I know what your question is, but I'll preface my answer with something else.
There are two aspects here. When we say it's for the veterans, it's not necessarily for claiming; it's for their health. If a veteran is sick and he feels that it is attributable to depleted uranium, it's important that he get the right treatment, because, on the strength of our investigation, what we're seeing is that it's unlikely that what he has can be attributable to depleted uranium, scientifically speaking. We're not saying that it's impossible. Our words were carefully chosen. It's improbable. We did not say that it's totally unlikely—none of these words—but it's unlikely, improbable.
There may be some soldier somewhere who has been exposed in a way that we're not aware of, a special operations person, for example, who was in fact with the Americans in one of these.... I don't know this. Our committee can't determine this. Maybe there is a veteran somewhere who has been exposed to depleted uranium, but it would have to be at a very high level.
I have to remind you that when we looked at the ones who had been the most highly exposed that we know of, these blue on blue—and I'm sorry about my military side coming out here—the friendly fire situation, they don't have a problem.
As for the adjudication, it's not a message for the adjudicators. They will certainly look at this to freshen up on their scientific facts, but it was not destined for the adjudicators.