest is the "Adonis" project of the Belgian nuclear research agency SCK-CEN. This project is part of a broader R&D project known as Myrrha, which is exploring a range of new applications for spallation sources.

According to SCK-CEN, the Adonis radioisotope system "was and still remains to be conceived of as a production plant designed for production of radioisotopes. The initial focus was at first mainly a short term focus for our research and for demonstration of the feasibility of the technique. Along the way to a detailed neutronic and technological description of the Adonis system, the opportunity question of other research-orientated applications became more and more apparent and as a result, the Myrrha project was started up as a follow-up and an extension of the initial Adonis project."

According to SCK-CEN, "The initial Adonis project, especially focused on radioisotope production, remains a current project within the envelope of the Myrrha project."

First to discuss the broader Myrrha project, then Adonis.

MYRRHA (SCK-CEN 1997; 1997B; 1997C)

Myrrha is part of the international research effort into accelerator-driven systems, including energy amplifiers and Accelerator Driven Transmutation Technologies. The objectives of the Myrrha project as at late 1997 are to design and construct a small-scale prototype advanced accelerator-driven system. The time frame is four years.

There are four areas of interest:
* research into accelerator driven systems as an option for transmutation of radioactive waste;
* in-core irradiation experiments in the field of reactor physics and safety-related experiments;
* medical and industrial applications including radioisotope production; and
* extensions into new research areas based on the availability of in-core and neutron beam experiments. Direct cyclotron-beam use is included.

In the Myrrha design, the cyclotron and sub-critical assembly surround the spallation target of liquid lead/bismuth. The currently-proposed cyclotron is a 150 MeV instrument with a beam current of 2 mA. According to SCK-CEN, this cyclotron is based on today's fully-reliable commercial technology and can be upgraded within the next few years to a new 250-350 MeV, 5-10 mA cyclotron reference design. Upgrading to multiple exit-ports is also feasible. The proposed 150 MeV cyclotron is based on Ion Beam Applications (IBA) technology designed for radioisotope production - high intensity, energy efficient, low-energy, negative-ion technology. An alternative design, with a positive ion cyclotron and an auto-extraction system proposed by IBA, is also being evaluated.

The major features of the sub-critical facility are:
* a spallation target made of a lead-bismuth target circuit, made independently of the surrounding sub-critical assembly;
* the attainable non-perturbated thermal neutron fluxes are in the range 3-4 x 1014 n/cm2/sec in channels in the multiplying region around the spallation target (about 15 cm from the centre);
* different kinds of irradiation devices are possible - in-core devices as well as neutron beams;
* by splitting the proton-beam, several dedicated sub-critical assemblies can be put in place, each serving a specific goal;
* because of the modular nature of hybrid systems (such as Myrrha and Adonis), capital costs can be reduced and commissioning times shortened; hybrid systems also have a greater capacity for upgrading; and
* the safety aspects of a spallation source are less severe than those of a reactor and defective structural elements can more easily be replaced. Hence, expected lifetime is longer.

Specific projects in the coming years, for the development of Myrrha, could include the following:
* integral demonstration of the liquid lead-bismuth target in irradiation conditions (verification of predicted spallation product deposition, radiochemistry, materials radiation damage study, study of liquid target hydrodynamics, study of spallation reactions and especially neutron yield performance);
* integral demonstration of the sub-critical assembly (on-line criticality measurements, verification of predicted neutronic performance, neutron spectrum influence on performance); and
* integral demonstration of the hybrid system based on the above (safety related experiments, embrittlement studies, cyclotron performance, etc.)

ADONIS (SCK-CEN, 1995; 1996; 1997A-C; Egan, 1995).

The Adonis project (Accelerator-Driven Operated Nuclear Isotope System) is a collaboration between SCK-CEN and Ion Beam Applications (IBA), a company which manufactures cyclotrons. The focus has been on the potential use of Adonis for molybdenum-99 production. (Molybdenum decays to form technetium-99m, used in 70% of nuclear medicine procedures.) However given the various possibilities for target irradiation with neutron beams, along with the use of various charged-particle beams directly from the accelerator, a wide range of radioisotopes could be produced.

According to Jongen et al. (1995), one Adonis system could produce the entire of world demand for Mo-99 (see also Egan, 1995). That calculation assumes the following parameters: neutron flux of 2 x 1014 n/cm2/s, HEU targets, target loading of 100 gm, replacing targets after one week, yielding approximately 27 700 Ci Mo-99 at EOB (end of bombardment) or 6000 Ci at six days post calibration.

SCK-CEN's calculations assume the use of 93% HEU secondary targets. If 12% enriched LEU targets are used, production could drop by a factor of 30-40 according to Egan's (1995) calculations, but the output of one system using 12% LEU targets would still comfortably satisfy Australian demand for Mo-99. Moreover the SCK-CEN calculations assume a 150 MeV, 2 mA cyclotron, and there is the possibility of using more powerful cyclotrons and thereby increasing the yield.

Effort has been made to make the system match current fission Mo-99 reactor production regimes as closely as possible, for example by using identical HEU targets as those used in (some) reactors for Mo-99 production. Thus there would be no need to develop new target technologies, and existing downstream processing technologies and facilities could be used. This has obvious advantages in terms of logistics and costs. However it does mean that the waste stream from target processing is the same as for the reactor irradiation method (though there would be no spent fuel).

As at 1995 the Adonis project had not progressed far beyond an initial feasibility study, and the project has since developed into the broader Myrrha program of which Adonis (i.e. radioisotope production) is a component part. IBA's involvement is significant; presumably the company sees some commercial potential in the project. It is also notable that there is considerable development of accelerator and spallation technology taking place for purposes other than radioisotope production (Boldeman, 1995). It is certain that radioisotope production applications will be facilitated as spin-offs from this research.

