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?

Prev Next Index