"Opinion" is a word that is often used carelessly today, It is used to refer to matters of taste, belief, anti judgment. This casual use would probably cause little confusion if people didn’t attach too much importance to opinion. Unfortunately, most do attach great importance to it. "I have as much right to my opinion as you to yours," and "Everyone’s entitled lo his opinion," are common expressions. In fact, anyone who would challenge another’s opinion is likely to be branded intolerant.Is that label accurate Is it intolerant to challenge another’s opinion It depends on what definition of opinion you have in mind. For example, you may ask a friend "What do you think of the new Buicks "And he may reply, "In my opinion, they’re ugly. "In this case, it would not only be intolerant to challenge his statement, but foolish. For it’s obvious that by opinion he means his personal preference a matter of taste. And as the old saying goes, "It’s pointless to argue about matters of taste. "But consider this very different use of the term. A newspaper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a controversial case. Obviously the justices did not stale their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation.Most of what is referred to as opinion falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is not an expression of taste. Nor is it careful judgment. Yet it may contain elements of both. It is a view or belief more or less casually arrived at, with or without examining the evidence.Is everyone entitled to his opinion Of course. In a free country this is not only permitted, but guaranteed. In Great Britain, for example, there is still a Flat Earth Society. As the name implies, the members of this organization believe that the earth is not spherical, but flat. In this country, too, each of us is free to take as creative a position as we please about any matter we choose. When the telephone operator announces That 11 be 95 ￠ for the first three minutes, you may respond "No, it won’t—it’ll be 28 ￠. "When the service station attendant notifies you "Your oil is down a quart, " you may reply " Wrong—it’s up three.Being free to hold an opinion anti express it does not, of course, guarantee you favorable consequences. The operator may hang up on you. The service station attendant may threaten you with violence.Acting on our opinions carries even less assurance. Some time ago in California a couple took their eleven-year-old diabetic son to a faith healer. Secure in their opinion that the man had cured the boy, they threw away his insulin. Three days later the boy died. They remained unshaken in their belief, expressing the opinion that God would raise the boy from the dead. The police arrested them, charging them with manslaughter. The law in such matters is both clear and reasonable. We are free to act on our opinions only so long as, in doing so we do not harm others. Which of the following statements is true().
A. It does make sense to argue when "opinion" refers to personal preference.
B. Most of what is referred to as opinion contains both matters of taste and judgment.
C. You are free to express what you believe only after carefully examining.
D. The belief of a Flat Earth Society is permitted because of favorable consequences guaranteed.
Pollution: A Life and Death Issue One of the main themes of Planet under Pressure is the way many of the Earth’s environmental crises reinforce one another. Pollution is an obvious example-we do not have the option of growing food, or finding enough water, on a squeaky- clean planet, but on one increasingly tarnished and trashed by the way we have used it so far. Cutting waste and clearing up pollution cost money. Yet time and again it is the quest for wealth that generates much of the mess in the first place. Living in a way that is less damaging to the Earth is not easy, but it is vital, because pollution is pervasive and often life-threatening. What is not said to be a way of cleaning up after ourselves [A] Throw less away. [C] Don’t use it again. [B] Design recycled products. [D] Last longer.
Air: the World Health Organization (WHO) says three million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries.
B. Water: diseases carried in water are responsible for 80% of illnesses and deaths in developing countries, killing a child every eight seconds. Each year 2.1 million people die from diarrhoeal(痢疾的) diseases associated with poor water.
C. Soil: contaminated land is a problem in industrialized countries, where former factories and power stations can leave waste like heavy metals in the soil. It can also occur in developing countries, sometimes used for dumping pesticides. Agriculture can pollute land with pesticides, nitrate-rich fertilizers and slurry from livestock. And when the contamination reaches rivers it damages life there, and can even create dead zones off the coast, as in the Gulf of Mexico.
D. Chronic Problem
E. Chemicals are a frequent pollutant. When we think of chemical contamination it is often images of events like Bhopal that come to mind. But the problem is widespread. One study says 7-20% of cancers are attributable to poor air and pollution in homes and workplaces. The WHO, concerned about chemicals that persist and build up in the body, especially in the young, says we may "be conducting a large-scale experiment with children’s health".
