2 . A gene variant (变体) that causes the “alcohol flush (脸红)” reaction increases the risk of heart disease by causing inflammation of blood vessels (脉管), especially in drinkers. Around 8 percent of the world’s populations has a gene variant called ALDH2*2 that impairs the body’s ability to break down alcohol and causes unpleasant symptoms such as flushing soon after people drink. Now, researchers have shown why this change also raises the risk of heart disease.

“We are trying to understand why ALDH2*2 is associated with a higher risk of coronary arte (冠状动脉) disease at a cellular (细胞的) level,” says Hongchao Guo at Stanford University in California.

The ALDH2*2 gene encodes one version of the enzyme (酵素) alcohol dehydrogenase (脱氢酶), which breaks down the toxic acetaldehydes (乙醛) produced when alcohol is metabolized (代谢), and also mops up other harmful substances known as free radicals.

The gene variant also impairs the growth of new blood vessels. “That means that when there is a heart attack, when there is a need of blood vessel growth, carriers have less ability to generate new blood vessels,” says Guo.

The team found that an existing diabetes (糖尿病) drug called empagliflozin may reduce these harmful effects in people with ALDH2*2 who drink a lot of alcohol. But for Wu, the take-home message is clear. “If you’re missing this enzyme, try not to drink,” he says. “If you drink consistently, you are at much higher risk of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and cancer.”

Given its many negative consequences, there has been debate about why this change spread and became common, today being found in more than a third of people of cast Asian origin.

“My only explanation is that if you are missing this enzyme, you tend to drink less and there’s therefore less chance of you becoming alcoholic,” says Wu.

3 . Obese people experience discrimination (歧视) in many parts of their lives, and the workplace is no exception. Studies have long shown that obese workers, defined as those with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, earn significantly less than their slimmer co-workers.

Yet the costs of weight discrimination may be even greater than previously thought. “The overwhelming evidence,” wrote the Institute for employment Studies, “is that it is only women living with obesity who experience the obesity wage penalty (薪资损失).” They were expressing a view that is widely aired in academic papers. To test it, The Economist has analyzed data concerning 23,000 workers from the American Time Use Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labour Statistics. Our number-processing suggests that, in fact, being obese hurts the earnings of both women and men.

The data we analyzed cover men and women aged between 25 and 54 and in full-time employment. At a general level, it is true that men’s BMIs are unrelated to their wages. But that changes for men with university degrees. For them, obesity is associated with a wage penalty of nearly 8%, even after accounting for the separate effects of age, race, graduate education and marital status.

The conclusion — that well-educated workers in particular are penalized for their weight — holds for both sexes. Moreover, the higher your level of education, the greater the penalty. We found that obese men with a Bachelor’s degree (学士学位) earn 5% less than their thinner colleagues, while those with a Master’s degree earn 14% less. Obese women, it is true, still have it worse: for them, the equivalent figures are 12% and 19%, respectively (分别地).

Your line of work makes a difference, too. When we dealt with the numbers for individual occupations and industries, we found the greatest differences in high-skilled jobs. Obese workers in health care, for example, make 11% less than their slimmer colleagues; those in management roles make roughly 9% less, on average. In sectors such as construction and agriculture, meanwhile, obesity is actually associated with higher wages.

These results suggest that the total costs of wage discrimination borne by overweight workers in America are greater than expected. Now, it’s time for our governments to take it seriously.

4 . Nuclear pollution is a serious global   ___________, brought to the forefront by major accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. These events have demonstrated the significant health and environmental risks _________by nuclear disasters. Not only have they caused immediate health problems, such as radiation sickness and increased cancer rates, but they have also _________lasting environmental damage and genetic changes in affected communities. As a result, nuclear pollution remains a pressing concern for governments, scholars, and individuals worldwide.

When nuclear accidents occur in coastal areas, the _________environment becomes a critical concern due to the crucial role that oceans play in _________the climate, ensuring food security, and supporting the livelihoods of billions of people globally. In recent years, the increasing threats to marine ecosystems from ocean pollution have _________public awareness of the need to protect the marine environment. Studies have shown that human activities pose a _________threat to marine environments, emphasizing the importance of improving environmental management and taking measures to mitigate environmental risks.

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, efforts to cool the reactors by pumping in seawater resulted in the _________of a significant amount of nuclear waste in the water storage tank at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. _________attempts to manage this waste, the Japanese government’s decision to release nearly 1.26 million tons of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean over the next 40 years has faced opposition __________neighboring countries, local ____________, and international environmental organizations.

This __________poses serious risks to marine life, fisheries, and human health. Radioactive isotopes present in the wastewater, such as tritium, carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium-90, can accumulate in marine organisms and ultimately affect human populations through the food ____________. Therefore, there is an/a ____________need for further research and mitigation measures to __________the widespread impacts of nuclear pollution on the environment and human health.

5 . 13-year-old Ava Dorsey is the founder of Ava’s Pet Palace, a business that sells organic dog and cat treats.“I actually had the idea when I was six with a picture I drew of a palace,”she says.It was a detailed design for dogs and cats and she had serious plans to build it one day.

Unlike most dog treats that you find in stores, dog treats sold by Ava’s Pet Palace are 100% organic, and are non-GMO(非转基因). Ava has set a goal for herself with these dog treats, and she wants every treat to be healthy, tasty, and top-quality. Seriously, some of her treats sound delicious enough for people to eat! “All of my bags now have the USDA organic stamp, and we're very excited to have gotten it because it's something I've wanted for a long time,”she says.“A lot of stores like to see organic products because customers like it, so that was really exciting.”

Ava says the biggest challenge of being a kid in business is when people don't take her seriously, but undoubtedly Ava has proved that her doubters are wrong! When asked how she defines(定义) success, Ava says,“When you hit a bump in the road, you shouldn't give up and you keep trying.”She learned that from her mom, who sounds like a smart lady! Some more things Ava has learned from her years in business: Hard work eventually pays off and there is nothing wrong with asking for help.

As far as the future of the pet treats industry goes, Ava is optimistic——but she’d also like to be an inspiration for change.“There’s not much diversity(多样性) right now, so that’s something I would love to see in the future,”says Ava.“I would also love to see more kids in this industry.There aren't many other teenagers around, and I hope that I can be an inspiration to others who hope to lead the pet industry.”

7 . Do you have a favorite sport? Are you passionate about sewing or reading? Typically, you engage in these activities simply because you enjoy them. Would you be taken aback to know the overjustification effect that when you are rewarded for your beloved activities, your desire to participate in them diminishes?

Edward Deci, a psychology professor, conducted a series of experiments, in one of which Deci divided the participants into two groups: one was paid to complete a puzzle, and the other was not paid to. After money was removed, the group that was previously paid to play showed less motivation to complete the task than the group that was never paid and only did the puzzle for enjoyment. The outcome demonstrated the overjustification effect, which occurs when an external stimulation decreases a person’s internal motivation to perform a behavior or engage in an activity.

According to the self-determination theory, three conditions are essential for people to feel internally motivated and perform at their best: autonomy, freedom from external restrictions; competence, the need to feel capable, and relatedness, the need to feel connected with others. In Deci’s experiment, money acted as a tie, which reduced participants’ autonomy, a crucial component of internal motivation, discouraging them from experiencing the freedom of external restrictions. The pressure to perform for the money lessened the pleasure and freedom felt by those who were doing the puzzle merely for fun.

But if external stimulation is tied to performance, the overjustification effect is less influential. For example, being rewarded for studying is unlikely to decrease internal motivation because the grade depends upon actually doing well rather than just going through the motions.

While the overjustification effect can reduce motivation, some strategies can lower its impact. One is to focus on providing feedback and recognition rather than concrete rewards. For instance, praising an individual’s effort or acknowledging their accomplishments can maintain their internal motivation. Additionally, allowing individuals to have autonomy and control over their tasks also works. By giving them the freedom to choose how they complete tasks, individuals are more likely to be internally motivated and experience a greater sense of satisfaction and engagement.

9 . Imagine you need milk, so you go to the grocery store to pick some up, only to find there are dozens of options. These days, you have to make a decision on not only the percentage of fat you want, but also what source you want your milk to be coming from: cows, soybeans... You have no idea what milk to pick. There are so many choices that you are confused.

This phenomenon is known as the paradox (悖论) of choice and it is becoming a concern in the modern world, where more and more options are becoming easily available to us. While we might believe that being presented with multiple options actually makes it easier to choose one that we are happy with, and thus increases consumer satisfaction, having too many options actually requires more effort to make a decision and can leave us feeling unsatisfied with our choice.

The idea was popularized by American psychologist Barry Schwartz when he published his book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Schwartz, who has long studied the ways in which economics and psychology intersect (交叉), became interested in seeing the way that choices were affecting the happiness of citizens in Western societies. He identified that the range of choices that we have available to us these days is far greater than that people had in the past; however, consumer satisfaction has not increased as much as traditional economics theories might expect.

Schwartz identified that the paradox of choice carries the most consequence for people that are maximizers. Maximizers, unlike satisficers, are concerned with making the best choice instead of simply making a choice that they are happy with. When there are many options available to maximizers, it becomes harder for them to determine which is the best, which can cause them to feel a great deal of regret after they have made a choice.

Instead of believing that freedom of choice is unlimited, Schwartz advocates that the role of psychology and behavioral economics should be to find the kind of limitations on freedom that can lead to the greatest level of happiness within society.