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
