1 . Eating too much fatty food, exercising too little and smoking can raise your future risk of heart disease. But there is another factor that can cause your heart problems more immediately: the air you breathe.
Previous studies have linked high exposure to environmental pollution to an increased risk of heart problems, but two analyses now show that poor air quality can lead to heart attack or stroke(中风) within as little as a few hours after exposure. In one review of the research, scientists found that people exposed to high levels of pollutants(污染物) were up to 5% more likely to suffer a heart attack within days of exposure than those with lower exposure. A separate study of stroke patients showed that even air that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be of “moderate” quality and relatively safe for our health can raise the risk of stroke as much as 34% within 12 to 14 hours of exposure.
The authors of both studies stress that these risks are relatively small for healthy people and certainly modest compared with other risk factors such as smoking and high blood pressure. However, it is important to be aware of these dangers because everyone is exposed to air pollution regardless of lifestyle choices. So stricter regulation by the EPA of pollutants may not only improve environmental air quality but could also become necessary to protect public health.
1. The passage aims to________.| A．call the government to improve environmental air quality |
| B．list all the factors that can cause heart problems |
| C．inform people of the relationship between heart problems and air quality |
| D．persuade people to exercise more and give up smoking to decrease the risk of heart problems |
| A．relatively high | B．extremely low | C．relatively low | D．extremely high |
| A．Smoking is the most immediate factor that causes heart problems. |
| B．High level of air pollution can lead to heart problems in a short time after exposure. |
| C．Moderate air quality doesn’t raise the risk of stroke. |
| D．It’s not important to be aware of the air quality. |
2 . The amount of plastic in our oceans-and thus in our seafood-is rising. A study says Europeans alone throw about 11,000 small pieces of plastic every year. And unless we make some very big changes, that number could reach 780,000 pieces per person within a few decades.
Microplastics are popular additives(添加剂)to a wide range of personal care products, from face wash to toothpaste. We wash them off and send them down the drain(下水道), where they head out into the water supply. And there they’ll stay, absorbing chemicals, until something or somebody comes along and eats them.
Studies have found that fish that consume microplastics are smaller than others. They refuse real food in favor of more plastic. Their eggs are less likely to hatch, and they are less likely to escape from other hunters.
Researchers at the University of Ghent in Belgium have been studying the effects of microplastics on shellfish(海贝). The average shellfish sucks(吮吸)in and spits(吐)out about 20 liters of water per day. Most of the plastic particles in that water will be sent back out into the ocean. Most, but not all; lead researcher Colin Janssen says the shellfish they examined had an average of one tiny plastic piece.
Janssen and his colleagues say the same process occurs in humans who consume shellfish. About 99 percent of the microplastics will pass through your system. That still leaves 1 percent to stay in the body, and we don’t yet know what that means for our health.
“We do need to know the fate of the plastics,” Janssen said. “Where do they go? Are they forgotten about by the body, or are they causing inflammation (炎症) or doing other things? Are chemicals coming out of these plastics and then causing damage? We don’t know.”
1. What does the underlined word “They” refer to in paragraph 3?| A．The researchers in the study. |
| B．The fish which eat the small fish in the ocean. |
| C．The common people who eat fish and seashell. |
| D．The small fish which eat plastic pieces. |
| A．It will be easier to catch them. |
| B．Their population will get smaller and smaller. |
| C．They will help reduce the amount of plastic pieces in the ocean. |
| D．People will find it an effective way to deal with water pollution. |
| A．It means developing a good taste in delicious food. |
| B．It means that eating sea creatures is dangerous. |
| C．It means storing plastic in the human bodies. |
| D．It means that plastic shellfish can take the place of real one. |
| A．No one will be sure of its effects. | B．They will lead to some strange diseases. |
| C．They will be forgotten. | D．They will give off some poisonous chemicals. |
3 . Living downstream from a waste-treatment plant can leave fish tired, a new study finds, led by Graham Scott, a biologist in Canada. “Wastewater treatment plants are pretty good at taking out the waste and treating it before it gets into our waterways,” he said. “But not everything can be taken out,” he added.
