| A．The price. | B．The food. | C．The environment. |
2 . 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. |
3 . 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 |
Many people don’t think twice about dropping litter, believing it
5 . Nuclear pollution has long been a global concern, with major accidents like those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima highlighting the serious health and environmental risks associated with nuclear disasters. These incidents not only caused immediate health issues such as radiation sickness and increased cancer rates but also led to long-term environmental damage and genetic mutations in affected populations. Consequently, nuclear pollution remains a significant worry for governments, academics, and society worldwide.
When nuclear accidents occur near coastlines, the marine environment becomes a key point due to the vital role oceans play in climate regulation, food security, and supporting billions of livelihoods globally. In recent years, escalating threats to marine ecosystems from mounting ocean pollution have spurred increased public awareness of marine environmental protection. Studies have shown that human activities pose a significant threat to marine environments, emphasizing the need for improved environmental governance and measures to address environmental risks.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, efforts to cool the reactors by injecting seawater led to the accumulation of a vast amount of nuclear waste within the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant’s water storage tower. Despite attempts to manage this waste, the Japanese government’s decision to discharge nearly 1.26 million tons of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean over the next 40 years has faced opposition from neighboring countries, Japanese residents, and international environmental organizations.
This discharge poses substantial risks to marine life, fisheries, and human health. Radioactive isotopes (放射性同位素) such as tritium, carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium-90 present in the wastewater can accumulate in marine organisms, ultimately affecting human populations through the food chain. Therefore, further research and mitigation measures to address the wide-ranging consequences of nuclear pollution on the environment and human health are urgently needed.
In conclusion, while nuclear power may offer benefits, the potential risks, as highlighted by incidents like Fukushima, underscore the importance of stringent safety measures and thorough consideration of environmental impacts.
1. What are three major nuclear accidents mentioned in the passage?| A．Fukushima, Hiroshima, Nagasaki |
| B．Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima |
| C．Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima |
| D．Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Nagasaki |
| A．Because marine life is directly affected by nuclear pollution. |
| B．Because marine environments are more vulnerable to radiation. |
| C．Because marine pollution exacerbates the impact of nuclear disasters. |
| D．Because oceans play a significant role in regulating climate and supporting livelihoods. |
| A．Concerns about potential economic benefits |
| B．Fear of increased fishing restrictions |
| C．Possible risks to marine life and human health |
| D．Lack of available technology for wastewater treatment |
| A．The potential risks to marine life and human health. |
| B．The present research and mitigation measures. |
| C．The environmental and social consequences of nuclear accidents. |
| D．The opposition from neighboring countries and environmental organizations. |
6 . The problem of food borne metal contamination (污染) has taken on new urgency, thanks in part to a 2021 US Congressional Report detailing high levels of metals found in baby food pulled off grocery shelves. More recently, high levels of lead (铅) were discovered in children’s fruit puree pouches. Now, two new studies provide information on the correlation between exposure to heavy metals in food and the risk of cancers and other serious health risks.
Food crops can absorb heavy metals from contaminated soil, air, and water. As a result, traces of dangerous heavy metals — lead, arsenic (砷) and cadmium (镉) — are found in common foods from rice and cereals to nuts and vegetables. Felicia Wu, Michigan State University food scientist, is leading several investigations to gain a better understanding of the health risks of heavy metal exposure.
In the studies, Wu and her colleague, gathered data on the dietary intake of each metal from various sources such as food and water samples and existing studies and reports. There searchers analysand the data to determine the strength of the association between dietary exposure and bad health effects. Both cancer and non-cancer health effects were considered.
Lead is a poisonous metal commonly found in old paint, water pipes, and contaminated soil. Food sources of lead include root vegetables like beets. In the study, lead showed moderate (中度的) to high risk scores for causing lung, kidney, bladder, stomach, and brain cancers. It also showed moderate to high scores for non-cancer risks.
Their initial estimates suggest that every year, more than 6, 000 additional cases of bladder and lung cancers and over 7, 000 cases of skin cancers can be attributed (归因于) to the consumption of inorganic arsenic in the United States. The researchers also found that certain food products can be associated with higher cancer risk than others. These include rice, wheat, and leafy green vegetables.
1. What do the new studies focus on?| A．Food safety and children’s health. |
| B．Food crops and metal contamination. |
| C．Heavy metals and its danger extent. |
| D．Metal contamination in food and health risks. |
| A．Food crops need metal to grow well. |
| B．Heavy metals are added by producers. |
| C．They can help with scientific research. |
| D．Food crops grow up in polluted conditions. |
| A．By doing surveys online. |
| B．By analyzing data. |
| C．By performing experiments. |
| D．By referring to previous textbooks. |
| A．Dramatic. | B．Alarming. |
| C．Confusing. | D．Awesome. |
7 . REDUCING WATER POLLUTION IN THE LI RIVER
The beautiful Li River and its amazing surrounding scenery is one of the most well-known tourist destinations in Chinas Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. It attracts millions of domestic and foreign visitors each year. However, its reputation as a top destination has had negative effects on the river’s water quality. This report looks at the problem of water pollution and some actions that have been taken to deal with it.