During the Research Reactor Review (1993, ch.5), there was some debate as to whether a spallation source might be a more appropriate investment than a new research reactor. ANSTO argued that spallation sources are unsuitable for radioisotope production, and that it is difficult to combine radioisotope production with other functions. Research in the past few years suggests that spallation sources are becoming increasingly attractive as neutron research tools, and that they can also be used for commercial radioisotope production. SCK-CEN says that a single system (i.e. a multi-port system) could be used to produce a variety of radioisotopes, and also for silicon doping, neutron activation analysis, etc.

SCK-CEN says that comparison of the investment costs of hybrid systems (such as Adonis) with research reactors should take account of the following:
* the modular nature of hybrid systems enables on-site assembly, shorter commissioning time, and less financial expenses during commissioning
* hybrid systems have a better upgrading capability
* multipurpose potential (e.g. baseline industrial applications, with additional functions such as radioisotope production at marginal cost)
* safety aspects of a spallation source are less severe than for a new reactor, defective structural elements can be more easily replaced, expected life-time is longer
* investment costs for new national facilities are about $100 million (e.g. 15 MW reactor, or a 2 GeV synchrotron) with annual operating costs about $25 million. For the largest facilities being planned (high-power reactors, 6-8 GeV synchrotron) capital costs are $1-3 billion. For Myrrha, the base investment cost is expected to be less than half that of a typical 15 MW reactor cost, with annual operating costs of about $2 million. Instruments can be added incrementally, as determined by funding availability and requirements.

ANSTO'S COMMENTS ON SPALLATION SOURCES

A number of comments made by ANSTO need to be questioned.

ANSTO (1997B) says "Spallation source of neutrons can be complementary to a research reactor for some areas of neutron science. They do not match reactors for cold neutrons, used in the study of polymers, biological molecules and many other areas." In other words, there is some overlap in the scientific uses, although there is also a degree of complementarity/divergence. If a spallation source were built in Australia, there would be a partial reorientation of neutron science. The argument that spallation sources do not match reactors for cold neutrons needs investigation. ANSTO employee Boldeman (1995) says that "for applications involving cold neutrons .... the dc spallation source significantly outperforms both a 15 MW reactor and AUSTRON. This is the case because neutrons are produced in a spallation source with less heat production and it is possible to couple the cold source more effectively to the neutron production target. It is relevant to note that the accelerator driving the dc spallation source is much simpler and less expensive in design."

ANSTO (1997B) says "A spallation source cannot provide for bulk radioisotope production nor does it enable commercial irradiations." It appears that ANSTO is ignorant of the recent history of the Myrrha/Adonis R&D program.

ANSTO (1997B) says a spallation source "would not meet the national interest need for expertise in nuclear technology." Nuclear expertise can be gained through access to overseas facilities. A great deal of national interest work is not dependent on a reactor - e.g. ANTARES plus radiochemical laboratories for environmental sampling, e.g. the Australian Safeguards Office's work in video surveillance research, e.g. diplomatic/political initiatives such as Australia's role in CTBT negotiations.

ANSTO (1997B) says "Due to high maintenance requirements, spallation sources only operate for approximately two thirds of any year." This is a dubious claim which needs to be tested. The only example ANSTO (1995I) gives is the ISIS facility in the UK. The SCK-CEN literature suggests that the modular, flexible nature of Myrrha/Adonis would result in less down-time when compared with multipurpose research reactors.

ANSTO (1997B) says that "The RRR acknowledged in 1993 that, even if Australia acquired a spallation source, a reactor would still be needed for radioisotope production." However, with supply from the two Australian cyclotrons, plus imported isotopes, and perhaps also a domestic spallation source used to produce radioisotopes among other purposes, there would be no need for a reactor (small or large).

ANSTO (1997B) says that "Costs of spallation sources plus required accelerator range from $US 500 million to $1 billion." Yet in a 1995 document, ANSTO (1995I) mentions existing spallation sources (ISIS, SINQ) and planned spallation sources (ASTRON/Austria) and says "The cost of each of these facilities is around $200 million." Whatever the current costs, it is likely that costs will decrease as spallation technology is further developed and commercialised. SCK-CEN expects that Myrrha-Adonis systems will cost considerably less than typical 15 MW reactors.

ANSTO (1995I) says that "The annual operating expenses of a spallation source are high. For example the annual charge for beam-time on the ISIS facility (UK) is equivalent to $A 46 million annually and ISIS averages only about 170 user-days of operation per year compared to 310 days for HIFAR." However the SCK-CEN says that annual operating costs for a Myrrha/Adonis system would be just $2 million.

ANSTO (1995I) notes that for Mo-99 production, downstream processing is identical and that the principal source of radioactive waste at Lucas Heights arises from radioisotope production and processing. ANSTO goes on to say that "Thus the replacement of HIFAR by a spallation neutron source would not have a marked impact on the radioactive wastes generated by ANSTO." While there would be considerable wastes from spallation production of Mo-99, this technique has one major advantage over the reactor technique: it would eliminate the need to irradiate fuel rods and to store and dispose of spent fuel rods.

ANSTO (1995I) says "It would appear that substantial research and long-term evaluation would be required to substantiate the viability of .... commercial production of Mo-99 using spallation sources." This is no problem. Interim strategies, such as importing radioisotopes, can be deployed while spallation technology is fully developed.

There are two main types of particle accelerators - cyclotrons and linear accelerators (linacs). Particle accelerators are also used in spallation sources (in conjunction with heavy metal targets, thus generating a neutron beam).

Particle accelerators - especially cyclotrons - are used extensively to produce radioisotopes. Approximately 20-25% of nuclear medicine procedures in Australia use cyclotron produced radioisotopes. With further R&D, cyclotron and/or spallation production of molybdenum-99/technetium-99 should be a practical alternative to the reactor technique. Since Mo-99/Tc-99 accounts for about 70% of nuclear medicine procedures, this would bring the non-reactor total to 90-95% of all nuclear medicine procedures.

