While the sentiments expressed by the Minister are laudable in relation to the members of the Nuclear Energy Board, that is poor consolation in the matter of the occurrence of a disaster. I would like to ask the Minister if he would agree that the response and information coming from the NEB is quite inadequate as has been proved by the answers to these questions? Can the Minister correct the impression he gave to the House on 29 April when he stated that the NEB in conjunction with the meteorological service have an air monitoring programme which would indicate any airborne contamination? We know that the meteorologial service monitor rain samples and it is precisely the fact that air samples were only taken at two points in the country that has led to such concern over the efficiency of our system for monitoring radiation levels in the air.

I do not accept the Deputy's criticism.

The Minister is giving me no answers.

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

That is a poor answer from an experienced politician.

In the area of radiation, radioactivity and the whole nuclear industry it is very difficult to be able to reassure people 100 per cent because there are those among the public who will not accept any reassurance from a layman not to mind an expert and I am not claiming for one moment to be an expert in this area. I am satisfied that any of the statements I have made in relation to this affair I can stand over having regard to the information which was available to me. I am satisfied that the monitoring we were doing was adequate. With the review taking place we will be well positioned if there is a repeat of this incident. Let us hope that there will not be.