1 . “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” could eventually become less of a baby lullaby and more of an elegy (挽歌).
Seeing stars keeps getting more difficult because artificial lighting is making the night sky about 10% brighter each year, according to a study that analyzed reports from more than 50,000 amateur stargazers. That’s a much faster rate of change than scientists previously estimated looking at satellite data.
To illustrate the change, researchers gave this example: A child is born where 250 stars are visible on a clear night. By the time that child turns 18, only 100 stars are still visible. “We are losing, year by year, the possibility to see the stars, which has been a universal human experience,” said Fabio Falchi, a physicist at Chile’s University of Santiago de Compostela. “If you can still see the dimmest stars, you are in a very dark place. But if you see only the brightest ones, you are in a very light-polluted place.”
“Prior studies of artificial lighting, which used satellite images of the Earth at night, had estimated the annual increase in sky brightness to be about 2% a year,” said Christopher Kyba, a physicist at the German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam.
But the satellites used weren’t able to detect light with wavelengths toward the blue end of the spectrum (光谱) — including the light from energy-efficient LED bulbs. More than half of the new outdoor lights installed in the United States in the past decade have been LED lights, according to the researchers. The satellites are also better at detecting light that scatters (散射) upward, like a spotlight, than light that scatters horizontally (水平地).
Georgetown University biologist Emily Williams, who was not part of the study, said, “Skyglow disturbs circadian rhythms in humans and other forms of life. Migratory songbirds normally use starlight to find out where they are in the sky at night. And when sea turtle babies hatch, they use light to orient toward the ocean — light pollution is a huge deal for them.”
1. What did the researchers, example indicate in paragraph 3?| A．The rapid decrease in star visibility. | B．The severity of outdoor air pollution. |
| C．Children’s fondness for a clear night sky. | D．People’s regret for lost childhood activities. |
| A．It couldn’t discover the blue color. | B．It failed to detect the whole spectrum. |
| C．It was sensitive to light from LED bulbs. | D．It couldn’t find horizontal light resources. |
| A．Tolerant. | B．Concerned. | C．Unclear. | D．Doubtful. |
| A．Stars Are Disappearing from the Night Sky |
| B．The Meaning Behind a Traditional Baby Song |
| C．Light Pollution Harms Wildlife and Ecosystems |
| D．Satellites Used in Measuring Night Sky Brightness |
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 |
4 . 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. |
5 . Many news reports focus on climate change these days. Extreme heat, wildfires, floods, homeless polar bears... How do you feel when reading worrying news about climate change? You may believe that people are becoming insensitive to the warming planet, accepting that it is only getting worse.
A research team at Pennsylvania State University, US, reported otherwise. To record how the news can impact people’s emotions, participants were first exposed to negative news stories about climate change for three days. They then continued to read negative news headlines for seven days. In the first three days, the participants experienced greater fear and less hope, which can potentially hurt an audience’s belief that they can do anything to tackle the problem.
However, during the seven-day-long exposure, the fear peaked and then held steady (稳定的). “We saw the opposite pattern in our second study. The more exposure people had to these threatening news stories each day, the more likely they are to think that they can make a difference in tackling climate change,” Christofer Skurka, the paper’s lead author told the Pennsylvania State University website.
According to the researchers, one possibility is that when the public hears about climate change threats, they may convince themselves that they have control over the situation. They will then believe that their actions may make a difference.
Knowing that everyone is able to help is only the first step. According to a study that analyzed information from 430 different studies, what motivates people the most to change their behavior is social comparison. For example, if a person’s neighbors follow a low-carbon lifestyle, such as driving electric cars, the person may feel social pressure and become more likely to follow this behavior. This happens because people usually judge their own behavior and follow social norms (规范). Another effective motivation is providing financial rewards to consumers, helping them save money.
“There are so many routes to our goals,” Matthew Goldberg, the co-author of the study, told Scientific American. As Goldberg pointed out, future research like this can help policymakers decide how best to encourage people to ward more climate-friendly habits.
1. How did the participants react to negative news in the second study?| A．They found the news unbelievable. |
| B．They lost hope in tackling climate change. |
| C．They experienced greater fear for the future. |
| D．They felt a strong sense of social responsibility. |
| A．Effective policy. | B．Healthy lifestyle. |
| C．Social influence. | D．Financial support. |
| A．Responses to climate change education. |
| B．T he effectiveness of community initiatives. |
| C．T he impact of social norms on environment. |
| D．Ways to encourage climate-friendly behavior. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Optimistic. | C．Objective. | D．Indifferent. |
6 . Micro plastics can accumulate in the brains of mammals (哺乳动物) and even lead to behavioral changes, according to a new study. This not only adds to evidence about the harm that micro plastics are doing to our environment, but crucially provides new insight into what they could be doing to our bodies.
Plastic pollution is a huge environmental concern. In particular, tiny pieces of micro plastic have been found everywhere from our oceans to the atmosphere. A team led by University of Rhode Island professor Jaime Ross wanted to learn about whether these micro plastics accumulate in the brains of mammals and the potential impact on behavior.
The researchers gave mice drinking water contaminated (污染) with different concentrations of micro plastics over a three-week period. They used mice of different ages to see whether the effects would vary in the younger or older mice.
Besides indications of changes in the mice’s brains, the team saw changes in their behavior, which were particularly apparent in the older animals. The behavioral changes are similar to symptoms you might expect to see in patients with dementia (痴呆) .
“These were not high doses of micro plastics, but in only a short period of time, we saw these changes,” Ross said in a statement.
