And later on -
Adv. Mr. D. Or Chen: But you agreed with me that if there are 4 times as many cars in Tel Aviv, the pollution from a mother in Tel Aviv, from a mother 2.5 in Tel Aviv is mostly due to the cars.
The witness, Prof. Gad Rennert: Truth
Adv. Mr. D. Or Chen: So when you say that Haifa in terms of pollution, you compare it to Tel Aviv, when in Tel Aviv the pollution is 80-90 percent. Haifa has a quarter there, so only 20-25 percent is transportation. The rest is factories and so on.
The witness, Prof. Gad Rennert: I don't know.
Adv. Mr. D. Or Chen: How do you compare sex with non-sex? Instead of comparing it to a national average, as every respected expert in the field does?
The witness, Prof. Gad Rennert: So once again, I first of all thank you for the compliment.
Adv. Mr. D. Or Chen: You insulted me too, it's okay, we're pets.
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: Well done, Or Chen.
The witness, Prof. Gad Rennert: We narrow the discussion down to one single component because of its availability. There are just tables of P 2.5. There are also tables of smoking with completely different rates between Haifa and Tel Aviv. There are also smoking tables with completely different rates between Kiryat Ata and Neve Sha'anan and Hadar. There is also an Arab population with varying rates between the cities. There is also a different rate of smoking between Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs. There are so many contributors of a risk factor that is 100 times more dangerous than a 2.5 times more risky mother. Okay? So it's just okay to ask the questions, but you still have to keep the proportions, because without the proportion we'll get lost.
(in detail, pp. 1908-1912) (see also: his testimony on pages 1954-1955).
- Given all of the above, against the background of the court's determination above and what was stated in the Sadetzky Commission report, I found a real (evidentiary) reason in the statements of the experts on behalf of the respondents as quoted above, according to which in order to obtain reliable, relevant and valid information, regarding excess morbidity (to the extent that exists) in Haifa and its environs, the comparison to the national average does not reflect that it is correct, misleading and irrelevant, and that the comparison should be made."... Vis-à-vis similar localities (urban and/or industrial in nature) and in which residents with similar demographic-social characteristics live to the extent possible" (see M/46), which is as the case law of the court in the Kishon An identical or similar control group in its characteristics."
- In light of the above, go out and learn that comparing the morbidity rate in Haifa to the average morbidity in the general population (to the national average) cannot reliably prove the existence of an excess of morbidity in Haifa.
Item 6 of the Second Addendum - The Legal Basis
- As may be recalled, the application for approval was filed in accordance with Item 6 of the Second Addendum, according to which a class action can be filed "in connection with an environmental hazard against the hazard party; For this purpose, "hazardous factor", "environmental hazard" – as defined in the Prevention of Environmental Hazards Law."
- In the Strauss case above, the court clarified, inter alia, that "...It cannot be disputed that the examination of the prerequisites in general, and the compliance with the conditions of the second addendum in particular, already at the stage of the application for approval, requires a high level of strictness on the part of the court. This matter is prominent in the case law of this Court, which has more than once held an in-depth discussion of the existence of this or that item in the circumstances of the case already at the preliminary stage" (, paragraph 25).
- In the Strauss case, the court expanded on the matter of item 6 of the addendum, stating that "the violation of an objective standard as a condition for the existence of an 'environmental hazard' is", inter alia:
The accepted interpretation of the definition that appears in section 1 of the Prevention of Environmental Hazards Law points to two hurdles that must be overcome in order to prove the existence of an environmental hazard: one (which I will refer to hereinafter: the type of hazard), concerns the type of environmental hazard, and it requires the existence of a hazard from the list of factors presented at the beginning of the section ("air pollution, noise, odor, water pollution, seawater pollution, pollution by waste, pollution by hazardous substances, pollution by radiation"; On the connection between the factors of "noise" and "smell" and "air pollution", see the Committee's deliberations of February 24, 1992, at p. 41; Given that most of the aforementioned factors constitute "pollution", and for the sake of convenience, I will refer to them below, as "pollution") or of "damage" from the damages specified therein ("damage to the coastal environment, asbestos hazard, damage to a protected area, damage to a ready-made tree or mature tree, damage to a forest or damage to a protected natural value"); The second (which I shall refer to hereinafter: the severity of the hazard) is proof that the hazard is of severity that justifies its classification as an "environmental hazard", as it is "contrary" to a document or provision of a normative dimension ("legislation, order, plan, business license or any other permit or license") (hereinafter: the normative component), or alternatively that it harms the health of a person or causes real suffering to the person. Proof of the existence of an "environmental hazard" therefore consists of proof that there has been a violation of the type and severity defined in the law: pollution that is included in the said "list of pollutions" (or damage from the "list of harms", as aforesaid); and which is contrary to a provision of the law or a permit that originates in the legislation, or that causes harm to a person as mentioned above (see Schnur, at pp. 297-299; Flint and Vinitsky, at p. 494) (ibid., para. 30).
- With regard to the discussion in Item 6, it should be clarified that the granting of approval to conduct the class action in the circumstances of the present proceeding depends, inter alia, on proof on the part of the Applicants that the emission of the various substances from the Respondents' factories (as claimed) amounts to an "environmental hazard", in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Environmental Hazards Law .
- "Environmental hazard" is defined in the Prevention of Environmental Hazards Law as follows:
Air pollution, noise, odor, water pollution, seawater pollution, pollution by waste, pollution by hazardous materials, pollution by radiation, damage to the coastal environment, asbestos hazard, all when they are contrary to legislation, order, plan, business license or any other permit or license, or which harm a person's health or cause real suffering to a person.