There are two diversities about which we're speaking. I think you have the diversity of the PET, cyclotrons, accelerators, and other methods of getting moly-99. As I said earlier, many of them have shown they can make it. The question is whether it's economical and commercial-scale, in terms of size. That is not to say avoid going there. I think, for the sake of patients, you have to look at all avenues there.
The other diversity we're speaking of is recognizing that technetium-99m will be with us for a while, and I have to defer to the doctor as to how the clinical community views its balance of supply, cost, and efficacy. I'll defer to them on that. In that respect, it's a matter of securing diverse supply from reactors, then understanding that the reactors use a processing facility. There's a distinction. On your first set of reactors, they irradiate the targets, and then you have a processing facility that dissolves the targets and extracts the 6% of moly-99 that's in the targets. There are a few processing facilities. We have one. IRE, in Belgium, has one. MDS Nordion has one. NTP, in South Africa.... And then when the time comes and ANSTO, Australia, comes on line, there'll be one there. So that's a critical component there.
So it's having that diversity apply. It's also really important to understand that in the reactors, when they irradiate, it's a batch process. When NRU and HFR were down they had more batch processes end to end, and this operated for 200 to 250 days a year.
What we're facing right now is the other reactors don't operate as often, so what you're trying to do is match the reactor schedules such that you can have some across the board, and then at certain points you have a little more. This is why, if you look from week to week, it's a saw-tooth kind of pattern. It depends which reactors are operating.