[Page 24 in the middle and bottom].
The same applies to other theories raised by the experts on behalf of the plaintiffs, such as the theory regarding the cocktail of substances created in Kishon water, synergy, and the free radical theory, which have not been proven to be accepted and well-founded scientific theories in the world of science and medicine [page 186, p. 186].
- Thus, the Supreme Court also ruled in the appeal, inter alia, that:
Both fishermen and divers have argued that the "cocktail" of substances or the synergy between the dangerous substances known to be carcinogenic created a much greater effect than that of any substance in its isolation. However, this theory has not been scientifically proven, and as the trial court noted, an interaction between a number of substances can even neutralize one substance or another, and at the very least, it can also be neutral [ibid., p. 26, para. 21].
- Similar to the judgments of the two courts in the Kishon case, I too have come to the conclusion that the applicants have not been able to prove the claim of 'synergy' at the required evidentiary level, even at this stage of the hearing of the application for approval.
- Even in the course of the hearing of the application before me, the experts on behalf of the applicants (and in particular Dr. Shlita) were unable to prove scientifically convincingly that the cocktail between different emission products would lead to synergistic damage.
- Shlita confirmed in his interrogation that "such a thing can happen", of antagonism between substances in such a way that their combination together would create less damage than the damage that each of them could have caused on its own (see p. 190, lines 29-34) (see also Prof. Rennert's testimony on page 1908).
- The Supreme Court's ruling regarding this theory that "... This theory has not been scientifically proven, and as the trial court noted, an interaction between a number of substances can even neutralize this or that substance, and at the very least, can also be"
- As cited and detailed above (see paragraphs 281-282), articles to which Dr. Shlita referred and on which he relied to establish the thesis of synergism, do not discuss this phenomenon at all.
- Given all of the above, the Applicants' argument that "... When due to chemical or biological contamination, excess radicals are formed. The free radicals join and act in synergy and increase damage, including mutations," it is doomed to be rejected, and it cannot serve as a helpful precept even to the claim of excess morbidity.
Expert Opinions and Testimony on Behalf of the Respondents