Some people think that in order to prevent illness and disease, governments should make efforts in reducing environmental pollution and housing problems To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statements? v.3

It is argued that the public administration should invest in promoting solutions to residential and ecological issues as a preventive strategy to some illnesses. I completely agree with this notion due to the following reasons. Improving the quality of housing avoids the direct contact with many bacteria and virus since private spaces create a barrier to contaminated air, which minimizes the risks of being contaminated as a consequence. For instance, studies have shown that the flu is more easily spread out among cohabiting communities than among single house neighbourhoods, where habitants have restrict physical contact with others. Additionally, a house offers a better protection to illnesses that are related to temperature variations due to warming and cooler systems, consequently, the time of exposition to extreme warm and cold weather is drastically reduced. Furthermore, environmentally-friendly measures contribute to improve the general health because it improves the quality of air and water consumed by citizens; consequently, the statistics of lug sicknesses as well as diarrhoea are minimized. For example, while in the most polluted Brazilian city, São Paulo, thirty percent of diarrhoea and asthma issues have as the principal cause the pollution, in the countryside the number is reduced by twenty-five percent. Moreover, recycling waste can lead to a reduction in the population of rats and cockroaches that are carriers of countless illnesses, creating more sanitary and clean areas. To conclude, from my perspective, investing in fair houses and the environment is an effective form to prevent diseases. That is because besides creating a better protection to individuals, these investments would also improve the quantity of diseases in the environment.