Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Certainly I know how disconcerting it is with nuclear radiation. I remember when I was a child, my dad had the job of using the Geiger counter, after the Cuban missile crisis going out to see whether or not we would be able to get back out into the communities. We saw that as a scare when I was a kid, and we've seen other types of things—acid rain, global cooling, global warming, Y2K and ozone depletion—lots of things that need to have our attention and have had it over the years. I think that's really important, but I suppose there is a little bit of a disconnect in that we do have the Department of the Environment, which talks about the need for different things to be dealt with and dealt with properly, but the Impact Assessment Agency hasn't really done a nuclear projects analysis. Where I'd like to go with my question is that it doesn't really matter what type of energy source we have—whether it's flooded lands from hydro, whether it's oil and gas well sites, whether it's solar and the sand you need to dig out of the ground and all the toxic materials with those, whether it's windmill sites or biomass—everything is going to have some sort of impact on our society. Of course, nuclear waste is like that.
I'm curious, perhaps Mr. Chapman, how you think the processes we have used to analyze the full life cycles and the cradle-to-grave assessments for those other types of energy sources will be used in order to properly analyze nuclear projects when the time comes?