In our report, we did not address the MAPLE issue. I'm not a technical expert on the issues involved in the MAPLE reactors, but we do recognize certain key points about the MAPLEs. They were supposed to be a dedicated facility for medical isotope production only--and not even every medical isotope, but certain ones.
What we're concerned about is that broader picture. The MAPLE reactors would not really help us meet that broader picture because it would not allow us to do nuclear R and D in core in a research reactor. It would not produce some of the other isotopes such as cobalt-60, which is also used for cancer treatment. There are other isotopes for industrial purposes. There's also the advanced materials research with neutron beams that goes on with the multi-purpose reactor. All of these functions would not be met with the MAPLE reactors.
Regarding the possibility that there may only be 10 years left in the isotope market, there are of course different opinions on that. Just supposing it is the case, we strongly feel that the new multi-purpose reactor would justify its costs on the basis of the other missions. Canada would still get a strong return on its investment in that facility regardless of what happens with the isotope market. That's why we're focused on that.
It would be a new facility more like the NRU reactor at Chalk River, not like the MAPLE reactors. There's quite a significant difference in design. The NRU reactor is an extremely flexible machine. That's something that has to be built so that we can anticipate and respond to the needs of the future. When the NRU was built, we didn't even know the medical isotope market was going to be important, but because it was built flexibly and for multiple purposes, we were able to take advantage of that market and improve the health of Canadians.