Dr. Shlita found it difficult to base his theory on scientific sources that could positively support this theory. When he was asked in his interrogation to produce scientific articles in support of this, he claimed that this was a theory known to every scientist and did not point to scientific sources for this (p. 12647 of the transcript of the hearing of February 3, 2008). In the evidence before the court, there is no reference to support Dr. Shlita's theory, which links the plaintiffs' exposure to the anchor water to an increase in the amount of free radicals and the occurrence of the plaintiffs' diseases. In any event, according to Dr. Shlita himself, while the basic idea regarding the existence of free radicals is an accepted idea, the results obtained in various experiments are unclear and sometimes contradictory (p. 12468 of the transcript of the hearing of January 27, 2008).
Throughout his professional career, Dr. Shlita did not deal with this field, but began to deal with the issue of free radicals only after he retired (p. 12462 of the transcript of the hearing of January 27, 2008). It turned out that Dr. Shlita had not participated in any research on free radicals (p. 12463) and had not written any article on free radicals and their relationship to cancer (p. 12463). Dr. Shlita admits, however, that he has never been involved in cancer research (p. 12490).
In addition, Dr. Shlita's cross-examination revealed that according to the theory, every activity we do in our lives, including breathing, living in Mitzpe in the Galilee, living in Haifa, shaving using an electric shaver, any proximity to a device with a motor such as a vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, etc., use of a cell phone, cellular antennas, excitement, eating cooked meat or bread and any cooked or fried food, as well as eating other foods such as French cheese and hummus. Taking medications, exposure to radar such as in fishing boats, lack of sleep or work at night, smoke from diesel engines, physical activity without taking antioxidants, etc., causes an excess of free radicals that cause cancer (see, for example, pp. 12512-12526 of the minutes of the hearing of 27 January 2008). Dr. Shlita did not know how to quantify the magnitude of the contribution of all those daily activities in relation to the amount of free radicals created in the plaintiffs' bodies due to their exposure to the waters of the Kishon fishing dock. Therefore, and for this reason as well, this is a theory on which the existence of a causal link between the exposure to the substances that were in the waters of the Kishon fishing dock and the plaintiffs' illnesses cannot be based.