I’m working on a communications question and need support to help me learn.
Part 1 respond to the following post in 1-1.5 paragraphs :
Is the precautionary principle a clear guide in dealing with uncertainty? How should we go about weighing the uncertainty or risks of environmental danger versus the economic and other benefits that come from an activity like fracking? Is there a risk to erring on the side of public health?
Part 2 respond to the following post (Therefore, terse responses such as “I agree”, “I agree with…” or “That’s a great point” would not count as meaningful discussion or response.):
Precautionary principle is a clear guide in dealing with uncertainty because it makes sure that it takes a precaution on the measure within the human health safety or the environment. The principle in taking these cautions gives a great scientific uncertainty including avoidance of risk and affirmative obligation to prevent harm. I think that weighing the uncertainty versus fracking can be a difficult one because of the environmental potential harm such as the natural gas that can affect climate change, maybe!? There should not be a risk into erring on the side of the public health because as mentioned of what precautionary principle does it “should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” Therefore, it should have the requirements of creating safety measures for the public health to not cause any harm to humans and the ecosystem.
