Thank you very much.
My questions are for Dr. Turcotte.
Dr. Turcotte, I have a short time. Please give brief answers if possible, because I have several questions. Let me do my first group of three questions, and then answer those, and if we have time, we'll do a little more.
I'm trying to understand why--this is in the broader context of the report of the expert panel, not all of which you touched on today--given the high cost, of at least $0.5 billion or maybe $1 billion, and the long timeline of a multi-purpose research reactor, the panel's report appeared to emphasize that option. Did the cost you considered include the permanent storage of nuclear waste?
Given the projected excess capacity in the longer term, as opposed to the short-term shortages that we have now, why is there such a long-term and expensive option, given the long lead time before production? Did the environmental and security risks posed by nuclear waste factor into the panel's decision? When considering the cost of a new reactor, did the panel look at the significant cost overruns that have traditionally occurred to a huge degree in reactor refurbishments or new reactors?
We've previously had other expert witnesses before this panel who have been much more sanguine about the thoughts of linear accelerators or cyclotrons rather than about using the traditional nuclear technology.
Could you answer those questions, please?