F. Some man-made chemicals, endocrine(内分泌) disruptors like phthalates(酞酸盐) and nonylphenol-a breakdown product of spermicides (杀精子剂), cosmetics and detergents-are blamed for causing changes in the genitals, of some animals. Affected species include polar bears-so not even the Arctic is immune. And the chemicals climb the food chain, from fish to mammals, and to us.About 70,000 chemicals are on the market, with around 1,500 new ones appearing annually. At least 30,000 are thought never to have been comprehensively tested for their possible risks to people.At first glance, the plastic buckets stacked in the comer of the environmental NGO office look like any others. But the containers are an unlikely weapon in one poor community’s fight against oil companies which they say are responsible for widespread ill-health caused by years of pollution. The vessels are used by a network of local volunteers, known as the Bucket Brigade, to gather air samples in neighborhoods bordering oil refineries, as part of a campaign to monitor and document air pollution which they believe is coming from the plants.
G. In South Africa, as m many developing and newly industrialized countries, legislation on air pollution has failed to keep pace with mushrooming industries. So local residents, like many in poor communities around the globe, have faced the problem of investigating their claim that industries on their doorsteps are making them sick.
H. Trade-off
I. But the snag is that modern society demands many of them, and some are essential for survival. So while we invoke the precautionary principle, which always recommends erring on the side of caution, we have to recognize there will be trade-offs to be made.
J. The pesticide DDT does great damage to wildlife and can affect the human nervous system, but can also be effective against malaria(疟疾). Where does the priority lie
K. The industrialized world has not yet cleaned up the mess it created, but it is reaping the benefits of the pollution it has caused. It can hardly tell the developing countries that they have no right to follow suit.Another complication in tackling pollution is that it does not respect political frontiers. There is a U.N. convention on trans-boundary air pollution, but that cannot cover every problem that can arise between neighbors, or between states which do not share a border. Perhaps the best example is climate change-the countries of the world share one atmosphere, and what one does can affect everyone.
L. For One and All
M. One of the principles that are supposed to apply here is simple-the polluter pays. Sometimes it is obvious who is to blame and who must pay the price, but it is not always straightforward to work out just who is the polluter, or whether the rest of us would be happy to pay the price of stopping the pollution.
N. One way of cleaning up after ourselves would be to throw less away, designing products to be recycled or even just to last longer.
O. Previous generations worked on the assumption that discarding our waste was a proper way to get rid of it, so we used to dump nuclear materials and other potential hazards at sea, confident they would be dispersed in the depths.
P. We now think that is too risky because, as one author wrote, "there’s no such place as ’away’, and there’s no such person as the ’other’ ."
Q. Irritating Air
R. Despite recent improvements, however, the health problems are still there. A 2002 medical study, carried out by Durban’s Nelson Mandela School of Medicine and a U.S. university, found that an abnormally high 52% of students and teachers at a primary school bordering the Engen plant suffered from asthma (哮喘). It found that increases in air pollution tended to aggravate asthma symptoms in children.
S. The petrol producers do not dispute the findings but argue that researchers were unable to establish a causal link between air pollution and the high prevalence of asthma among the school population.
T. For the community, the next step is to take legal action. But, according to internationally recognized environmentalist Bobby Peek, targeting the companies would be difficult as it would be near-impossible to prove that illnesses suffered were caused by pollution coming from a particular plant.
U. Mr. Peek, who grew up beneath Engen’s stacks, says the activists are now considering taking action against the authorities. "We are now looking at suing the government on constitutional grounds, for failing to ensure our right to protection from a harmful environment as stipulated in the constitution," he said.
V. Legislative ChangeA new batch (批) of environmental laws, the National Air Quality Management Act, has just been passed by the South African parliament to replace outdated 1965 legislation with tighter controls and tougher sanctions.
W. Martinus van Schalkwyk, the minister of environmental affairs and tourism, visited the south Durban basin earlier this year and said there were measures in place to improve the situation. "I share the anger and frustration of this community. It is long overdue," he told the South African Broadcasting Corporation.
X. The local authorities have also established a "Multi-Point Plan" for the area. They say it is a powerful model for tackling pollution and points to a 40% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions in recent years.
微信支付 
支付宝支付