Then I will go to this question. When you determine what a maximum catastrophe is, the most recent benchmark I can think of, notwithstanding the California fires, would be Katrina in New Orleans. There were some deaths, of course, but the majority of the $1 billion loss was defined by property loss. If we compare a nuclear catastrophe to flood or hurricane damage, I would think that in the case of a flood or a hurricane, one community or a smaller region would be affected. If you use $650 million as a benchmark for a nuclear catastrophe and more than $1 billion for a hurricane.... I would think that to some extent a nuclear catastrophe would cause far more widespread damage.
Can you tell me what you are using as a benchmark catastrophe? Was it those studies that have been done by...?