The witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: Yes, it depends on the volatility of the־EXPOSURE, At the 5th percentile־EXPOSURE.
Adv. Mr. Amos Goren: OK. So look, so if that's the case, then it doesn't make sense that air pollution of any serving size is a causative component of any known disease that can be caused by air pollution, of any serving size. And always with a probability of more than fifty-one percent or more, because it stems from the fact that in smaller and smaller doses. The relationship will become more and more rare. This is contrary to your opinion that there will always be a connection in every dose of exposure with a probability of 51 percent or more. What is your reaction?
The witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: My response is that we are once again discussing the prospective approach as opposed to the retrospective approach. In the prospective approach.
[....]
Witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: The prospective. When we are... Today there will only be one chimney a month that emits benzene or some other carcinogen, or dioxins or things like that. She will have less risk PROBABILITY Prospectively, being dangerous versus one who does it every day. But in a person who got sick retrospectively and was exposed, so in the past there was a risk, there was some risk, but today when he gets sick I claim that it is more likely than not.
The Honorable Judge D. Hasdai: That's fifty-one percent.
The witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: True, as far as I'm concerned, it's more likely than (page 508)
- Lin was questioned in relation to the 'qualitative' theory that he presented and answered, among other things, as follows:
Q: Is your conclusion and a probability of at least 51 percent of a causal link between exposure to an environmental pollutant and cancer, Is this a statistical conclusion??
A: No, it is a qualitative epidemiological conclusion According to articles and things I have read at least, according to Weiss, who wrote and rated the things. You ask, again.