In Australia, there are two medical cyclotrons - the National Medical Cyclotron in Sydney, and a smaller cyclotron at the Austin Hospital, Melbourne. It is likely that small medical cyclotrons will be built in other capital cities in the coming decade - some candidates include the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute (Melbourne), the Brisbane Hospital, the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (WA), and the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

As for scientific research, ANSTO operates ANTARES - the Australian National Tandem Accelerator for Applied Research. It was purchased from Rutgers University in 1989 and then rebuilt and refurbished. ANTARES is used by ANSTO, universities, government departments. industry, and overseas researchers. It is an advanced accelerator-based facility dedicated to accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and ion beam analysis (IBA). It is used for many purposes (ANSTO, 1997; Tuniz, 1997):
* analysis in support of non-proliferation monitoring work of the IAEA. The highly-sensitive AMS analysis capabilities of the tandem accelerator can detect traces of nuclear activities from biological samples taken by IAEA inspectors from known or suspected nuclear activity sites. AMS is the technique of choice for the analysis of radioisotopes such as I-129 and Cl-36 derived from nuclear facilities and released into the environment.
* two projects for the Australian National Greenhouse Advisory Committee - one on climate change over past 10 000+ years using carbon dating, another on ventilation of the world's oceans thus quantifying their performance as sinks for greenhouse gases.
* fine particle aerosol monitoring. The effects of fine particles on human health are becoming of increasing concern. This monitoring is carried out in Australia, in Indonesia and in other overseas countries.
* dating precious artefacts and other objects such as fish stocks, trees, bones etc. (usually using radiocarbon-14 AMS)
* using ANTARES and a 3 MeV Van de Graaff accelerator, ANSTO provides a "vast array" of high energy particle beams used to study the surface and near surface regions of materials and environmental airborne pollution; and
* ANSTO's Physics Division is developing improved accelerator-based ion beam analysis (IBA) techniques and transfers these to industry and universities. A wide range of research projects use IBA, such as high energy neutron and fission physics, materials surface and interface studies, environmental research, biological research, radiation damage, atmospheric pollution, archaometry, and semiconductor research. The number of operational days provided to university researchers for IBA (using ANTARES plus the 3 MV Van de Graaff accelerator) in 1996 was over 200, and this spanned 27 projects. Some IBA research is related to Synroc research.
* AMS for biomedical applications. AMS allows measurements of isotopic ratios six or seven orders of magnitude smaller than is possible with conventional mass spectrometry. AMS provides a method for analysing long-lived isotopes of elements for which metabolic and toxicological information is not available. For example, accumulation of aluminium has been identified as the cause of diseased states in chronic renal failure patients. Aluminium has also been implicated in the aetiology of Alzheimer's disease, although this remains a controversial issue. Without an appropriate radioisotope, and being a monoisotopic element, conventional studies of aluminium metabolism have been restricted to large dose quantities of stable aluminium and as such do not reflect normal physiology. Detection via AMS of the long-lived isotope Al-25, administered at ultra-trace levels and thus with negligible radiation damage, can provide a new avenue to understanding the role of aluminium in biological systems. (Tuniz, 1997.)

According to ANSTO (1997), "The high quality work at the tandem accelerator is attracting more and more work from Australian and international researchers in a wide variety of fields." Helen Garnett says: "ANTARES has been developed to the stage that it is now providing world class measurement capabilities and a new heavy ion microprobe is being added to enhance the instrument's capabilities. .... A unique secondary ion mass spectrometer has been installed and is widely used by ANSTO and the member universities of AINSE." ANSTO employee Tuniz (1997) says "New analytical systems are under construction, including an AMS beamline for the measurement of actinide isotopes and a heavy ion microprobe for elemental imaging with micron resolution. These capabilities will allow the development of exciting research programs in materials and life sciences and to foster novel applications in industrial research." The analysis of actinides (e.g. Th-229, Th-230 and Pu-244) will mainly be used for the program in environmental monitoring and nuclear safeguards.

Tuniz (1997) summarises tandem accelerators thus: "Tandem accelerators have been developed forty years ago to produce high-energy ion beams for nuclear physics research. A major shift towards the use of these accelerators in the analysis of materials composition and structure for scientific and industrial applications has been witnessed in the last two decades. Advanced facilities for ion beam analysis (IBA) and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) have been constructed at several nuclear physics laboratories around the world. .... In the last 20 years, AMS systems have been developed at more than 40 laboratories for the detection of low-abundance radionuclides in environmental, archaeological and biomedical samples." The accelerators include electrostatic tandem accelerators (ideal for a variety of AMS applications), small 2-3 MV tandems specifically for C-14 analysis (and some other long-lived radionuclides) and larger tandem accelerators, originally used for nuclear physics research, which can be upgraded.

According to an ANSTO employee writing in ANSTO Technology in 1991, one planned use of ANTARES was "the provision of intense neutron fluxes for a variety of applications". (Cochrane, 1991.) Prof Wilson (1993) says that "One can expect further improvements in the generation of neutrons using accelerators (as presently also used at ANSTO) but these are unlikely to threaten reactor or spallation facilities." Is it correct that ANTARES can generate a neutron flux (as well as charged particles)? To what extent does this enable ANTARES to substitute for the neutron flux in a research reactor or a spallation source?

Clearly ANTARES has a wide range of uses. Importantly, these applications appear to overlap with the uses of HIFAR in fields such as safeguards research, environmental research, and materials research. This begs the question: to what extent could ANTARES (or accelerators more generally) substitute for a research reactor?

ANSTO also has a 3 MeV Van de Graaff accelerator, which was installed in 1962. This accelerator is still in use but appears to have been superseded, to a considerable extent, by ANTARES.

