Early stakeholder engagement for a possible new multipurpose research reactor for Canada

A. Siddiqui; K. Huynh; L. Walters; Z. Yamani

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Early stakeholder engagement for a possible new multipurpose research reactor for Canada

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 2021 workshop series with 154 Canadian stakeholders concluded that a new domestic high-flux multipurpose research reactor is needed to close capability gaps left by the retired NRU reactor.

desk verdict A transparent record of the 2021 Canadian stakeholder engagement that delivers its stated summary while overreaching in the conclusion that a new research reactor 'is required'. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17624 v1 pith:KSHPEALA submitted 2025-05-23 physics.soc-ph

Z. Yamani , L. Walters , A. Siddiqui , K. Huynh This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.soc-ph

keywords researchreactorstakeholderengagementNRUneutronbeamsmaterialsirradiationradioisotopesnuclearpolicyCanada

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

After Canada's only high-flux multipurpose research reactor, NRU, retired in 2018, the authors ran a series of five virtual workshops from March to July 2021 to ask Canadian academic, industrial, government, and national-laboratory stakeholders what a replacement should provide. The paper reports a dominant theme: participants broadly support building a new domestic high-flux multipurpose research reactor, because existing and planned facilities such as the McMaster Nuclear Reactor, Canadian Light Source, TRIUMF, and the proposed PC-CANS cannot fully meet needs for fuel and materials irradiation, neutron beam research, radioisotope production, and workforce training. The authors conclude that such a reactor is required to satisfy sovereign priorities in energy resilience, nuclear safety and security, and to maintain Canada's status as a Tier 1 nuclear nation. The paper is an early stakeholder-engagement report, not a technical design or a quantitative needs analysis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-session virtual workshop series, each session themed around a utilization (context, neutron beams, materials and fuel irradiation, radioisotopes, safety and security), with invited presentations from Canadian and international experts followed by open discussion. The workshops function as the paper's evidence base: the reported 'dominant theme' of the discussions, together with the comparison of existing Canadian facilities against stakeholder requirements, carries the conclusion that a new high-flux multipurpose research reactor is required.

What would settle it

A systematic content analysis of the workshop recordings or transcripts that counted expressed support and dissent, or a broader representative survey of Canadian research organizations, Indigenous communities, and provincial governments, could test the 'dominant theme' claim; if it found no majority support, or found that a combination of existing facilities and accelerator-based sources meets the identified needs, the paper's conclusion that a new reactor is required would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a structured early consultation with 154 participants produced clear support for a new domestic high-flux multipurpose research reactor. The workshop series covered five themes—overall context, neutron beams, materials and fuel irradiation, radioisotopes, and safety and security—and, according to the authors, the discussions repeatedly returned to how to make such a reactor happen rather than whether it should happen. The stated basis is a gap analysis: after NRU's 2018 shutdown, no fuel irradiation experiments have been done domestically, 40% of neutron-scattering users have not run an experiment since, and the remaining lower-flux reactors cannot cover the full range of needs. International access is described as hard or impossible for highly radioactive specimens, making sovereignty and security the strongest argument.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that Canada 'requires' a new reactor rests on the assumption that the views of the 154 invited workshop participants, mostly from nuclear-sector organizations, stand in for the needs and priorities of all Canadian stakeholders, including Indigenous and local communities, taxpayers, and non-nuclear users.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A federal decision to proceed to a formal feasibility study for a new multipurpose research reactor would be the natural next step, including the financing and community-engagement work the paper acknowledges was left out.
SMR and advanced-reactor deployment plans would gain a domestic source of irradiation data for fuel and materials qualification, which the paper says is currently missing.
Canadian neutron-beam users would recover domestic access, restoring the experimental capability that 40% of users lost after the NRU shutdown.
Radioisotope supply chains, especially regulatory radiotracers, would become less dependent on foreign reactors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 154 participants were invited and drawn largely from organizations with a direct stake in nuclear R&D, so the 'dominant theme' may overstate how broadly all Canadians would weigh the sovereignty and security benefits against cost and risk; a neutral, representative public engagement could test this.
The paper's capability-gap argument could be made quantitative by estimating the neutron flux, irradiation volume, and isotope output that Canadian research programs need and comparing them against McMaster, CLS, TRIUMF, and PC-CANS; the authors do not provide such numbers.
If the sovereignty rationale is accepted, other countries that recently retired high-flux research reactors could be expected to reach similar conclusions, and the paper's workshop format could serve as a template for their own stakeholder engagement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Two things to know. First, this is the primary public record of Canada's 2021 stakeholder engagement on a possible new research reactor, and the record is new: it updates the 2010 and 2015 planning documents with post-NRU views, including the reported 40% neutron-user inactivity figure and the absence of domestic fuel irradiation work since 2018. Second, the headline conclusion—that a new high-flux multipurpose reactor 'is required'—is stronger than the evidence base, and the paper itself supplies the grounds for that objection.

