The witness, Prof. A. Grotto: I try to reduce where I can. I will not consciously walk in the same place and will also expose, there is also an interest here, a question between smoking, which is smoking that if in fact I am (unclear) to myself, and a situation in which people are actually forced to be exposed to this pollution. In other words, they don't have the ability to decide or choose at all. I mean, once they live in that area and are exposed to air pollution, period.. I mean, that's why I think it's something that the state has a duty to deal with for the benefit of the citizens. It's not like telling them to stop smoking.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: And at the port, it is not the duty of the state to take care of it.?
The witness, Prof. A. Grotto: Also.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: And in transportation, it is not the duty of the state to deal with?
The witness, Prof. A. Grotto: Also. The state should do both.
(Expanded 983-986).
- In the re-examination, Grotto was asked by the applicants' counsel and answered as follows:
Adv. Mr. A. Amorai: Ask you my friend Regarding its proximity to roads and transportation, he said it causes air pollution. So I ask you to clarify to the court first, if you have any insight, if you have done any research on transportation, that I end the question.
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: No, it's okay, he stood up behind you, I told him it's okay, you don't worry.
Adv. Mr. A. Amorai: And secondly, I ask, if you can clarify to the court what percentage of excess transportation there is in the bay because they transport their produce? If you know.
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: Answer the first part, only the first part. To the first part. Guys, sit for a seat. It is ok. The first part. Sir, does he have?..
[....]
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: This is a question that stems from what he was asked about. He was asked about transportation in Haifa Bay. No, not to the second half, not to the other half. What was the first half of the question?