Antarctica is the center of important scientific research. However, with an increasing number of day, scientists have to leave their work to greet a group of tourists who are taking a vacation in this continent of ice. Even though their desire to enjoy this vast and beautiful landscape can be appreciated, Antarctica should be closed to tourists.

Tourists in Antarctica can damage scientific research and hurt the environment. When tourist groups come, they take scientists away from their research. The work is difficult and some of the projects can be damaged by such simple mistakes as opening the wrong door or knocking against a small piece of equipment. In addition, tourists in Antarctica can also hurt the environment. Members of Greenpeace, one of the world’s leading environmental organizations, complain tourists leave trash on beaches and disturb the plants and animals. In a place as frozen as Antarctica, it can take one hundred years for a plant to grow back.

The need to protect Antarctica from tourists becomes even greater when we consider the fact that there is no government here. Antarctica belongs to no country. Who is making sure that the penguins, plants and sea are safe? No one is responsible. It is true that the number of tourists who visit Antarctica each year is smaller compared to the number of those who visit other places. However, these other places are controlled by local governments. They have an interest in protecting their natural environments. Who is concerned about the environment of Antarctica? The scientist, to be sure, but not necessarily the tour companies that make money from sending people south.

If we don’t protect Antarctica from tourism, there may be serious consequences for us all. We might lose the results of scientific research projects. It’s possible that these results could teach us something important about the causes and effects of climate change. Some fragile plants and animals might die and disappear forever. This could damage the balance of animal and plant life in Antarctica. We know from past experience that when things get unbalanced, harmful changes can occur.

I’m a special needs teacher. We don’t usually get storms in May. We were having a fairly unremarkable school day and I’d seen the last of my class of five-year-olds leave when my dad rang to warn me that there was a storm heading straight towards us. At first, I thought he couldn’t be right, but then the storm alarm went off. My own daughter, Kali, was at the school, in the kindergarten class across the hall, and that’s where I headed. Her teacher, Jennifer, was following the standard procedure: moving the 10 children into the hallway,getting them to kneel (跪下) with their elbows on the ground, hands over their heads.

We encouraged the children to sing, to keep up their spirits,but when the sky grew dark dim and the lights went out, it became harder to keep everyone calm. Hail (冰雹) and broken glass showered into the hallway. Instinctively, Jennifer and I took five children each and lay across them. It wasn’t something we had to think about. They were small children; we were adults and we would protect them with our lives. My daughter was among them. I just kept saying over and over, “We’re going to be OK. We’re going to be OK.” But soon I couldn’t hear my own voice above the sound of the school’s metal roof exploding under huge pressure.

Then came a big noise so loud that I’ll never forget it, like a plane but 10 times louder. It was the storm passing directly overhead. Suddenly I realised the roof had gone; the wind had torn it clean off.   We were at the mercy of the elements. My mouth was filled with dirt and I wondered if we were going to be buried alive. Beneath me, the children were packed together tightly. I did my best to cover them, but there was water, too, pouring down. Then I felt a blunt thing against my back. By now, I was simply repeating to myself, “Please go away. Please go away.” I just wanted it to stop.

By the time it did,

Fortunately, no children died or hurt in the storm.

Mental health conditions, including everything from depression and phobias (恐惧) to anorexia (厌食) and schizophrenia (精神分裂症) are shockingly common. In the UK, one in four people experience them each year, so it is likely that you, or someone you know, has sought help from a professional. That process usually begins with a diagnosis. Then you start on a treatment tailored to your condition. It seems an obvious approach, but is it the right one? “For millennia, we’ve put all these psychiatric (神经病的) conditions in separate corners,” says neuroscientist Anke Hammerschlag at Vrije University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. “But maybe that’s not how it works biologically.”

There is growing evidence that she is correct. Instead of being separate conditions, many mental health problems appear to share an underlying cause, something researchers now call the “P factor”. This realization could thoroughly change how we diagnose and treat mental health conditions, putting more focus on symptoms instead of labels and offering more general treatments. It also explains puzzling patterns in the occurrence of these conditions in individuals and families. Rethinking mental health this way could be revolutionary.

At first glance, the idea that different mental health conditions with distinct symptoms share an underlying cause seems unrealistic. The key to understanding it lies in its name. “P factor” has intentional parallels with one of the most famous concepts in psychology. More than a century ago, British psychologist Charles Spearman noted that children’s performance on one kind of mental task, say verbal fluency, was correlated with their mental skill in other areas, like mathematical reasoning, spatial manipulation and logic. In other words, children who are good at one thing tend to be good at another, while those who struggle in one area tend to struggle in others. Using a statistical tool called factor analysis, Spearman showed that this is because these different mental abilities are all linked to an overarching cognitive capacity, which he named general intelligence, or the “G factor”.

A Hot Pot of Debate

The strong smell of the famous Sichuan cooking floods into local streets, whose hot pots of chili (红辣椒) and oil boil like restless volcanoes (火山). Along with all the flavours, however, a wave of panic is in the air. Sichuan cuisine (美食) is facing a crisis.

It seems surprising to hear such concern, since Sichuan cuisine has been conquering the world and gaining considerable popularity abroad as China’s favourite out-of-home dining.

But according to some old and experienced cooks, the rapid growth has worsened the cuisine, drowning the tastes of dishes in large amounts of chili and oil with menus being narrowed to spicy (辛辣的) dishes. Many cooks now are pursuing spicier and spicier food, ignoring the great variety of the cuisine. Thus, the simplification of tastes has created a crisis, sending a strong shocking wave into the time-honoured but complex traditions. Early this year, I watched a young cook add green vegetable to Kung Pao Chicken, which should be a wonderful mix of chicken, peanuts, red chilies and spices.

However, voices from many young cooks throw light on the new demands on Sichuan cuisine in the modern time— ”There’s no survival without innovation.” They hold the view that we do have to maintain the tradition, but it’s not a display in a museum. What makes sense is that although Sichuanese cooking is classified as one of the eight great cuisines of China, its roots are quite shallow, so after over several centuries of trade and migration, outsiders brought in a variety of new ingredients and cooking techniques. These influences combined only several generations ago to create an unusually tasty cuisine.

I believe the attractiveness of Sichuan cuisine is that it’s a big melting pot. Whatever is attractive in other cuisines, it can be absorbed and adapted to Sichuan cuisine. It’s not right to judge who is right and who is wrong, but it is clear that we should preserve the essence of tradition, while meeting modern expectations as well.