Thank you, Chair.
I just want to pick up on one of the last questions Mr. Anderson asked with respect to private and public sector involvement in these projects. One of the comments you made early on, Mr. Ryan, was about subsidizing the treatment around the world. It's a good recognition, I think, of what is actually happening today with much of the isotope production coming out of Chalk River. Also, Mr. Heysel, you said that in the long term you're looking to develop the next generation of medical isotopes. It makes me wonder, in terms of that type of research, if you were producing the moly-99, how that is going to infringe on your ability to do the research to produce the next generation.
It just seems to me we have five of these reactors around the world, all of which are 45 years old or more, and we've put all our eggs around the world in this one basket. It seems to me that having a distributed system of many different technologies makes more sense. So I'd like to ask each of you if you believe a distributed system is better, and also tell me what your cost-recovery mechanism is under each of the technologies. I'm assuming that even if we had a major research reactor built for $800 million, somehow you'd want to separate the isotope production, that it's a truly commercial venture.
I would like each of you to comment on your technologies in terms of what your cost recovery will be--and specifically McMaster, because you had the proposal you were thinking about. Obviously it's not going to be to subsidize production around the world.