As you know, nuclear reactor safety is very controversial. As an example, some power companies in the United States want to continue the operation of Indian Point near New York City, and the State of New York is suing the federal government to prevent the nuclear regulatory commission in the U.S. for allowing Indian Point to continue.
In Austria, a nuclear reactor had been completed. There was a referendum, and the overwhelming majority of the people decided not to put a nuclear reactor in operation.
The dangers associated with the AECL reactors have been recognized numerous times by AECL itself, in writing. They have said that the AECR, the advanced CANDU reactor, should have a negative coefficient of nuclear reactivity. They have not demonstrated it yet.
I think Mr. West said something very good only a few minutes ago. We should look for the best option at the lowest cost. When you go into the nuclear business, it's a complete unknown. Instead of taking two years to develop, it might take 20 years. Instead of costing $75 million, as the Shoreham nuclear reactor on Long Island was supposed to cost, it might end up at $6 billion, as it did, and it was never put in operation. Unfortunately, the nuclear reactor field is a minefield.
By comparison, the accelerator field is marvellous. It's taking us to the stars every day.