Indoor skiing in the desert has become a symbol of Dubai’s status as a w
2 . Sixty-six years ago, there was one human-built object in Earth’s orbit. It was Sputnik, the world’s first satellite, launched in October 1957. Try to guess how many human-made objects are circling the planet now. Ready?
Your answer is wrong, unless you guessed 100 trillion. That’s a jaw-dropping number. It was provided by an international team of researchers writing in the journal Science. For years, this junk has formed an ever-growing mass near Earth. It’s a danger to spacecraft. The researchers are calling for a global treaty to limit the number of satellites and the amount of rubbish in space.
There are 9,000 active satellites in orbit, the scientists report. That could grow to more than 60,000 by 2030. The rest of that 100 trillion figure includes everything from used-up booster rockets and stray bolts to metal flecks and paint chips. Don’t think a paint chip is harmless. Travelling at 17,500 miles per hour, it can strike a spacecraft hard. The International Space Station is dotted with dents and holes. Astronauts often take shelter in an attached spacecraft to wait out a passing swarm of space debris (残骸). That way, if the station is severely damaged, they can escape in a hurry.
The mess we’ve made in space is like the mess we’ve made in the oceans. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It’s a mass of floating junk twice the size of Texas. We’ve had centuries to make the ocean dirty. But it has taken just decades for us to do the same in space. That’s why the Science authors include experts in satellite technology and in ocean plastic pollution. “As a marine biologist, I never imagined writing a paper on space,” writes Heather Koldewey, who works at the Zoological Society of London. Cleaning up space, she says, has a lot in common “with the challenges of tackling environmental issues in the ocean.”
Coauthor Moriba Jah is an aerospace engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “Marine debris and space debris,” he writes, “are both a human-made damage that is unavoidable.”
1. Why is Sputnik mentioned in paragraph 1?| A．To provide background information. |
| B．To introduce the topic. |
| C．To make a comparison. |
| D．To tell a story. |
| A．What caused space debris. |
| B．The number of space debris. |
| C．The seriousness of space pollution. |
| D．What astronauts often do in space. |
| A．Ocean pollution is very serious. |
| B．Ocean is the same as space. |
| C．Space pollution is getting worse. |
| D．She is going to write a paper on space. |
| A．There is the same amount of marine debris and space debris. |
| B．Humans are to blame for the space pollution. |
| C．Marine and space pollution are unavoidable. |
| D．Humans can do nothing to prevent space pollution. |
1. What is the woman doing?
| A．Joining a protest. | B．Interviewing the man. | C．Giving a speech. |
| A．She is looking for her husband. |
| B．Her salary hasn’t been paid by the boss. |
| C．The factory is polluting the environment. |
| A．The woman’s husband. |
| B．People in the community. |
| C．The workers in the factory. |
| A．To shout with her. |
| B．To go to the government. |
| C．To cover the event. |
4 . Many of us might not give a second thought to dropping a small piece of litter. After all, if it is so small, it cannot possibly be that harmful, can it? In today’s world, the answer is certainly “Yes, it can! “With the growing use of plastic bags and the rising number of smokers, there is more litter being produced than ever before.
Although cigarette butts are small, they are bad for the environment. Worldwide, about 4. 3 trillion cigarette butts are littered every year. As well as spoiling the beauty of the environment, they contain poisonous chemicals. These find their way into the water supply where they affect water quality and endanger plants and animals. Cigarette butts can take up to 25 years to break down, and the poisonous chemicals add up to a large amount with so many littered. So, if people want to smoke, they should dispose of the butts properly in a rubbish bin.
Plastic bags are another common form of litter that is dangerous to the environment. They are easily blown by wind and float in water, so they can travel long distances. They find their way to rivers, parks, beaches and oceans, killing many birds, mammals, fish, and sea animals each year worldwide. They can last for hundreds of years in the environment. We should not let plastic bags become litter. We should use fewer plastic bags, and reuse and recycle what we have already used.
One way to reduce the use of plastic bags is to charge for them. Shops used to give plastic bags for free. But in some countries, including China, customers are now charged for each bag. Some shops also have a “bag -for-life “ scheme. They sell strong bags that can be reused, and they replaced them for free if the bags ever break.
