Andrea's point is probably the answer you're looking for, however, you should keep in mind that many (most?) environmental laws are driven more by politics than by the available data. Scientists do research on any number of topics (environmental or not) that have implications for our society. We (scientists) like to think that policy makers take our data and results into consideration when drafting legislation, but I would say that in my experience this rarely happens. For one, there have rarely been any federal legislators who understand science. Even the few physicians who've gone into politics seem largely to fail to understand very basic tenets of science, or at least they don't often demonstrate it with their political actions. Leaving environmental issues, for example, if politicians took science into account, there would be no discussion in any school district in the country about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, as there are simply *NO* scientists who are qualified to have an opinion who would suggest it shouldn't. Environmental issues are not really any different.
I think the answer would be C) a place where water heated by magma rises from the ocean floor because it is an opening on the Ocean floor that releases heated mineral - rich water.
Con la creciente necesidad de antibióticos, hormonas de crecimiento, pesticidas y otros productos artificiales, los agricultores dependen cada vez más de estos proveedores.