Previously, water quality in the Li River had suffered greatly from an increasing volume of tourists, many of whom frequently threw garbage into the river. Many tour boats contributed to the problem too. Kitchens on board were using lots of oil. which was often thrown into the water. The growth in tourism also meant the local population rose rapidly, as well as the number of commercial and industrial enterprises. Water pollution levels increased, with more household and commercial waste ending up in the river. In order to feed more people, more chemicals were used to increase crop production. These chemicals led to severe water quality issues, causing a decrease in the number of fish species. Local officials were concerned that the pollution was damaging the natural environment and felt that urgent steps should be taken to restore the rivers original beauty
A comprehensive initiative was started, with a number of measures that addressed the issues. The construction of waste water treatment facilities improved the water quality and water conservation. The collection and transport of household waste was also improved. Dozens of polluting enterprises were closed or moved. The local government set up strict regulations regarding further industrial development. New rules were also introduced regarding tour boat routes and garbage disposal methods. Furthermore, the local authorities began to use the media to spread environmental awareness and encourage greater use of clean energy. At the same time, they started to carry out inspections regularly and fine tourist organisations for abuses. With these measures, it is believed that the beauty of the Li River will be preserved for generations to come.
In addition, the ambitious “Water Ten Plan” is also now tackling water pollution across the country. Other initiatives, such as the “River Chief System”, hold senior officials responsible for reducing water pollution. With such campaigns in effect, Chinas waterways are heading towards a clean and sustainable future.
1. Read Para. 2 and find all the factors that caused the pollution.
2. Read Para. 3&4 and find all the solutions mentioned to solve the Li River water pollution.
8 . Nuclear pollution is a serious global
When nuclear accidents occur in coastal areas, the
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, efforts to cool the reactors by pumping in seawater resulted in the
This
| A．change | B．opportunity | C．concern | D．possibility |
| A．caused | B．posed | C．created | D．increased |
| A．resulted in | B．led to | C．brought about | D．caused |
| A．terrestrial | B．aquatic | C．marine | D．atmospheric |
| A．balancing | B．regulating | C．considering | D．stabilizing |
| A．heightened | B．raised | C．decreased | D．lifted |
| A．minor | B．slight | C．substantial | D．insignificant |
| A．accumulation | B．storage | C．deposition | D．buildup |
| A．Therefore | B．Despite | C．However | D．Hence |
| A．from | B．by | C．of | D．in |
| A．residents | B．citizens | C．inhabitants | D．dwellers |
| A．issue | B．measure | C．release | D．disposal |
| A．web | B．chain | C．network | D．system |
| A．urgent | B．immediate | C．pressing | D．critical |
| A．address | B．tackle | C．solve | D．resolve |
There are
10 . A carbon capturing device, called Orca, began operating in Iceland in September. The machine was invented and made by a Swiss company called Climeworks. The name comes from the Icelandic word orka which means energy.
Orca can pull carbon dioxide out of the air and send it deep into the ground, where it is turned into stone. The device is made up of four sections which look like giant air conditioners stacked together. Each section contains 12 large fans that suck air from outside into steel compartments.
Inside, the air passes through a filter (过滤器) which gathers the carbon dioxide. It is then heated to a high temperature so the carbon dioxide can be collected from the filter. Then, the carbon dioxide is mixed with water and put deep in the ground into a type of rock called basalt. Basalt causes the carbon dioxide mixture to turn into stone after two or three years.
Orca is an experimental device. It was built to demonstrate that it is possible to permanently remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It can remove 4, 000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year. That’s about the same amount as the emissions produced by 850 cars in a year. In order to remove enough carbon dioxide to make a big difference to global warming, much larger devices like Orca would have to be built in many countries around the world.
Some environmental activists say governments should spend more time and money on reducing the amount of greenhouse gas we produce each year, instead of investing in carbon capture methods. But others say that, in order for countries to meet their goal of net zero emissions by 2050, they will need to do both: reduce new emissions and remove the carbon dioxide already in the air.
How does Orca work?
a. Sucking the air. b. Collecting the carbon dioxide.
c. Mixing with water. d. Filtering and heating.
e. Putting into the ground.
| A．a, d, b, c, e | B．a, c, d, b, e | C．a, d, c, b, e | D．a, b, c, d, e |