Waste is a big problem for the environment, so we need to do something. Not littering at all or cleaning up “small waste” saves money spent on coping with litter properly. However, it would be better not to smoke or use plastic bags at all.
1. Small pieces of litter can be harmful because_________| A．Litter from smokers and plastic bags have greatly increased. |
| B．Plastic bags and litter are easily blown by wind and float in water. |
| C．Plastic bags and cigarette butts spoil the beauty of the environment. |
| D．Plastic bags and cigarette butts definitely contain poisonous chemicals. |
| A．set off | B．deal with | C．figure out | D．bring about |
| A．People recycle the used plastic bags and smoke less. |
| B．Shops offer the customers plastic bags free of charge. |
| C．Smokers leave cigarette butts regularly in a rubbish bin. |
| D．We all save money spent on disposing of litter properly. |
| A．More charge, less litter. |
| B．Strict control, little litter |
| C．Small waste, big problem |
| D．Small butts, bad environment |
5 . Many of us might not give a second thought to dropping a small piece of litter. After all, if it is so small, it cannot possibly be that harmful, can it?
Although cigarette ends are small, they are bad for the environment. Worldwide, about 4.3 trillion cigarette ends are littered every year. As well as ruining the beauty of the environment, they contain poisonous chemicals.
Waste is a big problem for the environment, so we need to do something. Not littering at all or cleaning up “small waste” saves money spent on clearing off litter properly.
| A．They are harmful to our health. |
| B．These find their way into the water supply. |
| C．In today’s world, the answer is certainly “Yes, it can!” |
| D．Proper measures should be taken to deal with the pollution issues. |
| E．However, it would be better not to smoke or use plastic bags at all. |
| F．Plastic bags are another common form of litter dangerous to the environment. |
| G．But in some countries, including China, customers are now charged for each bag. |
6 . At any moment, about half the world’s population is wearing denim（牛仔布）clothes. But few realize tiny bits of denim have been adding up to a surprising amount of pollution in water, as a new study shows.
Sam Athey, one of the study’s authors, says, “Even though denim is made of a natural material—cotton, it contains chemicals.” Cotton fibers were treated with many types of chemicals, she notes. Some improve its durability and feel. Others give denim its distinctive blue color.
Athey and her team washed jeans and found that about 50,000 microfibers came off from each pair per wash. Not all of those fibers make their way into the environment. Wastewater treatment plants catch about 83 to 99 percent of them. Catching 99 percent may sound pretty good. But one percent of 50,000 is still 500 fibers per wash. And since every pair of jeans is washed again and again, it still adds up to lots of microfibers entering the water environment.
Denim microfibers showed up in sediment（沉淀物）from the Great Lakes. More of these fibers polluted a series of shallow lakes in southern Ontario. They even turned up in sediment from the Arctic Ocean in northern Canada. The team found denim accounted for 12 to 23 percent of microfibers in the sediment. There were other microfibers too. But the team focused on denim because so many people wear jeans.
“Everyone wears jeans so they could be our largest input of microfibers into our streams and soils,” Athey says. “An easy way to limit that is by washing our jeans less often.” Athey grew up thinking she should wash her jeans after wearing them every couple of times, but most jean companies recommend washing them no more than once a month. “The solution is not that you shouldn’t wear jeans,” she says. “We need to buy fewer denim clothes and only wash them when they truly need it.”
1. Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?| A．Chemicals are contained in natural cotton. |
| B．Chemicals can make denim colorful. |
| C．Chemicals prevent fibers from falling. |
| D．Chemicals can make the life of denim longer. |
| A．Denim. | B．Sediment. | C．Microfibers. | D．Chemicals. |
| A．To avoid wearing jeans. | B．To reduce denim consumption. |
| C．To wash jeans more often. | D．To limit input in denim production. |
| A．Science. | B．Entertainment. | C．Tourism. | D．Geography. |
7 . Researchers are worried about the fishing equipment floating around the Pacific Ocean. These ghost nets threaten sea animals and pollute coastal areas.
