I agree with the findings there.
As I said, it's difficult to know where to draw the line. I'll tell you why. Uranium isn't toxic, radiologically. It's not uranium that causes the problem. It's the alpha particle that is generated the moment uranium disappears, and an alpha particle is an alpha particle. So strictly, the only thing that uranium does is determine where in the body that alpha particle is released. And other different materials, such as plutonium or radium, would have a different distribution so the alpha particles will be released in a different place.
So if you were going back and saying where do you draw the line, I could make a very strong argument to say, “Look, since it's the alpha particles that are causing the toxicity, you should go back and review all of the data on all of the materials that emit alpha particles”.
That would be a nonsensical thing to do, but it would be logically coherent. Okay? But I think that in terms of the scope of this, a reasonable job was done. Yes, you wouldn't get the same level of knowledge and understanding from a group reviewing it like this as you would if it were an expert group that came up and did it, but there again, you'd probably end up with a report you couldn't understand.
So I think they've done a reasonable job, a good job.