> >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.' > Actually, science is not on

> >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.' > Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles. I think you are actually wrong about this. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. This is reflective of the principle in reason that the burden of proof falls of the claimant of the positive claim. The real question here is, "which is actually the negative claim?" Is claiming something safe a negative claim, or is claiming something is harmful a negative claim? This is where I think OP is incorrect: safety is merely lack of harmfulness. Therefore, claiming that something is safe is the negative claim, and claiming that something is harmful is the positive claim. A reasonable person should assume things are safe until there is significant evidence that they are harmful.