 What can you tell us as far as not the theory, but the objective evidence today on having possibly a more targeted or less quote unquote bleed or injury when it comes to proton therapy and more conventional therapy? So I'm really on the fence about protons. It's a great technology and it does have certain segments of the population. For instance, pediatric cases are kind of ideally treated with protons in some circumstances. So the difference between a proton and photon for those out there, a proton is a positively charged particle. It's a literal particle. A photon is a packet of energy and they have different interaction in tissue. A proton, as it travels through tissue, has little entrance dose and at a certain depth, it deposits its energy and that's called the Bragg P. But where it deposits its energy is kind of like a point and tumors are not points. They're actually, they have a depth and a thickness. And so to make sure the protons cover the entire tumor, you actually put something in front of the beam to effectively degrade it to spread out the Bragg P. And so you look at these proton plans, they talk about the SOBP, spread out Bragg P. And what that does is that when that thing in front of the proton beam creates a situation where you have more entrance dose than anticipated. And so sometimes people have some additional toxicity too. Toxices are generally manageable. It's being worked out, I should say, and there are several clinical trials that are looking at the utility of the proton therapy to see is this the next level for radiation oncology.