Government should establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards in the environment, even when the scientific studies of these health hazards are incomplete or contradictory.
----------------------
My Response
---------------------
The issue at hand is a very sensitive as it relates to the development and maintenance of the healthy environment. In my opinion the government should always have the regulations in place for the reduction or elimination of the any waste products which can be hazardous to the environment. It may be possible that the scientific studies to prove a substance as hazardous may be underway and we don't have any conclusive results, but the government should always be proactive in regulating the emission of such substances.
First, any substance which is suspicious of causing hazards to the environment can at best not prove beneficial. That being in mind, it will be advisable for the government to play safe and have regulations in place for such emissions. Prevention is always better than cure. If no regulations will be in place, the companies will not take enough measures to prevent such emissions and the management can always use the fact of inconclusive scientific results for their own benefits and profits.
Second, the regulations must be properly defined by the government for the controlled emission of the waste products. The scientific results are often challenged when we consider the bulk emissions of the hazardous substances in the environment. For example, the recent spill of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico from the wells of the BP has caused irreversible damage to the ocean and the fishing industry in the bulk. The scientific studies were not conclusive as to what percentage of the oil spill is considered safe. Thus there were no regulations on the oil drilling companies and the companies do not have enough preventive measures in place. This resulted in the uncontrollable oil spill in the ocean.
However, some people may argue that since the studies are incomplete to prove any substance as hazardous; there should not be any government regulation to control its emission. I second on this argument. In my opinion, by having the regulations in place the government can safeguard the environment better. What if there is no regulation on emissions of a substance which is not yet proven harmful but could be proven same in subsequent studies. As the environment will already be polluted with the substance, it will cause pollution and health hazards to the society. For example, the incidence of the release of the methane gas in the MIC factory in India. No regulations in place, the plant released the poisonous methane gas in the environment which proved fatal for the society.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement that the government should always have regulation in place to keep the environment healthy and beneficial for the society.
----------------------
My Response
---------------------
The issue at hand is a very sensitive as it relates to the development and maintenance of the healthy environment. In my opinion the government should always have the regulations in place for the reduction or elimination of the any waste products which can be hazardous to the environment. It may be possible that the scientific studies to prove a substance as hazardous may be underway and we don't have any conclusive results, but the government should always be proactive in regulating the emission of such substances.
First, any substance which is suspicious of causing hazards to the environment can at best not prove beneficial. That being in mind, it will be advisable for the government to play safe and have regulations in place for such emissions. Prevention is always better than cure. If no regulations will be in place, the companies will not take enough measures to prevent such emissions and the management can always use the fact of inconclusive scientific results for their own benefits and profits.
Second, the regulations must be properly defined by the government for the controlled emission of the waste products. The scientific results are often challenged when we consider the bulk emissions of the hazardous substances in the environment. For example, the recent spill of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico from the wells of the BP has caused irreversible damage to the ocean and the fishing industry in the bulk. The scientific studies were not conclusive as to what percentage of the oil spill is considered safe. Thus there were no regulations on the oil drilling companies and the companies do not have enough preventive measures in place. This resulted in the uncontrollable oil spill in the ocean.
However, some people may argue that since the studies are incomplete to prove any substance as hazardous; there should not be any government regulation to control its emission. I second on this argument. In my opinion, by having the regulations in place the government can safeguard the environment better. What if there is no regulation on emissions of a substance which is not yet proven harmful but could be proven same in subsequent studies. As the environment will already be polluted with the substance, it will cause pollution and health hazards to the society. For example, the incidence of the release of the methane gas in the MIC factory in India. No regulations in place, the plant released the poisonous methane gas in the environment which proved fatal for the society.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement that the government should always have regulation in place to keep the environment healthy and beneficial for the society.
