In 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the citizens of Tacoma, Washington, to decide whether they wanted "to accept some risk of cancer from arsenic in the air rather than face the probable closing of a copper smelter that provided 800 jobs". Using at least one economic efficiency argument and one fairness argument, comment on whether asking the citizens of Tacoma to decide was a good course of action for the EPA? Define what is meant by economic efficiency and what you mean by fairness before giving your analysis