1 . 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. |
2 . 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. |
3 . 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 |
4 . 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. |
5 . 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 |
6 . 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. |
7 . 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. |
8 . 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. |
9 . 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.
10 . There are a lot of chemicals that can cause indoor air pollution. A recent project conducted has found over 900 different substances in our home are related to it. Many researchers have already examined the causes of indoor air pollution.
It has been proved that different kinds of chemicals can be released by building materials and new furniture. Everything from painting and decorating products, bathroom cleaners and beauty products can contain these chemicals.
As a research from Denmark has highlighted, cooking, particularly roasting can damage our body. Roast dinners contain many potentially harmful pollutants.
As far as cooking emissions are concerned, no one is suggesting switching to takeaways.
| A．In the long run, these changes lead to cancer. |
| B．They might also arise from cooking at home. |
| C．A wide range of sources are under investigation. |
| D．Therefore, what results from indoor air pollution? |
| E．However, most of us have ignored their bad effects. |
| F．So, what are the main contributors to poor air quality? |
| G．But we can change how we cook to deal with the emissions. |
