(pp. 1928-1929).
Prof. Rennert's testimony made a professional and credible impression. I do not believe that the applicants have succeeded in undermining what is stated in his opinion.
Dr. Julie Goodman
- According to her, in order to determine whether a person is at increased risk of a certain health problem, it is necessary to prove, among other things, general causation and specific causation. General causation is proof that there is convincing scientific data (usually peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals) that the specific chemical in question can, under the circumstances of the individual's exposure, cause the particular health problem in question. Specific causation is proof that the individual received sufficient exposure to the chemical to cause the health problem, by way of comparison to the exposure that people who had already demonstrated evidence of increased health risk.
- Each health problem usually has different risk factors, and in many cases many of the causes of health problems are unknown. In drawing conclusions about proving general causation based on epidemiological data, the totality of the evidence should be evaluated and Hill's criteria, which are most commonly used for general causation inference from epidemiological studies, should be considered. These requirements are not absolute binding requirements but rather represent contributing factors in assessing the weight of the evidence.
- Based on the data presented in Dr. Libiki's opinion and in Dr. Goodman's additional opinions (in lieu of Rodriques' opinion), concentrations of air components measured in the Haifa subdistrict are similar to those measured in comparable cities in Israel and the European Union.
- The epidemiological evidence does not support a causation between air components and health effects that were reported in concentrations measured in the Haifa subdistrict.
- The concentrations of most air components in Haifa are below regulatory standards and exposure guidelines, and therefore below the doses or exposure conditions necessary to cause the harmful health effects.
- Based on the available data, in Dr. Goodman's opinion, it can be determined that the industrial activities in Haifa do not create excess concentrations of air pollutants compared to other similar areas.
- According to her, the morbidity and mortality rates in Haifa are generally similar to those in Tel Aviv, which is similar to Haifa except that it does not have an industry that Haifa has. Morbidity rates in Haifa are also similar or low compared to a number of other port and industrial cities in the United States.
- If it were true that industries in Haifa create excess levels of air pollution that are responsible for the alleged morbidity and mortality, one would expect that morbidity and mortality in Haifa would be significantly higher than those in urban environments that do not have the same level of industry, such as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but this is not the case.
- It is incorrect to compare the morbidity and mortality rates in Haifa to those in the country as a whole due to differences in populations, environment, and lifestyles in different regions of the country.
- Therefore, it can be concluded, with a reasonable level of scientific certainty, that scientific evidence does not indicate that industrial air pollution in Haifa causes excess morbidity and mortality in the area.
- In Dr. Goodman's opinion of December 14, 2023 (in lieu of the Rodrigues opinion), the main and supplementary opinion, it was argued in summary that from the available data of the levels of exposure to chemicals emitted by the Respondents' factories, as presented in Libiki's opinion, it is not possible to prove a causal connection or an increased risk of health effects in the Applicants.
- An assessment of Haifa air monitoring data shows that residents of the area are not exposed to air pollutants at levels that exceed safety levels or at levels higher than other cities in Israel or elsewhere in the Western world, and are not at risk of chemical toxicity.
Testimony of Dr. Julie Goodman
- Regarding her professional background and education, the expert replied, among other things:
Adv. A. Amorai: Madam, it's very important to me that our honorable judge hears and understands that you don't actually come from the field of medicine and science at all? Is that right, ma'am?