Dr. Shlita states that based on the plaintiffs' illnesses as diagnosed by the plaintiffs' physicians, and based on the findings of the chemical pollutants in the water and swamp of the Kishon River and the fishing dock where the plaintiffs worked for years, as well as on the knowledge he has accumulated, he is of the opinion that there is a clear causal connection between the cancers in which the plaintiffs fell ill and the substances that were discharged into the river's waters for many years by the defendants (in accordance with the opinion of Dr. Juanico). Dr. Shlita also states that the conditions created at the Kishon fishing dock, due to the presence of many toxic and carcinogenic contaminants and high concentrations in water and sludge, which were often extremely acidic, have no parallel in the medical and scientific literature. Therefore, the synergistic effect of the pollutants on the formation of cancer in each of the plaintiffs goes beyond the known direct links between certain pollutants and certain diseases, and other direct and indirect effects should not be ruled out [pp. 20-21].
It should also be noted that the free radical theory, which the plaintiffs tried to establish through Dr. Shlita's opinion, is a general theory that ignores the specific substances to which the plaintiffs were exposed, the method of exposure and the type of cancer in which each and every plaintiff suffers.
In addition, in Dr. Shlita's cross-examination, it became clear that the free radical theory as presented by Dr. Shlita is not a theory that is accepted in the world of science, as Dr. Shlita initially claimed. It turned out that Prof. Ames (whom Dr. Shlita declares to be the leading researcher in the field of free radical theory - p. 12586 of the minutes of the discussion of February 3, 2008) rejected Dr. Shlita's main theses and wrote that the public thinks that man-made environmental pollution is a major cause of cancer, but this is a mistake (pp. 12590-12591) and also wrote that water pollution as a risk factor for cancer is small (pp. 12592-12593) [p. 21].