1 . Plastic is everywhere, from the Arctic ice to vital organs in the human body. In fact, previous estimates suggest that the average person swallows a credit card-worth of microscopic plastic particles(颗粒) every week. But new research shows that this could actually be an understatement.
Microplastics are plastics smaller than 5 millimeters, found in industrial waste, beauty products, and formed during the degradation of larger plastic pieces. Over time, they break down into even smaller nanoplastics. These tiny particles can pass through our intestines and lungs into our bloodstreams, reaching vital organs like the heart and brain.
While the idea of eating plastic is unsettling in itself, the major concern here is that these plastic particles contain chemicals that can interrupt our body’s natural release of hormones, potentially increasing our risk of reproductive disorders and certain cancers. They can also carry toxins(毒素) on their surface like heavy metals.
In the past, researchers have shown bottled water can contain tens of thousands of identifiable plastic fragments in a single container. However, until recently, only the larger microplastics were detectable with available measuring tools, leaving the area of nanoplastics largely a mystery.
Using Raman microscopy (显微镜学), capable of detecting particles down to the size of a flu virus, the team measured an average of 240, 000 particles of plastic per liter of bottled water, 90 percent of which were nanoplastics, a revelation 10 to 100 times larger than previous estimates.
These plastics likely originate from the bottle material, filters used to “purify” the water, and the source water itself. “It is not totally unexpected to find so much of this stuff, ” the study’s lead author, Columbia graduate student Naixin Qian, said in a statement. His team hopes to expand their research into tap water and other water sources to better inform our exposure to these potentially dangerous particles. “The idea is that the smaller things get, the more of them I reveal, ” he added.
1. What is the primary focus of the new research?| A．The presence of plastic particles. | B．The use of plastic in everyday products. |
| C．The detection methods for microplastics. | D．The potential risks of nanoplastics to human. |
| A．Finding the source of plastic particles. | B．Helping to cure the deadly flu virus. |
| C．Detecting the smaller plastic particles. | D．Improving the quality of bottled water. |
| A．To focus on areas with higher plastic pollution. |
| B．To be aware of the dangerous particles in daily life. |
| C．To further measure the types of particles in tap water. |
| D．To detect the smaller plastic particles in industrial areas. |
| A．Skeptical. | B．Objective. | C．Conservative. | D．Positive. |
When travelling overseas, do you buy water in plastic bottles or take your chances with tap water? Imagine you are wandering about on a Thai island or
That’s the conclusion of a recently
Confronted with this evidence, several bottled-water manufacturers including Nestle and Coca-Cola undertook
3 . There are a lot of chemicals that can cause indoor air pollution. A recent project conducted has found over 900 different substances in our home are related to it. Many researchers have already examined the causes of indoor air pollution.
It has been proved that different kinds of chemicals can be released by building materials and new furniture. Everything from painting and decorating products, bathroom cleaners and beauty products can contain these chemicals.
As a research from Denmark has highlighted, cooking, particularly roasting can damage our body. Roast dinners contain many potentially harmful pollutants.
As far as cooking emissions are concerned, no one is suggesting switching to takeaways.
| A．In the long run, these changes lead to cancer. |
| B．They might also arise from cooking at home. |
| C．A wide range of sources are under investigation. |
| D．Therefore, what results from indoor air pollution? |
| E．However, most of us have ignored their bad effects. |
| F．So, what are the main contributors to poor air quality? |
| G．But we can change how we cook to deal with the emissions. |
4 . Around 40 million tonnes of electronic waste, known as e-waste, is produced every year. This includes electrical or electronic equipment that has been discarded. But where does it all go? In the US alone, 100 million mobile phones, 41 million computers and over 20 million televisions are thrown into landfills in a year. Even for standard waste this is a big headache, because any materials that are buried in the ground can’t be easily recovered and recycled. Recycling electronics can save energy and means that less of Earth’s natural resources need to be mined.
Failing to recycle e-waste is extremely damaging the environment due to the nature of the materials used in modern devices. While heavy metals and chemicals improve a device’s safety and user experience, these components become poisonous if they’re not dealt with properly. Your old phones, Gameboys, kettles, microwaves and more can end up in landfills, leaking their harmful contents into the soil, water and air. Not only does this kill wildlife and destroy ecosystems, but the accumulation of poison can impact human health too. As heavy metals and chemicals flow into lakes and rivers, drinking water becomes polluted. These poisons spread through the soil, impacting the health of crops and animals that people also rely on.
In some western countries, e-waste isn’t hidden out of sight in landfills but is burnt in giant, open junkyards. They even ship waste electronics to other countries to deal with, and this often ends up in dumps across Africa and Asia. Workers in these places are exposed to polluted lands and chemical gas.
It is urgent that we should reduce the damaging and unsustainable side of e-waste production. Rare earth metals, some plastics and chemicals can be fed into the next generation of electronics. The steps to proper recycling of e-waste are extensive and need large investment, but more and more countries around the world are turning to e-waste recycling.
