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

Prev Next Index