 Sharon, a lot of people are comparing this crisis to Chernobyl in the 80s. What is this Chernobyl? Is it worse? Is it better? Is it just different? This is not a Chernobyl. It is different. It's a different kind of reactor. It's a whole different situation. The reactors responded the way they were supposed to with an earthquake. They shut down. That's the first difference. The reactor at Chernobyl did not shut down. As a matter of fact, it was kind of stuck in that nuclear chain reaction situation. The second thing is that they have been able to cool down the reactors, but they have had some problems. So what we're looking at is a release of radiation from what looks like now to be a partial core meltdown in three different units, but it is nothing like on the scale of Chernobyl. And there are three reactors that are in trouble right now. What's the worst? The Daiichi reactors? Are they? The Daiichi reactors in units one and three, there has been what we think is a partial core meltdown, plus both of those have had explosions from hydrogen being released and coming in contact with the air, and that's created an explosion. What that has done is blown the roofs off of the containment building, but not the containment vessel. So as far as we know right now, the steel container in which the reactor is housed is still intact, and that's another important difference from Chernobyl. In that case, Chernobyl, there was no containment building. All the radioactivity and in fact a nuclear explosion was released to the environment. That's different here. In the unit two, what we've heard so far is that some of that fuel has been exposed to the air. That fuel needs to be covered with water because the water helps to cool it down. Once the fuel gets very hot and it's not being cooled down, that's when you run the risk of there being some melting. So we're going to have to wait and see to assess the extent of the damage to that fuel also. What are they doing right now to stabilize the reactors? They have resorted to what some may call a last-ditch effort. They've injected seawater into two of the reactors as far as I know. That pretty much means the end of those reactor lives. Most of that water that you normally cool reactors with has to be highly controlled. They've also put something called boric acid in there, which is a neutron absorber so that it's going to tamp down any kind of nuclear reactor. They need to inject it with chemicals, in other words. Do you expect the situation to get worse before it gets better, and what's the worst case scenario? I'm hoping it doesn't get worse. I don't expect it to get worse, but in some cases with these nuclear reactor incidents, some things happen which cannot totally be foreseen. So you never know when a valve is going to stick, or in this case the diesel generators that were supposed to pump water into the reactors, they weren't working because the tsunami waves hit. Even though I think we can hope for the best, and certainly the Japanese officials are very competent, and they've been working very hard and should be commended for their efforts, I think we're just going to have to wait it out and see what happens over the next few days. Are these facilities too close to the coast? No. Japan is just in two earthquake-prone zone. All nuclear power reactors require some water, as long as they're using water to be cooled. Many of the 440 reactors that operate around the globe are on sources of water, whether it's rivers or on the coasts. Korea, for example, has all its reactors on the coasts. So I think that is one of the risks of nuclear power, and you can certainly take precautions. But in the case of Japan, I think no one anticipated that you would have two of these catastrophic events happening one right after another, the earthquake and then the tsunami. And now what we're seeing is aftershocks and more big waves. So it's very unfortunate. It's not something that happens all the time, but you need somehow to account for them. What damage does this disaster do to nuclear power's reputation in Japan and around the world? It's hard to know with Japan because the Japanese public has been very supportive of nuclear power. Japan has very few resources. It has depended on nuclear power for the past 30 or 40 years, for 30 percent of its electricity. It's been very supportive. But I think this is going to give the public some pause. Japan is in the process of building 14 reactors. At least that construction may slow down a bit as officials and politicians consider what steps they need to take. Globally, there's been a lot of enthusiasm in the last five or six years about nuclear energy. Talk about renaissance. In this country, we've had a lot of license applications. I'm not sure that any country considers that they will also at some point be subject to an earthquake and a tsunami at the same time, but it certainly highlights the technical sophistication and care that everybody needs to take with nuclear power. Sharon, thank you for your time. Thank you very much.