[WARNING-LONG, OFF-TOPIC POST]
Sometimes, stuff happens. But itās in our nature to seek someone or something to blame.
On the other hand, āsettled scienceā 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 manās acceptable risk is anotherās anathema.
So, as much as practicable, the proverbial āweā 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 donāt want one for technical, potential risk or personal reasons, donāt get one. The real issue here is when the Gubment decides it knows whatās best for you and yours, and mandates technology that people fear or just plain donāt 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 āsave the planetā by saving KWHs was, IMO, an example of misguided political overreach, rather than good āenvironmental policyā.* Two examples of āunintended consequencesā 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, letās let people set their own risk comfort level and act accordingly as much as possible. Thatās 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 āgreen-leaningā 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.
