1 . Sleeping in a noisy room isn’t only distracting (使人分心的), and it can also harm your health. Although researchers have known for decades that longterm loud noises can harm us, it’s only recently become recognized as a widespread problem.
In a new review of previously published studies, researchers from Germany and Denmark took a look at the ways in which noises, such as an airplane passing by or jackhammer digging in the ground, can affect our hearts. Perhaps the most obvious impact of a loud sound while you are sleeping is that it can wake you up. But, even if you don't remember hearing the noise or you don’t physically get out of bed, it can disrupt you in ways you may not realize.
“Noise is not just causing annoyance, but it actually makes us sick,” said Dr. Thomas Münzel, a professor at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. “Regardless of where the sound is coming from, if it gets louder than 60 decibels (分贝),it can increase the risk of heart disease.”
When our body hears these noises, it reacts with a stress reaction. In this case, these sudden and unexpected noises cause hormones(荷尔蒙) to speed up and eventually damage the heart. Although the chance that a single noise will affect you is unlikely, it’s the continuous exposure (接触) to the sound that can finally affect you.
“But our heart health isn’t the only cause for concern. Long-term noise may also raise the risk of type 2 diabetes (糖尿病), depression, and anxiety disorders,” he warns. In the future, Münzel plans to examine how noises from cars, planes, and other vehicles affect the brain. But despite the amount or the depth of research he conducts, it’ll take the help of politicians to improve the effect of noise on our health.
“Politicians have to take into account, in particular, the new findings,” Münzel said, “As for aircraft noise and airports, it is important to make new laws and set new lower noise limits that protect people living close by the airport instead of the owners of the airport.”
1. What do researchers from Germany and Denmark find?A.Noise does little harm to people who are asleep. |
B.Noise can cause people’s memory to get worse sharply. |
C.Noise has been a widespread concern for a long time. |
D.Noise louder than 60 decibels may cause heart disease. |
A.Defeat. | B.Harm. | C.Attract. | D.Discourage. |
A.Politicians should take action to handle noise pollution. |
B.Münzel will continue other studies on brain diseases. |
C.Benefits of airport owners are more important than health. |
D.Attention should be paid to heart health and other diseases. |
A.Who Is to Blame for Noise Pollution | B.What Should Be Done to Stop Noise |
C.How Münzel Carried Out His Research | D.How Noise Pollution Harms Our Body |
2 . As newer, more advanced technologies come out, huge amounts of electronics (电子产品) are thrown away, instead of being reused. These goods often end up in landfills, where the chemicals inside them may be a danger to the environment. Electronics can contain harmful materials. If these materials get into the ground or water, the pollution can cause serious problems. Most electronics require metals. These metals must be mined from the Earth. Often the mining process creates serious pollution.
A group known as Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Forum is trying to make people more aware of the problems of e-waste. Recently, the WEEE Forum asked researchers from the United Nations (UN) to study a kind of e-waste that’s often not noticed because people don’t consider the goods to be electronics. The WEEE Forum calls this kind “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste.
The UN study shows that about 1/6 of all e-waste is “unable-to-be-seen”. Though it’s “unable-to-be-seen”, it’s certainly not a small amount. The “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste weighs about 9 billion kilograms. The WEEE Forum says that if this e-waste were put into 40-ton trucks and the trucks were then lined up, the line of trucks would be about 5,630 kilometers long.
The surprising kind leading the “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste group was toys. Worldwide, roughly 7.3 billion electronic toys are thrown away each year. These include goods like car racing sets, electric trains, and musical toys. They also include toys with electronic parts, like dolls that speak or games with electronic timers. In all, toys make up about 35% of “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste. But the problem is far larger than just toys. The report also shows that other everyday goods like home alarms, smoke alarms, power tools, and computer cables (电缆) are also big sources of “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste.
The WEEE Forum is hoping that as more people and governments become aware of e-waste, they will make a much greater effort to make sure electronics get reused.
1. What is paragraph 1 mainly about?A.The amount of electronics. | B.The development of electronics. |
C.The ways of reusing electronics. | D.The pollution of electronics. |
A.People’s interest in electronics’ character. |
B.People’s impression on electronics’ package. |
C.People’s misunderstanding of electronics. |
D.People’s struggle to adapt to electronics. |
A.By showing numbers. | B.By providing examples. |
C.By making a summary. | D.By making a comparison, |
A.Designing advanced electronics. | B.Making electronics get reused. |
C.Stopping giving away electronics. | D.Reducing electronics’ production. |
3 . Global light pollution has increased by at least 49% over 25 years, new research shows. This data (数据) only includes light which can be seen through satellites, and scientists think the true increase may be significantly higher — up to 270% globally, and 400% in some areas.
