On the latter point, the changes in perspective of a number of people involved in the environmental community are happening as a result of things other than the reuse of the fuel, or at least the reworking of the fuel for use again. I think it is because of the containment of waste and because there are no emissions of greenhouse gases and other things. That's tending to move people there, but it is not from the reprocessing of waste.
The concept of reprocessing waste has been with us for a long, long time. In fact, as soon as we started using it, people understood that there was a huge amount of energy still left there, but the economics around reworking the waste, the used fuel, was seen to be commercially less opportune of good results. So that's why it hasn't been promoted. Canada in particular, of course, has had the advantage of having a lot of natural deposits.
I think there are a couple of things. Even inside the nuclear industry, the debate about reworking the spent fuel generates a discussion, because once you get into reworking the fuel that you've used once, you will get into some chemical processes that end up generating, again, their own new type of separate waste stream. While you are reducing the volumes left over, ultimately by the reprocessing and otherwise, you do create a different set of waste issues to manage. We can do that, and I think the discussion has been largely academic because we've had these great natural reserves that have been able to take us away from doing that.
The people in France have been reprocessing fuel for a long time. The people in other parts--Britain and some other places--have been doing some things as well, but here we haven't had to.