1 . Some scientists say that animals in the oceans are increasingly threatened by noise pollution caused by human beings.
The noise that affects sea creatures comes from a number of human activities. It is caused mainly by industrial underwater explosions, ocean drilling,and ship engines. Such noises are added to natural sounds. These sounds include the breaking of ice fields, underwater earthquakes, and sounds made by animals themselves.
Decibels(分贝) measured in water are different from those measured on land. A noise of one hundred and twenty decibels on land causes pain to human ears. In water, a decibel level of one hundred and ninety-five would have the same effect.
Some scientists have proposed setting a noise limit of one hundred and twenty decibels in oceans. They have observed that noises at that level can frighten and confuse whales.
A team of American and Canadian scientists discovered that louder noises can seriously injure some animals. The research team found that powerful underwater explosions were causing whales in the area to lose their hearing. This seriously affected the whales’ ability to exchange information and find their way. Some of the whales even died. The explosions had caused their ears to bleed and become infected.
Many researchers whose work depends on ocean sounds object to a limit of one hundred and twenty decibels. They say such a limit would mean an end to important industrial and scientific research.
Scientists do not know how much and what kinds of noises are harmful to ocean animals. However, many scientists suspect that noise is a greater danger than they believed. They want to prevent noises from harming creatures in the ocean.
1. According to the passage, which of the following is increasingly dangerous to sea creatures?| A．The man-made noises. | B．The noises made by themselves. |
| C．The sound of earthquakes. | D．The sound of the ice-breaking. |
| A．Different places with different types of noises. |
| B．The very human ears sensitive to all types of noises. |
| C．The same noise measured differently on land and in the ocean. |
| D．The ocean animals’ reaction to noises. |
2 . 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. |
3 . Just when you thought you were taking care of your health by eating enough fruit and vegetables every day, new research has come out revealing that you might be swallowing microplastic particles (颗粒) along with all those vitamins, minerals, and fiber. A groundbreaking 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, as well as Sousse and Monastir universities in Tunisia, 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 (血管化) 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 mainly about?| A．The main cause and influence of soil pollution. |
| B．The microplastic pollution in fruits and vegetables. |
| C．The benefits of daily fruits and vegetables consumption |
| D．The great changes in people's dietary habits. |
| A．The age of root system. | B．The huge size of fruit tree roots. |
| C．The complex preservation method. | D．The large amounts of the fruit pulp. |
| A．It needs to be further studied. | B．It wasted them quite a lot of time. |
| C．It has caused harm to health. | D．It has attracted attention to diets. |
Though many foreign experts said Japan’s water discharge would have a slight impact
In South Korea, fierce domestic political
5 . Health officials in Canada are very busy these days. They are placing chickens at fixed points all along their border with the United States of America. That’s an enormous distance of 2,500 km.
It’s not a practical joke, nor have the Canadians gone mad. They are using these chickens to see if the deadly West Nile virus is lurking around. The virus infects birds, so they think that the chickens have a good chance of catching the virus. Or the virus will catch the chickens.
Countries around the world are realizing something important. That it may just be possible to stop certain kinds of people from entering their land, but it is very difficult to try and stop viruses that travel from one end of the earth to another. When they travel to new places, they adjust very easily to those climates and sometimes start destroying the local plant and animal life. These biological polluters are called smart polluters.
These smart polluters can be carried across borders of countries unknowingly. Just as we humans are travelling across the globe more often than earlier, these biological polluters have also started journeying much more. They slide into aircraft through their wheels. They bore their way into objects that air travelers may be carrying from one country to another.
Suddenly, a lot of things become clearer. Like why the customs officials in many foreign countries prevent you from bringing in a small plant, or a decorative item made of wood that is in its natural form… They tell you that it’s in the rules.
They have these rules because they know that these varieties of plants that are special to specific places have the power to spread new diseases among native plants and animals. They are called biological polluters and they always create problems in places where they do not belong. They could be special varieties of plants, bugs or even animals.
1. Why did the author talk about what Canadian officials’ are doing?| A．To introduce a successful case | B．To arouse readers’ curiosity |
| C．To describe a phenomenon | D．To introduce the topic |
| A．Tiger mosquitoes from Asia are busy biting Americans. |
| B．Pandas from China are wining millions of American’s hearts. |
| C．The small lobsters from Mexico are taking over most of lakes in America. |
| D．Tree snakes from New Guinea are busy eating up bird varieties in the country of Guam. |
| A．A lot of profit can be made from introducing foreign species. |
| B．People want to add more species to their surroundings. |
| C．People nowadays travel overseas more frequently. |
| D．There are more domestic flights than before. |
| A．To convince | B．To warn | C．To inform | D．To entertain |
Man did not have to think about the protection of his environment in the past. There were not many people on the Earth, and natural resources seemed to be unlimited.
