11/17 test. Need help !!

以下是引用shintty在2003-11-13 7:06:00的发言：
"Should government establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards in the enrionment?" Different people have different answer （answers）due to their respective points of view. On the one hand, as is well known that government do not need to reduce all possible health hazards. On the other hand, many people insist that government should establish such regulations to pretect people. Therefore, there is not a standard answer to this conflict, and whether one choice takes precedence over the other may quite depend on the specific situation. Actually, the complex nature of above issues requires us to consider it on a case-by-case analysis. As far as I am concerned, however, I agree that government should have such regulation, no matter the scientific studies of these health hazards are imcomplete or not. My view can be addressed by the following two reasons.

First of all, the most important reason to support my view is that any suspected health hazards may be harmful for the environment or for the people. It's better to get rid of it than to take risk of such unknown hazards. In China, a famous fable said, "You had better pretect the fire before it burns." That means everything that may be harmful should be pretected before that. A good example may be found in the case that in China, when at the first time SARS virus was found, nobody made notice about it. For government didn't establish any regulation to reduce such virus, it dispersed all around the world. Under this circumstance, it is obvious that government should establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards even when the scientific studies of these health hazards are imcomplete or contradictory.

Secondly, there is another reason to choose this statement. Because nobody knows when the scientific studies of these health hazards will be finished, or what is （去掉is，后面有be动词了）the exact result will be, people have to live in some uncertain environment, which will effect their normal life and their emotion. It takes much by-producted effections to the government. To illustrate, let me consider that a person doesn't know how safe his environment is, so he has low efficiency in the work. If it's common among the people, it will reduce government's GDP and effect the whole economy status of the country. Hence, we can conclude that it's wise for a government to establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards in the environment on time. It's wise for government to give people a safe, and satisfied environment.

Admittedly, it may be true that establishing regulations to reduce unknown health hazards wastes time and money in some condition. However, this alone does not constitute a sufficient support to claim that government do not need to establish such regulation. Continued with above facts and arguments, the conclusion is obvious.

Consequently, due to the above mentioned reasons, which sometimes correlate to form an organic whole and thus become more convincing, we may confidently say that 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 imcomplete or contradictory.