Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 27
1
2 Q. No, when you first started raising this?
3 A. Not precisely. It would have been early 1987. What
4 I cannot remember -- I wish I could because it would put
5 you straight, I think, on this issue -- is when I read the
6 article relating to the press conference from the Antarctic
7 expedition, it could have been -- I do not know -- it could
8 have been much later than October 1986, an article relating
9 back to that, but I cannot remember that.
10
11 Q. You said that this was in advance of public concern and
12 general awareness of the environmental damage used by CFCs?
13 A. In the context of polystyrene, yes.
14
15 Q. Can you turn to the Defendants' document, the first bundle
16 or the second bundle, document No. 46?
17 A. Yes.
18
19 Q. Have you got document 46?
20 A. Yes.
21
22 Q. It is an article in the New Scientist on 14th August 1986.
23 It is entitled: "Out of the aerosol, into the hamburger
24 pack".
25 A. Yes.
26
27 Q. The first paragraph is: "Fast-food restaurants and grocery
28 stores in the US are among a host of new sources of
29 chemicals thought to be destroying ozone in the upper
30 atmosphere". So, here they are indicating there is concern
31 specifically about CFC packaging made with CFCs?
32 A. Right.
33
34 Q. Right.
35 A. I do note the article was written in advance of the
36 press conference from the Antarctic expedition in October
37 1986.
38
39 Q. But it indicates that it was not just aerosols that there
40 was concern about, and there had been specific articles
41 about the use of CFC packaging?
42 A. What indicates to me is they were not dealing with
43 facts because the Antarctic group had not reported back at
44 that stage.
45
46 Q. The Antarctic group were not going to be able to
47 specifically analyse whether the CFCs that were destroying
48 the ozone over the Antarctic were from aerosols or from
49 packaging anyway, were they?
50 A. Well, I do not know what they were doing because I have
51 not seen their report, and nor had the people who wrote the
52 New Scientist at that point.
53
54 Q. You think that New Scientist are printing an irresponsible
55 argument which they have no basis for?
56 A. I do not think it is fact based because it could not
57 have been, written ahead of the press conference.
58
59 Q. While we have this open, at the bottom of that article in
60 the last paragraph there is a reference to pentane. It