For example, some plants beside the stream were not designed to remove remains of drugs. So when some medicines are left over after people use them, they can be released into the environment. These include the drugs used to treat depression and high blood pressure.
Life-sustaining chemical reactions in an animal’s body (including ours) allow it to grow, move and reproduce. These reactions, taken together, are known as the creature’s metabolism (新陈代谢). Some studies have shown that even just one drug can change the metabolism of fish, making their metabolism slow down. Then that will impair their bodies.
That creates a problem for the animals — using the extra energy to rid their bodies of the pollutants which can damage their cells and tissues. “That’s energy they burn just to stay alive,” explained Scott. That is also the energy no longer available to avoid predators (天敌), to find food and to mate.
And they report that fish exposed to a mix of chemicals can use up some of their energy just to deal with those pollutants. Therefore, they will have less energy to eat and avoid being eaten, says Paul Craig, a biologist in Ontario.
“It is up to us to help reduce the types of pollutants in. wastewater,” Craig says. “That includes not throwing leftover medicines down the toilet.” he recommends.
1. What do Scott’s words mean in paragraph 1?| A．There are still some pollutants in the treated water. |
| B．Wastewater treatment plants don’t work well. |
| C．Things in waterways are difficult to deal with. |
| D．Canadians tend to throw waste down the toilet. |
| A．Form. | B．Harm. | C．Benefit. | D．Examine. |
| A．They will stop growing. |
| B．They will avoid their mates. |
| C．They will have to rid their bodies of the polluted cells. |
| D．They will consume extra energy to survive. |
| A．To explain how pollutants affect animals. |
| B．To show ways of fighting against pollution. |
| C．To advise people to stop buying polluted fish. |
| D．To urge people to reduce pollutants in wastewater. |
4 . It seems there’s nowhere left to run from the microplastic (微塑料的)pollution. A small pilot study recently took microplastics from one of Europe’s most distant places, the French Pyrenees mountains, and found as many microplastics in the soil as you might expect from a big city like Paris.
The reason? The wind. Researchers now fear that our planet’s winds can pick up microplastics from about anywhere and transport them around the world, sometimes in large quantities. “We’d kind of expected it in a city getting blown around,” said Steve Allen from the University of Strathclyde in the UK, one member of the team. “But way up there? We expected to find some, ” he said. “We didn’t expect to find so many.”
Microplastics are pieces smaller than a fifth of an inch that have broken down from larger pieces of plastic. The forces of nature don’t distinguish (区分)between materials like stones and rocks, and plastics. Wind and waves hit plastics and break them down just the same, making them into dust that can then get swept up by the gentle wind and into the atmosphere. It’s a continuing environmental concern, as more and more microplastics find their way into our food and air.
The fact that microplastics can be found in large numbers even in distant places is a sign that is has become a global pollution problem. Steve Allen and his team set up collectors 4,500 feet up in the mountains for five months to trap plastic particles (粒子) as they fell to the Earth. The team found that an average of 365 plastic particles fell on their square meter collector daily. This included bits form plastic bags, plastic film and packaging material, among other plastic sources. Many of these materials were small enough to be breathed in without even realizing it. They’re in the air, and they’re everywhere.
