题目内容
The history of modem pollution problems shows that most have resulted from negligence and ignorance. We have an appalling tendency to interfere with nature before all of the possible consequences of our actions have been studied in depth. We produce and distribute radioactive substances, synthetic chemicals and many other potent compounds before fully comprehending their effects on living organisms. Our education is dangerously incomplete. It will be argued that the purpose of science is to move into unknown territory, to explore, and to discover. It can be said that similar risks have been taken before, and that these risks are necessary to technological progress. These arguments overlook an important element. In the past, risks taken in the name of scientific progress were restricted to a small place and brief period of time. The effects of the processes we now strive to master are neither localized nor brief. Air pollution covers vast urban areas. Ocean pollutants have been discovered in nearly every part of the world. Synthetic chemicals spread over huge stretches of forest and farmland may remain in the soil for decades and years to come. Radioactive pollutants will be found in the biosphere for generations. The size and persistence of these problems have grown with the expanding power of modern science. One might also argue that the hazards of modem pollutants are small compared with the dangers associated with other human activity. No estimate of the actual harm done by smog, fallout, or chemical residues can obscure the reality that the risks are being taken before being fully understood. The importance of these issues lies in the failure of science to predict and control human intervention into natural processes. The true measure of the danger is represented by the hazards we will encounter if we enter the new age of technology without first evaluating our responsibility to environment. The text is mainly about.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
纳税人按照客户要求，为钻井作业提供泥浆和工程技术服务的行为，应征收增值税。 ( )
The history of modem pollution problems shows that most have resulted from negligence and ignorance. We have an appalling tendency to interfere with nature before all of the possible consequences of our actions have been studied in depth. We produce and distribute radioactive substances, synthetic chemicals and many other potent compounds before fully comprehending their effects on living organisms. Our education is dangerously incomplete. It will be argued that the purpose of science is to move into unknown territory, to explore, and to discover. It can be said that similar risks have been taken before, and that these risks are necessary to technological progress. These arguments overlook an important element. In the past, risks taken in the name of scientific progress were restricted to a small place and brief period of time. The effects of the processes we now strive to master are neither localized nor brief. Air pollution covers vast urban areas. Ocean pollutants have been discovered in nearly every part of the world. Synthetic chemicals spread over huge stretches of forest and farmland may remain in the soil for decades and years to come. Radioactive pollutants will be found in the biosphere for generations. The size and persistence of these problems have grown with the expanding power of modern science. One might also argue that the hazards of modem pollutants are small compared with the dangers associated with other human activity. No estimate of the actual harm done by smog, fallout, or chemical residues can obscure the reality that the risks are being taken before being fully understood. The importance of these issues lies in the failure of science to predict and control human intervention into natural processes. The true measure of the danger is represented by the hazards we will encounter if we enter the new age of technology without first evaluating our responsibility to environment. As used in the second sentence of the first paragraph, the phrase "in depth" means
As technology continues to advance, countries must decide how they will deal with the issue of human cloning for reproduction or research. So far, several nations have placed strong restrictions on healing cloning; others are moving towards such restrictions, and a few have staked out positions in favor of curative cloning. After months of bitter debate, the Unite States must decide what it will do.All legislators can agree that it would be wrong now to make a walking, talking, reallife human clone. The National Academy of Sciences also supports that position. But its institute of Medicine has rightly said that its objections to the safety of reproductive cloning do not apply to research cloning. Indeed,’ some scientists say that research cloning could yield stem cells that could be used to grow healing tissues for patients with diseases such as Parkinson’s. (47)They also say that studying stem cells made from the cells of diseased patients could help us understand why people with the same genetic make-up get sick or stay well.Opponents of research cloning say there is no proof that it will yield any cures. They also say that adult stem cells are more promising and less controversial. They have gained Congressional and public support by beating into widespread fears about biotechnology, which some worry is winding quickly down a slippery slope towards the commodification of the human species. (48) But such fears do not represent a sensible basis for a ban on research cloning, which is likely to give insights into the processes that cause a host of devastating diseases.The Senate is now moving towards a slowdown on the issue. Two bills have been introduced. Senator Sam Brownback introduced a bill that would ban cloning for any purpose. His rivals, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, have introduced competing legislation that would all low scientists to close embryos for research. And senators eager to air their views on the issue for a vote on the matter in the next few weeks. (49) Brown back is said to have nearly 50 supporters, but for technical reasons a bill is unlikely to be passed unless 60 senators support it.Advocates of healing cloning have outlined situations that would make the Senate more likely to pass a bill that would allow research cloning, such as amending the Brownback bill to allow research. In this way, senators could save face by simultaneously voting for Brownback and for research.However, any bill that does pass the Senate must be reconciled with the House bill in a conference, The Brownback bill is virtually identical to a House cloning ban that was passed last July. So it would speed through the conference committee. But Senate and House negotiators are unlikely to compromise if the Senate votes to allow healing cloning, (50) So the result of this month’s Senate debate is likely to be either that President Bush signs a bill that bans cloning for any purpose, or that he does not sign any cloning bill at all. The issue could also spill over into the appropriations process this autumn, when senators try to force rules through the Congress by attaching them to the necessary spending bills.The Congress has strongly supported the National Institute of Health in recent years because it wants the United States to be a world leader in biomedical research. The Senate should continue its strong support of biomedical science, and act in the national interest, by refusing to pass a ban on research cloning. Brown back is said to have nearly 50 supporters, but for technical reasons a bill is unlikely to be passed unless 60 senators support it.
患者女性，82岁。昏迷，卧床4天。近日发现其骶尾部皮肤出现红、肿、热。但皮肤表面无破损。 若患者骶尾部皮肤组织出现坏死，有脓液流出，并伴有臭味。此期的护理要点为
微信支付 
支付宝支付