1 . 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. |
2 . Chinese consumers have said they will avoid eating Japanese seafood over safety concerns once Japan starts releasing (排放) nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.
On July 7, the General Administration of Customs released an import (进口) ban on aquatic products from the 10 Japanese cities. It’s indicated that Japan’s plan to release polluted wastewater into the sea was a matter of global concern. The plan caused more Chinese consumers who eat seafood began to worry about their safety, according to the administration.
According to a survey in 2022 by Chinese market consultancy company iiMedia Research, 39.58 percent of participants eat Japanese seafood once every two or three weeks.
“I will not eat seafood imported from Japan anymore,” said a data engineer surnamed Wang in Shanghai. The 42-year-old has been a fan of Japanese food since 2000 and used to eat Japanese food once a month. “If I have other options, I will choose seafood that does not come from the Pacific Ocean,” he added.
Wang Qian, a financial employee in Beijing, said she has been to about 20 Japanese restaurants so far. “Normally, I would not pay attention to where the seafood came from. But now I will try not to choose seafood from Japan,”she said. “Wastewater poses a threat to human health and marine ecology.”
Wang Qian said that Japan should use other methods to solve the problem, rather than releasing nuclear wastewater into the ocean.
An employee of the Japanese restaurant Jiubanwu, in Beijing, who did not want to be named, told China Daily that the restaurant’s fish and shrimp are imported from Russia, France and other countries. “We have not been buying seafood from Japan since April,” she said.
In addition to food safety, some people are worried about using cosmetic (美容的) products made in Japan.
1. What can we learn from the first two paragraphs?A.Releasing nuclear wastewater has aroused worldwide concern. |
B.All the seafood which is imported from Japan will be banned. |
C.Chinese consumers will be stricter when choosing seafood to eat. |
D.Japan’s plan to release the wastewater is criticized by Japanese. |
A.She won’t eat Japanese seafood anymore. |
B.She will be more cautious of the source of seafood. |
C.She will be devoted to career of human health and marine ecology. |
D.She is sure that Japan will figure out methods to solve the problem. |
A.China’s specific methods to dealing with nuclear wastewater. |
B.The influence of wastewater on Japanese cosmetic products. |
C.A formal call to Japan for producing safer cosmetic products. |
D.The world’s reply to Japanese nuclear wastewater releasing. |
A.Surprised. | B.Doubtful. | C.Unclear. | D.Critical. |
3 . Naturalist Enzo Suma, who is now 40, lives in Puglia, a region in southern Italy whose long coastline faces the Adriatic Sea. Floating waste accumulates in this relatively enclosed part of the Mediterranean, unlike the open ocean, where the waste tends to be spread over a vast area. Feeling concerned about that, Suma makes it a habit to pick up the washed-up waste along the shore, especially after big winter storms.
One day, Suma was walking along the beach near his home when he discovered a bottle of Coke. Suma noticed on the bottle that the price, clearly printed on the bottom, was in lire, a currency (货币) that hadn’t been used in Italy since it was replaced by the euro in 2002. Could a plastic container have well survived in the Mediterranean, he wondered, for about two decades?
That led him to founding the Archeoplastica museum. It has a collection of about 500 unique pieces recovered from Italian shores and the Coke bottle is the first one of them. All collection demonstrates the unsettling life force of plastic waste in the environment. “Seeing that a product people may have used 30, 40, or 50 years ago remains still unchanged, you’ll feel different. It’s a great shock,” Suma said to a reporter. So Suma often exhibits selected pieces from the Archeoplastica collection at local schools around his hometown of Ostuni.
“The playful side of the work allows you to arrive at the less beautiful side of things,” Suma acknowledged. “Plastic is a kind of useful substance. But it’s unthinkable that a water bottle, made from a material designed to last so long, can be used for just a few days—or even minutes—before becoming garbage. Clean the beaches. Clean the oceans. Recycle. But if we are still throwing out plastics, none of those are going to be long-term solutions.”
1. What’s Suma’s concern about his living place?A.Its long coastline is disappearing. | B.Big storms frequently hit the area. |
C.Floating waste spreads over a vast area. | D.The waste pollution on shore is worsening. |
A.They have a history of more than half a century. |
B.They were quite valuable before turning into waste. |
C.They’re more like educational exhibits than garbage. |
D.They have stronger life force than ordinary plastic products. |
A.Creative, devoted and socially responsible. | B.Enthusiastic, ambitious and adventurous. |
C.Generous, cautious and humorous. | D.Curious, efficient and playful. |
A.The birth of plastics has greatly served humans. |
B.The key to tackling the plastic pollution is to stop littering. |
C.The plastic problem can be solved by cleaning and recycling. |
D.People should be more aware of the powerful functions of plastics. |
Plastic pollution at sea is reaching worrying levels. According to a review of hundreds of academic
As plastic breaks down into smaller pieces, it also enters the marine food chain and
While consumers can help reduce plastic pollution by
5 . 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. |
6 . Conifers (针叶树) are generally better than broad-leaved trees at purifying air from pollutants. But deciduous (落叶的) trees may be better at taking in particle-bound pollution. A new study led by the University of Gothenburg shows that the best trees for air purification depend on the type of pollutants involved.
Trees and other greener in cities provide many benefits that are important for the well-being of residents. Leaves and needled on trees filter air pollutants and reduce exposure to poisonous substance in the air. But which trees purify the air most effectively? Researchers from the University of Gothenburg have collected leaves and needle from eleven different trees growing in the same place in the Gothenburg Botanical Garden (GBG) to analyse which cub-stances they have absorbed.
“This tree collection provided a unique opportunity to test many different species of trees with similar environmental conditions and exposure to air pollutants,” said Jenny Klingberg, a researcher of the GBG
A total of 32 different pollutants were analysed, some of which are bound to articles of various sizes. Others are gaseous. This project has focused on paths (多环芳烃). In cities, traffic is the biggest source of these pollutants, which are released due to incomplete burning in engines.
“Our analysis show that different species of trees have different abilities to absorb air pollutants. Conifers generally absorb morn gaseous paths than broad-leaved trees. Another advantage of conifers is that they also act as air purifies in winter, when air pollution is usually at its highest,” said Jenny Klingberg.
“This study contributes to improving our understanding of the ability of trees to clean the air and which species are best at absorbing air pollutants,” said Jenny Klingberg. This known-edge is important for urban planning when designing sustainable cities. While trees and green-era can contribute to better air quality in cities, at the end of the day, the most important measure is to reduce emissions.
1. Which is the determining factor in choosing the most suitable tries to purify air?A.Air quality. | B.Geographical location. | C.The height of plants. | D.The kind of pollutants. |
A.To compare their shapes. | B.To create a tree collection. |
C.To figure out what they absorb. | D.To display them on exhibition. |
A.Fuel vehicle’s. | B.Electric engines. | C.Traffic accidents. | D.Complete burning. |
A.Decreasing emissions. | B.Planting more conifers. |
C.Raising public awareness. | D.Designing sustainable cities. |
For the last few years, pollution
One thing that really annoys me is that I see tourists who visit Hawaii leave
Animals are not to blame
增加:在缺词处加一个漏字符号(A),并在其下面写出该加的词。
删除:把多余的词用斜线(\)划掉。
修改:在错的词下划一横线,并在该词下面写出修改后的词。
注意:1.每处错误及其修改均仅限一词;
2.只允许修改10处,多者(从第11处起)不计分。
When it come to the ocean, we are worried that its pollution is becoming more and more seriously. World Ocean Day, fallen on June 8th, is aimed at raising people’s awareness of ocean conservation. The ocean plays an important part in the world. It offers us sufficient food but maintains the balance of the nature. Therefore, it is time of us to devote ourselves to protecting the ocean. First of all, we should stop their own bad behavior, throwing rubbish into the ocean, for example. What’s more, we can hand out various brochure to call on more people protect the ocean. The more people are involved, the good the ocean environment is.
9 . With roaring ships, hammering oil drill, industrial fishing and coastal construction, humans have strongly influenced the underwater soundscape (声音景观) over the past couple of hundred years — in some cases posting a threat to whales, dolphins and other ocean creatures. Until recently, underwater sound pollution had not attracted the same attention. Now, a new paper published in the journal Science lays out the impacts, demonstrating that noise pollution can be just as harmful to the ocean environment as other kinds of pollution.