The Department of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University operates a 14 UD accelerator. Its uses include AMS studies on aluminium, silicon and plutonium. AMS can provide ultra-sensitive detection thereby enabling tracer experiments with human subjects without adding significantly to the radiation body burdens. Aluminium (Al-26) toxicity studies. Studies using Si-32 are also useful for studying aluminium absorption. Urine studies using plutonium-239, 240, 242, 244 are useful given concerns about the effects of plutonium on people living near reprocessing or former nuclear weapons production plants. A program is underway to measure plutonium levels in a group near the Sellafield (UK) reprocessing plant. (Fifield et al., 1997.)

The 14 UD accelerator has been augmented with a super-conducting linac, comprised of nine resonators (to be expanded in number), to allow additional acceleration of the highly-stripped ion beams emerging from the 14 UD. Research measurements using "boosted" beams have been completed successfully. (Orphel, 1997.)

One of the projects using the boosted ANU accelerator is low-level quantitative detection of plutonium and neptunium isotopes by means of AMS, with sensitivities about 100 times better than can be achieved by alpha particle counting. The ratio of Pu-240 to Pu-239, indicative of whether the plutonium stemmed from energy production or was of weapons grade, can be established. Alpha particle spectroscopy cannot determine this ratio at low levels. (Orphel, 1997.)

The acquisition of a booster linac at ANU reveals aspects of the S&T policy process in Australia, in particular the relative starvation of accelerator technology in comparison with the generous funding of reactor technology. At the ANU, a linac was first foreshadowed in the early 1970s. In 1981 a funding proposal was deferred by the federal government. Through the mid to late 1980s, proposals were shuffled from one government agency to the next (ASTEC, ARC, DEET). According to Orphel (1997), "No funding eventuated of course, nor was there convincing evidence that the proposals had been read ...." In 1991 the proposal was short-listed by ASTEC but was not among the final recommendations in the 1992 ASTEC report on major national research facilities. In 1993, an accelerator in the UK was closed, and that linac was transferred to Canberra in exchange for access rights to ANU facilities by UK researchers. The project has been brought to fruition since then.

As with the establishment of a dedicated AMS facility at ANSTO, the ANU linac project was only brought to fruition through the acquisition of second-hand equipment from overseas laboratories that have closed.

Other aspects of the history of accelerator technology illustrate the pattern of neglect in favour of reactor technology:
* during the 1980s, Australia shared with Antarctica the dubious honour of being the only continent without a medical cyclotron.
* another example concerns a cyclotron which once operated at the ANU in Canberra. One successful project using this cyclotron was the production of the medical radioisotope thallium-201 - in fact this was the first production of thallium-201 in Australia. Later, the cyclotron was offered to ANSTO free of charge. ANSTO declined the offer. The cyclotron was sold to Japan. For a time Australia was importing thallium-201 produced in Japan using the Australian-supplied cyclotron.

There is a particle accelerator at Melbourne University. I have no details on this accelerator.

When charged particles, in particular electrons or positrons, are forced to move in a circular orbit, photons are emitted at a tangent to the orbit. In a high energy electron or positron storage ring, photons include a range from infra-red to energetic (short wavelength) X-rays; this radiation is called synchrotron radiation. Synchrotron radiation has a number of unique properties according to ANSTO (1997D):
* high brightness, extremely intense, highly collimated
* wide energy spectrum
* highly polarised
* emitted in very short pulses, typically less than a nano-second (billionth of a second)

First generation synchrotron sources were high energy physics accelerators - the synchrotron radiation was a by-product. Then came the second generation - dedicated synchrotron facilities. Recently a third generation has been developed - such as the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory - with synchrotron radiation brightness about 10 000 times greater than the second generation. (ANSTO, 1997D.)

Synchrotron radiation has become an indispensable tool in a wide range of research fields, using the intense UV, soft X-ray and hard X-ray beams. The uses of synchrotron sources include (ANSTO, 1997D):
* research into the structure of materials and molecules
* research into the electronic (chemical) structure of surfaces and interfaces
* measurement of molecular structures in disordered systems
* X-ray crystallography has historically been the primary tool used to investigate the structure of matter, and this structural knowledge is central to the development of many new technologies, e.g. pharmaceuticals.
* research into ceramics, superconductors, polymers, minerals.

Research areas are expected to expand given the advances of the third generation of synchrotron sources. New applications are expected in the following fields (ANSTO, 1997D):
* the study of the dynamics of chemical reactions which will extend applications in chemistry, physics and biostructures
* further uses in high pressure diffraction experiments
* the high brightness of third generation sources are ideally suited to microbeam and imaging applications, microscopy, fluorescence micro-analysis, micro-diffraction. For example the detection limits are several orders of magnitude lower than current techniques, and these microbeam techniques will be utilised by the environmental and medical physics communities. Soft X-ray microscopy offers a resolution of about 100 Angstroms with important applications in biology.

According to ANSTO (1997D), Australia possesses "outstanding" communities of crystallographers and other users of hard and soft X-rays. About 120 scientists are currently active users of synchrotron radiation. This compares with about 120 neutron scientists; no doubt there is some overlap.

The Australian Synchrotron Research Program (ASRP) has been funded for five years from 1995, under the Major National Research Facilities program. ANSTO is the managing agent for this program, under the direction of a Policy and Review Board which comprises the CSIRO, ANSTO, and seven Australian universities.

More than 300 researchers from all over Australia are expected to take advantage of the ASRP, which enables Australian scientists to access overseas synchrotron facilities, namely the Australian National Beamline Facility (in Japan), and also $1 billion 7 GeV Advanced Photon Source (Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago).