What it earns credit for: transparency. It states the engagement was designed by CNL under AECL guidance and funded by AECL's FNST Work Plan. It reports dissent—some participants questioned the need or proposed spallation sources. Its Section 4 limitations paragraph concedes what was not done: no committed customer base, no Indigenous or local community engagement, no financing or governance analysis. For a paper whose stated deliverable is a summary of approach and findings, that deliverable is met.

Soft spots, in order. First, the 'required' conclusion. Participants were self-selected, mostly from nuclear-sector organizations, with no recruitment method, denominator, or sector distribution reported, and the 'dominant theme' judgment lacks any coding protocol, survey, or representative quotes. A self-selected workshop series can show the engaged stakeholders support a reactor; it cannot show a reactor is required for Canada. The paper's own limitation paragraph is the evidence. Second, the two quantitative supports—40% of neutron users inactive and zero domestic fuel irradiations since shutdown—appear without source or denominator. Both are checkable and need citations. Third, the convener-conflict question: the funding relationship is disclosed, which is credit, but the paper does not discuss what that implies for interpreting the findings. Minor gap, not a fundamental flaw.

Who this is for: people working on Canadian nuclear infrastructure, isotope supply, or neutron facility policy. It is a useful primary source and an honest one, and it sits at the advocacy edge of policy engagement—read the limitations paragraph before relying on the conclusion.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. Referees should push for a qualified conclusion ('supported by the engaged stakeholders'), sourcing for the quantitative claims, and a sentence acknowledging the convener's stake. With those, it is a solid contribution worth citing in any future Canadian reactor planning discussion.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports on a series of five virtual stakeholder workshops (March–July 2021) organized by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) under the guidance and funding of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), with the goal of gathering Canadian academic, industry, government, and research-organization input on the potential need for a new multipurpose research reactor. The paper describes the engagement approach, capability gaps in existing Canadian facilities, stakeholder support for a new domestic reactor, common technical priorities (high flux, flexible neutron spectrum, large irradiation capacity), and concludes that 'a new domestic high-flux multipurpose research reactor is required' to meet sovereign national priorities and maintain Canada's Tier 1 nuclear status. The paper also acknowledges limitations: it did not attempt to establish a committed customer base, engage Indigenous or local communities, address financing, or identify governance models.

Significance. If taken as a record of early stakeholder engagement, the paper has value: it documents a structured attempt to gather national input across five utilization themes, provides useful context on the post-NRU landscape, and transparently lists scope limitations. The paper also usefully summarizes the stated capability gaps in irradiation, fuel testing, neutron beams, and radioisotope production, and it gives international context through invited speakers. However, the paper's central conclusion that a new reactor 'is required' is stronger than the evidence base supports: the participant pool was self-selected and largely nuclear-sector, and the claim of a 'dominant theme' rests on undocumented judgment rather than systematic analysis. The quantitative claims in Section 3.3 also lack sources. The paper is best read as a report of stakeholder opinions and expressed needs, not as a demonstrated national requirement.

major comments (4)