Today, things are different.
Everyone realizes today that if too many fish are taken from the sea, there will soon be none left.
We realize that if rivers are polluted with waste products from factories, we will die. However, in most countries, waste products are still put into rivers or into the sea, and there are few laws to stop this.
We know, too, that if the population of the world continues to rise at the present rate, in a few years, there will not be enough food.
If we eat more vegetables and less meat, we will easily get more food. Land that is used to grow crops can feed five times more people than land where animals are kept.
The world population will not rise so quickly if people use modern methods of birth control.
7 . Most environmental pollution on Earth comes from humans and their inventions, such as cars or plastic. Today, car emissions (排放物) are a major source of air pollution leading to climate change, and plastics fill our ocean, creating a significant health issue to marine (海洋的) animals.
And what about the electric light, thought to be one of the greatest human inventions of all time? Electric light can be a beautiful thing, guiding us home when the sun goes down, keeping us safe and making our homes bright. However, like carbon dioxide emissions and plastic, too much of a good thing has started to impact the environment. Light pollution, the inappropriate use of outdoor light, is affecting human health, wildlife behavior and our ability to observe stars.
Light pollution is a global issue. This became obvious when the World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness, a computer-generated map based on thousands of satellite photos, was published in 2016. Available online for viewing, the map shows how and where our globe is lit up at night. Vast areas of North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia are glowing (发光) with light, while only the most remote regions on Earth (Greenland, Central African Republic and Niue) are in total darkness. Some of the most light-polluted countries in the world are Singapore, Qatar, and Kuwait.
Sky glow is the brightening of the night sky, mostly over cities, due to the electric lights of cars, streetlamps, offices, factories, outdoor advertising, and buildings, turning night into day for people who work and play long after sunset.
People living in cities with high levels of sky glow have a hard time seeing more than a handful of stars at night. Astronomers are particularly concerned with sky glow pollution as it reduces their ability to view stars.
More than 80 percent of the world’s population, and 99 percent of Americans and Europeans, live under sky glow.
1. What can we learn from paragraph 2?| A．Electric light is the greatest human invention. |
| B．The use of outdoor light must be forbidden. |
| C．Electric light is the main factor to keep us safe. |
| D．Electric light has both advantages and disadvantages. |
| A．Qatar. | B．Kuwait. | C．Niue. | D．Singapore. |
| A．Sky glow costs too much. | B．Sky glow has a bad effect on their sleep. |
| C．Sky glow wastes too much electricity. | D．Sky glow affects their viewing stars. |
| A．Different kinds of pollution | B．Plastic pollution |
| C．Air pollution | D．Light pollution |
8 . A team of leading environmental experts have warned that the current war on plastic is detracting from the bigger threats to the environment. In an article, they say that while plastic waste is an issue, its prominence in the general public’s concern for the environment is overshadowing greater threats, for example, climate change and biodiversity loss.
The team argue that much of the bad talk about plastic waste is based on data that is not always representative of the environments that have been sampled. The dislike of plastic associated with this could encourage the use of alternative materials with potentially harmful effects.
The authors warn that plastic pollution dominates the public’s concern for the environment and has been exploited politically, after capturing the attention of the world, for example, through the images of wildlife caught in plastic was alarmist headlines. They say small political gestures such as law banning cosmetic microplastics, taxing plastic bags, and financial rewards for using reusable containers, as well as the promotion of products as “green” for containing less plastic than alternatives, make people neglect other environmental problems that are not as noticeable as plastic pollution.
The article also highlights that plastic is not the only type of polluting materials, originating from human activity that pollutes the environment. Other examples include natural textile fibres such as cotton and wool, and brake-wear particles from vehicles — all of which are present in different places. The authors note that these materials are often much more abundant than microplastics and some are associated with “plastic alternatives” that are marketed as solutions to plastic pollution. The impacts of these materials are less well-known than plastic and microplastic pollution, yet they could have huge impacts.
The article states that solutions are likely to come from a greater focus on designing materials and products that can be recycled, that have their end-of-life, and that markets and facilities exist to recycle.
1. What’s the experts’ attitude towards the current war on plastic?| A．Indifferent. | B．Favorable. | C．Critical. | D．Objective. |
| A．The negative view of plastic. |
| B．The use of alternative materials. |
| C．The potential harmful effects. |
| D．The defense for plastic. |
| A．Explain a rule. | B．Make a comparison. |
| C．Clarify a point. | D．Offer a suggestion. |
| A．A response to plastic pollution. |
| B．A schedule to fight against pollution. |
| C．An argument against climate change. |
| D．A guide to plastic management. |
9 . A new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the University of Victoria has shown that common levels of traffic pollution can damage human brain function in only a matter of hours.
