1. What is the relationship between the speakers?
| A．A couple. | B．Classmates. | C．Colleagues. |
| A．Stop using paper cups. |
| B．Prepare boxes for different waste. |
| C．Reduce the use of paper, plastic and cans. |
2 . The amount of plastic pollution in the oceans is rapidly increasing. This is problematic, as at least 700 species of sea animals may mistake it for a tasty snack. While we know that some species seem to eat plastic because it looks like jellyfish or some other food sources, less research has been carried out into what plastic smells like to marine animals.
But now, a study from the University of North Carolina has found that the coating of algae that naturally builds up on ocean plastics causes the rubbish to give off the scent of food.
The researchers took 15 loggerhead turtles, each around five months old, and placed them in a laboratory tank. They then piped in clean water, clean plastic, turtle food, and plastic that had been immersed in the marine environment for five weeks.
The turtles showed no reaction to the smell of clean water or clean plastic. But when they were exposed to the smell of ocean-soaked plastic or turtle food, they exhibited food-seeking behaviours like reaching their noses out of the water or showing increasing activities.
“This finding is the first demonstration that the smell of ocean plastics causes animals to eat them, ” said Dr Kenneth J. Lohmann, who took part in the study. “It’s common to find loggerhead turtles with their digestive systems fully or partially blocked because they’ve eaten plastic materials. There are also increasing reports of sea turtles that have become ill and stranded on the beach due to their ingestion (摄食) of plastic.”
According to the researchers, areas of the ocean with dense concentrations of plastic may trick turtles and other marine animals into thinking that there is an abundant food source. “Once these plastics are in the ocean, we don’t have a good way to remove them or prevent them from smelling like food,” said Lohmann.
1. Why is plastic pollution posing a threat to marine animals?| A．It may eat up all jellyfish. |
| B．It may mislead them as food. |
| C．It may kill them with its smell. |
| D．It may trap 700 species of sea animals. |
| A．Sea water. | B．Clear water. |
| C．Brand-new plastic. | D．Sea-soaked plastic. |
| A．Turtles should be trained to be more intelligent. |
| B．Plastics should be kept from getting into the ocean. |
| C．An abundant food source should be offered to sea animals. |
| D．Researchers should come up with a solution to the current problem. |
| A．Ways Found to Remove Plastic |
| B．Loggerhead Turtles Faced with Food Shortage |
| C．Ocean Plastics Smell like Food to Turtles |
| D．Plastic Pollution—Compromise or Control? |
3 . Japan said Tuesday that it would start pouring treated radioactive water (放射性废水) from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean within two years. Officials in Tokyo said the water would be filtered and diluted (稀释) to safe levels first, but most locals remain firmly opposed to the plan. Protesters gathered outside Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s residence in downtown Tokyo to criticize the government’s decision.
More than a million tons of radioactive water is currently being stored at the Fukushima power plant in a massive tank farm big enough to fill 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The wastewater comes from water pumped in to cool the plant’s damaged reactors (反应堆). The government says it has simply run out of room to store all the water. The plan to dump the water into the ocean first came to light in the autumn of last year, when Japanese news reported anonymous (匿名的) officials said the decision had been taken.
On Tuesday, Suga said that after years of study, his scientific advisors had concluded that ocean discharge was the most possible way to cope with the wastewater. But the decision to pour Fukushima wastewater into the ocean has drawn fire from neighboring Asian countries and local fishermen along Japan’s coast.
China called the decision “extremely irresponsible,” and South Korea summoned (召唤) the Japanese ambassador in Seoul over the matter. “They told us that they wouldn’t release the water into the sea without the support of fishermen,” Kanji Tachiya, who leads a local cooperative of fisheries in Fukushima, told national broadcaster NHK ahead of the announcement on Tuesday. “We can’t support this move to break that promise and release the water into the sea unilaterally (单方面地).”
The actual release of water from the Fukushima plant will take decades to complete. Critics have called on Japan’s government to at least ensure that independent monitoring is in place to check the level of radiation in the poured water is safe for the environment.
1. How do most of the local people react to the plan?| A．Indifferent. | B．Uncertain. | C．Supportive. | D．Disapproving. |
| A．The wastewater is being stored in 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. |
| B．It was last year that the plan was exposed to the public. |
| C．Ocean discharge is the only way to deal with the wastewater. |
| D．The plan has aroused anger in all the Asian countries. |
| A．The plan is to pull the whole world into the disaster. |
| B．It’s imperative that the plan should be carried out immediately. |
| C．It’s safe and easy to pour the wastewater into the ocean. |
| D．It’s unacceptable to pour the water into the ocean without fishermen’s permission. |
| A．The Japanese government has checked the level of radiation in the poured water. |
| B．Neigboring Asian countries agreed the decision to pour Fukushima wastewater into the ocean.. |
| C．It will actually take the Fukushima plant long to release treated radioactive water. |
| D．Independent monitoring of the water from the Fukushima plant aren’t necessary. |
4 . New research links outdoor air pollution — even at levels considered safe — to an increased risk of diabetes (糖尿病) globally, according to a study from the VA St. Louis Health Care System. The findings raise the possibility that reducing pollution may lead to a drop in diabetes cases in heavily polluted countries such as India and less polluted ones such as the United States.
Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases, affecting more than 500 million people worldwide. The main drivers of diabetes include eating an unhealthy diet, having a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, but the new research indicates the extent to which outdoor air pollution plays a role.
“Our research shows a significant link between air pollution and diabetes globally,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the study’s senior author and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington. “We found an increased risk, even at low levels of air pollution currently considered safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This is important because many industry lobbying (游说) groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened.”
While growing evidence has suggested a link between air pollution and diabetes, researchers have not attempted to quantify that burden until now. “Over the past two decades, there have been bits of research about diabetes and pollution,” said Al-Aly. “We wanted to thread together the pieces for a broader, more solid understanding.”
The researchers also found that the overall risk of pollution-related diabetes tilted (倾斜) more toward lower-income countries such as India that lack the resources for environmental mitigation systems and clean-air policies. For instance, poverty-stricken countries facing a higher diabetes-pollution risk include Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and Guyana, while richer countries such as France, Finland and Iceland experience a lower risk. The US experiences a medium risk of pollution-related diabetes.
1. What does the underlined word “stringent” in paragraph 3 mean?| A．Strict. | B．Slight. |
| C．Bright. | D．Ordinary. |
| A．To identify the causes of diabetes. |
| B．To make better air pollution control policies. |
| C．To lead the study of diabetes and air pollution. |
| D．To figure out the link between pollution and diabetes. |
| A．India. | B．Finland. |
| C．The US. | D．Guyana. |
| A．Current pollution control levels need to be tightened |
| B．Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases globally |
| C．Air pollution contributes significantly to diabetes globally |
| D．Poverty-stricken countries face a higher diabetes-pollution risk |
5 . There is increasing alarm about the extent of micro plastic pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more poisonous form of plastic pollution entering remote reaches of the globe. A new study published in Environmental Research found significant quantities of nanoplastics in ice samples from both the North and South Poles.
“Now we know that nanoplastics are transported to these comers of the Earth in these quantities. This indicates that nanoplastics are really a bigger pollution problem than we thought,” study lead author Dusan Materic said in a press release.
Nanoplastics are plastics that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Their small size means they are more difficult to study than microplastics, or plastics between five millimeters and a micrometer. But they maybe even more dangerous.
“Nanoplastics are very toxicologically active compared to, for instance, microplastics, and that’s why this is very important” Materic said.
Materic and his team used new methods to measure nanoplastic pollution in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They sampled a 14-meter-deep ice core (核) from the Greenland icecap and sea ice from Antarcia’s McMurdo Sound. They found that there were an average of 13.2 nanograms per milliliter of nanoplastics in the Greenland ice and an average of 52.3 nanograms per milliliter in the Antarctic ice.
But what was even more surprising than the amount of nanoplastics in the remote ice was just how long they had sat there. “In the Greenland core, we see nanoplastic pollution happening all the way from the 1960s. So organisms, despite the lack of the solid evidence, likely all over the world, have been exposed to it for quite some time now,” Materic said.
The study also looked at the types of plastic present in the samples. Half of the Greenland nanoplastics were polyethylene (PE), the kind of plastic used for plastic bags and packaging. A quarter came from tires and a fifth were polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is, used for clothing and bottles.
1. Why should researchers focus more on nanoplastics?| A．They are more important to science. | B．They are smaller but more dangerous. |
| C．They are easily polluted by ocean water | D．They are more active in cold surroundings. |
| A．The Greenland core. | B．The Antarctic ice. |
| C．The amount of nanoplastics. | D．Nanoplastics pollution. |
| A．The North and South poles are the birthplace of nanoplastics. |
| B．Nanoplastics have less influence on the pa net than microplastics. |
| C．Nanoplastics found in the samples are widely used in the daily life. |
| D．Nanoplastics have been existing since the 1960s throughout the world. |
| A．Microplastics—proving more dangerous. |
| B．Nanoplastics—making its way to the poles. |
| C．Nanoplastics—posing a threat to people’s life. |
| D．Microplastics—setting the alarm bells ringing. |
6 . In the first test of its kind in Europe, and only the second in the world, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws (吸管) for the group of synthetic (合成的) chemicals known as poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The straws are made from five materials — paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and plastic. PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo. They were not found only in steel straws tested.