1. How did Steve Allen think of the finding?| A．It was interesting. | B．It was surprising. |
| C．It was conflicting. | D．It was disappointing. |
| A．How the wind spreads the microplastics. |
| B．How the microplastics come into being. |
| C．How the microplastic pollution appears. |
| D．How the wind makes the pollution serious. |
| A．It is difficult to collect them. | B．They all come from big cities. |
| C．They are part of the air we breathe. | D．It is impossible to know their source. |
| A．Plastics have been found in the distant areas. |
| B．Plastics are proved to do great harm to the soil. |
| C．The microplastic pollution is worse in big cities. |
| D．Wind is carrying microplastics around the world. |
5 . Air pollution influences our health in many ways. No air means death. Though we can’t see it, there is air around us. Air is everywhere and it gives a life to every living thing. But bad air makes people ill. In the city, there are a great many people and there are too many cars running on the road. The cars send out bad gases. There are many factories, too. From the chimneys of these factories, we get the smoke usually in black color. Every day we breathe it in and out. This makes us feel sick, when people talk about air pollution ,they are usually thinking about outdoor air pollution. But a lot of air pollution comes from indoor activities such as smoking and cooking. Indoor air pollution can hurt people’s eyes, noses and throats. So air pollution, both indoors and outdoors, can also lead to lung cancer and heart disease.
Everyone should help to fight against air pollution. In order to keep us healthy, we have to go out to the countryside to breathe more fresh air. Or we can climb up hills to get more fresh air.
1. what is this article about?| A．air pollution |
| B．water pollution |
| C．noise pollution |
| D．environment pollution |
| A．Many factories |
| B．Bad air |
| C．The cars |
| D．Going out to the countryside |
| A．bad gas from he cars |
| B．black smoke from the chimneys of these factories |
| C．smoking and cooking |
| D．air pollution |
| A．No air means death. |
| B．air pollution can lead to lung cancer and heart disease. |
| C．Only scientist should help to fight against air pollution. |
| D．we have to go out to the countryside to breathe more fresh air. |
| A．A Little air pollution comes from indoor activities such as smoking and cooking |
| B．Bad air never makes people ill. |
| C．Air pollution influences our health in few ways |
| D．we can climb up hills to get more fresh air. |
6 . Millions of tons of electronic waste, known as e-waste, is produced ever year. In 2016, the world’s population make 49 million tons of electronic waste. It has been calculated that there will be more than 60 million tons by 2021. The amount of electronic waste is growing so rapidly that it has become a global problem that needs to be addressed.
What is causing the upsurge(激增)in e-waste? Technology is becoming more and more widespread, covering almost every aspect of our lives. Meanwhile, the lifespan of devices is getting shorter— many products will be thrown away once their batteries(电池)die, to be replaced by new devices. Companies update the design or software so quickly and it is usually cheaper and easier to buy a new product than to repair an old one. Since prices are falling, electronic devices are in demand around the world.
As more people buy electronic equipment, manufacturers(制造商)are beginning to face shortages of the raw material needed to make their products, so recycling and reusing materials from discarded(废弃的)products and waste makes economic and environmental sense. Recycling e-waste is practiced both formally and informally. Formal e-waste recycling usually involves taking apart the electronics, separating and sorting through the materials and cleaning them. Companies must obey health and safety rules to reduce the health and environmental harm of handling e-waste by using pollution-control technologies. All this makes formal recycling expensive.
With the amount of e-waste growing around the world, recycling alone will not be enough to handle the problem. In order to reduce e-waste, manufacturers need to design electronics that are safer, and more durable (耐用的)repairable. As a customer, you’d better get our old product repaired if possible and buy a new device only when you really need.
1. The underlined word “addressed” in paragraph 1 can be replaced by _________.| A．reduced | B．changed |
| C．controlled | D．solved |
| A．The problems caused by the upsurge in e-waste. |
| B．The reasons for e-waste’s sharp increasing. |
| C．The bad effect of updating devices. |
| D．The causes of devices’ price dropping. |
| A．Improving the quality of e-devices. |
| B．Lowering the costs of technology innovation. |
| C．Relieving companies’ lacking raw materials. |
| D．Increasing the variety of electronic products. |
| A．Recycling is the only way to reduce e-waste. |
| B．Companies should be mainly responsible for reducing e-waste. |
| C．Repairing a device is better than buying a new one. |
| D．Everyone should take action to reduce e-waste. |
7 . Taking in dirty air does great harm to our health. Air pollution lowers the average life spans by a year worldwide and in more polluted parts of Asia and Africa, dirty air shortens lives up to twice that much. Scientists shared their new findings in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. The study used data gathered in 2016 as part of a project known as the Global Burden of Disease and was the first major country-by-country look at the connection between the length of life and what’s known as fine PM.
