A: That's how you define it. They say no 51, they say it's deterministic, of course, and then I say from my experience and my knowledge that there's a connection.
(pp. 420-422).
- At the end of the day, the obvious conclusion is that the expert opinions, Prof. Shai Lin, are insufficient to assist the Applicants – as those who did not fall ill – in proving the factual causal connection (potential and specific) between the alleged wrongful conduct of the Respondents and the Applicants' damage, which, according to them, was the purpose of submitting his opinion (see also paragraph 335 of their summaries).
- During his cross-examination, Prof. Lin was presented with a study that he co-authored, entitled: "Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and the Rate of Cancer Cases in Haifa Bay, Ecology and the Environment" (see Exhibits M/37 and M/37A).
- In the introductory chapter of the aforementioned study (ibid., page 109 on the right) it is written, among other things, that "...A number of reasons make it difficult to find a statistically significant association between cancer morbidity and chronic exposure to airborne carcinogens. The main reasons are the long latency period of most cancers, the many possible causes of cancer, and the lack of detailed documentation of possible exposure characteristics in patients over time.The expected small contribution of air pollution to cancer morbidity makes it even more difficult to examine its effect. In order to reveal whether there is an impact of air pollution, it is necessary to take into account the possible impact of all the intervening variables (personal risk factors) such as genetic predisposition, smoking, lifestyle, diet, occupation, and so"
- In the discussion chapter (page 114 on the right) it is written, among other things, that since the authors did not have "... Information regarding risk factors at the individual level (such as workplace, lifestyle, smoking habits, and genetic predisposition) We used... and an "environmental epidemiology" approach... This is likely to lead to a misassessment of the exposure. Therefore, the results obtained are necessarily less significant than the results of a study that focuses on a group of people with a common statistical or demographic characterization and cannot detect causation and/or processes related to the development of the disease. In fact, it is possible that there is no connection between cancer morbidity at the individual level and the existence or absence of such a relationship at the group level." Later on (on page 115 above) it is written that "...The findings obtained in the current study show that there is a link between lung cancer in men and continuous exposure to suspended particles. However, the available data for use demonstrated the problematic nature of this finding. The result obtained, no matter how consistent, does not represent a causal connection. Causal relationships can only be quantified on an individual level, and they are influenced by many factors."
- Everything that is quoted above from the article that Prof. Lin took part in editing, does not correspond to the 'qualitative thesis' that he brought before the court and its conclusions regarding the possible existence of a causal connection.
- Lin was asked regarding the findings found in the study of the object of exhibit M/37 in which he took part, and he answered as follows:
Adv. Mr. Amos Goren: Now, you've found it here That if we take lung cancer, both male and female were Fewer cases in Haifa Compared to the national average. Right?