Public concern has arisen about whether higher authorities have to take action for prevent illness and disease and should focus on decreasing the pollution and housing problems, some people think that action shuld take immediately. In this essay, I am going to examine this question from both point of view and give my own opinion on the matters.
On one side of the argument, people argue that the benifit of reducing pollution considerably outweigh the disadvantage. The main reason for beliving this is that water pollution is the important reason for health diseases. It is also possible to say people who can’t offer to purchase mineral water, will drink from river water is getting affected by health problem like fever, cough, and so on. One of the good illustration is the chemical factories are putting the waste into the river or lake which is near by them, People who is the residents of near by villages are drinking that water without any knowledge is getting affected by various issues.
The second point why I support this is that people who dont have sheltter to live is affected by air pollution than others. good example for this isa child who is staying in a tent is getting affected by air and noise pollutions.
On the other hand, it is also possible to make an opposing case. It is often argued that it is not manitory to solve this issues by the government. People often have this opinion because everyone is have disease and also affecting by pollution, it is depends on the individual’s health. A particular good example for this is a man who is stying in the apartment is also facing the health and pollution problem, respectively.
In conclusion, I belive that both arguments have their own merits on balance, however, i feel that every one should have basic needs like; house, food, health care, and etc; because it will reduce the enviromental.