Air pollution has been linked to many health problems. Most earlier studies had looked at how tiny air pollutants affected rates of illness or death. Joshua Apte is an environmental scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. By looking at life expectancy (预期寿命), his team had hoped to make the threat easier to understand. PM2.5 is what scientists call tiny particles (颗粒) of pollution in the air. Higher levels of PM2.5 can cause health problems and cut months, if not years, from the average length of life. This analysis shows how pollution affects life expectancy in different parts of the world.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends limiting PM2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Apte’s group calculated how holding pollution to this low level would help people. In countries with very dirty air, meeting this standard would lengthen people’s lives. However, in countries whose air already meets this standard, the study shows no gain in life expectancy. In other words, meeting the WHO standard won’t reduce health costs resulting from dirty air because even below 10 micrograms per cubic meter, pollution still causes serious risks. Meanwhile, the scientists compared how other threats including smoking and cancer shorten the length of life across the globe.
1. What is special about the study?| A．It won recognition from a professional journal. |
| B．It discussed health problems caused by air pollution. |
| C．It gathered lots of data for the Global Burden of Disease. |
| D．It analyzed the link between life spans and PM by country. |
| A．Help people better understand air pollution. |
| B．Study life expectancy in different countries. |
| C．Know how small air pollutants affect health. |
| D．Deal with different kinds of health problems. |
| A．People’s life spans will surely increase. |
| B．It will guarantee people clean air. |
| C．People’s health may not be much improved. |
| D．It will be awarded by the WHO. |
| A．How other threats shorten life expectancy. |
| B．How cleaning up the air can lengthen lives. |
| C．How air pollution shortens lives by country. |
| D．How all the countries deal with severe pollution. |
8 . The fertile land of the Nile delta is being eroded (侵蚀) along Egypt’s Mediterranean coast at an astonishing rate, in some parts estimated at 100 metres per year. In the past, land washed away from the coastline by the currents of the Mediterranean Sea used to be replaced by sediment (沉淀物) brought down to the delta by the River Nile, but this is no longer happening.
Up to now, people have blamed this loss of delta land on the two large Aswan dams in the south of Egypt, which hold back almost all of the sediment that used to flow down the river. Before the dams were built, the Nile flowed freely carrying huge quantities of sediment. But when the Aswan dams were constructed to provide electricity and irrigation, and to protect the huge population centre of Cairo from annual flooding and drought, most of the sediment with its natural fertilizer accumulated up above the dam in the southern upstream half of Lake Nasser, instead of passing down to the della.
Now, however, there turns out to be more to the story. It appears that the sediment-free water picks up sand as it erodes the river bed and banks on the 800-kilometre trip to Cairo. Daniel Jean Stanley of the Smithsonian Institute noticed that water samples taken in Cairo indicated that the river sometimes carries more than 850 grams of sediment per cubic metre of water — almost half of what it carried before the dams were built.
International environmental organizations are beginning to pay closer attention to the region, partly because of the problems of erosion and pollution of the Nile delta, but mainly because they fear the impact this situation could have on the whole Mediterranean coastal ecosystem.
But there are no easy solutions. In the immediate future, Stanley believes that one solution would be to make artificial floods to flush out the delta waterways, in the same way that natural floods did before the construction of the dams. He says, however, that in the long term an alternative process such as desalination (脱盐) may have to be used to increase the amount of water available.
