FWIW I think this is a good remark. It's just correlation until proven otherwise. I was just saying there are changes in society, one of which is the widespread use of plastics, and there are changes in population health roughly starting along the same time. But indeed, we also started to do sitting work massively, and started using wireless communications etc.
Then again, we also reduced coal use in cities, we burn less wood in our houses, etc.
It really, really hard to prove causation beyond doubt. If you have a strong correlation and a reasonable concern that it might be causal relationship, and we are talking about health impacts, at some point it is rational to use the precautionary principle and take action even if you don't have definite proof.
As an extreme example, we actually can't state with 100% confidence that exercise is good for your health, it's just too hard to prove. But nobody with a sane mind will doubt it.
> we actually can't state with 100% confidence that exercise is good for your health
Doubt. It depends what definition you use for "health" but we know for a fact that a sedentary lifestyle has negative effects and that an active lifestyle has positive effects. Those assertions are indisputable.
Then again, we also reduced coal use in cities, we burn less wood in our houses, etc.