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

Prev Next Index