Talk:Chalk River Laboratories

Reference Material
This article talks about chalk river in great details. It might be worth checking the references and adding to the info contained in this page. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canada+earliest+nuclear+projects+will+haunt+landscape+centuries/5879642/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.132.57 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Chalk river unidentified deposits
Chalk river unidentified deposits redirects here, but there is no mention. I've checked out some sources, and it seems that there is plenty of published material on this topic. A former section was removed since it "was ridiculous"—I'll agree, and I don't want to see it again. + m t  17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NRU Shutdown

 * sup boys? this section was full of crap, so I cleaned it out. Please don't speculate about things you don't know about in the actual article. There was a loose thread about "oh, well, I guess the whole site will be GO-CO once the crown sells it" in this new NRU shutdown section... ummm, yeah... even if that was valid info it shouldn't be in a section on NRU shutting down. Come on people, get it together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.148.202 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The information in this article is clearly misleading. The shutdown wasn't "extended when AECL decided to connect seismically-qualified emergency power supplies" as indicated by the article. It was ordered shut down by the CNSC (which ultimately led to the firing of the CNSC president). Why has this information been distorted in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snrrub (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you go back out to the Main Page you'll see right at the top that it says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This means that if you think something needs clarification, rather than complaining about the article being "misleading" or suggesting that some past editor has "distorted" information, you can go and fix it yourself. Certainly one of the citations reads, "The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) had ordered the 50-year-old Chalk River reactor closed," and the article already indicates that the shutdown was connected with meeting the CNSC's terms of licence.  If you think that the circumstances of shutdown are unclear in how the article now appears, Be Bold. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the statement as it appears in the article. It was the operator (AECL) that extended the NRU shutdown and informed the regulator (CNSC) of this decision (see, for example, Section IX of the July 2008 Talisman International report).  However I've added text ("following consultation with the CNSC") to clarify that the decision was not made in a vacuum. Whitlock (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist history?
I am concerned about some recent edits in this article. I am not going to revert them because I want to show good faith, but nonetheless I decided to voice my concern here in case anybody else has some input on the matter.

On February 5th, User:IronChris added a section about the recent spill. A few hours later, User:Whitlock made some serious revisions of the new section, removing sourced information regarding possible controversy about the information given by Chalk River and about its handling of the affair. These and the other changes made, to both language used and sources cited, appear to be complete whitewashing of the issue. Upon inspection of Whitlock's userpage, one will discover that Whitlock works for Chalk River Laboratories.

See the differences here

My question: is this a conflict of interest? Is this going against neutral point of view? It is a difficult situation, because if one were to read only the article as it stands after Whitlock's edits, one might not think twice about it. But considering that some important information about potential controversy was removed, the dissident voice has effectively been silenced, and that does not sound neutral to me. I would appreciate dialog on the issue. If no solution can be reached, there is a conflict of interest noticeboard, but it would probably be preferable to solve the issue here. Thank you, romarin [talk ]  03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the title of this section, as it implies that changes to a widely-accepted history have been attempted, which is not the case here. Nevertheless, I've chosen to add a question mark and leave it at that.


 * In making the changes referred to above, I improved the accuracy of the piece, deleted references to crap journalism and substituted references to reports filed by the federal regulator (CNSC) and the operator of the facility (AECL), as tabled by the Minister of Natural Resources Canada in Parliament on Feb.5, 2009.


 * Yes there was a controversy over this event, but Wikipedia is not a blog; it aspires to be an encylopedia. By all official accounts this was a non-event in terms of public and environmental impact, blown enormously out of proportion.  No other industry would merit front page stories and a debate in Parliament for emitting less than a thousandth of its regulatory limit.  If anything the communication to the general public might have been more detailed back in December 2008, and then the slagging and conspiracy theories could have started a month earlier.  (The operator of the facility has since decided to publicize such events on its website in the future).