A ghost net study led by biologist Jennifer Lynch found it difficult in many cases to identify the source of the ghost equipment. Lynch said she is not interested in blaming anyone. Instead, she hopes the study will find new ways to prevent damage to the environment.
Drew, a graduate student and one of the study’s lead researchers, said his biggest concern is that the equipment keeps killing fish and other wildlife long after it’s lost, leaving a path of ecological damage.
The ghost nets pollute oceans around the world, but the Hawaiian Islands are in the middle of two large areas of ocean pollution. It’s difficult to know where they came from. Experts believe many nets are lost accidentally. But some illegal fishing boats leave nets in the water to avoid being caught. Other fishermen cut away pieces of damaged nets instead of recovering them.
The research team gets some ghost nets from the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument, the largest protected environment in the United States, also recognized as a United Nations World Heritage Site. Researchers look at about 70 different features of each piece of net, including the kinds of material used, and find nets from all parts of the Pacific.
Brian, a fisherman now working for a net manufacturer in Washington, said nets from poor countries are usually weaker.
Jonathan Moore, one of the researchers, said illegal and unreported fishing is sometimes associated with ghost nets and is among the greatest threats to oceans. Fishing net markings and rules, he added, should be "a central part of responsible fishing management operations".
1. What is difficult for researchers in many cases of ghost nets?| A．Finding out the source of the nets. | B．Checking the harm done by the nets. |
| C．What fish and other wildlife are killed. | D．The length of the ecological damage. |
| A．The research experts. | B．The ghost nets. |
| C．The areas of pollution. | D．The Hawaiian Islands. |
| A．Helping poor countries make strong nets. | B．Trying different materials for fishing nets. |
| C．Making rules about marking fishing nets. | D．Recovering the ghost nets after they’re lost. |
| A．Strict Ocean Fishing Management Is Needed |
| B．Ghost Nets Should Be Recovered from the Sea |
| C．A UN World Heritage Site in the US Is in Danger |
| D．Lost Fishing Equipment Threatens Ocean Life |
8 . If you’re worried about your receding hairline (后退的发际线) and you live in a city, you might want to consider moving, as scientists have found exposure to high levels of air pollution may be linked to retention.
New research presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Congress in Madrid found particulate matter (PM) (颗粒物), which is present in polluted air, could impact both hair growth and retention.
The team took cells from the base of hair follicles (毛囊) and then exposed them to the polluted air. They used various concentrations of PM10, and 24 hours later, they tested the samples to detect whether specific hair-growth proteins in the cells had changed at all.
Researchers found that the presence of PM10 decreased levels of the protein responsible for hair growth — beta-catenin — and morphogenesis, the biological process that causes an organism to develop its shape. According to the study, the levels of three other proteins which are responsible for hair growth and hair retention — cyclin D1, cyclin E and CDK2 — were also decreased.
This meant that the greater the level of pollutant, the greater the decrease in proteins was found.
This is one of the first studies to look at the link between pollution and baldness (秃头).
Hyuk Chul Kwon from the Future Science Research Centre in South Korea said: “While the link between air pollution and serious diseases, such as cancer, are well established, there is little to no research on the effect of particulate matter exposure on the human skin, and hair in particular. And our research explains the mode (模式) of action of air pollutants on human hair follicle cells, showing how the most common air pollutants lead to hair loss.”
1. What does the underlined word “retention” in Para 1 refer to?| A．Hair cells. | B．Hair loss. |
| C．Hair growth. | D．Hair-growth proteins. |
| A．Air pollution can increase levels of hair-growth proteins. |
| B．There’s only one protein that is responsible for hair growth. |
| C．Polluted air has no direct impact on hair growth or retention. |
| D．The more serious air pollution, the more likely you’re to lose your hair. |
| A．Meaningful. | B．Negative. |
| C．Unimportant. | D．Objective. |
| A．The solutions to air pollution. |
| B．The growth mechanism of hair. |
| C．The impact of air pollution on health. |
| D．The close link between air pollution and hair loss. |
9 . Though you might think you were taking care of your health by eating enough fruit and vegetables every day, new research has come out suggesting that you might be swallowing microplastic particles（微塑科颗粒）along with all those vitamins, minerals, and fibre. A study published in the journal Environmental Research has found that fruits and vegetables absorb microplastic particles from the soil and move them through vegetal tissues, where they remain until eaten by hungry diners, thus getting transferred to human bodies.
