Professor John Robertson OBA
From the United Kingdom Nuclear Laboratory on 16 December 2025:
Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said:
Cancer is a disease that affects millions worldwide, and tears too many families apart. Breakthroughs in medical science are giving more cancer patients and their loved ones hope, and this unique partnership could help take that work even further. Turning nuclear material into cutting-edge cancer treatments sounds like science fiction – but thanks to the brilliance of scientists, researchers and doctors, it could be a life-saving reality. Work like this shows exactly why we’re determined to support our life sciences innovators to make groundbreaking new treatments possible.”
Given the large current stocks of nuclear waste in the UK, will this be used as a justification for new nuclear energy?
As we highlighted in our recent announcement of a project to create a sustainable UK supply of nuclear medicine for cancer treatments: This sophisticated chemical separation process isolates exceptionally small quantities of lead-212’s parent material from spent nuclear fuel. To put the scale in perspective, the initial parent material extracted is comparable to finding a single drop of water in an Olympic swimming pool. From this already minuscule amount, an even smaller fraction of lead-212 is then separated for medical applications. These trace quantities can then be developed into radiopharmaceuticals – targeted treatments designed to combat some of the most challenging cancer types.
Under the 15-year agreement, Bicycle [the biotech firm] will have access to up to 400 tonnes of reprocessed uranium. The unique regenerative properties of this material mean it can serve as a continuous source of lead-212, yielding enough for tens of thousands of precision therapy doses annually.
Now, I don’t have the figures, but 400 tonnes for the first 15 years and that ‘single drop in a swimming pool’ analogy suggests they’re going to need more and a steady supply way beyond just heritage material from Sellafield, Dounreay and Chapelcross.
Watch out for Scottish Labour picking up on Liz Kendall‘s comments in an attempt to save their Holyrood 2026 campaign.
There’s one thing they won’t be mentioning.
This from A systematic review on the occupational health impacts of ionising radiation exposure among healthcare professionals, in the Journal of Radiological Protection, June 2025:
Exposure to low-doses of ionising radiation can induce biological effects in healthcare professionals, such as DNA damage, genotoxic effects, lens opacities, and risk of cancer. This systematic review aims to assess the current status and identify the health impacts of occupational exposure to ionising radiation.
This review presents three studies assessing the cancer risk in medical staff [4, 22, 25]. Rajaraman et al reported an elevated risk of certain cancers (brain cancer, melanoma, and breast cancer) among radiographers in the USA who conduct FGIP [4]. According to this study, cancer risks were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for radiographers who had ever performed or assisted with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, compared to those who had never worked with these procedures. In the models, age was treated as the timescale [4]. In the same study, there was a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of mortality from brain cancer (HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.48–4.40) [4].
Breast tissue is highly susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation, particularly in younger individuals. Numerous epidemiological studies have consistently indicated heightened risks of breast cancer due to exposure to ionising radiation [61–63].
The Andreassi et al study did not reveal a statistically significant increase in the prevalence of cardiovascular events in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers. Nevertheless, there was a higher occurrence of vascular risk factors, such as hypertension and hypercholesterolemia [22].
Due to the correlation between exposure to ionising radiation and cancer risk, staff are becoming increasingly aware of the potentially harmful effects of ionising radiation during procedures [25]. The BEIR VII report to estimate the lifetime attributable risk of all cancer incidence and mortality [64]. According to BEIR VII report, continuous exposure to 10 mSv annually from ages 18–65 results in a cancer incidence of 3059 for males and 4295 for females per 100 000 persons exposed. This data has been directly applied in many studies to calculate the cancer risk for medical staff [25, 65, 66].
As reported by Fang et al [29] the findings of this research highlighted the potential consequences of prolonged, low-level occupational exposure to ionising radiation among medical staff in the Shandong area of China, leading to genomic instability. Ionising radiation is a powerful genotoxic substance and a known human carcinogen, causing cellular harm and leading to various lasting effects such as genomic instability and carcinogenesis [67].