[Section 4 and Section 2] The conclusion that 'a new domestic high-flux multipurpose research reactor is required' (Section 4) does not follow from the evidence presented. Section 2 reports 154 participants but gives no denominator, recruitment method, sector distribution, or analysis of self-selection, and most invited organizations appear to be nuclear-sector institutions. The paper's own final paragraph concedes that the series 'did not attempt to establish a firm and committed stakeholder (customer) base, engage Indigenous and local communities, address how to finance the reactor construction and operation, or identify models.' These omissions are not peripheral; they are exactly the kinds of evidence needed to support a national 'requirement.' I recommend replacing the claim of requirement with a more circumscribed finding, such as that participants expressed support for a new reactor and identified capability gaps, and explicitly framing the conclusion as an early-engagement outcome rather than a demonstrated need.
[Section 3.2] The claim that the need for a new domestic research reactor was 'abundantly clear' and that the 'dominant theme of discussions was in support of a new research reactor' is undocumented. The paper does not describe any coding protocol, voting procedure, survey instrument, or transcript-analysis method; nor does it provide representative quotes or a count of supporting versus dissenting views. The same paragraph concedes that 'some in the workshops questioned the need, or suggested alternative solutions (such as spallation sources),' so the strength of the purported dominant theme is unquantified. Without a documented analysis of the discussion content, the characterization of the theme as 'dominant' is an assertion rather than a finding. Please either provide the analysis basis or soften the claim to reflect that support was expressed by many participants but was not systematically measured.
[Section 3.3] The quantitative statements that '40% of users have since not conducted an experiment' and that 'no fuel irradiation experiments performed ever since' the NRU shutdown lack any citation or data source. These figures are load-bearing for the argument that existing Canadian facilities leave critical gaps, yet the reader cannot verify their provenance or the relevant time windows and populations. Please cite the underlying data or explicitly label these as workshop-derived estimates, including their basis and limitations.
[Section 2] The paper describes the engagement as a 'systematic approach,' but provides no details on how the workshop agendas were set, how speakers were invited, whether discussions were recorded and transcribed, how notes were taken, or how findings were synthesized across sessions. This lack of methodological detail makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the reported findings. I recommend adding a brief description of the workshop format, data capture, and the criteria used to identify common themes and priorities.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 2] The phrase 'academy, industry, government' (Section 2) should likely be 'academia, industry, and government'; also, the abstract says 'academia' correctly. Consider aligning terminology throughout.
[Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced but the figure content is not described in the text; the caption only says 'Stakeholder engagement highlights.' Please either expand the caption to explain what is shown or add a sentence in Section 2 describing the figure.
[Section 3.2] The phrase 'hard to overcome if not impossible challenges' is grammatically awkward; suggest rewording, e.g., 'challenges that are difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.'
[Section 3.4] The list of stakeholder requirements is presented as consensus without showing how the items were prioritized or whether any disagreements existed; a sentence on how these requirements were elicited and whether any were contested would improve transparency.
[References] Reference [24] misspells the author name as 'Zahra Yamnai' instead of 'Zahra Yamani'; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the report's conclusion is a stakeholder-engagement recommendation, not a quantity derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivational chain: it reports an organized workshop series and summarizes participant views. The central conclusion that a new high-flux multipurpose research reactor 'is required' is presented as a synthesis of workshop discussions, not as a mathematical or statistical prediction, and it is not obtained by fitting, defining a target quantity in terms of evidence, or importing a uniqueness theorem via self-citation. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [2], [11], [23], [24]) concern historical NRU work, long-range planning documents, and the PC-CANS concept; none of them is load-bearing for the conclusion, and the PC-CANS citation is used only to identify an alternative facility under consideration. The paper's own limitations paragraph concedes that the engagement did not establish a committed customer base, engage Indigenous and local communities, or address financing and models; that concession is a validity and generalizability concern, not evidence that the engagement's conclusions were assumed in advance. The organizational overlap between CNL/AECL and the funding or operation of a future reactor is a conflict-of-interest and independence concern, but it does not make the reasoning circular by construction. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper introduces no new physical entities and makes no quantitative model. The central claim rests on three domain assumptions: representativeness of the workshop participants, the insufficiency of lower-flux and accelerator-based alternatives, and the unique adequacy of a high-flux multipurpose reactor. Two empirical numbers enter the argument without stated provenance and are logged as free parameters: the 40% neutron-user inactivity share and the zero count of domestic fuel irradiation experiments. The engagement process itself (dates, themes, participant counts) is documented and is not treated as an axiom.

