Well, there are two things.
In terms of intentionally making a flawed assessment or intentionally omitting things, I will give you an example.
One of the biggest areas where the probability of an accident can occur is in terms of what's called external events—floods, earthquakes, erratic weather, terrorism.... Ontario Power Generation is currently doing an environmental assessment on Pickering B, which Greenpeace is following. The probabilistic risk assessment they have done for that environmental assessment, we have learned through access to information, specifically correspondence, did not include external events, even though it is widely regarded in the industry that this should be in such risk assessments, and the Senate committee report that I mentioned stated in the past that they should move towards that. They knowingly didn't put that in. Their response to CNSC staff when they noted that they had not included external events was that they had already finished the study, so they were not going to do it again.
I underline the point that we need more transparency to be able to look for these uncertainties, because certain things are often omitted.