This study shows not only of how bad light pollution has become as a problem of the whole world, but also that it is continuing to get worse, probably at a faster and faster rate.
The study highlights the “hidden impact (影响)” of the LED technology. LEDs send out more blue light than previous lamp technology, but satellite sensors can’t discover this blue light and so underestimate (低估) the level of emissions (排放物). The authors say the actual increase in the power sent out by outdoor lighting, and thus of light pollution, may be as high as 270%. “To take the UK as an example, if you pay no attention to the effect of the change to LEDs, you get the false impression that light pollution has recently weakened,” said researcher Dr Sanchez de Miguel. “However, it has really increased, very remarkably.”
Contrary to popular belief, the LED streetlights, while potentially providing some energy savings, has increased light pollution and also the impacts on flying insects (昆虫).
Ruskin Hartley, Executive Director of the International Dark-Sky Association, said, “Over the past 25 years, the use of LED lighting has been accompanied by rapid increases in light pollution all over the world.”
If no action is taken to change this trend (趋势), the impact on the natural environment will speed up, further worsening the biodiversity (生物多样性) crisis and wasting energy. Many studies have now shown that light pollution, from streetlights and other sources, can have major impacts on the natural environment. Such pollution is likely to have played a role in the huge decrease in insect populations.
1. How does the author illustrate that light pollution becomes worse?A.By referring to certain theories. |
B.By providing comparative data. |
C.By listing a lot of opinions. |
D.By giving some examples. |
A.Emission levels of LEDs are low. |
B.Satellite sensors are blind to LEDs. |
C.Outdoor lighting is limited in the UK. |
D.LEDs are less and less used in the UK. |
A.They are good for insects. | B.They save lots of energy. |
C.They cause light pollution. | D.They are environment-friendly. |
A.The harm of light pollution. |
B.The causes of biological crises. |
C.The trend of insect populations. |
D.The importance of the natural environment. |
4 . 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. |
A.The sea is getting smaller. |
B.The sea is being polluted. |
C.The sea is getting cleaner. |
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 . In the west of the Greek capital Athens, the fish market of Keratsini is busy early in the morning, with trucks waiting nearby to be loaded with fishes. But on his fishing boat, Arapakis sorts out something different—bottles, boots, plastic pipes and fishing nets, all dragged from the bed of the Aegean Sea.
“We are swimming in plastic,” said Arapakis, whose family has fished for five generations. “By 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea,” he said, as recent reports noted.
That morning’s plastic catch weighed “about 100 kilograms,” said the founder of Enaleia, a nonprofit that encourages fishermen to collect marine (海洋的) waste caught in their nets. Since its establishment in 2018, it has worked with more than 1,200 fishermen in Greece to raise concern over the degradation of the marine environment.
Active in 42 ports throughout Greece, Enaleia provides fishermen with large bags for marine waste that they can put in garbage cans once back at port. For every kilogram of plastic they deliver, they receive a small amount of money, which is enough for a drink. Since October, fishing crews have dragged out 20 metric tons of plastic and old fishing equipment each month. Nearly 600 tons have been collected over the last five years. The collected plastic is transported to a recycling plant in the industrial area of Megara near Keratsini, to make new products such as socks, swimwear or furniture.
Arapakis said he went about the cleanup project after a trip to Greece’s Cyclades islands, where he saw fishermen throwing the waste gathered by their nets back into the sea.
Arapakis is convinced there has been a “mentality change” among Greece’s fishermen. “Previously we caught large quantities of plastic, but we only kept the fish. All waste was thrown into the sea,” said Mokharam, team leader on the Arapakis family’s boat. “The project brings practical benefits for fishing boats. In the past, the anchor was often caught by waste, especially nets, and the engine would go out. But now things have changed,” he added.
