[WARNING-LONG, OFF-TOPIC POST]
Sometimes, stuff happens. But it’s in our nature to seek someone or something to blame.
On the other hand, “settled science” is too often an oxymoron. Our human experience is littered with examples where common activities, uses of materials, medicines, technologies, etc. once considered perfectly safe are later judged as too dangerous for their intended purpose - all things considered (and once something judged to be better comes along).
At the end of the day, I land on the side of personal choice when it comes to risk assessment and risk aversion/acceptance. No matter how good the risk communication is, how low the potential risk is and how high the benefit vs. risk ratio is, someone will be in the outlier class and/or remain unconvinced by the risk analysis.
One man’s acceptable risk is another’s anathema.
So, as much as practicable, the proverbial “we” should not force individuals to accept and be subject to a risk they are not comfortable with. (Yes, I understand that when it comes to public policy there are sometimes practical limitations to such a libertarian approach.)
Smart meters are a pretty good, if not perfect, example. If you don’t want one for technical, potential risk or personal reasons, don’t get one. The real issue here is when the Gubment decides it knows what’s best for you and yours, and mandates technology that people fear or just plain don’t want intruding on their personal right to choose what they use and are exposed to in their own home.
Outlawing incandescent light bulbs is an analogous (sort of) example of risk management gone awry. Pushing compact fluorescent light bulbs over incandescent light bulbs to “save the planet” by saving KWHs was, IMO, an example of misguided political overreach, rather than good “environmental policy”.* Two examples of “unintended consequences” resulting form this push: 1.) forced POTENTIAL Hg exposure risks on to millions of people; and 2.) created the need for an increase in household hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal capacity and the concommitant collection and concentration of trace amounts of Hg into significant quantities at places where real risk of release and exposure to the environment and persons could now occur. (LEDs made, or will arguably have made, this particular discussion moot.) For a while we (in the U.S. at least) were headed to the point where one had no choice when going to the store to replace an incandescent bulb that had expired - buy a lightbulb with Hg in it or stay in the dark.
Anyway, let’s let people set their own risk comfort level and act accordingly as much as possible. That’s my mantra. 
[@jmilton: This post is not really directed at anything you wrote, specifically. This just seemed to be a good point to inject my screed.]
*Here is an article from what appears to be a “green-leaning” website bending over backwards and twisting itself in knots (IMO), trying to make a definitive case that compact fluorescent bulbs are better for you and the environment: Mercury in CFL: 5. Do environmental benefits of compact fluorescent lamps outweigh potential risks?.
Sincerely yours.