The researchers, who are from the University of Catania in Italy, analyzed a variety of common fruits and vegetables--carrots, lettuce, broccoli, potatoes, apples, and pears. These were chosen for the fact that they are frequently consumed, usually one per day, which allowed the researchers to better assess the dietary intakes of MPs（microplastic particles）and NPs（nano-plastics）. The samples were purchased from different sources in the city of Catania, including a small fruit vendor and a supermarket.
The researchers found that apples, followed by pears, were the most polluted fruit samples, and carrots were the most polluted vegetable. In the study’s discussion section, the authors wrote, “We can assume that the fruits contain more MPs not only because of the very high vascularization（血资化）of the fruit pulp（果肉）but also due to the greater size and complexity of the root system and age of the tree（several years）compared to the vegetables（60-75 days for the carrot）.”
This study is important because it’s the first to detect microplastics in fruits and vegetables. They have been found in other sources before, such as sea salt, beer, water（bottled, in particular）, shellfish, sugar, soil, and even air, but never inside fresh produce. It’s an alarming discovery that raises yet another red flag about microplastic pollution in the natural environment.
It’s an area that will likely see a lot more attention in coming years, with the study authors calling for further research into the question of microplastic and whether it harms the health of both plants and humans.
1. What is the study about?| A．The main cause of soil pollution. |
| B．The great changes in people’s diets. |
| C．The microplastic pollution in fruits and vegetables. |
| D．The benefits of eating fruits and vegetables. |
| A．The large amounts of the fruit pulp. | B．The planting method. |
| C．The complex preservation method. | D．The long growth period of fruit trees. |
| A．It discovered MPs in fresh produce for the first time. |
| B．It proved the source of microplastic pollution. |
| C．It presented the danger of MPs to human’s body. |
| D．It showed the influences of MPs on plants. |
| A．It has raised people’s awareness of health. |
| B．It wasted them quite a lot of time. |
| C．It needs to be further studied. |
| D．It has attracted people’s attention to diets. |
10 . Darrell Blatchley, a marine biologist and environmentalist based in the Philippine city of Davao, received a call from the philippines’ Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (渔业与水产资源局) early Friday morning reporting a death of a young whale.
When the necropsy (尸检) was performed, Blatchley told NPR, he was not prepared for the amount of plastic they found in the whale’s stomach. “It was full of plastic- nothing but nonstop plastic,” he said. “It was filled to the point that its stomach was as hard as a baseball.” “That means that this animal has been suffering not for days or weeks but for months or even a year or more.” Blatchley added.
Blatchley is the founder and owner of the D’ Bone Collector Museum, a natural history museum in Davao. In the coming days, the museum will display all the items found in the whale’s system.
Blatchley and his team work with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and other organizations to assist in rescue and recovery of marine animals.
“Within the last 10 years, we have recovered 61 whales and dolphins just within the Davao Gulf,” he said. “Of them, 57 have died due to man --whether they took plastic or fishing nets or other waste, or gotten caught in pollution-- and four were pregnant.”
Blatchley said he hoped that the latest incident would launch the issue of plastic pollution in the Philippines and across the globe. “If we keep going this way, it will be more uncommon to see an animal die of natural causes than it is to see an animal die of plastic.” he said.
1. What can be inferred from the second paragraph?| A．The whale was starved to death. |
| B．Blatchley didn’t make preparations for the necropsy. |
| C．The dead whale must have swallowed a baseball. |
| D．Blatchley was shocked at what he found. |
| A．Uncommon. | B．Inspiring. |
| C．Worrying. | D．Puzzling. |
| A．Natural Death or Merciless murder. |
| B．Stand Up for Protecting Whales. |
| C．Plastic Threatening Our Existence. |
| D．A Whale Found Dead of Plastic. |
