Abstract

In this chapter, I consider two case studies in environmental epidemiology of cancer, in service of several aims. First, I argue that while identification of mechanisms is useful, they are neither necessary nor sufficient to justify claims about causal regularities in epidemiology. Second, I argue that Hill’s list of considerations are not “criteria” for judging that _X_ is a cause, but rather a set of guidelines and an argument for consideration of total evidence in conditions of uncertainty. Third, I argue that standards of evidence for establishing causation ought in part to hinge upon what we intend to use the evidence for. Since epidemiological data is so important for law and policy, the practical matter of what the causal information is _for_ must be taken into account in setting standards of assessments of evidence.