1. What can we learn about Arapakis from the first 2 paragraphs?A.He was a successful fish trader. | B.He collected waste from the sea. |
C.He liked swimming in the sea. | D.He had a large family to support. |
A.Impact. | B.Worsening. | C.Improvement. | D.Research. |
A.It will be sold at a high price. | B.It will be exchanged for food. |
C.It will be thrown back into the sea. | D.It will be well dealt with for reuse. |
A.Fishing is a tough job for fishermen. | B.The sea in Greece is seriously polluted. |
C.He thinks highly of the cleanup project. | D.He still feels ashamed for fishermen’s behavior. |
1. What was the advantage of the clothes made of plastic?
A.They didn’t wear out easily. | B.They were easy to wash. | C.They were comfortable. |
A.They were colorful. | B.Kids preferred them. | C.They were cheap. |
A.The excitement caused by plastic. |
B.The harmful side of plastic. |
C.Different uses of plastic. |
9 . Humans’ light at night does not spare even the sea from its glare (强光). Researchers published the first global map of ocean light pollution. It shows large parts of the sea are lit up at night. And that risks confusing or disrupting the behaviors of sea life.
Tim Smyth led a team to research the areas of the ocean where light pollution is strongest. Smyth and his colleagues started with a world map of man-made night-sky brightness that had been created in 2016. Then they added data on the ocean and atmosphere. Some data came from shipboard measurements of man-made light in the water. Others came from satellite images that judge how clear the water is. Particles (微粒) in the water, such as tiny floating plants and animals, can affect how far downward light travels. These factors vary from place to place and may change with the seasons. The team also used computers to copy how different wavelengths of light move through water.
Next, they wanted to know how that underwater light might affect animals. Not all species will be easily affected. The team focused on copepods (桡足亚纲甲壳动物). These common creatures are a key part of many ocean food chains. They use light as a signal to move all together to the dark deep, seeking safety from other surface creatures. Normally they use the sun or the winter moon as their signal. Too much man-made light can mess up their usual patterns.
Light pollution is strongest in about three feet of the water. Here, man-made light can be strong enough to confuse the copepods. Nearly 2 million square kilometers of ocean get such strong night light. That’s an area about the size of Mexico. Farther down, the light gets weaker. But even 65 feet deep, it’s still bright enough to bother copepods across 840,000 square kilometers of ocean.
The team published its findings on December 13 in Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.
1. Which of the following is closest in meaning to the underlined word “disrupting” in Paragraph 1?A.Upsetting. | B.Observing. | C.Ensuring. | D.Protecting. |
A.They are main eaters of other creatures. |
B.They are not affected by underwater light. |
C.They can escape attacks with the help of light. |
D.They can weaken the effect of man-made light. |
A.By stating opinions. | B.By listing numbers. |
C.By raising questions. | D.By giving reasons. |
A.Light Pollution from Sea Life | B.Living Conditions of Copepods |
C.Discoveries of Copepods | D.Light Pollution Even in Sea |
10 . Not even the sea is safe from the glare (强光) of humans’ light at night. Researchers published the first global map of ocean light pollution. It shows large parts of the sea are lit up at night. And that risks confusing or disrupting the behaviors of sea life.
Tim Smyth led a team to research where in the water this light is strongest. Smyth and his colleagues started with a world map of man-made night-sky brightness that had been created in 2016. Then they added data on the ocean and atmosphere. Some data came from shipboard measurements of man-made light in the water. Others came from satellite images that judge how clear the water is. Particles (微粒) in the water, such as tiny floating plants and animals, can affect how far downward light travels. These factors vary from place to place and may change with the seasons. The team also used computers to copy how different wavelengths of light move through water.
Next, they wanted to know how that underwater light might affect animals. Not all species will be easily affected. The team focused on copepods (桡足亚纲甲壳动物). These common creatures are a key part of many ocean food webs. They use light as a signal to move all together to the dark deep, seeking safety from other surface creatures. Normally they use the sun or the winter moon as their signal. Too much man-made light can mess up their usual patterns.
Light pollution is strongest in about three feet of the water. Here, man-made light can be strong enough to confuse the copepods. Nearly 2 million square kilometers of ocean get such strong night light. That’s an area about the size of Mexico. Farther down, the light gets weaker. But even 65 feet deep, it’s still bright enough to bother copepods across 840,000 square kilometers of ocean.
The team described its findings December 13 in Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.
1. What do we know about copepods from the passage?A.They are main eaters of other creatures. |
B.They are not affected by underwater light. |
C.They can escape attacks with the help of light. |
D.They can weaken the effect of man-made light. |
A.By stating opinions. | B.By listing numbers. |
C.By raising questions. | D.By giving reasons. |
A.Light Pollution from Sea Life | B.Living Conditions of Copepods |
C.Discoveries of Copepods | D.Light Pollution Even in Sea |