Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 65
1 earlier, one can see a range of people, as well as
environmentalists who you could say were environmental
2 scientists, were sufficiently concerned to start saying at
an early stage, as Rowland and Molina did, there was a
3 potential problem in the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
4 Q. If there is a potential problem -- a direct question then,
not beating around the bush -- do we have here two
5 approaches: On one point we have the modern plastics, the
industry approach, which is that any ban on limitation
6 would be a disaster for industry; then we have the
environmental approach which is, if there is a potential
7 problem, then that necessitates action straightaway, if it
is potentially a disastrous problem. Do you feel, as a
8 scientist, a bit somehow caught in the middle between two
mutually conflicting approaches?
9 A. As a scientist, I would be in the middle because, as a
scientist, I would say I know that something may happen
10 potentially, but until I have evidence that the thing
actually occurs, I would not be able to say whether or not
11 something which is potentially a problem is a real problem
or not.
12
Q. So when the evidence became available in 1987 from the
13 stratospheric analysis studies, presumably, scientists
were alarmed at what they found, is that correct --
14 I mean, in a word? Are scientists ever alarmed?
A. In a word, I would say the scientists were surprised
15 by what they found.
16 Q. But the evidence was there, was it not, for a ban, a total
ban, immediately?
17 A. In my view, in 1987 there was evidence that a ban
should be considered because it was likely that the damage
18 to the ozone layer was caused by those chemicals. The
reason that I would say that it was likely is that if you
19 actually look at the experimental evidence for exactly
what was happening, that did not come until two or three
20 years later than and, in fact, is still being gathered.
21 In other words, if you ask me now what the situation is,
I could give you an unequivocal answer. If I had been
22 asked to give that in 1987, I could not.
23 Q. If I could just go through some other points? I might
have to jump about a bit. Just going back to the
24 confusion in the change of name from CFC-22 to HCFC-22:
Would it be fair to say that HCFCs are a subclass of the
25 CFC family -- I mean, briefly say "yes" or "no".
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You see, may be as a chemist he just does
not know the subspecies like that?
27 A. I would not say it was a subspecies, no.
28 MR. MORRIS: But it was considered a subspecies before the name
change in 1988?
29 A. It was classified in a particular way.
30 Q. Right. You said the aim of the change of the name was to
clarify the situation as regards effect on the ozone