The Australian National Beamline Facility (ANBF) is a multi-capability hard X-ray beamline installed at the $400 million 2.5 GeV Photon Factory synchrotron light source at the Tsukuba Science City, Japan. It is made available for scientists throughout Australia. According to ANSTO, "Its use as a powder diffraction facility ranks it among the best in the world." The primary instrument at the ANBF is a multi-configuration vacuum diffractometer. (ANSTO, 1997C.)

The ANBF operated for only eight weeks during the 1996-97 year because of an extended shutdown of the Photon Factory. A restart is scheduled for November 1998, with the brightness of the synchrotron X-ray beams increased by a factor of five. During the eight weeks of operation, the ANBF hosted 15 user groups, including staff from ANSTO's Materials Division and Physics Division. (ANSTO, 1996-97.)

In early 1996 it was reported that the Australian Synchrotron Research Program included $100 000 for a detailed feasibility study into the possible construction of a synchrotron source in Australia.

The Advanced Photon Source (APS) is a 7 GeV third generation synchrotron light source at the Argonne National Laboratory. It provides beams of higher energy, and a brightness thousands of times higher than that available at the ANBF. The APS cost $470 million. Australian scientists have access to two APS facilities, namely - Synchrotron Radiation Instrumentation, and Advanced Radiation Sources. The Synchrotron Radiation Instrumentation involves 11 experimental stations on five inert magnet beamlines. The research includes studies of basic biological processes in structural terms (such as protein or virus crystallography), and condensed matter and materials research. (ANSTO, 1997E.)

In its 1996-97 Annual Report, ANSTO summarises Australia's involvement in the APS as follows. The ASRP has provided funding towards the construction costs of three consortia, in return for a share of use of the facilities. The three consortia are:
* Biological Consortium for Advanced Radiation Sources; specialises in protein crystallography, operational from early 1998.
* the Chemistry and Materials Science Consortium for Advanced Radiation Sources; X-ray scattering and diffraction facilities for chemicals and materials science facilities, fully operational in 1999.
* the Synchrotron Radiation Instrumentation Collaborative Access Team; which will provide a wide range of capabilities for physics, chemistry, geophysics and environmental research, already operational.

The ASRP maintains two staff at the Photon Factory, and three staff will be based at the APS. The ASRP staff are ANSTO employees.

Access is via a peer reviewed process.

Comments/questions.

What was the outcome of the feasibility study into the possible construction of a synchrotron source in Australia?

Clearly, synchrotron radiation sources are sophisticated, multi-purpose facilities, and the technology is advancing rapidly. It may be the case that a domestic synchrotron source - or access to overseas synchrotron facilities - can compensate for a reactor in areas such as materials research, chemistry, and biology/medicine. Claims that synchrotrons sources "complement" reactors imply that there is no scope for synchrotron sources to replace reactors. Such claims are almost certainly exaggerated and should be treated with considerable scepticism, notwithstanding the differences between synchrotron radiation and the neutron beams of a research reactor.

According to the RRR (1993, ch.5), Australian scientists have had low-cost access to world-class facilities, but that access will almost certainly be curtailed in future due to a combination of budgetary factors and other considerations at host reactors. Fees are likely to rise. In some cases only countries contributing to the capital costs of reactors (or other high-tech facilities) may have access.

The RRR recommended that additional funding ($2 million per year) should be made available for suitcase science. The RRR said this would allow 20-30 scientists additional access to overseas facilities.

One issue is that it may be easier to access overseas facilities if something can be offered in return - such as access to an Australian reactor. Perhaps higher sums of money can be offered as an alternative. If the RRR's figures ($2 million per year for 20-30 scientists) are more-or-less accurate, then the government should be able to provide ample funding for suitcase science at a fraction of the cost of a new reactor.

Australian scientists have access to overseas synchrotron and spallation facilities, although there is no domestic synchrotron or spallation source. Countries which operate reactor(s) may be prepared to exchange access to their reactors in return for access to non-reactor facilities in Australia. For example ANTARES could be used as a bargaining chip, keeping in mind ANSTO's comment that "The high quality work at the tandem accelerator is attracting more and more work from Australian and international researchers in a wide variety of fields." Other bargaining chips might include the ANSTO supercomputer, or synchrotron or spallation sources if such are built in Australia.

The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is worth specific mention. KAERI operates the HANARO reactor, which first went critical in early 1995. It has a high power level (30 MW) and high neutron flux (maximum core thermal flux of 4.5 x 1014 n/cm2/sec). The functions of the reactor are fuels and materials testing in support of the nuclear power program (30%), neutron physics experiments (28%), radioisotope production (22%), neutron activation analysis (16%), and silicon doping and neutron radiography (4%). KAERI hopes to use HANARO as the basis of an international research centre.

The "Access to Major Research Facilities Program" was initiated in 1990 by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism. Initial funding was $150 000 p.a., rising to $330 000 for the fiscal year 1996-97. The term major research facilities refers to large facilities not available in Australia such as synchrotron radiation sources, high flux neutron beam sources, high energy physics facilities and astronomical facilities. The proposed facility must be a major facility with a capital cost greater than $100 million. Maximum funding is $12 000 dollars, funding is limited to 14 days, and the maximum number of researchers is three per proposal. Access to such facilities is competitive and subject to heavy worldwide demand.

At the 1997 Australian Nuclear Association conference, ANSTO employee John Boldeman (1997) discussed the following four programs which allow Australian scientists to access overseas facilities:
* the ANBF synchrotron facility in Japan
* the APS synchrotron facility in the USA
* Australian collaboration with the ISIS spallation facility in the UK
* the Access to Major Research Facilities Program

Boldeman (1997) says "All (four) programs have been outstandingly successful and have provided comprehensive research opportunities for Australian scientists at very small cost." The number of funded proposals is expected to double in the next few years, from the 1996-97 level of about 75 projects. One hundred and thirteen senior scientists plus 41 postgraduate students were supported in 1996-97.

