A large volcano sits in Eastern California in a popular vacation area. This volcano erupted catastrophically in prehistoric times. The area was geologically quiet for thousands of years. However, changes have occurred in recent decades. Many small earthquakes have been recorded, the volcano is releasing carbon dioxide gas, and its flanks are swelling. Scientists estimate from these observations that there is a 1 in 6 chance that the volcano will erupt at any time.1. Should disaster officials warn the public? If so, what's the best way to explain the risk?2. Should the area be evacuated?3. What are some consequences of warning the public?4. What are some consequences of not warning the public?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary. A reasonable response would be:
1. Disaster officials should warn the public. They should issue warnings in local newspapers and radio that there is a 1 in 6 risk of an eruption. Disaster officials should thoroughly explain and educate the public. Translations and door-to-door notices should be provided.
2. If there is ample warning, evacuation should not be mandatory since there is only a 1 in 6 risk. Also, the prediction of volcanic eruptions is an uncertain science.
3. If the public is warned, people may flee the area. People might not buy property. The economy would suffer. If the warning is made but the volcano doesn't erupt, the public may lose their trust in science.
4. If the public is not warned and the volcano erupts, people might die or be injured. Property that could have been saved could be destroyed.