I don't think it's entirely fair. Quite clearly, we are going to continue to use the strategies we're using right now in order to do the best we can for our patients in our current circumstances.
How long can we continue to do this? The major thing we've done is in fact divert myocardial perfusion imaging from using technetium-based agents to thallium agents. We're assured that there is a secure supply of thallium coming from cylotrons in a number of different centres. We then have diverted the technetium-99m that remains to other types of scanning, predominantly to bone scanning.
We can continue doing this as long as there isn't the breakdown of another reactor. I think that if there is a breakdown of another reactor, we are going to rapidly move into a situation that perhaps cannot be managed without some inputs coming either in alternative imaging, which I think Dr. Lyons spoke to, or the expansion of the capability of PET imaging.
So I think we can continue, where we are right now, but I am very concerned about the scenario in which we lose another reactor.