题目内容

This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Alar apple scare, in which many American consumers were driven into a panic following the release of a report by an environmental organization claiming that apples containing the chemical Alar posed a serious health threat to preschoolers. The report was disseminated through a PR (Problem Report) campaign and bypassed any legitimate form of scientific peer review. Introduced to the American public by CBS’ "60 Minutes," the unsubstantiated claims in the report led some school districts to remove apples from their school lunch programs and unduly frightened conscientious parents trying to develop good eating habits for their children.Last month, Consumers Union released a report warning consumers of the perils of consuming many fruits and vegetables that frequently contained "unsafe" levels of pesticide residues. This was especially true for children, they claimed. Like its predecessor 10 years earlier, the Consumers Union report received no legitimate scientific peer review and the public’s first exposure to it was through news coverage.Not only does such reporting potentially drive children from consuming healthful fruits and vegetables, the conclusions were based on a misleading interpretation of what constitutes a "safe" level of exposure. Briefly, the authors used values known as the "chronic reference doses," set by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, as their barometers of safety. Used appropriately, these levels represent the maximum amount of pesticide that could be consumed daily for life without concern. For a 70-year lifetime, for example, consumers would have to ingest this average amount of pesticide every day for more than 25, 000 days. It is clear, as the report points out, that there are days on which kids may be exposed to more; it is also clear that there are many more days when exposure is zero. Had the authors more appropriately calculated the cumulative exposures for which the safety standards are meant to apply, there would have been no risks and no warnings.Parents should feel proud, rather than guilty, of providing fruits and vegetables for their children. It is well established that a diet rich in such foods decreases the risk of heart disease and cancer. Such benefits dramatically overwhelm the theoretical risks of tiny amounts of pesticides in food. So keep serving up the peaches, apples, spinach, squashes, grapes and pears. The last month report parallels that on the Alar apple scare in that ()

A. neither really caused worry among the public
B. neither underwent a scientific peer review
C. neither provided statistical supports
D. neither aimed for the public good

查看答案
更多问题

(1)她把大家说得捧腹大笑,而自己却______地继续说下去。 (2)狮身人面像的鼻子竟然______。 依次填入横线部分最恰当的一组是______。

A. 道貌岸然 不胫而走
B. 一本正经 不翼而飞
C. 一本正经 不胫而走
D. 道貌岸然 不翼而飞

但她还妄想,______从别的事,如小篮、豆、别人的孩子身上,引出她的阿毛的故事来。 填入横线部分最恰当的一组是______。

A. 希冀
B. 企图
C. 希图
D. 希求

扩招政策的决策过程看起来似乎很______,出台很______,但是,与此紧密相关的诸多问题早已经是教育主管部门和政府决策部门综合研究的政策问题。这一政策的出台既不是______,也不是心血来潮。 依次填入横线部分最恰当的一组是______。

A. 匆忙 短促 无中生有
B. 短促 急促 空穴来风
C. 短促 仓促 空穴来风
D. 匆忙 仓促 无中生有

某小学向当地教育行政主管部门申请增购一辆校车,以加强对师生的接送能力,该教育行政主管部门否决了这项申清。理由是:校车的数量必须与学校规模和师生数量相配套,根据该校目前的师生数量和规模,现有的校车已经足够了。 以下哪一项假设最能支持教育行政主管部门的决定______

A. 调查显示,租用校车比购买校车更经济
B. 该小学的校车中,至少近期不会有车辆报废
C. 该地区小学适龄儿童数量今后不会有大的增长
D. 该教育行政主管部门没有扩大该校师生规模的计划

答案查题题库