Day 005 - 04 Jul 94 - Page 34


     
     1        A.  No, I do not accept that is so. An uncontested truism,
              absolutely not.
     2
         Q.   Do you accept it is the basic majority view amongst
     3        scientists in their field?
              A.  No, I do not accept that.
     4
         Q.   Do you accept, for example, your expert witness has stated
     5        that CFCs and HCFCs are damaging to the ozone layer?
              A.  If he says so, he is certainly entitled to his
     6        opinion, if they do a damage certainly.  But that was not
              your question.  Your question related to "Do I accept that
     7        all experts think this is the cause of problems to the
              atmosphere?"  I say categorically that I do not accept
     8        that.
 
     9   Q.   Your witness states, does he not----
              A.  Where am I looking?
    10
         Q.   We can go into the detail.
    11        A.  I would appreciate it if you show me what I am to look
              at as to what he is saying. I would like to make sure I
    12        have it in context.
 
    13   Q.   It is Professor Duxbury.  Yellow 4, "Recycling and Waste".
              To save time, if it were accepted that CFCs and HCFCs' --
    14        if we go page 6 of tab 9, page 362, volume 4, the first
              paragraph talks about CFCs amongst other blowing agents.
    15        It says in the second sentence: "The first class have the
              potential to contribute to ozone destruction" - that is
    16        CFCs.  Then in the second part it says HCFC's, "the main
              blowing agent still used which belongs to class 1", which
    17        is the CFC family, "is HCFC-22. Although in the early
              assessments of its impact it was believed to be a suitable
    18        replacement for the freons, [presumably CFCs] and was
              omitted from the Montreal convention.  This molecule has
    19        subsequently been shown to be a major contributor to the
              ozone loading of the troposphere etc."
    20
              The point I am making is, this is your witness and he is
    21        saying, is he not, that HCFCs has "subsequently been shown
              to be a major contributor to the ozone loading of the
    22        troposphere and to be potentially as harmful as methyl
              chloroform which is covered by the Montreal protocol."
    23
              Do you accept that CFCs and HCFCs are harmful to the ozone
    24        layer?
              A.  The man says they could be, if released.
    25
         Q.   Right.  If we go to file number pink volume 4, tab 20 A. 
    26        Pink volume 4, tab 20 A. 
              A.  OK.  20 A. 
    27
         Q.   20 A, the second page?
    28        A.  I have it, yes, 489 B, is that the page?
 
    29   Q.   Yes.  489 B.  We have a list of all countries where
              McDonald's have restaurants, and does it not say on that
    30        page that five of those countries are still using CFC
              agents?

Prev Next Index