“For many decades, scientists thought the brain may be protected from the harmful effects of air pollution,” said senior study author Dr. Chris Carlsten. “This study, which is the first of its kind in the world, provides fresh evidence supporting a connection between air pollution and cognition.”
For the study, the researchers briefly exposed 25 healthy adults to diesel exhaust (柴油废气) and filtered air at different times in a laboratory setting. Brain activity was measured before and after each exposure using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
The researchers analyzed changes in the brain’s default mode network (DMN), a set of inter-connected brain regions that play an important role in memory and internal thought. The fMRI revealed that participants had decreased functional connectivity in widespread regions of the DMN after exposure to diesel exhaust, compared to filtered air.
“We know that altered functional connectivity in the DMN has been associated with reduced cognitive performance and symptoms of depression, so it’s concerning to see traffic pollution interrupting these same networks,” said Dr. Jodie Gawryluk, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria and the study’s first author. “While more research is needed to fully understand the functional impacts of these changes, it’s possible that they may impair (损害) people’s thinking or ability to work.”
Notably, the changes in the brain were temporary and participants’ connectivity returned to normal after the exposure. Dr. Carlsten assumed that the effects could be long lasting where exposure is continuous. He said that people should be mindful of the air they’re breathing and take appropriate steps to minimize their exposure to potentially harmful air pollutants like car exhaust.
1. How does traffic pollution affect people according to the study?| A．Exhausting their body. | B．Decreasing their income. |
| C．Endangering their safety. | D．Harming their brain function. |
| A．Growth. | B．Sport. | C．Memory. | D．Behaviour. |
| A．Avoid being exposed to the polluted air constantly. |
| B．Be mindful of the air quality in a new city. |
| C．Measure the brain activity in laboratories. |
| D．Stay inside a house as often as possible. |
| A．A Role Of Brain Will Be Ruined |
| B．Traffic Pollution May Impair Brain Function |
| C．A Famous UK University Did A Vital Study |
| D．A Source Of Pollution Has Drawn People’s Attention |
10 . Water companies have pumped waste water into Britain’s seas and rivers for more than nine million hours since 2016, new data suggests. The figure is an increase of 2,553% over five years, according to Environment Agency (EA) data, so the EA warned holidaymakers to avoid dozens of beaches across England and Wales this week.
Untreated waste water was spotted pouring into the sea near Bexhill, East Sussex on Wednesday. On Saturday, the red flags were removed, meaning the water was officially considered safe to bathe in. The beach, however, was nearly deserted.
Rachel Streeter moved to Bexhill in 2007 to enjoy wild swimming and the beach. “Flies actually flew above the surface of the water as well as the waste water. It’s quite horrible,” she said. Rachel says her friends and family have all become sick after swimming. Her 79-year-old mother went for a swim last week and fell ill with “a severe bacterial infection (感染)”.
Businesses say they are being affected by it too. Cliff Meadon, who runs business in the sea, says he has lost “thousands” pounds over the last two years due to water pollution. “We’ve been on the water with groups when we’ve had to come in as the waste comes out,” he said.
In Hastings people were advised not to swim due to a pollution risk this week. Beaches in Normans Bay as well as Bexhill were closed but have now reopened.
Southern Water argued that the water company had not been deliberately (故意的) pouring untreated water into the sea. A spokesperson for the company said, “This week’s heavy rain has fallen onto dry ground that can’t absorb surface run-off, meaning that more rain than usual has entered our waterway networks. This led to some overflows, spilling some untreated water into the sea.”
Southern Water was fined £90 million last year for widespread pollution after sending out more than 6,000 untreated waste water.
1. What warning has the EA given?| A．Holidaymakers not going to certain beaches. |
| B．A severe bacterial infection breaking out in the UK. |
| C．Southern Water stopping pouring waste water into the sea. |
| D．Cliff Meadon stopping running business in the sea. |
| A．Heavy rainfalls. | B．Too many holidaymakers. |
| C．Damaged waterway networks. | D．Poor management of water companies. |
| A．Holidaymakers facing pollution risk |
| B．Dozens of Britain’s beaches closed to holidaymakers |
| C．Lots of families pouring untreated waste water into seas |
| D．Huge increase in untreated waste water entering Britain’s seas |
| A．Health. | B．Business. | C．Environment. | D．Sports. |
