Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
To satisfy this prong, “extreme deprivations are required ...,” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), and only deprivations denying “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” are grave enough to create a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392. Harsh and uncomfortable prison conditions do not automatically create such a violation. Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir.1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). However, a “remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). See also Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1211, 1215 (6th Cir.1992) . With respect to the subjective prong, there
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner
B. holding that where the recipient is a federal prisoner the government is required to provide him with actual notice of a deprivation
C. holding the united states liable under the ftca for exposure of prisoners to prisoner with tuberculosis where the prisoners bodies harbored one or more dormant tubercle bacilli which could later develop into fullfledged cases of tuberculosis
D. holding as an investment for future development
E. holding that failure to provide prophylactic medication to prevent the possible future development of active tuberculosis is actual injury even though prisoner did not develop active tuberculosis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.