Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 47
1 processes that the estimates were made, rather than on a
guesstimate as to what they would actually do.
2
Q. Yes. Perhaps I used the word "belief" because I think (a)
3 I am partly a bit confused about this, and (b) as
I understand your evidence, scientific belief has changed
4 over the past, you know, few years, so what was believed
in 1987 is not the situation now?
5
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can we go back to the naming? Is what you
6 are saying that once a distinction in terms of effect
became clear, then it was important to distinguish by name
7 or title as well?
A. Yes, I am, my Lord.
8
Q. Or are you saying more than that?
9 A. I am saying more than that. I am also saying that
carbon tetrachloride which is on the list of actually
10 quite damaging chemicals would not even be classed as a
CFC because it does not contain fluorine. Therefore, if
11 you were to look at the family of chemicals which can
cause damage, then one should rank them by their potential
12 to cause damage rather than by choosing a particular
acronym which happens to belong to a particular member or
13 subset of members of the potentially damaging chemicals.
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is the difficulty this -- I am not
belittling your own understanding of the matter --
15 basically, you have been given help with questions?
16 MISS STEEL: I have had some of it explained to me so
I understand some of it.
17
MR. JUSTICE BELL: You are not quite sure where you are going
18 next, as it were, from the last answer? Do not be
embarrassed about that. Plenty of experienced barristers
19 have felt many times in exactly the same position. That
is the problem in part, is it?
20
MISS STEEL: Yes. (To the witness): As a class of chemicals,
21 can non-fully halogenated chemicals be considered CFCs or
not?
22 A. In my view, with the current usage of the term, for
example, in the World's Meteorological Report that was
23 published in 1990, no.
24 Q. In the current usage of the term?
A. In the current usage of the term, which is certainly
25 been current since the World Meteorological Report in
1990, no.
26
Q. But previously they might have been or they were?
27 A. Yes. Previously, as we have already said this
morning, in the usage which was made in the Plastics
28 Journal which was referred to, they were referred to as
"soft CFCs".
29
Q. Right. This is perhaps going over old ground, but you
30 mentioned that was a way for people to understand the
difference?
