I'll answer that in several fashions. First, I'll say that I'm not an engineer, and I'll admit that immediately. I have high respect for the engineers. What I am told in regard to the various new technological alternatives, might they be cyclotrons or accelerators or PET technology, is that while they can make and deliver molybdenum-99--as I'm sure you've heard in other sessions of the committee--the principal issue around those is commercial viability and quantities. Also, there's the investment that would be required, and if not investment in a major big reactor in one big investment, you would have substantial investments at different hospitals, so you'd have to look at a change in the paradigm of investment into those technologies. But obviously folks are working on them, and those issues could very well be solved. I can't predict one way or the other on that.
However, that said, most predictions are that technetium-99m will clearly be around. The quantity might still be 30 million procedures, or it might be a little bit less or might be a little bit more going forward because of its unique and attractive combination of economics and clinical efficacy. In terms of the future, we look at it as short, medium, and long term. Short term we just discussed. Medium term, there are reactors in the world that are a little bit younger than the ones we have right now. For example, the reactor Maria was completely refurbished in the mid-nineties. There are some others that haven't really come on. There's a lot of discussion and we're looking at it.
Long term, there's a lot of discussion. I talked about the United States; in Europe there's talk in Belgium and there's talk in the Netherlands. I would say there's a lot of thinking going on. The EU has been putting a lot of work into thinking about this. Bottom line, I think the model of a global, interdependent supply chain is one that will be more sustainable in the future, rather than what you might call tied exclusive arrangements.