In sum, it is certain that an expansion of suitcase science programs could partially fill the gap left by the closure and non-replacement of HIFAR. However the extent of future access to overseas facilities is an open question.

Major sources of income in 1991-92 were radioisotopes (35%), research (24%) and corporate services (22%). (Wilson, 1993.) In recent years the major income sources have been radioisotope sales and silicon doping.

A large majority of radioisotope sales are for nuclear medicine. In addition, sales of industrial radioisotopes yield about $1 million annually, including export sales. Industrial radioisotopes are marketed through Tracerco, a joint venture between ANSTO and ICI Australia.

Prof. John Stocker, Chief Scientist and Chair of the government's advisory body ASTEC, said in 1993 that: "For the foreseeable future the direct commercial returns appear unlikely to justify the investment in a new reactor and alternative means of supplying research and commercial needs may be more cost-effective." (RRR submission, p.1.)

Prof. Wilson (1993) said that many of ANSTO's projects have not produced any significant income as yet, in part because of the long lead times involved, and he said that not all such projects will turn out to be financial winners due to technological failure or, more often, due to difficulties in ultimate commercialisation.

The Research Reactor Review (chs. 10-11) undertook a detailed financial evaluation of the proposal for a new reactor. The Review concluded that a new reactor is certain to be a substantial economic burden, even allowing for off-setting revenue, and that there did not appear to be any prospect of commercial or industrial equity capital for a new reactor. The Review (1993, p.26, 119) said:

"Review members found that links between neutron sources and industry were not yet as pervasive and deep as the evidence of scientific usefulness suggested they ought to be. This is not just the case in Australia but world-wide."

"At most other facilities overseas, in order to demonstrate to industry that technology can assist in its operations, industry has been given free access initially and only charged for subsequent use, and then usually at a subsidised price."

The Research Reactor Review (pp.79-80) pressed a number of mining companies to place a value on having a domestic reactor. They said services such as neutron activation analysis and gauges were important but not critical to their operations - in the absence of a domestic reactor they would import products and services at extra expense, or use other techniques. Some companies are heavily dependent on HIFAR, but the income to ANSTO from these activities is relatively insignificant. BHP said that some HIFAR-based services were expensive, inconvenient and there was a slow turn-around.

Former ANSTO employee Murray Scott (RRR submission) said that the uptake by industry of ANSTO's research has not been good, with industry preferring cheaper, more accessible alternatives.

Dr. Gammon (1997), Executive Officer of AINSE, says that "industrial appreciation of neutron scattering's role in material science is lacking."

ANSTO finds itself in a catch-22. It has historically provided commercial services and products at subsidised prices. If it raises prices to cover costs, customers may look elsewhere or turn to non-nuclear techniques. Either way, the proposed new reactor is likely to be an economic burden.

The future profitability of radioisotope production is uncertain. ANSTO faces competition from a number of large, vertically-integrated, multinational radiopharmaceutical companies. It is unlikely that ANSTO could compete on the world market against the multinationals to any significant degree. However it appears ANSTO may be negotiating with one or more of the multinationals. ANSTO (1996-97) says that "Negotiations were carried out with leading international radiopharmaceutical organisations for ANSTO to significantly increase its role as a supplier of reactor and cyclotron-produced isotopes to the Australian and South East Asian nuclear medicine communities. Negotiations are nearing completion on a complementary Technical Cooperation Agreement."

Future income from silicon doping is also uncertain. Amersham (RRR submission), one of the largest multinational radiopharmaceutical companies, said in 1993 that: "...... silicon doping could not be considered a key activity for the (Australian) national economy since sufficient facilities already exist to meet market demand in other countries and information indicates that additional silicon irradiation world capacity will become available in the immediate and long term future at other new reactor locations."

The Research Reactor Review (p.115) said that "There are 28 research reactors known, or planning, to have facilities for NTD silicon production, so the supply capacity is growing. ...... ANSTO itself admitted problems in forecasting the future market for NTD silicon. There is both the possibility of at least one non-reactor alternative process as well as the possibility of excess capacity by 2000."

Evidently ANSTO has commissioned a study by Access Economics which claims that ANSTO's programs provide economic benefits of $140-230 million each year. Those figures make no allowance for waste management costs, decommissioning costs, or even ANSTO's annual operating budget of about $91 million. (Fries, 1997.) Professor Max Brennan, former Chair of the ANSTO Board, said the Access Economics study was probably underpinned by the same sort of "shonky" economics that usually underpin such studies! (ABC TV, Lateline, July 1997.)

Synroc research has absorbed some tens of millions of dollars to date, and there is no certainty of successful commercialisation.

Further comments/questions:
* is the Access Economics study available?
* a thorough independent study of the economics of the proposed new reactor would be useful
* as well as capital reactor costs, there are site costs, decommissioning costs, waste management costs, etc.