free parameters (2)

Share of neutron-scattering users inactive since NRU shutdown = 40%
Section 3.3: '40% of users have since not conducted an experiment.' The figure is asserted with no source, denominator, or survey methodology, and it is load-bearing for the capability-gap argument.
Domestic fuel irradiation experiments since the 2018 NRU shutdown = 0
Section 3.3: 'no fuel irradiation experiments performed ever since.' The assertion has no defining scope or referenced data source and is used to justify the claimed irradiation gap.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The views expressed by the 154 invited workshop participants represent the broader Canadian stakeholder landscape ('a Pan-Canadian view').
Section 4 claims the workshops 'provided a forum for interested stakeholders to provide a Pan-Canadian view', but the same section states the series did not engage Indigenous and local communities or establish a committed stakeholder base, and Section 2 shows participation was concentrated in nuclear-sector organizations.
domain assumption Lower-flux Canadian facilities and accelerators cannot compensate for lost high-flux capabilities; a high-flux source is required for the full range of needs.
Section 3.1 asserts the gap is 'most evident from the lack of irradiation capabilities', and Section 3.3 states 'the full range of Canada's needs requires a high-flux source', but no quantitative requirements-versus-capability analysis connects specific experiments to flux thresholds.
domain assumption No alternative (spallation source, accelerator-based CANS, or international access) can fill the identified gaps, so the reactor is 'the only disruptive option'.
Section 3.2 records that alternatives were discussed and that some participants 'questioned the need', yet Section 4 concludes the high-flux multipurpose reactor is 'the only disruptive option' without a structured alternatives assessment or cost comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early stakeholder engagement for a possible new multipurpose research reactor for Canada." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSHPEALA

@misc{pith2026250517624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early stakeholder engagement for a possible new multipurpose research reactor for Canada},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSHPEALA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17624}
}

read the original abstract

Canada has a rich history of nuclear technology development. Since the 1940s, nuclear research infrastructure and facilities, such as National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River, Ontario, have played a key role for R&D and for building Canadian expertise and competency in nuclear technology. The NRU reactor retired in 2018. Since the needs of stakeholders vary with time, consideration of a new multipurpose research reactor for Canada must contemplate current user input for their requirements. As an early step in such consideration, a systematic approach was employed to engage various national stakeholders from academia, industry, and research organizations, including the government. Several virtual workshops were held, each with a specific theme around utilizations. To provide international context, our workshops also included presentations from leading nuclear laboratories around the world. We provide a summary of Canada's approach and the main findings of this early stakeholder engagement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Canada Says Goodbye to NRU

Daniel Duan. Canada Says Goodbye to NRU . 2018; Available from: https://www.labroots.com/trending/chemistry - and - physics/8466/canada - goodbye - nru

work page 2018
[3]

A Canadian icon celebrates an anniversary: 60 years of scientific discovery at the NRU

Science and Innovation - Government of Canada. A Canadian icon celebrates an anniversary: 60 years of scientific discovery at the NRU . 2017; Available from: https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/blogs/older - blogs/small - science - big - discoveries - 2017 - 2019/canadian - icon - celebrates - anniversary - 60 - years - scientific - discovery - nru

work page 2017
[4]

NRU reactor recognized for outstanding contributions in the field of isotopes - Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. NRU reactor recognized for outstanding contributions in the field of isotopes - Canadian Nuclear Laboratories . 2023 2023 - 07 - 28; Available from: https://www.cnl.ca/nru - reactor - recognized - for - outstanding - contributions - in - the - field - of - isotopes/

work page 2023
[5]

