Question

a group of scientists is studying the effect of a potentially toxic chemical on the drinking water of a region. people consider the presence of this chemical to be a health hazard, although there is no documented scientific evidence to support this. what would be a reasonable environmental policy until the time the scientists are able to conclude the exact effects of the chemical on the environment?
caution individuals to use their own judgment in deciding whether to drink from a potentially contaminated area.
establish a contingency fund to handle insurance claims in the event the chemical produces negative health effects.
set the acceptable limits of the chemical high and keep them unless future studies show negative health effects.
set the acceptable limits of the chemical low and keep them unless future studies show that they can be safely raised.

Explanation:

When dealing with a potentially toxic chemical in drinking water with no conclusive evidence yet, a precautionary approach is best. Cautioning individuals to use their own judgment (\(1^{st}\) option) is not a formal environmental policy. Establishing a contingency fund (\(2^{nd}\) option) is reactive rather than a preventive policy. Setting high acceptable limits (\(3^{rd}\) option) is risky as it may expose people to harm. Setting low acceptable limits (\(4^{th}\) option) follows the precautionary principle, which is a common - sense approach in environmental policy - making when there is uncertainty about the effects of a substance.

Answer:

Set the acceptable limits of the chemical low and keep them unless future studies show that they can be safely raised.