ANSTO, 1996-97 Annual Report, "Applications of Nuclear Science and Technology to the Understanding of Natural Processes":
* metal speciation and bioavailability studies which have informed water quality guidelines.
* radiotracer measurements to understand sediment and contaminant transport in the coastal zone, inc. sewage dispersion. "A key research question being addressed by ANSTO using radioisotopes is 'what is the impact of humans on the rates and mechanisms of key environmental processes in the marine environment?' "
* "ANSTO has agreed to work with its local community to understand specific environmental processes on Sutherland Shire's Kurnell peninsula."
* use of iridium-192 (half life 74 days) to study the impact of storms on the movement of sand.
* accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and ion beam analysis used for studies of global climate change and environmental science (e.g. studies of particulate air pollution in numerous Australian cities/regions and overseas, studies of ocean circulation and its impact on the world's climate). Many (perhaps all) of these studies use long-lived radioisotopes such as carbon-14.
* ANTARES is used for two projects for the Australian National Greenhouse Advisory Committee - one on climate change over past 10 000+ years using carbon dating, another on ventilation of the world's oceans thus quantifying their performance as sinks for greenhouse gases.
* use of ANSTO's Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometer (SIMS) to analyse mineral surfaces, biological systems, semi-conductors, and coatings and ceramics. A national workshop was held on the direction of SIMS research and how it may complement other surface analysis techniques to provide a better understanding of surfaces.
* Alligator Rivers natural analogue study, which involves the use of SIMS capabilities to study "uranium migration in sub-surface environments and the associated risks at sites being considered for radioactive waste disposal and decommissioning". "SIMS evidence contributed to the demonstration of an important mechanism for retaining uranium in iron nodules ...." Also involves the use of the ANU's Sensitive High Resolution Ion Microprobe.
* design and development of a high precision gamma transmission gauge to measure sediment loadings, in support of understanding off-shore processes.
* neutron scattering studies in the USA and France to study the ability of activated charcoals to remove taste and odour molecules from water.
* research using ANSTO-developed high sensitivity radon detectors to study transport of radon and radon decay products.
* use of ANSTO's 3 MV Van de Graaff accelerator to measure oxygen-18 enrichment levels in biological tracers; this underpins research carried out into the metabolic rates of a wide range of endangered native fauna. "The specialised habitats for these endangered species are shrinking quickly ...."

Another of ANSTO's (1996-97) programs is called "Competitiveness and Ecological Sustainability of Industry" and includes the following projects (among others):
* demonstration of a process for oxidising and immobilising arsenic (e.g. mining waste streams, e.g. landfills)
* a study on the extent of acid mine drainage in Australia
* a project designed to improve the design of landfills for municipal waste
* development of chemical, biological and mineral processing technologies to detoxify polluted harbour sediments (applicable to other metal-contaminated sediments, soils and wastes)
* computer modelling of the release of surplus water from the Ranger uranium mine
* irradiation of millions of fruit fly pupae using "GATRI", ANSTO's gamma irradiation facility
* use of gamma irradiation facilities to process health care materials, tissue grafts, biological material and polymers for 38 clients
* operation of a pilot plant to demonstrate a new solvent extraction process for recovering nickel and cobalt from solution
* industry-funded work on the removal of naturally-occurring radioactive contaminants from mineral products

Comments/questions:

ANSTO has a very broad conception of environmental research/projects.

To what extent do ANSTO's (so-called) environmental projects require a reactor? Clearly some projects use non-reactor instruments (e.g. accelerators, computers, the ANU's microprobe), and others use radioisotopes - many/most of which are long-lived and could be imported or produced in accelerators or spallation sources. Other studies use overseas facilities, e.g. those in the USA and France.

Do any of the useful projects require a domestic reactor?

Prof. Wilson (1993) made the following comments in his report to the RRR:
* environmental research generally uses short-lived radioisotopes or neutron activation analysis. Often, MOATA was used for these studies.
* future trends are likely to require a more advanced reactor than MOATA. Such techniques offer an enormous enhancement in sensitivity over other, non-neutron techniques. "The projects which are probably of the greatest significance have been studies of mining and of ore processing; in many of these projects ANSTO has been the national leader."

Prof Wilson's comments raise the following questions:
* which short-lived radioisotopes are used? Are they (or could they be) produced in accelerators?
* is HIFAR used for neutron activation analysis for environmental research/applications? To what extent? Could neutrons from spallation sources be used for these projects? What non-neutron alternatives are there?
* if it was true in 1993 that neutron techniques offered an "enormous" enhancement in sensitivity over other, non-neutron techniques, then has this gap closed given the rapid advances in accelerator and synchrotron technology?
* to what extent can spallation neutrons replace reactor neutrons for environmental applications?

A number of the environmental projects involve monitoring environmental pollution, which can be very useful but is not the same as actually improving the quality of the environment.

ANSTO's studies of water quality are ironical given past and present practices of releasing radioactive wastes into waterways. Also, whatever the environmental benefits of reactor applications, there is clearly a significant environmental legacy in the form of radioactive waste and emissions.

Some of the projects appear to be attempts to find technological fixes to social problems, such as the project concerning the destruction of habitats of endangered species.

Non-nuclear environmental research has, by and large, suffered in recent years. For example, the 1997-98 federal budget revealed (Pockley, 1997B):
* funding for the Energy R&D Corporation (ERDC) is to be terminated, having been reduced from $12 to $6 million the previous year; and
* a 50% cut in the National Energy Efficiency Program to $1.8 million (Peter McGuaran's response: "It is in no way an indication of a lessening of the government's commitment to renewable and alternative energy research.")

Danna Vale, federal MP for Hughes, claims that HIFAR has delivered "enormous" benefits for the environment, and that the construction of a replacement reactor at Lucas Heights will bring "substantive" environmental benefits. Nonsense.

Allen, Barry, 1997, "Benefits of Nuclear Reactor Still Unclear", Search, Vol.28(9), p.259.

ANSTO, 1995I, "The use of cyclotrons and accelerators for the commercial production of radioisotopes", Submission (#32C) to Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste.

ANSTO, 1996-97, Annual Report.

ANSTO, 1997, "Physics helping develop unique views of the world, old and new", http://www.ansto.gov.au/ansto/phytan.html#Australian

ANSTO, 1997B "A Replacement Research Reactor for Australia: Background Information", <http://www.ansto.gov.au/qanda.html>

ANSTO, 1997D, An Introduction to Synchrotron Radiation, http://www.ansto.gov.au/natfac/asrp4.html

ANSTO, 1997C, Australian Synchrotron Research Program, http://www.ansto.gov.au/natfac/asrp.html

ANSTO, 1997E, Australian Facilities at the Advanced Photon Source, http://www.ansto.gov.au/natfac/asrp2.html

Boldeman, J.W., 1995, "Accelerator Reactor Hybrid Systems", Proceedings of the 1995 Conference on "Nuclear Science and Engineering in Australia, 1995", Lucas Heights, 30-31 October.

