>> We should be very cautious about immediately jumping to the conclusion that something we don't like (plastics, mobile phones, vaccines) is probably terribly

>> We should be very cautious about immediately jumping to the conclusion that something we don't like (plastics, mobile phones, vaccines) is probably terribly carcinogenic despite the lack of causal evidence. Think it depends If exposure is based on good evidence that it is safe, and/or personal choice is involved, then absolutely, e.g. Vaccines, RF. However, when humans are being exposed to an environment outside that to which we are adapted to (usually because the market has been largely left to get on with it), e.g. plastics exposure, continuous traffic and aircraft noise, pollution, sugar loaded convenience foods, fast food rich environments, places that prioritise vehicle movement over humans etc. Then in those cases its worth noting that historically they are good health outcomes, e.g. smoking, leaded petrol, alcohol, hydrogenated vegetable fat, DDT etc. In general there aren't that many animals that thrive in the long-term outside of their evolutionary niches. And personally as an Engineer I don't think waiting for the scientific process to fight its way through the vested interests to start doing something about things that are very likely problems is a sensible approach.