[....]
The witness, Prof. A. Grotto: Oh OK, that's right, so I say that in the end some of the processes that started following this matter, it's actually the Ministry of Environmental Protection allocated money for research among the other studies that were published and succeeded in investigating the subject and indeed validated once again the findings that were similar to those in that study, so that overall there is consistency throughout things, and this is one of the most prominent principles in the subject of causation.
[....]
Adv. Mr. Amos Goren: But I want to ask you again once or more to clarify, what was the goal? Why did the Ministry of Health see fit to publish to the public that it is necessary, that it is examining the data and what was said in Rotenberg's study after there was a letter from the Ministry of Health, which you signed that said this was the study and was based on the study, there is morbidity and it is as a result of air pollution, why did the Ministry of Health see fit to convene the meeting and publish this announcement in a special way, which says, come on, we need to check the data presented in the article, What was the purpose of this meeting and what was the purpose of this publication??
The witness, Prof. A. Grotto: I can only describe the point of view. What do I think the goal was, yes? I'm not examining. I don't know what the purpose of the person who held the discussion is. I assume that the goal for me was to try to calm the public. As I said, there was also the involvement of the minister, I think the prime minister was also involved in this matter, no one spoke to me, but I know that they spoke with the director general and therefore There was some desire to calm some public panic, or something like that. And all in all, that was probably the goal of the discussion, as far as they were concerned.
(Expanded on pages 964-969)
- The position paper (Appendix 1) is dated December 15, 2015. On March 6, 2016, the then-Minister of Health issued a letter of appointment to 9 recipients, including Prof. S. Sadetzky, who will serve as chairman, "a letter of appointment for membership in a scientific committee accompanying the epidemiological monitoring study for the Haifa Bay area...". Prof. Grotto would have written to this letter.
- On August 3, 2016, the aforementioned committee submitted to the Minister of Environmental Protection and the Minister of Health "the opinion of the scientific committee accompanying the progress report of the first year of the study "Epidemiological Monitoring for the Haifa Bay Area 2015-2020". The principal investigators are Prof. Boris Portnov, Shai Lin (the applicants' expert in this proceeding) and Prof. Rafi Carel (see Exhibit M/46).
- The 69-page report states, among other things, and in summary that:
- Because the research methods presented after the first year of research do not constitute a solid research infrastructure. Therefore, the findings obtained so far are unreliable and cannot serve as a basis for assessing morbidity and the link between air pollution and morbidity in the Haifa Bay area.
- The exposure assessment methods were found to be flawed, that interpolation methods were used that were not suitable for the Gulf region, ignoring significant emission sources and hazardous pollutants relevant to the nature of industry in the region.
- Statistically, it was stated that the "double kernel density" (DKD) method used by the researchers in modules 1, 3, and 4 (cancer, asthma in children, asthma in non-communicators) is not suitable for research aimed at making health policy decisions, and its reliability has not yet been determined by the scientific community.
- It was also stated that the study does not relate to the entire population of the population (for example, there is a lack of reference to the Arab population), and there is a bias in the selection of the sample and reliance on partial sources of information. and that the reference to a uniform and arbitrary latency period (about 10 years for cancer) is not suitable for different types of morbidity.
- The committee's report also presented preliminary findings and recommendations as follows:
- With regard to excess morbidity, it was noted, among other things, that in the results that related to comparative indices of cancer and asthma in Haifa Bay compared to Tel Aviv and Hadera, no excess morbidity was observed in Haifa Bay. However, the Committee emphasizes that these comparisons were based on an ecological and partial data analysis, and constitute only a preliminary indicator.
- As for air pollution, it was found, among other things, that the average annual concentrations of most pollutants in Haifa Bay were lower than those measured in Tel Aviv, and since 2011 they have been lower than those in Hadera, with a general downward trend.
- With regard to the existence of future research, the Committee recommends allocating resources to environmental epidemiological studies at the individual level (and not ecological) in the Haifa Bay area, and to environmental studies to expand knowledge of volatile organic compounds.
- Grotto was asked about the committee that was established late for the publication of the position paper [the aforementioned Sadetzky Committee], and he answered as follows:
Adv. Mr. Amos Goren: Do you know that a committee has been appointed?