Small town, big impact: How Canada’s largest federal laboratory, tucked away in rural Ontario has impacted millions around the globe

Science and Innovation - Government of Canada. Small town, big impact: How Canada’s largest federal laboratory, tucked away in rural Ontario has impacted millions around the globe . 2018; Available from: https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/blogs/older - blogs/small - science - big - discoveries - 2017 - 2019/small - town - big - impact - how - canadas -...

work page 2018
[7]

Bertram N

The Nobel Prize. Bertram N. Brockhouse - Nobel Prize Laureates in Physics 1994 . 1994; Available from: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1994/brockhouse/facts/

work page 1994
[11]

Greedan, C

J. Greedan, C. Adams, L. Clapham, T. Harroun, J. Root, J. Barbier, M. Bieringer, J. Britten, W.J.L. Buyers, L. Cranswick, H. Cuthbert, M. Daymond, S. Derakhshan, H. Fritzsche, B.D. Gaulin, M.A. Gharghouri, P. Hungler, J. Katsaras, Y. - J. Kim, H. Kleinke , A. Mar, A. McIvor, Y. Mozharivskyj, M. - P. Nieh, J. Noël, R.B. Rogge, D.H. Ryan, I.P. Swainson, Z. ...

work page 2015
[12]

2010, The Canadian Nuclear Society: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Canadian Nuclear Society, Maintaining Excellence: Planning a New Multi - Purpose Research Reactor for Canada . 2010, The Canadian Nuclear Society: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. p. 41; Available from: https://www.cns - snc.ca/MaintainingExcellence

work page 2010
[13]

2023; Available from: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario - building - more - small - modular - reactors - to - power - provinces - growth

Ontario Building More Small Modular Reactors to Power Province’s Growth . 2023; Available from: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario - building - more - small - modular - reactors - to - power - provinces - growth

work page arXiv 2023

Show all 21 references

[14]

| CBC News

Ottawa announces up to $74M for small modular nuclear reactor development in Sask. | CBC News . 2023; Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/canada - sask - smr - development - nuclear - 1.6941609

2023
[15]

2024; Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article - albertas - capital - power - partners - with - ontario - power - generation - to - build/

Alberta’s Capital Power partners with Ontario Power Generation to build province’s first nuclear power reactor . 2024; Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article - albertas - capital - power - partners - with - ontario - power - generation - to - build/

2024
[16]

AtkinsRéalis Launches Canadians for CANDU; Calls on Governments to Support Canadian Nuclear Sector and Support Jobs in Push for Net - Zero . 2024; Available from: https://www.newswire.ca/news - releases/atkinsrealis - launches - canadians - for - candu - calls - on - governmen...

2024
[17]

2024; Available from: https://world - nuclear.org/information - library/current - and - future - generation/plans - for - new - reactors - worldwide.aspx

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association . 2024; Available from: https://world - nuclear.org/information - library/current - and - future - generation/plans - for - new - reactors - worldwide.aspx

2024
[22]

TRIUMF - Canada’s particle accelerator centre

TRIUMF. TRIUMF - Canada’s particle accelerator centre . 2025; Available from: https://triumf.ca

2025
[24]

2020; Available from: http://theconversation.com/new - neutron - source - in - canada - would - spur - innovation - medical - treatments - 140417

Drew Marquardt, Ming Pan, and Zahra Yamnai, New neutron source in Canada would spur innovation, medical treatments. 2020; Available from: http://theconversation.com/new - neutron - source - in - canada - would - spur - innovation - medical - treatments - 140417

2020
[25]

AtkinsRéalis introduces 1,000 MW CANDU® MONARK ™ Reactor

AtkinsRéalis. AtkinsRéalis introduces 1,000 MW CANDU® MONARK ™ Reactor . 2023; Available from: https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/media/press - releases/2023/28 - 11 - 2023

2023
[26]

Generation IV Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association

World Nuclear Association. Generation IV Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association . 2024; Available from: https://world - nuclear.org/information - library/nuclear - fuel - cycle/nuclear - power - reactors/generation - iv - nuclear - reactors . 8 /8

2024
[28]

Research Reactors: Addressing Challenges and Opportunities to Ensure Effectiveness and Sustainability

IAEA. Research Reactors: Addressing Challenges and Opportunities to Ensure Effectiveness and Sustainability . Proceedings Series - International Atomic Energy Agency, STI/PUB/1927, 978 - 92 - 0 - 131820 - 6 2020; Available from: https://www.iaea.org/publications/14761/research...

