Adv. Mr. Amos Goren: In other words, for you, the assumption is that the factories are the only thing that pollutes?
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: That's what people feel, yes, that's the polluting thing, according to all the reports we've read.
(page 1090).
- The Applicants referred to the survey-opinion of Prof. Lahad in section 91c) to their summaries and the Respondents, inter alia, in sections 403-429 (chapter D(2)).
Discussion and Decision
- I did not find it necessary to adopt the conclusions of the survey.
- All the more so, in the absence of a scientific basis and real proof of the Applicants' claims regarding excess morbidity and causal link, as detailed at length above, the survey does not have the power to bear the burden of proving the application for approval.
- In light of all that has been presented in this judgment so far, the first failure is found in the assumption of the survey authors (see paragraph 698 above), according to which the factories are the only responsible factor for the alleged air pollution in Haifa and its environs. And as Prof. Lahad 'requested'....Unless you tell me that there is something else polluting there," we will clarify that, as the evidence in the case shows, there are other significant polluting factors in the Haifa and HaMifra area in the form of the power plant, the port, transportation, and dust storms.
- A number of other flaws and deficiencies were also found in the survey, which significantly reduce the court's ability to rely on the conclusions of its editors, as detailed below.
- Failure to take into account media exposure
The respondents were not asked about the extent of their exposure to the media. It is puzzling why this fact was not taken into account by the survey authors. As it is reflected, I am of the opinion that this had a possible effect on its results.
Prof. Lahad confirmed that they did not ask."..the questions about exposure to the media" (p. 1088).
He was asked and answered as follows: