题目内容
Why Are Women More Vulnerable to Broken Hearts0. Women are a lot more likely to suffer a broken heart than men, researchers say. The good news is that it probably won’t kill you.1. In the first national study of its kind, researchers at the University of Arkansas looked at rates of "broken heart syndrome"—when a sudden shock or prolonged stress causes heart attack-like symptoms or heart failure—and found that it overwhelmingly affects women. Women are at least seven times more likely than men to suffer the syndrome, and older women are at greater risk than younger ones, according to data presented Wednesday at the American Heart Association conference in Orlando.2. Broken heart syndrome can happen in response to shocking or suddenly emotional events—both positive ones like winning the lottery, or negative ones like a car accident or the unexpected death of a loved one. A flood of stress hormones and adrenaline causes part of the heart to enlarge temporarily and triggers symptoms that can look like heart attack: chest pain, shortness of breath, irregular heart rhythm. The difference is that the factors that would normally cause heart attack, such as a blocked artery, aren’t present. Most sufferers usually recover within a week or two, but in rare cases—about 1%—people die of the condition.3. Doctors have long known about broken heart syndrome—first described by Japanese researchers two decades ago- and that it seemed to occur mostly in women. So, Dr. Abhishek Deshmukh, a cardiologist at the University of Arkansas who has treated women with broken heart syndrome, became curious about just how gender-specific the condition was. Using a federal database that included data from roughly 1,000 hospitals, Deshmukh found 6,229 cases of broken heart syndrome in 2007. Of those, only 671—just under 11%—were in men. He found that, overall, women had about 7.5 times the risk of broken heart syndrome as men; in people under 55, women were at 9.5 times greater risk than men. Women over 55 were also three times more likely to suffer broken heart syndrome than younger women.4. Researchers don’t know what causes the gender disparity, but they have some ideas. One theory is that hormones play a role. Another is that men have more adrenalin receptors on cells in their hearts than women do, "so maybe men are able to handle stress better" and the chemical surge it releases. Deshmukh said.5. About 10% of sufferers will have a second episode at some point, but most return to full heart function without permanent damage or need for follow-up treatment. So, it looks like the way to mend a broken heart is what Mom always said: just give it time. Dr. Abhishek Deshmukh started his study on gender-specific broken heart syndrome out of （）.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Nuclear AgeThe Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey opened when the Beatles were still together, and since 1969 its single 645-MW boiling-water reactor has provided enough energy to power 600,000 homes annually. But the oldest nuclear plant in the U.S. will be retired a little (26) Last year its owner, Exelon, announced that it would (27) Oyster Creek in 2019, 10 years ahead of schedule. The reason: the (28) plant costs too much to keep running (29) .The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has focused new attention on the (30) future of the American atomic sector. But the U.S. nuclear industry was already facing a very (31) problem: its aging fleet of reactors. Nuclear plants were built with 40-year licenses that can theoretically be (32) to 60 or even 80 years. Half the country’s 104 reactors are more than 30 years old and (33) middle age. So far, 62 plants have been (34) 20-year extensions, and 20 more have applications pending. (35) like the one in Fukushima, the oldest plants in the U.S. (36) to have fewer safety measures. If regulators crack down, operators could (37) -as Exelon did with Oyster Creek—that upgrading is not worth the 38 and shut down the plants If no new nuclear plants are built to (39) them, nuclear could fade into obsolescence. Ironically, that could have (40) environmental effects. A report by the Breakthrough Institute, an energy think tank, found that replacing all U.S. nuclear (41) a mix of coal and gas would raise carbon (42) 9% by 2030. "We need to understand that there would be (43) to pulling back on nuclear," says Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. (44) a great athlete, nuclear power may be (45) after it retires. (42) should choose （）
Nuclear AgeThe Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey opened when the Beatles were still together, and since 1969 its single 645-MW boiling-water reactor has provided enough energy to power 600,000 homes annually. But the oldest nuclear plant in the U.S. will be retired a little (26) Last year its owner, Exelon, announced that it would (27) Oyster Creek in 2019, 10 years ahead of schedule. The reason: the (28) plant costs too much to keep running (29) .The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has focused new attention on the (30) future of the American atomic sector. But the U.S. nuclear industry was already facing a very (31) problem: its aging fleet of reactors. Nuclear plants were built with 40-year licenses that can theoretically be (32) to 60 or even 80 years. Half the country’s 104 reactors are more than 30 years old and (33) middle age. So far, 62 plants have been (34) 20-year extensions, and 20 more have applications pending. (35) like the one in Fukushima, the oldest plants in the U.S. (36) to have fewer safety measures. If regulators crack down, operators could (37) -as Exelon did with Oyster Creek—that upgrading is not worth the 38 and shut down the plants If no new nuclear plants are built to (39) them, nuclear could fade into obsolescence. Ironically, that could have (40) environmental effects. A report by the Breakthrough Institute, an energy think tank, found that replacing all U.S. nuclear (41) a mix of coal and gas would raise carbon (42) 9% by 2030. "We need to understand that there would be (43) to pulling back on nuclear," says Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. (44) a great athlete, nuclear power may be (45) after it retires. (38) should choose （）
Nuclear AgeThe Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey opened when the Beatles were still together, and since 1969 its single 645-MW boiling-water reactor has provided enough energy to power 600,000 homes annually. But the oldest nuclear plant in the U.S. will be retired a little (26) Last year its owner, Exelon, announced that it would (27) Oyster Creek in 2019, 10 years ahead of schedule. The reason: the (28) plant costs too much to keep running (29) .The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has focused new attention on the (30) future of the American atomic sector. But the U.S. nuclear industry was already facing a very (31) problem: its aging fleet of reactors. Nuclear plants were built with 40-year licenses that can theoretically be (32) to 60 or even 80 years. Half the country’s 104 reactors are more than 30 years old and (33) middle age. So far, 62 plants have been (34) 20-year extensions, and 20 more have applications pending. (35) like the one in Fukushima, the oldest plants in the U.S. (36) to have fewer safety measures. If regulators crack down, operators could (37) -as Exelon did with Oyster Creek—that upgrading is not worth the 38 and shut down the plants If no new nuclear plants are built to (39) them, nuclear could fade into obsolescence. Ironically, that could have (40) environmental effects. A report by the Breakthrough Institute, an energy think tank, found that replacing all U.S. nuclear (41) a mix of coal and gas would raise carbon (42) 9% by 2030. "We need to understand that there would be (43) to pulling back on nuclear," says Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. (44) a great athlete, nuclear power may be (45) after it retires. (37) should choose （）
To Tweet or Not to TweetThe economy may be troubled, but one area is thriving: social media. They begin with Facebook and extend through a dizzying array of companies that barely existed five years ago: Twitter, LinkedIn, Groupon, Yammer, Yelp, Flickr, Ning, Digg—and the list goes on. These companies are mostly private but have attracted the ardent attention of Wall Street and investors, with Facebook now worth a purported ＄75 billion and Groupon valued at close to ＄25 billion.There can be little doubt than these companies enrich their founders as well as some investors. But do they add anything to overall economic activity While jobs in social media are growing fast, there were only about 21,000 listings last spring, a tiny fraction of the 150 million-member U.S. workforce. So do social-media tools enhance productivity or help us bridge the wealth divide Or are they simply social-entertaining and diverting us but a wash when it comes to national economic healthThe answers are vital, because billions of dollars in investment capital are being spent on these ventures, and if we are to have a productive future economy, that capital needs to grow the economic pie—and not just among the elite of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The U.S. retains a competitive advantage because of its ability to innovate, but if that innovation creates services that don’t turn into jobs, growth and prosperity, then it does us only marginal good.The problem is that these tools are so new that it is extremely difficult to answer the questions definitively. Flash back nearly 20 years and the same questions were being asked about the first Internet wave. Were Netscape and the Web enhancing our economy, or were people just spending more time at work checking out ESPN.com Official statistics weren’t designed to capture the benefits, and didn’t—until statistics mavens at the Federal Reserve, urged on by Alan Greenspan, refined the way they measured productivity. As a result of these somewhat controversial innovations, the late 1990s became a period of substantial technology-driven gains.It is possible that the same gap exists today, that social-media tools are indeed laying the groundwork for new industries and jobs but aren’t yet registering on the statistical radar. Many companies believe social media make them more competitive. Ford and Zappos, for instance, use Twitter to market their products and address consumer complaints. Countless corporations have created internal Facebook pages and Yammer accounts for employees to communicate across divisions and regions. Industry groups for engineers, doctors and human-resources professionals have done the same to share new ideas and solutions on a constant basis rather than episodically at conferences. Staffing companies have been especially keen on social media; a senior executive at Manpower told me we should think of social-media tools as today’s version of the telephone.One big question is what proportion of that benefit will be captured economically by consumers vs. corporations. Sure, social media allow people to compare prices and quality and assess which companies are good to work for and where jobs might be. They also may enhance education and idea sharing, but the caveat is that the people who use these tools are the ones with higher education and income to spend on technology, not the tens of millions whose position in today’s world has eroded so sharply. According to a recent Pew Foundation study, only 45% of adults making less than ＄30,000 have access to broadband, which is an essential component of using content-rich social media effectively.And that is the rub. Like so many things these days, social media contribute to economic bifurcation. Dynamic companies are benefiting from these tools, even if the gains are tough to nail down in specific figures. Many individuals are benefiting too, using Linkedln to find jobs and Groupon to find deals. Bui for now, the irony is that social media widen the social divide, making it even harder for the have-nots to navigate. They allow those with jobs to do them more effectively and companies that are profiting to profit more. But so far, they have done little to aid those who are being left behind. They are, in short, business as usual. What is the author’s attitude to social media’s contribution to national economic health（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付