Yes, but how much pollution to accommodate is a decidedly political question. Science cannot answer how much is too much. If your answer is that no pollution is acceptable, that's not science either (frankly, it's more akin to an ideological position). But presuming you're willing to admit that the benefits of certain activities outweigh their impacts to the environment or human health, particularly when our information is imperfect, then the question becomes how much is too much. And every human has their own utility curve and risk preferences. Science cannot answer those questions. Like the parent, I agree that this is decidedly a question for policy makers (preferably accountable to the electorate) informed by science.