I think that actually, probably, what you did say last time is more accurate. That is, you said, “Part of your question is about the technicalities of operating reactors, and I would probably say that we are not the experts....”, and I think you've indicated that. The reality is this thing would not have been up and running, because there was no apparent solution.
I'd like to go back to Mr. Waddington's testimony, where he talked at length about the number of people who had been committed to trying to find a solution to this problem. He talked about AECL “using a panel of their most experienced staff and outside help”, finding 200 potential factors that could have been causing the problem. He said, “They also asked the Idaho National Laboratory in the U.S. to do an independent prediction of the behaviour....”, that it “employs some of the very best reactor physicists in the world, and they also have access to the most up-to-date calculational methods”. He talked about how AECL carried out a whole series of tests and had been doing this for two years on the reactor itself, with CNSC monitoring every step, and then he talked about the fact that
AECL's management, as far as I can see, were left with a technical problem for which a solution was not immediately apparent. They had put several hundred skilled engineers and scientists on the task, as well as many external reviewers, without finding the specific cause of the problem.
Actually, it was interesting to read that, because the last few days Mr. McGuinty in particular, but also Mr. Regan, said that no one outside AECL reviewed what was going on there. Clearly, many people were working on this. They weren't able to find the solution. Why would you say we would be able to be up and running now when that was, from my information, fairly common knowledge within the nuclear community?