I would say two things.
One is that there's a wide range of information, and what the NWMO presents is just one aspect of that. If you look at studies of public attitudes towards technologies in general, and nuclear power in particular, they are concerned about a range of issues. It's not just one particular number, whether it's the volume of waste or the probability of the radioactive dose that might come from it or something like that. They're concerned about potential risks to future generations. They're concerned about the possibility of major accidents and things that may go out of control. Secondly, they're also concerned about what they will be able to do in the event of one of these things.
When you look at all those studies, all you can conclude is that the technical approach to saying that these are the only things that matter and that this is the only information that matters, is sort of second-guessing what the public ought to know.
The other point I want to say is that talking about the benefits of this—but in terms of jobs, in terms of the amount of investment that will be going into these communities—is like offering them a small bribe, in a way, dangling a big golden carrot in front of them in exchange for their accepting certain risks.
I think these discussions—and here I agree with Dr. Whitlock—often tend to be very problematic, but they're problematic precisely because of the particular nature of this—