1927
[30]

Rummery, and J.A

T.E. Rummery, and J.A. Macpherson, Canada’s nuclear achievement: Technical and economic perspectives . 2017; Available from: https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/19950101.pdf

2017
[2016]

454 - 455; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837 - 015 - 1721 - 0

68 (2): p. 454 - 455; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837 - 015 - 1721 - 0

doi
[2020]

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1647598

doi
[2021]

99 - 117; Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/JNR - 210012

23 (2 - 3): p. 99 - 117; Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/JNR - 210012

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Canada Says Goodbye to NRU

Daniel Duan. Canada Says Goodbye to NRU . 2018; Available from: https://www.labroots.com/trending/chemistry - and - physics/8466/canada - goodbye - nru

work page 2018

[2] [3]

A Canadian icon celebrates an anniversary: 60 years of scientific discovery at the NRU

Science and Innovation - Government of Canada. A Canadian icon celebrates an anniversary: 60 years of scientific discovery at the NRU . 2017; Available from: https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/blogs/older - blogs/small - science - big - discoveries - 2017 - 2019/canadian - icon - celebrates - anniversary - 60 - years - scientific - discovery - nru

work page 2017

[3] [4]

NRU reactor recognized for outstanding contributions in the field of isotopes - Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. NRU reactor recognized for outstanding contributions in the field of isotopes - Canadian Nuclear Laboratories . 2023 2023 - 07 - 28; Available from: https://www.cnl.ca/nru - reactor - recognized - for - outstanding - contributions - in - the - field - of - isotopes/

work page 2023

[4] [5]

Small town, big impact: How Canada’s largest federal laboratory, tucked away in rural Ontario has impacted millions around the globe

Science and Innovation - Government of Canada. Small town, big impact: How Canada’s largest federal laboratory, tucked away in rural Ontario has impacted millions around the globe . 2018; Available from: https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/blogs/older - blogs/small - science - big - discoveries - 2017 - 2019/small - town - big - impact - how - canadas -...

work page 2018

[5] [7]

Bertram N

The Nobel Prize. Bertram N. Brockhouse - Nobel Prize Laureates in Physics 1994 . 1994; Available from: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1994/brockhouse/facts/

work page 1994

[6] [11]

Greedan, C

J. Greedan, C. Adams, L. Clapham, T. Harroun, J. Root, J. Barbier, M. Bieringer, J. Britten, W.J.L. Buyers, L. Cranswick, H. Cuthbert, M. Daymond, S. Derakhshan, H. Fritzsche, B.D. Gaulin, M.A. Gharghouri, P. Hungler, J. Katsaras, Y. - J. Kim, H. Kleinke , A. Mar, A. McIvor, Y. Mozharivskyj, M. - P. Nieh, J. Noël, R.B. Rogge, D.H. Ryan, I.P. Swainson, Z. ...

work page 2015

[7] [12]

2010, The Canadian Nuclear Society: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Canadian Nuclear Society, Maintaining Excellence: Planning a New Multi - Purpose Research Reactor for Canada . 2010, The Canadian Nuclear Society: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. p. 41; Available from: https://www.cns - snc.ca/MaintainingExcellence

work page 2010

[8] [13]

2023; Available from: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario - building - more - small - modular - reactors - to - power - provinces - growth

Ontario Building More Small Modular Reactors to Power Province’s Growth . 2023; Available from: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario - building - more - small - modular - reactors - to - power - provinces - growth

work page arXiv 2023