1. What does the underlined word “discarded” in Paragraph 1 mean?| A．Repaired. | B．Protected. | C．Used. | D．Abandoned. |
| A．E-waste has a permanent effect on the environment. |
| B．E-waste may do harm to both ecosystems and humans. |
| C．Heavy metals and chemicals are poisonous to the users. |
| D．Burying e-waste into landfills is an effective way to recycle. |
| A．supportive | B．objective | C．concerned | D．uncertain |
| A．Solutions to destroying e-waste. | B．Ways to recycle e-waste properly. |
| C．Applications of recycled materials. | D．Investments in restoring ecosystems. |
5 . In the endless sky, the unaided human eye should be able to perceive several thousand stars on a clear, dark night. Unfortunately, growing light pollution has impeded people from the nightly view.
New citizen-science-based research throws alarming light on the problem of “sky glow”-the diffuse illumination (漫射照明) of the night sky that is a form of light pollution. The data came from crowd-sourced observations collected from around the world as part of Globe at Night, a program developed by astronomer Connie Walker.
Light pollution has harmful effects on the practice of astronomy but also on human health and wildlife, since it disturbs the cycle from sunlight to starlight that biological systems have evolved alongside. Furthermore, the loss of visible stars is a great loss of human cultural heritage. Until relatively recently, humans throughout history had an impressive view of the starry night sky, and the effect of this nighty spectacle (壮观) is evident in ancient cultures.
Globe at Night has been gathering data on star visibility since 2006. Anyone can submit observations through the Globe at Night web application. Participants record which one best matches what they can see in the sky without any telescopes or other instruments.
Researchers find that the loss of visible stars indicates an increase in sky brightness of 9.6% per year while roughly 2% is measured by satellites. Existing satellites are not well suited to measuring sky glow as it appears to humans, because they can not detect wavelengths shorter than 500 nanometers (纳米). White LEDs, with shorter wavelengths under 500 nanometers, now are increasingly commonly used in outdoor lighting. But human eyes are more sensitive to these shorter wavelengths at nighttime. Space-based instruments do not measure light from windows, either. But these sources are significant contributors to sky glow us seen from the ground.
“The increase in sky glow over the past decade underlines the importance of redoubling our efforts and developing new strategies to protect dark skies,” said Walker. “The Globe at Night dataset is necessary in our ongoing evaluation of changes in sky glow, and we encourage whoever can to get involved to help protect the starry night sky.”
1. What does the underlined word “impeded” in the first paragraph mean?| A．separated. | B．disabled. | C．demanded. | D．protected. |
| A．Poorer human health. | B．Fewer wildlife species. |
| C．More delicate biological systems. | D．Less nightly culture elements of the sky. |
| A．Crowd sourced data are invaluable | B．Shorter wavelengths are hard to detect. |
| C．Satellites play a vital role. | D．White LEDs are widely used. |
| A．Their consistent efforts pay off. | B．The dataset needs to be updated. |
| C．The sky glow has been over-emphasized. | D．More participants are expected to join in. |
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 . The amount of plastic pollution in the oceans is rapidly increasing. This is problematic, as at least 700 species of sea animals — including sharks, whales seabirds and turtles — can be trapped in the stuff or 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 source, less research has been carried out into what sea plastic smells like to sea animals.
But now, a study from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has found that the coating of algae and microbes (藻类、微生物) that naturally builds up on ocean plastics causes the rubbish to give off the smell of food.
The researchers took 15 healthy turtles, each around five months old and placed them in a laboratory aquarium (水族箱). They then piped in clean water, clean plastic, turtle food, and plastic that had been down in the sea 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 smells of ocean plastic or turtle food, they exhibited hunting behaviour — like sticking their noses out of the water and showing increased activity.
“This finding is important because it’s 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 the sea turtles with their digestive systems fully or partially blocked because they’ve eaten plastic materials There also are increasing reports of sea turtles that have been ill and stranded on the beach due to their swallow of plastic.”
“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. “The best thing we can do is to keep plastic from getting into the ocean at all.”
1. What does the new research mainly focus on?| A．What has caused the sea plastic pollution. |
| B．What sea plastic smells like to sea animals. |
| C．How dangerous the sea environment is. |
| D．How dangerous the sea plastic pollution is. |
| A．The turtles of 5 months old are the most healthy ones. |
| B．The turtles prefer dirty environments to clean ones. |
| C．The clean plastic has no certain smell to attract turtles. |
| D．The clean plastic is more dangerous than the ocean plastic. |
| A．trapped | B．rescued | C．harmed | D．treated |
| A．Sea turtles and sea environment | B．Sea turtles and their enemies |
| C．Sea turtles and sea food chain | D．Sea turtles and sea plastics |
8 . Perhaps one day, robots could be cleaning up human-caused pollution in the ocean. At least that’s what scientists hope to achieve with the development of Jellyfish-Bot (水母机器人), a robotic device which looks like a jellyfish that could help pick up pollutants underwater.
