(pp. 985-986)
- On the eve of the conclusion of the discussion of this chapter of the position paper, we emphasize that in the background chapter 3 thereof, it is written, inter alia, that "...Age and smoking are major risk factors for cancer and cardiac morbidity. The population of the Haifa district is older than the national average." Later it is stated in paragraph A of the concluding chapter , inter alia, that "...The monitoring picture of air pollution is insufficient and there is a need to expand the monitoring and sampling of volatile organic substances in Haifa Bay in order to get a better picture of the current state of air quality. In addition, in the Haifa Bay area, there are a large number of air pollutants at the same time."
- As may be recalled, in section 254 of the motion for certification, it was argued that "...Over the years, the defendants emitted prohibited and life-threatening substances beyond the permitted amount, and as a result, caused the plaintiffs to develop various types of cancer to the point of danger of death and/or to an increased risk of developing various types of cancer to the point of life-threatening."
- In the Kishon case , it was held, inter alia, that "...Indeed, in the vernacular, cancer is perceived as a single disease, which is expressed in the uncontrolled division of cells. However, the accepted opinion is that cancer should not be viewed as a single disease, but rather as a variety of diseases, whose causes are different, their development is different, and their target organs are different. Not every substance that is known to be carcinogenic is a risk factor for all cancerous diseases, and there are cancerous diseases whose risk factors are unknown" (ibid., paragraph 9).
- It has not been proven by the Applicants, as well as by the experts on their behalf, what are those 'types of cancers', for which the emissions from the factories (and they only) caused an increased risk and excess morbidity, in connection with the aforementioned unspecified 'cancer', among the residents of the Gulf (see also what is stated in paragraphs 37-39 of the Respondents' summaries; and in paragraph 506 above).
- The obvious conclusion is – which the Applicants have not been able to prove – the existence of 'excess morbidity' in Haifa Bay, which originates from emissions from the Respondents' factories.
- In the Golan case above, it was held that with regard to the proof of 'excess morbidity' – which the applicants in our case must prove – inter alia that:
"...With regard to the parameter that deals with excess morbidity, we should mention that although its proof is necessary to establish the existence of a causal connection in cases such as the one discussed in our case, this is not enough. Thus, it is necessary to prove not only a correlation between the exposure to the hazardous substance and the prevalence of the disease, but also the causation between the two" (Atzmon case, at para. 35)" (ibid., para. 28)
- The same is true in the Kishon case (in the appeal), after the court determined the six parameters that the plaintiff must prove, starting with the potential causal connection and ending with the specific causal connection, it was held, inter alia, that:
In summary, the king's way to prove a causal connection in a tort claim for exposure to hazardous substances due to environmental pollution is not based on intuition, gut feeling and "common sense", but on the basis of scientific evidence. This was discussed by the scholar B. Schnur in his book Environmental Torts Claims (2011), p. 363 (hereinafter: Schnur, Environmental Claims):