Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 67
1 they label as accurately as they can; whether you are a
scientist or not ----
2
MR. MORRIS: I will move on.
3
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment because we have to have
4 some electronic change and we will take a minute or two
while that happens. We will take a five minute break.
5
(Short Adjournment)
6
MR. MORRIS: Just finally on the labelling issue, would it be
7 accurate to describe a product which uses a blowing agent
of HCFCs in its production as "Ozone friendly"?
8
MR. JUSTICE BELL: When? You had better put the time because
9 that is important.
10 MR. MORRIS: Any time?
A. I am afraid -- I am sorry, my Lord; in view of the
11 fact we are talking about something which evolved over a
period of time I do not see that you can have an absolute
12 for describing something; if you were to describe it now
the answer would definitely be no.
13
MR. JUSTICE BELL: There should not be any difficulty about
14 this because you must know the period when something which
you can specify was labelled "ozone friendly".
15
MR. MORRIS: From the time when it was known that HCFCs had at
16 least five per cent.
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Sorry, you have to put a time when
McDonald's had ozone friendly on polystyrene packaging.
18 That is what you are suggesting, is it?
19 MISS STEEL: I do not think the question should present any
problems; Mr. Morris has just said how it is. From the
20 time when HCFCs were considered to have five per cent of
the ozone depleting potential of CFCs, would it be fair to
21 describe them or accurately to describe them as ozone
friendly?
22 A. If we are talking about when the first estimate was
put into the SORG documentation, which is about 1990, post
23 that the answer would be no.
24 Q. Was not HCFC considered to have five per cent of the ozone
depleting potential of CFCs in 1987?
25 A. There was a suggestion made in 1987 that on the basis
of what were then the best estimate of gas phase
26 reactions, that is what it was; it subsequently transpires
that in fact it is not gas phase reaction which actually
27 caused the damage, which is why the reports state what the
limitations are of the ozone depleting potential
28 hypothesis.
29 Q. If someone thought that HCFCs -- if the general scientific
opinion was that HCFCs had five per cent of the ozone
30 depleting potential of CFCs, that means that they thought
at that time that they had some potential to deplete the
