You understand my line of questioning. We suddenly had to replace another downed reactor. We upped our supply. Within months of having done that, our reactor went down with holes in it. The public could be forgiven.
I want to get to the question of your comfort with the timeline as proposed. You're saying the first quarter of 2010--nine months from now, give or take, eight or nine months. When the reactor first went down in May of this year you also issued some timelines and some estimates of when the reactor would come back up, and you were comfortable with those as well.