Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 22


     
     1        A.  As I explained yesterday, I read a newspaper article
     2        talking about the Antarctic expedition and what they
     3        thought was causing a hole in the ozone layer.
     4
     5   Q.   So when you say, therefore, there was no concern, does that
     6        mean that you personally had not read any newspaper
     7        articles on the subject?
     8        A.  No.  What I am saying is, and if you go to the back
     9        page, it says:  "August 1986, 13 US scientists depart for
    10        Antarctica on the national ozone expedition.  It then goes
    11        on to say:  "In October 1986, during a press conference
    12        from Antarctic, US scientists say that they suspect
    13        chemicals are to blame for ozone losses there".  That is
    14        the article of that press conference that I am referring
    15        to.  So, at that time I became concerned.
    16
    17   Q.   You became concerned in 1986?
    18        A.  I did.
    19
    20   Q.   Just when you were changing to CFCs in this country?
    21        A.  We had already changed at that point.
    22
    23   Q.   So, when you say there was no concern at that time when the
    24        change was made, what you meant is that you had no concern
    25        at that time?
    26        A.  I think -- I do not remember any concern in the country
    27        at that time.
    28
    29   Q.   You do not remember any concern?
    30        A.  No.
    31
    32   Q.   What about in America?
    33        A.  As I said, the concern related to aerosol sprays.
    34
    35   Q.   Why was there concern about aerosol sprays which had even
    36        led to, is it not a fact, it led to government regulations
    37        against aerosol sprays and CFCs?
    38        A.  Yes.
    39
    40   Q.   Why was there concern about CFC repellents using aerosol
    41        sprays?
    42        A.  I do not honestly know, but I can tell you what
    43        I think.  I think that if you spray an aerosol can you are
    44        spraying CFCs effectively straight into the atmosphere;
    45        whereas if you dispose of foam packaging, it takes much
    46        long for the gases to get into the atmosphere.  If you talk
    47        about refrigeration or freezing, you do not dispose any
    48        gases into the atmosphere until you dispose of the
    49        equipment.  So, I think the aerosol spray was seen as a
    50        prime concern because it released gases into the atmosphere 
    51        quickly. 
    52 
    53   Q.   So, in other words, because in the short-term you felt that
    54        packaging did not cause the kind of damage which aerosols
    55        did directly, but you would sacrifice long-term
    56        considerations for short-term profits for the Corporation?
    57        A.  That is rather a blunt way of putting it.  That is not
    58        the case at all.  The fact is, we did not know at that
    59        time.  It is easy now with hindsight to say what you are
    60        saying.  At that time we simply did not know.  We needed

Prev Next Index