 * Rather than delete the inflammatory tripe that appeared in this generally deficient article on Chalk River Laboratories following the media hype, I chose the band-aid approach, and that's why it reads like it was written by a committee having trouble agreeing with itself. I'm certainly not going to waste any more time than necessary wordsmithing it however, and like any Wikipedia article it wouldn't deserve editing in the first place if teachers and the media didn't continually mistake it for a real information source.  Nevertheless, the section on the 2008 NRU leak (poor terminology since there was next to no emission to the environment) is, as far as I can tell, factually correct, and I will be happy to defend it.  If there are delusions of alternate histories out there, they should only be represented here if they represent, say, more than 1% of the opinions of serious observers of this event.  Whitlock (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN Chalk River incidents; this news should be added
On the News Releases page of Chalk River Laboratories several press releases have been published about a leak of heavy water since May 15, 2009. http://www.aecl.ca/NewsRoom/News/Press-2009.htm. I think these incidents should be mentioned. The argument used above that Wikipedia is not a blog, is a falacy. Readers of Wikipedia have a right to know about incidents, because it gives insight into possible risks. But this article is not the first on nuclear energy that is edited in a pro-nuclear biased way. This is why Wikipedia is a feeble source and will remain so. --77.251.250.103 (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ****Are you Mad? This article focuses on every little problem that has ever happened. The slant in this article is anti-nuclear by design********
 * Chalk River Laboratories is one of Canada's most significant scientific accomplishments, and a national historic treasure. The Wikipedia article is little more than a litany of bad news.  Where is the pro-nuclear bias?
 * Nobody has said that the problems at Chalk River shouldn't be reported. They should, however, be reported in a factual and balanced manner.  The current heavy water leak from the NRU reactor is contained, with small tritium vapour emissions that are below regulatory limits.Whitlock (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is time the news on the leaks of the past 3 years should be given their own page. That way this article and the one on the NRU  can remain mainly focused on the history and technology and less on the evolving Politics and mismanagement Newswestwood (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess in WikiWorld this kind of news deserves a page of its own since it's freaky and people are talking about it, but in the real world of engineering there is nothing "news" about a 52-year-old reactor that leaks. Chalk River should be applauded for being able to keep the NRU going this long, fixing it when it breaks, and maintaining a respectable safety and environmental record throughout.  About six months ago the NRU was saving the world's bacon by stepping up when most of the world's other major isotope-producing reactors were down.  That's news.  No congratulatory messages from Ignatieff or Harper, which is odd since they find the topic to be of utmost importance today.  Whitlock (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Whitlock, I feel you should refrain from editing articles about Chalk River Laboratories or AECL, under WP:CONFLICT. Your user page indicates that you are an employee of AECL working at Chalk River. More, your comments on this discussion page demonstrate a clear bias. -- Darthsco (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My goal in editing Wikipedia articles is to bring them into alignment with the Wikipedia goals of being factual, neutral, and reliabily sourced. I feel I have reduced the level of bias and noise in these articles, not added to it.  If you can identify specific examples to the contrary, please let me know.  Whitlock (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

CRL produces about one-third of the world's supply of medical radioisotopes?
From this article:

CRL produces about one-third of the world's supply of medical radioisotopes

From Nuclear medicine:

About two thirds of the world's supply of medical isotopes are produced at the Chalk River Laboratories in Chalk River, Ontario, Canada.

So which article needs to be updated to be consistent with the other? TerraFrost (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, it says one third then half then majority, all in different sections. Should be edited for consistency? (brodenF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.166 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Update needed
It now says CRL produces a large share of the world's supply of medical radioisotopes. The ref given is 2011, before the shutdown of NRU in 2018. As far as I know, Canada now imports most if not all of her medical radioisotopes. They probably use moly cows but that's using an imported radioisotope for feedstock and so doesn't count; They may use particle accelerators but at the current stage of technology these mainly produce neutron deficient nuclides and most current radiopharmeceuticals are proton deficient for historical reasons.

I'll do an update when I can find sources, but if anyone else would like to do it, the current article is kinda embarrassing! Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chalk River Laboratories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080402220916/http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca:80/highlights/2006/0605chalkriver_e.html to http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/highlights/2006/0605chalkriver_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chalk River Laboratories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080403090931/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071211.wisotope1211/BNStory/National/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071211.wisotope1211/BNStory/National/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

CNL
The CNL page states in part:

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, formerly the Chalk River Laboratories

The link to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is dead, and the link to this page isn't. AECL page mentions CNL ... Very briefly ... With no links. Can somebody please explain the inconsistencies? Is there still a CNL that is the new name of Chalk River Labs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.169 (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)