The situation is that we explicitly indicated that damage relating to acts of terrorism would be covered under the legislation, because it was our view that these were things that the operator could take measures to preclude, whereas acts of war, and so on, were outside that scope, and therefore they should not be liable for damages that were caused by acts of war. That was the rationale as to why we included terrorism coverage, because we felt that the operators should have mechanisms in place to deter terrorists from taking advantage of nuclear facilities.
Have I answered the question?