The robot is about the size of a hand. The artificial muscles, called HASELs, can contract and expand, allowing Jellyfish-Bot to move through the water. Like a real jellyfish, the robot’s movements create currents beneath it. Jellyfish use the currents to collect nutrients, while Jellyfish-Bot uses these motions to trap pollutants. The robots move at a speed of 6.1 centimeters per second, trapping objects along the way, whether it’s a single robot or multiple ones working together. With larger objects, it may require at least two robots to collect and bring the items to the surface for recycling.
“It is also able to collect fragile biological samples such as fish eggs. Meanwhile, there is no negative impact on the surrounding environment. The interaction with aquatic (水生的) species is gentle and nearly noise-free,” explained Tianlu Wang, a postdoctoral researcher.
According to the researchers, the robot is no louder than background noise, so it shouldn’t menace sea life. The insulating polymer (绝缘聚合物) shell around the robot shouldn’t harm humans or fish if it were to be torn apart.
For now, the robots are powered by thin wires, which prohibits their practical use in oceanic settings. But the scientists hope that they can achieve a wireless Jellyfish-Bot in the near future.
“Seventy percent of oceanic litter is estimated to sink to the seabed. Plastics make up more than 60% of this litter, taking hundreds of years to degrade. Therefore, we saw an urgent need to develop a robot to move or control objects such as litter and transport it upwards,” Scientist Hyeong-Joon Joo said. “We hope that underwater robots could one day assist in cleaning up our oceans.”
1. What is paragraph 2 mainly about?| A．The working principle of Jellyfish-Bot. |
| B．The main parts of Jellyfish-Bot. |
| C．The effect of the robot on the ocean. |
| D．The threat of pollutants to the ocean. |
| A．Destroy. | B．Threaten. | C．Transform. | D．Dominate. |
| A．They have been widely used underwater. |
| B．They lack practical use in oceanic settings. |
| C．They will take the place of the wire robots. |
| D．They will be researched and developed for use. |
| A．It’s of great urgency to clean up ocean pollutants |
| B．A new function of robot is just around the corner |
| C．Jellyfish-Bot makes a lot of difference to the ocean |
| D．An underwater robot could help clean up ocean pollutants |
9 . The increased use of light-emitting diodes (LED) and other forms of lighting are now brightening the night sky at a dramatic rate. Research has revealed that light pollution is now causing the night sky to brighten at a rate of around 10% a year, an increase that threatens to ruin the sight of all but the most brilliant stars in a generation. A child born where 250 stars are visible at night today would only be able to see about 100 by the time they reach 18.
Physicist Christopher Kyba, of the German Centre for Geosciences told the Observer. “A couple of generations ago, people would have regularly encountered this glittering (闪耀) vision of the universe—but what was formerly universal is now extremely rare.” Nevertheless, the introduction of only a modest number of changes to lighting could make a considerable improvement, Kyba argued. These moves would include ensuring outdoor lights are carefully capped, point downwards, have limits placed on their brightness, and are not predominantly blue-white but have red and orange components.
The problem is that light pollution is still not perceived by the public to be a threat. As Professor Oscar Corcho, of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, has put it: “The negative consequences of light pollution are as unknown by the population as those of smoking in the 80s.”
Yet action is now urgently needed. Apart from its astronomical impact, light pollution is harming human health. “When reddish light shines on our bodies, it stimulates mechanisms including those that break down high levels of sugar in the blood. Since the introduction of LEDs, that part of the spectrum (光谱) has been removed from artificial light and it is playing a part in the waves of obesity (肥胖) and rises in diabetes cases we see today,” said Prof Fosbury from University College London (UCL),
UCL researchers are preparing to install additional infrared (红外线) lamps in hospitals and intensive care units (ICU) to see if they have an effect on the recovery of patients who would otherwise be starved of light from this part of the spectrum.
1. What does the author want to show by citing the child’s example?| A．More objects in the universe will disappear. |
| B．Light pollution is blinding our view of the stars. |
| C．People’s perception of the universe is inadequate. |
| D．New forms of lighting have made stars unnecessary. |
| A．They are practical. | B．They are rarely successful. |
| C．They aren’t worth the effort. | D．It takes ages to see the result. |
| A．Controlling population growth. |
| B．Changing people’s perception. |
| C．Exploring the unknown universe. |
| D．Banning smoking in public places. |
| A．Whether they help patients recover. |
| B．Whether they increase obesity risk. |
| C．Whether they leave people starving. |
| D．Whether they raise blood sugar level. |
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan was
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the
On March 17, part of the equipment
According to The Guardian, the Japanese government argued that the water
However, not everyone agrees with this decision. Environmental groups and local fishermen have expressed concern about the impact of the wastewater
The Chinese Foreign Ministry on March14 once again denounced (谴责) Japan’s unilateral (单边的) decision to dump nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea,
The ministry also warned the country not to start the plan