Even the cracking of glaciers and any drop of rain falling on the water’s surface can be heard deep under the sea. Sea life uses sound to study their habitat, and to keep in communication with each other. They also use sound by listening to know something about their environment.
“It’s a long-lasting problem that certainly weakens the animals all the way from individuals to populations,” says lead author Carlos M. Duarte, distinguished professor at Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), “We are hoping that this report will not only reveal elements of how humans impact the ocean through sound pollution, but that it will also bring the topic to the attention of policymakers who will be able to act based upon the very real solutions.”
Marine (海洋) ecologist Kirsten Thompson of the United Kingdom’s University of Exeter, who was not involved in the study, said the report could not have come at a better time. “It summarizes the fact that we are in this new phase of human-caused noise in our oceans that is having a dramatic impact on different species.” What matters most, she notes, is the fact that the paper “doesn’t just point at the problem, it shows how to solve it.”
Unlike plastic pollution or fertilizer runoff, noise pollution will not take years to fix. The moment we switch our noise off the impact disappears, Duarte says, pointing to marine life surveys conducted around April 5, 2020. Having the world use more renewable energy would lessen the need to drill for oil and gas. The international team of researchers also called for a global regulatory framework for measuring and managing ocean noise.
1. Which of the following threatens ocean creatures?A.Travel industry. | B.Human activities. |
C.Construction companies. | D.Sailing off the coast. |
A.Ocean animals can’t fall asleep. | B.It causes the cracking of glaciers. |
C.It’s a signal to the lower sea level. | D.It disrupts the behavior of sea life. |
A.She is one of the paper’s co-authors. |
B.The report does not come at the right time. |
C.The solutions are already available. |
D.The report has raised great attention from seamen. |
A.Technical advances and regulation. |
B.A policy to measure the depth of ocean. |
C.A global ban on drilling for oil and gas. |
D.Noise standards for cars and trucks. |
10 . On average, we each eat more than 20 kilograms of fish per year. Worldwide, between 1961 and 2016, fish consumption increased faster than meat consumption, and grew twice as fast as the human population. All of these fishy dinners have reduced marine fish stocks to a point where a third of global fish stocks are now classed as "overfished". Fishing also has negative impacts on non-food species in the ecosystem, and pollutes the waters with fishing waste. Temporary fishing bans may help, but what if we banned fishing altogether?
One thing is for sure: the ocean would hopefully become a better place for marine species. Recent years have seen plastic products much less used as the public has woken up to the effects of marine plastics. But few people realize the contribution that fishing makes. Pieces of abandoned fishing tools account for about 10 percent of all marine litter, and according to a 2018 study, 86 percent of the big pieces of plastics floating in the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". Without fishing, we'd also wipe out emission from fishing boats. One 2014 study claimed that fishing industry was actually highly fuel-consuming, like lobsters, with some boats using 20,000 liters of fuel to catch a single ton.
However, what we must not forget is that our planet is highly dependent on fishing in various ways. Around the world,40 million people earn their living directly from catching wild fish, while another 19 million are employed in relevant industries. A total ban on fishing would make it hard for them to put food in their families' mouths. Moreover, seafood is a major source of protein across Southeast Asia and islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. So while in Europe or the US people could eat more meat or soy products to make up for lost protein, there could be food shortage in communities with little land-based farming.
Though not a realistic choice, a total fishing ban is an interesting thought experiment, which may throw light on how man can get along with marine species. After all, the damage fishing does to the entire ecosystem and the pollution it brings about are becoming so enormous that it's time we did something to change it.
1. Why would the ocean become a better place if we banned fishing altogether?A.Because there would be less pollution to the ocean. |
B.Because the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" would disappear. |
C.Because lobster fishing boats would consume less fuel. |
D.Because people would realize the effects of using plastics. |
A.Some would suffer from a lack of food. |
B.Some would change their diet and eat less meat. |
C.Some communities would start developing land-based farming. |
D.Some workers would have to find jobs in fishing-relevant industries. |
A.Favorable. | B.Objective. | C.Disapproving. | D.Concerned. |
A.The Urgent Need of a Total Fishing Ban. | B.The Harmful Effects of Fishing industry. |
C.A Newly Launched Policy on Fishing Industry. | D.An Assumption of a Complete Fishing Ban. |