Natural Resources committee  Absolutely not.

Natural Resources committee  With respect to the statements made by Dr. Smith and McMaster, I think they are coincident. With a ten-megawatt MAPLE you could do this much, and with a five-megawatt McMaster reactor you could do that much. I think that fits pretty well. I'd like to sneak in a point on predictability.

Natural Resources committee  I don't know much more. It's somewhat speculative on my part, but I've heard from senior people at Chalk River that the original design, which was defective, had been fixed by Chalk River staff and could now be operated. That's only a speculative statement, I'm sure you understand.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to close off a point about the time taken for a start-up of MAPLE. It is my firm opinion that both NRU and MAPLE should be restarted, and as quickly as possible. I believe the time schedule for NRU is some three months. At the end of that three months, we will still be on a very tender point in isotope production.

Natural Resources committee  On the point of why HANARO was licensed and MAPLE had difficulties licensing, HANARO is a larger reactor, so following Dr. Smith's comment, flux gradients in the bigger reactor are less important to the reactivity. So it's quite possible, even with identical fuel, that one coefficient could be positive in MAPLE and the other coefficient could be negative in HANARO.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I must say that what I say today are my own opinions, my own attitudes, my own convictions, and not those of the university at which I am employed. The previous speakers have in fact eloquently described many of the situations I had intended to cover, so I will expect my brief to be even more brief than it is as written.