PFAS are used to make everyday products, from outdoor clothing to non-stick pans, resistant (抵抗to water, heat and stains. They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife and the environment. They have been related to a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines (疫苗), lower birth weight, thyroid disease, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer. They break down very slowly over time and can last thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as “forever chemicals”.
A growing number of countries, including the UK and Belgium, have sopped the sale of single-use plastic products, including drinking straws, and plant-based versions have become popular. The PFAS concentrations (浓缩物) were low in them and, bear in mind that most people tend to only use straws occasionally, bringing a limited risk to human health. However, PFAS can remain in the body for many years and concentrations can build up over time.
It isn’t known whether the PFAS were added to the straws by the producer for waterproofing or the PFAS were the result of contamination. Potential sources of contamination include the soil the plant-based materials were grown in and the water used in the production process. However, the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straws means it is likely that it was, in some cases, being used as a water-resistant coating, say the researchers.
1. Why are PFAS called “forever chemicals”?| A．They are commonly seen in daily life. |
| B．They bring humans health problems. |
| C．They remain in the environment for long. |
| D．They can resist water, heat and stains. |
| A．By bringing people air pollution. |
| B．By polluting humans’ food. |
| C．By building up little by little in humans’ body. |
| D．By making people addicted to drinking easily. |
| A．Pollution. | B．Discovery. | C．Experiment. | D．Development. |
| A．More and more countries give up single-use plastic products. |
| B．PFAS are widely used in the production of daily necessities. |
| C．Certain kinds of new synthetic chemicals were discovered. |
| D．Environment-friendly drinking straws are actually harmful. |
7 . British chip maker Walkers is being flooded with mail deliveries of its own packaging. An online petition (请愿) with more than 312,000 signatures so far encourages those who signed to mail their empty chip plastic bags to Walkers as an act of protest against the bags’ non-recyclable design.
As petition organizer Geraint Ashcroft explained, the majority of chip packets, made from plastic coated with metal, are not recyclable and have been found fully undamaged up to 33 years after consumption. The UK alone consumes 6 billion bags of chips a year, and Walkers turns out 11 million bags daily. Ashcroft wrote, “At today’s consumption rate in 33 years’ time, there will be 200 billion packets either sent to landfill or polluting our oceans. Many will be eaten by fish or birds, leading to a slow death.”
Mailing the bags to Walkers is a way to hold the company accountable for its packaging and to pressure it to come up with a better design. But it is controversial. Because the Royal Mail postal service isn’t happy about the sudden in flow of packages, asking people calm down to help with ease of delivery. Critics on Twitter also question the logic of buying a product in order to protest against its producer and suggest that giving up chips altogether would improve one’s health as well as the environment.
Walkers issued a statement on Wednesday, saying it will make its packaging plastic-free by 2025. “We have received some returned packets and recognized the efforts being made to bring the issue of packaging waste to our attention. The returned packets will be used in our research as we work towards our commitment of improving the recyclability of our packaging.”
1. Why do people mail their empty chip bags to Walkers?| A．To oppose Walkers’ plastic packaging. |
| B．To exchange them for some new chips. |
| C．To make Walkers use them once more. |
| D．To appeal to people for not using the bags. |
| A．The production of plastic bags. |
| B．The cause of animals’ death. |
| C．The potential harm of chip bags. |
| D．The opinion of Geraint Ashcroft. |
| A．Explainable. | B．Responsible. | C．Significant. | D．Anxious. |
| A．Doubtfully. | B．Indifferently. | C．Positively. | D．Cautiously. |
8 . To solve a big environmental problem, chemists have been thinking small. Really small: a new mini robot with the purpose of helping clean up tiny plastic that pollutes water across the world.
The new microrobots, each of which is no bigger than the tip of a pencil, are magnetic(有磁性的)and shaped like four-pointed stars. When the sunlight shines on them, they can swim in a direction; when the sunlight disappears, they stop moving. Finding a piece of plastic, they hold onto it, produce chemical reactions and start to break it down.
The project is led by chemist Martin Pumera, a researcher who also studies ways to build microrobots at the Czech University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. About ten years ago, he noticed the microplastic was everywhere, from the bottom of the ocean to the ice on the top of mountains. It even turned up in drinking water, both bottled and tap water. Just think about how much plastic you meet every day. It doesn’t easily degrade ( 降 解 ) which is a big problem. Therefore, Pumera chose to focus on the problem of water pollution caused by microplastic.
The researchers tested the microrobots on four types of plastic in the lab. After a week, all four began degrading, losing around 3 percent of their weight, which showed the microrobots were breaking the plastic down. The robots also turned the plastic’s smooth surface into the rough one. Finally, the scientists showed that magnets could attract the microrobots at the end of the test - along with the plastic waste.
In fact, Pumera says they still have a long way to go. These microrobots are unlikely to succeed in degrading all types of plastic. They’ll also need a lot of testing to show that they’re safe in open waterways, such as at sea. But he thinks that these challenges can be overcome. Someday, the microrobots will play a big role in a worldwide cleanup effort.
