题目内容

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. 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. 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. 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.Chronic Problem 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". 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. 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.Trade-off 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. 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 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.For One and All 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. One way of cleaning up after ourselves would be to throw less away, designing products to be recycled or even just to last longer. 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. 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’ ."Irritating Air 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. 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. 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. 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.Legislative Change A 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. 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. 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. 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 ______.

查看答案
更多问题

Gene therapy and gene-based drugs are two ways we could benefit from our growing mastery of genetic science. But there will be others as well. Here is one of tile remarkable therapies on the cutting edge of genetic research that could make their way into mainstream medicine in the coming years.While it’s true that just about every cell in the body has the instructions to make a complete human, most of those instructions are inactivated, and with good reason: the last thing you want for your brain cells is to start churning out stomach acid or your nose to turn into a kidney. The only time cells truly have the potential to turn into any and all body parts is very early in a pregnancy, when so called stem cells haven’t begun to specialize.Yet this untapped potential could be a terrific boon to medicine. Most diseases involve the death of healthy cells -- brain cells in Alzheimer’s, cardiac cells in heart disease, pancreatic cells in diabetes, to name a few; if doctors could isolate stem cells, then direct their growth, they might be able to furnish patients with healthy replacement tissues.It was incredibly difficult, but last fall scientists at the University of Wisconsin managed to isolate stem cells and get them to grow into neural, gut, muscle and bone cells. The process still can’t be controlled, and may have unforeseen limitations; but if efforts to understand and master stem-cell development prove successful, doctors will have a therapeutic tool of incredible power.The same applies to cloning, which is really just the other side of the coin; true cloning, as first shown with the sheep Dolly several years ago, involves taking a developed cell and reactivating the genome within, resetting its developmental instructions to a pristine state. Once that happens, the rejuvenated cell can develop into a full fledged animal, genetically identical to its parent.For agriculture, in which purely physical characteristics like milk production in a cow or low fat in a hog have real market value, biological carbon copies could become routine within a few years. This past year scientists have done for mice and cows what Ian Wilmut did for Dolly, and other creatures are bound to join the cloned menagerie in the coming year.Human cloning, on the other hand, may be technically feasible but legally and emotionally more difficult. Still, one day it will happen. The ability to reset body cells to a pristine, undeveloped state could give doctors exactly the same advantages they would get from stem cells: the potential to make healthy body tissues of all sorts, and thus to Cure diseases. That could prove to be a true "miracle cure". The writer holds that the potential to make healthy body tissues will ().

A. aggravate moral issues of human cloning
B. bring great benefits to human beings
C. help scientists decode body instructions
D. involve employing surgical instruments

A few years ago it was (36) to speak of a generation gap, a division between young people and their elders. Parents (37) that children did not show them proper respect and (38) , while children complained that their parents did not understand them at all. What had gone wrong Why had the generation gap suddenly appeared (39) the generation gap has been around for a long time. Many (40) argue that it is built into the fabric of our society. One important cause of the generation gap is the (41) that young people have to choose their own life styles. In more (42) societies, when children grow up, they are expected to live in the same area as their parents, to marry people that their parents know and (43) of, and often to continue the family occupation. In our society, young people often travel great distances for their education, move out of the family home at an early age, marry or live with (44) . In our upwardly mobile society, parents often expect their children to do better than they did: to find better jobs, to make more money, and to do all the things that they were unable to do. Often, however, (45) . Often, they discover that they have very little in common with each other. Finally, the speed at which changes take place in our society is another cause of the gap between the generations. In a traditional culture, (46) . The young and the old seem to live in two very different worlds, separated by different skills and abilities.

"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. The first paragraph points out ().

A. it would be considered intolerant if someone ignored anothers’ opinion
B. People attach much importance to opinion by accepting other’s opinion.
C. The misuse of the word "opinion" will cause much confusion whether you consider it important or not.
D. People consider opinion important when they say : "Everyone’s entitled to his opinion.

We can begin our discussion of "population as global issue" with what most persons mean when they discuss "the population problem": too many people on earth and a too rapid increase in the number added each year. The facts are not in dispute; it was quite right to employ the analogy that likened demographic growth to "a long, thin powder fuse that bums steadily and haltingly until it finally reaches the charge and explodes". To understand the current situation, which is characterized by rapid increases in population, it is necessary to understand the history of population trends. Rapid growth is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Looking back at the 8,000 years of demographic history, we find that populations have been virtually stable or growing very slightly for most of human history. For most of our ancestors, life was hard, often nasty, and very short. There was high fertility in most places, but this was usually balanced by high mortality. For most of human history, it was seldom the case that one in ten persons would live past forty, while infancy and childhood were especially risky periods. Often, societies were in clear danger of extinction because death rates could exceed their birthrates. Thus, the population problem throughout most of history was how to prevent extinction of the human race. This pattern is important to notice. Not only does it put the current problems of demographic growth into a historical perspective, but it suggests that the cause of rapid increase in population in recent years is not a sudden enthusiasm for more children, but an improvement in the conditions that traditionally have caused high mortality. Demographic history can be divided into two major periods: a time of long, slow growth which extended from about 8000 B.C. till approximately 1650A.D. In the first period of some 9,600 years, the population increased from some 8 million to 500 million in 1650. Between 1650 and 1975, the population has increased from 500 million to more than 4 billion. And the population reached 6.2 billion throughout the world by the year 2000. One way to appreciate this dramatic difference in such abstract numbers is to reduce the time frame to something that is more manageable. Between 8000B.C. and 1650, an average of only 50,000 persons was being added annually to the world’s population. At present, this number is added every six hours. The increase is about 80,000,000 persons annually. Which statement is TRUE about population increase

A. There might be an increase of 2.2 billion persons from 1975 to the year 2000.
B. About 50,000 babies are born annually at present.
C. Between 8000 B.C. and the present, the population increase is about 80,000,000 persons each year.
D. The population increased faster between 8000 B.C. and 1650 than between 1650 and the present.

答案查题题库