Boldeman, J.W., 1997, "Access to Major Overseas Research Facilities", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Isotopes, 12-16 October 1997, Sutherland, NSW: Australian Nuclear Association.

Bourke, Paul, and Butler, Linda, 1993, "Bibliometric Analysis of ANSTO Research in the Science Citation Index", Working Paper S4.1 in ANSTO, 1993, Supplementary Submission to the Research Reactor Review.

Cawte, Alice, 1992, Atomic Australia: 1944-1990, Sydney: New South Wales University Press.

Cochrane, P., 1991, ANSTO's Tandem Accelerator Commissioned, ANSTO Technology, No.13, pp.3-6.

Doherty, Peter, 1997, "Nobel Thoughts, Search, Vol.28(9), p.262.

Egan, Gary F., 1995, "Development of Cyclotron Technologies for Medical Radioisotope Production", Proceedings of the Conference on "Nuclear Science and Engineering in Australia, 1995", Lucas Heights, 30-31 October.

Fifield, L.K., et al., "Biomedical Applications of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at ANU", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Isotopes, 12-16 October 1997, Sutherland, NSW: Australian Nuclear Association.

Fries, Peter, 1997, Financial Review, 24 September.

Gammon, Dr. R.B., Executive Officer, AINSE, 1997, The Contribution of HIFAR to University Research", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Isotopes, 12-16 October 1997, Sutherland, NSW: Australian Nuclear Association.

Green, Jim, 1997, "New Reactor a Missed Opportunity", Search, Vol.28(9), pp.275-279.

Green, Jim, 1997B, "Does Australia Need a New Reactor?", Current Affairs Bulletin, Vol.74(3), pp.13-20.

Green, Jim, 1998, "The ANSTO file: ANSTO's misinformation on the proposed new reactor", available on request.

Green, Jim, 1998B, PhD thesis, "Reactors, Radioisotopes and the HIFAR Controversy", <http://www.ozemail.com.au/~nfz>

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1994, Nuclear Research Reactors in the World, Reference Data Series No. 3., Vienna: IAEA.

Jamriski, D.J., Peterson, E.J., and Carty, J., 1997, "Spallation Production of Neutron Deficient Radioisotopes in North America", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Isotopes, 12-16 October 1997, Sutherland, NSW: Australian Nuclear Association.

Jongen, Yves, et al., 1995, "A Proton-Driven, Intense, Subcritical Fission Neutron Source for Radioisotope Production", Proceedings of the International Conference on Accelerator-Driven Transmutation Technologies, Vol.346(1), pp.852-857.

Lowe, Prof. Ian, 1993, Annexure to the Sutherland Shire Council's First Round Supplementary Submission to the Research Reactor Review.

McKinnon Report - see Research Reactor Review.

Martin, Brian, 1980, Nuclear Knights, Canberra: Rupert Public Interest Movement.

Nolch, Guy, 1996, "Australia Chooses its Major National Research Facilities", Search, Vol. 27(1), pp.13-15.

Orphel, Trevor P., President of AINSE, 1997, "Recent Developments in Basic Nuclear Research within Australia", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Isotopes, 12-16 October 1997, Sutherland, NSW: Australian Nuclear Association.

Pockley, Peter, 1996, "Profound changes to Australian Universities", Search, Vol.27(8), p.228.

Pockley, Peter, 1997, "Largest funding for science slips through", Search, Vol.28(9), p.273.

Pockley, Peter, 1997B, "Research cuts emerge after Budget hoopla", Search, Vol.28(5), pp.131-132.

Pockley, Peter, 1997C, "Senate Inquiry into Research Reactor", Search, Vol.28(10), p.296.

Pockley, Peter, 1997D, "Doherty Attacks Drop in Research Funding", Search, Vol.28(9).

Pockley, Peter, 1998, "The big crunch", Australasian Science, Vol.19(1), pp.46-49.

Research Reactor Review, 1993, Future Reaction: Report of the Research Reactor Review, Sydney: Wentworth Press.

Research Reactor Review, 1993B, Appendices: Report of the Research Reactor Review, Sydney: Wentworth Press.

SCK-CEN (Belgium Nuclear Research Centre), 1995, "The Adonis Project: A New Type of
Neutron Source", SCK-CEN Scientific Report, <http://hades.sckcen.be/publications/scr/95/scrrsrp/lud.htm>

SCK-CEN, 1996, "The Adonis Project: A New Type of Neutron Source", <http://hades.sckcen.be/publications/scr/96/scrrsrp/lvd1.htm>

SCK-CEN, 1997, "The Myrrha Project", http://hades.sckcen.be/dept/myrrha/myrrha.html

SCK-CEN, 1997B, "Accelerator-Driven Nuclear Systems: the Myrha-ADONIS project", http://hades.sckcen.be/conferences/topday_myrrha.html

SCK-CEN, 1997C, "The Myrrha Project - An Accelerator Driven Neutron Source", http://hades.sckcen.be/news/newsletters/3/welcome.html

Tuniz, C. 1997, "ANTARES - Recent Research and Future Plans", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Isotopes, 12-16 October 1997, Sutherland, NSW: Australian Nuclear Association.

Walsh, Jim, 1997, "Surprise Down Under: The Secret History of Australia's Nuclear Ambitions", The Nonproliferation Review, Fall, pp.1-20

Wilson, Professor Geoffrey, 1993, "Evaluation of ANSTO's Science Performance", Consultancy for the Research Reactor Review, Appendix 1 in Future Reaction: Appendices, Report of the Research Reactor Review.