1. What can be learned about the new microrobot?| A．It is in the shape of a ball. | B．It is as small as a pencil. |
| C．It is driven by sunlight. | D．It uses physical reactions. |
| A．The microplastic pollution. | B．The ice on the mountains. |
| C．The need for drinking water. | D．The development of ocean resources. |
| A．Sorting it into four types. | B．Making its surface smooth. |
| C．Taking in it completely. | D．Breaking it down to some degree. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Confident. | C．Regretful. | D．Uncertain. |
9 . Even chess experts perform worse when air quality is lower, suggesting a negative effect on cognition(认知). Here’s something else chess players need to keep in check: air pollution.
That’s the bottom line of a newly published study co-authored by a researcher, showing that chess players perform objectively worse and make more suboptimal(次优的) moves, as measured by a computerized analysis of their games, when there is more fine particulate matter(颗粒物) in the air, notated as PM 2.5.
More specifically, given a modest increase in fine particulate matter, the probability that chess players will make an error increases by 2.1 percentage points, and the spectrum of those errors increases by 10.8 percent. In this setting, at least, cleaner air leads to clearer heads and sharper thinking.
“We find that when individuals are exposed to higher levels of air pollution, they make more mistakes, and they make larger mistakes,” says Juan Palacios, an economist in Sustainable Urbanization Lab.
“It’s pure random exposure to air pollution that is driving these people’s performance,” Palacios says. “Against comparable opponents in the same tournament round, being exposed to different levels of air quality makes a difference for move quality and decision quality.”
The researchers also found that when air pollution was worse, the chess players performed even more poorly when under time limitation. “We find it interesting that those mistakes especially occur in the phase of the game where players are facing time pressure,” Palacios says.
“There are more and more papers showing that there is a cost with air pollution, and there is a cost for more and more people,” Palacios says. “And this is just one example showing that even for these very excellent chess players, who think they can beat everything, it seems that with air pollution, they have an enemy who harms them.”
1. What effect does air pollution have on chess players?| A．They make fewer good choices. | B．They perform subjectively worse. |
| C．They suffer body discomfort. | D．They lose all games with computers. |
| A．Magic. | B．Process. | C．Range. | D．Balance. |
| A．His appeal for attention to chess players. |
| B．His concern about air pollution. |
| C．An example of chess players’ performance. |
| D．Approaches to dealing with air pollution. |
| A．Air pollution is a tough enemy chess players face. |
| B．Chess players make more and more mistakes. |
| C．There is a cost with air pollution for more people. |
| D．Chess players perform poorly under time limitation. |
10 . We all have an idea about the common types of environmental problems. However, light pollution may be a new term to many of us. But, the fact is that it does affect mankind, other living forms and the environment as a whole.
What is light pollution? It presents all forms of misused man-made light. The obvious cause of light pollution is the use of outdoor lighting products improperly. It can be office lighting, car headlights, station lights, streetlights and many more.
Light pollution is harmful to both animals and plants. Upon studies, it is found that obvious effects are observed in the behaviour of animals that are active at night. Needless to mention, bright light at night makes it difficult for these animals to hunt, wander and perform their regular activities. Light pollution is directly or indirectly responsible for causing several diseases. Its effects are related to disturbance in the physical rhythm (节奏). It contributes to risks of developing cancerous cells. So, it’s nothing less than a threat to human health.
You have already seen the negative effects of light pollution on animals and human health. Apart from this, the actual cost of misused light is about millions of dollars every year. It also leads to the release of greenhouse gases and global warming. After all, coal or gas is used for producing electricity.
While outdoor lighting and using man-made lighting products are part of our modern lifestyle, some simple ways will surely help in reducing light pollution. For example, while installing (安装) outdoor lighting, make sure that they are pointed downwards. Also, use only the required lighting equipment for both home and offices. Believe it or not, many people living in the urban areas cannot view clear sky and stars at night. Let’s contribute our part in reducing the pollution.
1. What can we learn about light pollution?| A．It has little effect on plants. |
| B．It contributes to most cancers. |
| C．It is a negative fruit of light technology. |
| D．It affects animals’ behavior during the day. |
| A．It increases the temperature at night. |
| B．It creates clouds in parts of the Earth. |
| C．It stops the release of greenhouse gases. |
| D．It is related to the burning of coal and gas. |
| A．Forbid the use of outdoor lighting. |
| B．Use clean energy to produce electricity. |
| C．Avoid unnecessary lights at home and offices. |
| D．Reduce money spent on light in urban areas. |
| A．Citizens should be banned to install outdoor lighting. |
| B．Only simple ways can help reduce light pollution. |
| C．There is no clear sky or stars over the urban areas. |
| D．Light pollution needs to be dealt with urgently. |
