Moreover, about 600 research reactors have been built around the world since WWII, but only about 270 are now in operation and many more closures can be expected in the next 10-20 years. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.