Although epidemiological data gathered from radiation workers confirm that exposure to low-dose radiation can elevate cancer risk, no evidence was found of a connection between cumulative occupational radiation dose to the thyroid and the risk of thyroid cancer [68, 69].
Therefore, estimating the radiation dose and cancer risk for staff during interventional cardiology and interventional radiology procedures is a significant public health concern [70, 71].
Full report and references at – https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/added2
Finally: Has any major figure questioned its value for money and as a wider health strategy as it grows dramatically with massive corporate investment?
Yes, amid the dramatic growth of nuclear medicine—particularly theranostics, with market projections reaching 20% annual increases and billions in corporate investments from firms like Novartis—several major figures in oncology, radiology, and nuclear medicine have raised serious questions about its value for money and role in wider health strategies.
Critiques often focus on high costs (e.g., $169,000+ per treatment course in the US), lack of robust cost-effectiveness data, over-proliferation of unproven tracers and ligands, supply vulnerabilities, global disparities, and potential overemphasis on novelty over patient outcomes or system-wide affordability.
More at: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2008146974969594334 or ask your own preferred AI the same question?
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Having increasing numbers of family members, friends, acquaintances and neigbours who have benefitted or are – I hope – going to benefit from radiotherapy, I am, generally, in favour of such treatments.
I recognise that, in the process, some have had unpleasant side effects and that others have not had a beneficial result, but, the balance of outcomes has been positive resulting in increased quality of life and a lifespan, at least in line with life expectancy. Indeed, since most were born in Glasgow in the 1950s and earlier, their lifetime has exceeded that for Glaswegians of their vintage.
I recognise, too, the hazards to staff associated with such processes. They have developed practices and clothing and other protective items which reduce the effects of exposure. However, your AI search implies that there may be an increased risk for such staff. Thus we are in a perhaps, Faustian, or utilitarian bargain in which we are balancing the wider benefits to the general public against an increased risk to practitioners. I think that the ‘greater good’ argument edges it.
However, you are right to highlight the sourcing of the radionuclides used in the treatment. Since reprocessed uranium has been mentioned by Ms Kendal, this opens another balance to be considered – that between the history of the the reprocessed materials and its future provision and the associated health effects of that in addition the profit motive of private companies whose prime directive is to ‘maximize shareholder return’ against the benefits to cancer sufferers and the increased risk to staff administering the treatment. I am not clear if the utilitatarian greater good can be estimated in this case.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You have good reason for caution with Liz Kendall – ” To put the scale in perspective, the initial parent material extracted is comparable to finding a single drop of water in an Olympic swimming pool. From this already minuscule amount, an even smaller fraction of lead-212 is then separated for medical applications ” is only missing definition of the “even smaller fraction” to give the chosen swimming pool scale meaning – One drop in a billion Olympic pools perchance ?
I’m not about to knock radioactive treatments or their research, but the “As we highlighted in our recent announcement of a project to create a sustainable UK supply of nuclear medicine for cancer treatments ” looks awfully like the latest introduction to selling the side benefits of SMRs to a reluctant populace after the dismal failure of the ‘dunkelflaute’ gambit, following the dismal failure of the ‘too cheap and plentiful to invoice for’ gambit of it’s predecessors.
Lead-212 has a half-life of 10.64 hours, but it’s not that drop which is the problem, it’s the rest of the billion Olympic swimming pools….
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dr Whitford warned the Tory Gov time and time again that Brex8t posed a threat to radiotherapy treatments since most of the radio nucleotides came from the EU. Any hold up to their journey to the UK would reduce their efficacy because they had a short half-life.
This suggested ‘plan’ does not seem to answer the possibly ongoing problems affecting supply due to Brexit.
LikeLike
Dump Trident next to Westminster. Let them pay for nuclear. Westminster spends £13Billion a year decommissioning nuclear.
Scotland in surplus in fuel and energy pays more.
LikeLike