The witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: True
Adv. Mr. A. Prinz: And you found a connection between the distance from the road and morbidity in NHL?
The witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: True
Adv. Mr. A. Prinz: That's right. But you did this examination without connection or without examining other polluting sources?
The witness, Prof. Mr. S. Lynn: True
(p. 810).
- It should be noted in the margins that the accompanying scientific committee's opinion of August 3, 2016, which was submitted to the Minister of Environmental Protection (Exhibit M/46), dealt with the 'epidemiological survey' (Exhibits M/37; 42/2) discussed above, and in which Lin took part and is also mentioned as its source of reference in the position paper (see also sections 405-408 below).
- In his answers, Prof. Lin also referred to the Almog Commission report (Exhibit M/34) and relied on it to substantiate his positions, see, for example, pages 348, 380, 398, 401, 408, 414, 447, and 648. He confirmed in his interrogation that he did not mention the aforementioned Almog Report in his first opinion (see pages 402 and 406), but only in his second opinion (page 432).
- In the aforementioned report of the Almog Committee ["Report of the Committee for Determining Environmental Reference Values for Chemical Pollutants in the Air", 2006], it was stated, inter alia, and in summary, that the background to the establishment of the committee was complaints by soldiers serving in the Ramat Hovav area and units training in the field about odor nuisances accompanied by nausea and headaches. It was clarified that the committee was appointed to meet two needs: Determination of environmental reference values for chemical pollutants in the air. (See also section 1.3 of the report) 2. To create an operative tool for assessing potential health risks from respiratory exposure of soldiers in training areas (in accordance with the recommendations of the Shamgar Committee in the Kishon affair).
- The authors note in the report, among other things, in relation to human epidemiological surveys, that this is the best and preferred source, but ". . .Good and reliable epidemiological surveys are rare. The vast majority of them are very problematic from a methodological point of view" (see section 3.1.3.1). Section 2.3, entitled "Short-term and long-term reference values", states that the committee found that the basis for the environmental reference values will be the maximum permissible time-weighted concentration, which in chronic respiratory exposure to it will not cause negative health effects on the population. Regarding carcinogens, there is no safe threshold and the committee based the reference values on an additional risk of one in 100,000 developing cancer in the population for the rest of life (70 years), which means that for a population of 6.5 million people, about 65 additional cancer cases are expected to be added as a result of exposure to these concentrations over a period of 70 years. According to the authors, experience in the field shows that "...The concentrations of the various chemical pollutants in the air are not constant over time. They are affected by the intensity of the emissions, the sources of pollution, as well as meteorological conditions. As a result, there are fluctuations in the level of exposure of the general population throughout the day and in the different seasons of the year. These fluctuations may from time to time cause pollutant concentrations to be higher than the annual reference values. For this reason, like other regulatory bodies around the world, the Committee has determined short-term environmental reference values, to which acute exposure within a defined period of time (usually an hour and/or a day) will not cause significant health effects for the general population. Short-term environmental reference values consist of three parameters: concentration, time (duration of each single exposure event) and frequency of exposures" (see at length, pp. 64-65).
- The Atzmon report does not deal at all with morbidity in Haifa Bay or with alleged pollution originating from the respondents. The report presents research and an in-depth scientific discussion of the method of determining environmental reference values while examining the practice in other countries, but it has not been proven by the applicants how it can assist them in proving their application, including in proving excess morbidity in Haifa Bay and the causal connection between the alleged wrongs and the (non-pecuniary) damage caused to them (see also: paragraph 50 of the applicants ' summaries; paragraph 115 of the respondents' summaries and the appeal is changed 28 and 43 ibid.).
- Lin also referred extensively to the documents written by Prof. Grotto , who relied on what was written in them to substantiate his conclusions, see, for example, pages 348, 350, 355, 356, 483, 515, 569, 577, and 710. He confirmed in his interrogation that he did not refer to Grotto's letter (Appendix 4) in his first opinion (page 402).
- In view of all that has been stated in this judgment regarding Prof. Grotto's documents (Appendices 4 and 4.1) [see also in detail: paragraphs 391-434 below], they cannot serve as a proper professional support and as appropriate evidentiary support for Lin's opinion, the thesis he presented and his conclusions, especially with regard to the causal link or excess morbidity that needs to be proven by the applicants, in the circumstances of this application.
- Finally, Lin's opinion does not include an assessment of the prospective risk (forward-looking) and he did not make such an assessment within the definition. His opinion does not in fact indicate the risk of contracting illness only in relation to the air pollution that is claimed to have been caused by the factories. The opinions also do not substantiate the conclusion that excess morbidity is caused (only) by the emissions of the factories. Given the fact that this case does not deal with applicants who actually fell ill, but rather with those who are claimed to be anxious about the possibility of contracting, and that this is non-pecuniary damage of infringement of autonomy, Prof. Lin's opinion does not even have the power to testify and prove any causal connection, or a substantial risk of contracting cardiovascular disease or cancer in the Haifa district, due to the emissions (only) from the factories.
- Contrary to what is claimed by the Applicants, I have not found that Lin was able to assist them in a scientific-reliable manner, which is required within the framework of this application for approval, in determining that they had proven "a definite causal link between exposure to substances [emitted from the Respondents' factories] and cancerous diseases".
The Claim of Synergy
- The two experts on behalf of the applicants (Prof. Lin and Dr. Shlita) raised the phenomenon of possible 'synergy' between the various substances emitted, as one that intensifies their harmful effect.
- Lin was asked in his interrogation regarding the claim of "synergy" that he raised [see, for example, pages 12 below and 13 above in his first opinion], and he replied as follows:
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: So now let's go back, let's get to the interactions, sorry. Is it true that interactions between different substances that are suspected to be carcinogenic, and between different risk factors is a complicated issue that is difficult to scientifically test, is that true?