I think the answer is more PET. Right now we're at about 75% of the technetium that we had, say, a year ago. We're able to cope with that because we switched cardiac studies from technetium to thallium, so at 75% we're holding our own.
Thallium is not as good as technetium. There's more radiation for the patient. If we had more PET, we could do more cardiac PET. That would be desirable. If we're going to go down to something like 40% at the end of July, at the beginning of August, that's when it's going to be bad, and the problem will be bone scans. If we could do the PET bone scans in a larger number of patients, we'd save whatever technetium we have. That would be a good short-term solution--more PET times one month, two months. It's like Dr. Lamoureux said: $28 million going to that would be a good short-term solution. We have a lot of PET scans.
Dr. McEwan and others have to figure out how to spread that around. So we have to sort that out, and this would be part of the cost. That would be the short-term solution. Then, at the same time, I'd still think of the intermediate solution, which again would be more PET. I see more PET centres across Canada, either remote or you have these vehicles that carry the PET camera around.