You believe it, you prove it.
Not to reply for the sole purpose of being argumentative, but just to dish up some food for thought: in most
safety related evaluations, such as FDA approval testing, URL endorsements, and so on, the burden of proof is so allocated that interested parties must demonstrate convincingly that danger does not
exist...for what it may worth here.
That doesn't seem to always be true. When a new power line was being pu up a decade ago, the power company spokesman repeatedly said that there is no evidence showing that high voltage lines present a health hazard, and the debate rages on about cell phone safety.
I'm not sure what drives the difference; it's probably laws and regulations.
Does anyone know whether there was any proof that lead .22 bullets actually harmed the condor?