It remains a puzzle, in my mind--unsolvable, in that sense. It doesn't make sense to me that we would take a position to walk away.
It's not because we just somehow were late in this business and found that it wasn't successful. This has been 50 to 60 years of fantastic achievement in Canada in both nuclear medicine and nuclear engineering technology. Yes, there is a problem here around NRU, obviously, and MAPLE, with some technical issues and problems, but the depth of expertise exists within Canada.
In response to the earlier question, if we were at the stage where we said, “Okay, NRU is a problem, and now we're beginning to think of designing some new reactor and hope that will work”, if that were the MAPLE, that would be one thing. But MAPLE has been thought through, built, and commissioned. Results have been obtainable, but some problems exist. You are into the last 20% of the resolution of the problem, if you wish. As to whether it is 20%, 15%, or 30%, the people who work on it should be able to tell you that. But we are not that far away.
So it is a question of some cost, first, but also, in my view, the expertise is available to be able to bring it on. If that is the case, it just makes no sense to walk away from this phenomenal achievement.
Whether you accept the fact that the achievement is good or not, think of it as a national strategic perspective. Would you really want the prescription in price of these isotopes to be left to world markets, whether it's the Australians, the Dutch, or the South Africans, or wherever they come from? What would be our situation in that scenario, if you assume that isotopes will continue to be required in medical treatment?
It's too critical a resource, and we have the expertise within the country to be able to bring it home. As well, we're not starting from ground base, with just about 80% of it done. It makes eminent sense to revisit this question.