They're based on what has happened historically. A good example is what has happened in the Arctic. If you had asked DFO scientists 20 years ago if they would have imagined that the discharge from power plants in Ontario would deposit mercury, or that there would be deposition of PCBs in the Arctic food chain that would bioaccumulate, they would have said no. The problem is that our knowledge is so incomplete.
What I'm saying is that the model they have to adopt for decision-making is the precautionary approach. The burden of proof was not on the facility to prove it wouldn't happen. We have to change that. That's why I'm here. You're absolutely right. In terms of the regulatory situation, there were certain laws that didn't come into effect at certain times. But when there was information.... It's very difficult to go back and say to the company that they have to do this and they have to do that. So why not on the up-front end of things say this is just too much of a risk. And there's a cumulative impact that isn't being assessed either. Looking at cumulative effects is not part of current risk assessment methodologies.