ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
May 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
June 2026
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Reimagining nuclear materials for the future of medicine
Nuclear medicine has come a long way since Henri Becquerel first observed the penetrating energy of radioactive materials in 1896. Today, technetium-99m alone is used in more than 40 million diagnostic procedures every year—from cardiovascular imaging and bone scans to cancer detection—making it the undisputed workhorse of nuclear medicine. That single statistic tells you something important: An enormous portion of modern diagnostic medicine rests on a surprisingly narrow foundation, one built around a small number of aging research reactors that were never originally designed for continuous isotope production.
Blair P. Bromley
Nuclear Technology | Volume 194 | Number 2 | May 2016 | Pages 192-203
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT14-101
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Pressure-tube heavy water reactors (PT-HWRs) are highly advantageous for implementing plutonium-thorium (Pu-Th) fuels because of their high neutron economy and online refueling capability. The use of annular heterogeneous seed-blanket core concepts in a PT-HWR where higher-fissile-content seed fuel bundles are physically separate from lower-fissile-content blanket bundles allows more flexibility and control in fuel management. The lattice concept modeled was a 35-element bundle made with a homogeneous mixture of reactor-grade PuO2 (67 wt% fissile) and ThO2, with a central zirconia rod to reduce coolant void reactivity. Eight annular heterogeneous seed-blanket core concepts with plutonium-thorium–based fuels in a 700-MW(electric)–class PT HWR were analyzed, using a once-through-thorium cycle. Blanket region(s) represented 50% to 75% of the total fuel volume. There were 1, 2, and 3 different blanket regions and 1, 2, and 3 different seed regions. The seed fuel tested was 3 wt% or 4 wt% PuO2, while the blanket fuel tested was 1 wt% PuO2, mixed with ThO2. The impact of different fuel combinations on the core-average burnup, fissile utilization (FU), power distributions, and other performance parameters were evaluated. WIMS-AECL 3.1 was used to perform lattice physics calculations using two-dimensional, 89-group integral neutron transport theory, while RFSP 3.5.1 was used to perform the core physics and fuel management calculations using three-dimensional two-group diffusion theory. Among the different core concepts investigated, there were cores where the FU was up to 25% higher than is achieved in a PT-HWR using natural uranium fuel bundles. There were cores where up to 60% of the Pu was consumed, cores where up to 41% of the energy was produced from 233U, and cores where up to 236 kg/yr of fissile uranium (mainly 233U) was produced in the discharged fuel. This study is an extension of previous work that involved the analysis of homogeneous cores, two-region (one seed, one blanket) and eight-region (four seeds, four blankets) annular, and checkerboard-type heterogeneous seed-blanket cores.