[....]
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: Yes please. What is my Lord's answer?
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: I say again, In an ideal world, the answer to your question is yes, in the practical world of panel islands or such companies they sample the population according to who answers them up to a certain limit set.
[....]
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: I didn't say he didn't represent. It represents, only we both understand that it would have been better if these panel island studies had been more balanced.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: And it would have been better if there were Arabs there?
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: I don't know if there are Arabs there or not, I didn't check
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: Don't you know if there are Arabs in Haifa?
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: Onward
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: In Haifa there is certainly one. You said in the Gulf.
[....]
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: Sir, why do you have to do anything hard? To the best of your knowledge, there is an Arab population in the Haifa Bay communities, yes or no.?
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: In Haifa yes, I don't know about Haifa Bay.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: OK. And do you have a panel of panel islands, however, there is no.
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: I guess not.
(From page 1194, line 31, to page 1196, line 30).
- In conclusion – at the end of the day and given the above, I found that the survey findings should not be trusted. It should be recalled that the applicants, as representatives of the group, were not personally examined by the expert in support of their claims that they are anxious and afraid of the air pollution emanating from the respondents (see the testimony of Prof. Lahad at pp. 1175-1176). In a nutshell, it should also be clarified that I found deficiencies in the survey, among other things, in the character:
- A sample of a population that is not representative of the composition of the residents of Haifa Bay, so for example, the sample did not include Arabs, nor even adults over the age of 70 or young people under the age of 18 (see, for example, the testimony of Prof. Lahad on page 1197).
- The sample was not gender-balanced (the share of women who participated in it was smaller than their share in the population) [see also paragraph 411 of the respondents' summaries].
- The sample groups were not adjusted according to a relevant parameter of socioeconomic status and education [see also paragraph 411 of the respondents' summaries].
- The two experts contradicted themselves regarding the validity of the questionnaire and their answers were not identical and consistent, when it turned out in the end that only one or two questions were valid [see also paragraph 406 of the respondents' summaries].
- Lykin confirmed that he did not check whether the distribution of the answers was normal, which is a necessary condition for the application of the 'Manova' test that was used, as he said in this sample [see also paragraphs 416, 418 and 423 of the respondents' summaries].
- Lahad confirmed that the sample in question "is not a proof study" (page 1178) nor is it a "contact study" (page 1123) and that it is a "survey" (page 1237) and he confirmed that he deduces the existence of "chronic stress" "from living in an environment where there is a serious threat of air pollution." According to him, "...On this particular subject, yes, I connect the two" (page 1232, lines 18-31). It therefore emerges that the conclusion of chronic stress is not a proven fact, but rather is deduced from a combination of circumstances.
- With regard to one circumstance as to the sources of the threat of air pollution, we find that Prof. Lahad mistakenly believed that only the factories were the source of this (see also section 698 above).
- Lahad testified in relation to the survey and admitted in a manner ostensibly in support of the court's conclusion above, that:
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: So you didn't actually measure. I suggest you,