Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 65


     
     1        earlier, one can see a range of people, as well as
              environmentalists who you could say were environmental
     2        scientists, were sufficiently concerned to start saying at
              an early stage, as Rowland and Molina did, there was a
     3        potential problem in the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
 
     4   Q.   If there is a potential problem -- a direct question then,
              not beating around the bush -- do we have here two
     5        approaches:  On one point we have the modern plastics, the
              industry approach, which is that any ban on limitation
     6        would be a disaster for industry; then we have the
              environmental approach which is, if there is a potential
     7        problem, then that necessitates action straightaway, if it
              is potentially a disastrous problem.  Do you feel, as a
     8        scientist, a bit somehow caught in the middle between two
              mutually conflicting approaches?
     9        A.  As a scientist, I would be in the middle because, as a
              scientist, I would say I know that something may happen
    10        potentially, but until I have evidence that the thing
              actually occurs, I would not be able to say whether or not
    11        something which is potentially a problem is a real problem
              or not.
    12
         Q.   So when the evidence became available in 1987 from the
    13        stratospheric analysis studies, presumably, scientists
              were alarmed at what they found, is that correct --
    14        I mean, in a word?  Are scientists ever alarmed?
              A.  In a word, I would say the scientists were surprised
    15        by what they found.
 
    16   Q.   But the evidence was there, was it not, for a ban, a total
              ban, immediately?
    17        A.  In my view, in 1987 there was evidence that a ban
              should be considered because it was likely that the damage
    18        to the ozone layer was caused by those chemicals.  The
              reason that I would say that it was likely is that if you
    19        actually look at the experimental evidence for exactly
              what was happening, that did not come until two or three
    20        years later than and, in fact, is still being gathered.
 
    21        In other words, if you ask me now what the situation is,
              I could give you an unequivocal answer.  If I had been
    22        asked to give that in 1987, I could not.
 
    23   Q.   If I could just go through some other points?  I might
              have to jump about a bit.  Just going back to the
    24        confusion in the change of name from CFC-22 to HCFC-22:
              Would it be fair to say that HCFCs are a subclass of the
    25        CFC family -- I mean, briefly say "yes" or "no".
  
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You see, may be as a chemist he just does 
              not know the subspecies like that? 
    27        A.  I would not say it was a subspecies, no.
 
    28   MR. MORRIS:  But it was considered a subspecies before the name
              change in 1988?
    29        A.  It was classified in a particular way.
 
    30   Q.   Right.  You said the aim of the change of the name was to
              clarify the situation as regards effect on the ozone

Prev Next Index