“In this study, the micro plastics were delivered orally via drinking water, detection in tissues such as the gastrointestinal tract, which is a major part of the digestive system, was always probable,” Ross explained. “But the brain is protected by a boundary called the blood-brain barrier, which should make it harder to access. The team found that micro plastics had entered the brain’s tissues.”
“Once inside, micro plastics cause a decrease in the levels of a brain protein called GFAP,” Ross said. “A decrease in GFAP has been associated with early stages of some neurodegenerative diseases, including dementia and depression.”
Now that even the remotest parts of our planet are seemingly unable to escape contamination with micro plastics, more research like this, which seeks to better understand how human beings’ plastic habit could be coming back to bite us, is more urgently needed than ever.
1. What does paragraph 2 focus on?| A．Why the study was carried out. | B．How ocean pollution appeared. |
| C．How a team studied micro plastics. | D．Why micro plastics spread quickly. |
| A．They delivered micro plastics directly into mice’s brains. |
| B．They used mice of the same age to consume micro plastics. |
| C．They set boundaries for mice’s digestive systems in advance. |
| D．They gave mice micro plastic-contaminated drinking water. |
| A．Brain tissues are easy to attack. | B．The study is far from convincing. |
| C．The research results are surprising. | D．Mice’s brains are generally inactive. |
| A．Moving to the remotest parts of our planet. |
| B．Conducting more research on micro plastics. |
| C．Keeping human beings’ current plastic habit. |
| D．Preventing industries from producing plastics. |
7 . Plastic pollution has become an unfortunate fact of life all over the world—including in the oceans. While all that junk floating around can pose a serious threat to many animals, a new study finds some species may have actually turned it into an entirely new ecosystem!
The North Pacific“Garbage Patch”is a huge area in the ocean where a lot of plastic waste gets stuck. However, it’s not just wastes that get caught up in this mess. Researchers from Georgetown University found that many sea creatures like jellyfish, snails, and barnacles also live there.
In 2018 and 2019, scientists collected 105 pieces of plastic from the patch, and found 46 different species of invertebrates(无脊椎动物)living on them. About 80％of those species normally live near the coast rather than in the middle of an ocean. The researchers also found that these species have been breeding on the patch—meaning there may now be a permanent community of coastal species in the middle of the ocean.
Lead author Linsey Haram said that it’s not yet known how this will affect the ocean ecosystem. But she said the coastal species are likely competing for food with ocean species, and they may also be eating each other.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is one of the five areas of garbage that have formed in the middle of huge circular ocean currents called gyres(环流). Another garbage patch is in the South Pacific, two are in the Atlantic Ocean, and the fifth is in the Indian Ocean.
A 2018 study of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch found that about one-third of garbage that could be linked to Japan. Up to 20％of garbage added since 2011 was created by the huge tsunami that hit northern Japan that year, the study said.
1. What makes the plastic waste get stuck in the garbage patch?| A．Climate change. | B．Human activities. |
| C．Sea creatures living there. | D．Huge circular ocean currents. |
| A．Reproducing. | B．Restoring. |
| C．Revising. | D．Refreshing. |
| A．To blame Japan for polluting the ocean. |
| B．To indicate one of the sources of the garbage. |
| C．To stress the responsibility of some countries. |
| D．To suggest clues that help with the plastic pollution. |
| A．Education. | B．Economy. |
| C．Environment. | D．Entertainment. |
8 . 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. |
9 . Climate change, pesticides and land use changes alone cannot fully explain the decline in insect populations in Germany. Scientists from the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (ICB) have now discovered that regions that have experienced a sharp decline in flying insects also have high levels of light pollution.
The biomass (生物量) of flying insects has decreased by more than 75 per cent — this alarming figure made front page news in autumn 2017. The study, published in 2017, analyzed trends in biomass of flying insects in selected protected areas within agricultural landscapes over the last 27 years, and concluded that changes of climate and habitat are to blame for the decline in insect populations. At the same time, they pointed out that these impacts alone are unable to explain this dramatic decline.
The scientists analyzed all recent studies on the effects of artificial light at night on insects, and found that there is strong evidence to suggest a credible link between light pollution and declines in insect populations. For example, flying insects are attracted by artificial light — and, at the same time, are removed from other ecosystems — and die from exhaustion or as easy prey.
A decline in insect populations in agricultural areas not only means a decline in species diversity, but also endangers important ecosystem services. Also, changes in the occurrence and behaviour of pests such as aphids or their enemies such as beetles and spiders can disturb the balance of this well-tuned system. Furthermore, artificial light at night may also have a direct impact on the growth and flowering time of plants, and therefore on yield.
The overview study shows that artificial light at night is widely present and can have complex impacts in agricultural areas, with unknown consequences for biodiversity and crop production. Thus, light pollution should be generally considered as a potential ecosystem disturbance in future studies to identify ways in which practical steps can be taken to reduce environmental concerns.
1. What is the new finding of IGB?| A．There is an insect decline in Germany. |
| B．Light pollution may cause an insect decline. |
| C．Artificial light at night is widely present. |
| D．Climate change is a reason for the insect decline. |
| A．The impacts of light pollution. | B．The varieties of flying insects. |
| C．The reasons for climate changes. | D．The population of flying insects. |
| A．The cause of insect decline. |
| B．The areas experiencing insect decline. |
| C．The consequence of insect decline. |
| D．The species suffering from insect decline. |
| A．Environment. | B．Health. | C．Technology. | D．Society. |
10 . 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. |
