Heavy-metal exposure debate

This is a model on a different case so you can see the format, not the answer to today's prompt. Read it for structure, then argue your own scenario.\n\nParallel scenario: An older school building keeps testing positive for toxic mold after roof leaks. The building owner, the school district, and the staff who work there each say it is someone else's problem. Who should have to find it, stop it, and clean it up?\n\nClaim: I argue that the building owner should carry the primary responsibility for preventing and remediating toxic mold, with public-health agencies setting and enforcing the standards that say when a building is safe to occupy.\n\nEvidence: Certain molds release spores and mycotoxins that the respiratory system takes in with every breath. This can trigger asthma attacks, chronic coughing, and inflammation of the airways, and the harm is worse for children and people with weakened immune systems. Because the moisture and structural damage that let mold grow come from the condition of the building itself, the party that controls that building controls the source of the exposure.\n\nReasoning: Responsibility should follow control of the hazard. The people breathing the air, students and staff, did not choose the leaks or the damp walls and usually cannot fix them, so it is not fair to place the cleanup burden on them. The owner controls repairs and maintenance, which is why the owner is best positioned to stop the problem at its source, while a health agency provides the outside standard so safety is not just left to whoever is cheapest. The genuine tradeoff is that strict mold standards and required remediation protect the people inside but raise real costs, and those costs can force repairs, higher rent, or even temporary closure of a building a community still needs. I lean toward the stronger standard anyway, because the health harm lands on people who never agreed to breathe contaminated air, and short-term cost is easier to recover from than long-term lung damage.