Day 005 - 04 Jul 94 - Page 56
1 do what had to be done, if the technology was here, we
would have, as we have in many cases, move our production
2 to something different.
3 Q. What if there was not any alternative?
A. Continue to use pentane.
4
Q. So would you say that you consider it more important for
5 you to package your items than any destruction or damage
this might be caused to the environment?
6 A. No, it is the recommended option available.
7 Q. But you said that if there were draw backs or dangers,
then you would carry on using it unless there was
8 something else?
A. I said in my opinion there were no dangers. It is the
9 preferred option. I do not know the technology allows
currently to use anything else, not that we have not been
10 looking. It is the safest option available causing far
less problem to the atmosphere than the alleged CFC or
11 HCFC.
12 Q. Have you heard about pentane blowing agents causing
problems? For example, contributing to the greenhouse
13 effects and, in particular, to photo chemical smog
formation?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You have not?
A. No.
16
Q. Have you read the statement of your witness,
17 Professor Duxbury?
A. Not recently, no.
18
MR. JUSTICE BELL: May I just ask, do you know of any
19 disadvantage for using pentane as a blowing agent?
A. Nothing other than it is a hydrocarbon. It is the
20 preferred option to CFC and HCFC. We have done a lot of
work and asked a lot of questions about trying to use
21 carbon dioxide or nitrogen to expand polystyrene. We have
not been successful.
22
I presume the packaging people who are going to give
23 testimony can give more details on that than I can, but
I have not heard of any -- what was it, the word,
24 something about tropical?
25 MISS STEEL: The greenhouse effect and photo chemical smog
formation?
26 A. I have heard with CFCs. I have not heard it with
pentane. No, sir, I have not.
27
Q. Would you like to look at Mr. Duxbury's statement?
28 A. Where do I look?
29 Q. It is in yellow bundle 4?
A. OK, 4.
30
Q. Statement No. 9. Page 362?