1. What stopped the sediment coming down to the delta?| A．The Mediterranean Sea. | B．The River Nile. |
| C．The Aswan dams. | D．Lake Nasser. |
| A．To flush out the river beds. |
| B．To offer electricity and protection. |
| C．To make the water in the River Nile clean. |
| D．To keep the soil in the region nearby nutrient-rich. |
| A．There is no need to worry about the delta. |
| B．The methods of measurement need improving. |
| C．Whether the situation is good or not remains to be seen. |
| D．The dams’ consequences are beyond people’s expectation. |
| A．Difficulties to be settled. |
| B．Rewards for the challenge. |
| C．Severe influence of the situation. |
| D．Possible solutions to the problem. |
9 . Every minute, every single day, about a truckload of plastic enters the ocean.
We buy a bottle of water, drink it for a few minutes, and throw its permanent packaging (包装) “away”. We eat potato chips, finish them, then throw their permanent packaging “away”. We buy produce, take it out of the unnecessary plastic wrap, then throw its permanent packaging “away”.
The cycle is endless, and it happens countless times every single day.
For years, we’ve been told the problem of plastic packaging can be solved through better individual action.
Recycling alone will never stop the flow of plastic into the ocean; we have to get to know the source of the problem and slow down the production of all the plastic waste. Think about it: if your home was flooding because you had left the tap on, your first step wouldn’t be to start mopping. You’d first cut the flooding off at its source — the tap.
We need corporations — those like the Coca-Cola company, Unilever, Starbucks and Neatle that continue to produce throwaway (一次性的) plastic bottles — to step up and take responsibility for the mess they’ve created.
| A．This is their problem to deal with. |
| B．Plastic pollution is becoming very serious. |
| C．But here is the problem — there is no “away’’. |
| D．In some ways, our plastic problem is no different. |
| E．We think that if we simply recycle we’re doing our part. |
| F．It’s impossible for us to get rid of plastic pollution completely. |
| G．Since the 1950s, some 8.3bn tons of plastic have been produced worldwide. |
10 . The measurable threat to the environment has been worsened by the spread of COVID-19 that increases the need for plastic protective equipment. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels. Millions of tons of greenhouse gas are released from the development of these resources and plastic production and burning.
The end life of plastic is just worrisome. Less than 10% of the plastic produced has been recycled. Even more of it has been burned. But the vast majority of plastic has been buried inland, and it is increasingly polluting the environment. We hear mostly about ocean plastic and the harm done to sea creatures that mistake plastic bags and bits for food. But microplastic is even more worrisome. Plastic doesn't break down biologically but instead breaks down into tiny particles（a very small piece of something）, which have been found in every corner of the planet, on land and in the air, in drinking water and food sources.
Yet the public has not given this global environmental disaster the attention it requires. Instead, they have viewed single-use plastic—which makes up about 40% of plastic used each year—as a litter issue that can be solved through better recycling and waste management. That attitude must change because the recent global breakdown of the market for recycling has made it clear that it has never been, nor ever will be, able to keep up with plastic trash use.
California has been the forerunner of plastic waste reduction—it was the first state to ban single-use plastic bags and may be the first state to transform the way goods are packaged. The state also came close to passing an act which would have required that products sold in plastic packaging in the state have a proven recycling rate of 75% by 2032. California, though influential, can't solve this crisis alone. The US has long been producing a great amount of plastic trash and it should engage in reducing the use of plastic as well.
1. Why does the author mention the release of greenhouse gas in paragraph 1?| A．To show the harm of plastic |
| B．To warn of the climate change. |
| C．To call for the development of fossil fuels. |
| D．To highlight the importance of plastic equipment. |
| A．Favorable. | B．Tolerant. |
| C．Curious. | D．Opposed. |
| A．A pioneer. | B．A failure. |
| C．An objector. | D．A predictor. |
| A．Microplastic Products Are Harmful |
| B．Waste Recycling Is an Urgent Matter |
| C．Plastic Waste Pollution Is a Wake-up Call |
| D．Global Environmental Disasters Are Increasing |
