People may find it unbelievable that two hundred years ago people did not link illness
1. What is the relationship between the speakers?
A.A couple. | B.Classmates. | C.Colleagues. |
A.Stop using paper cups. |
B.Prepare boxes for different waste. |
C.Reduce the use of paper, plastic and cans. |
3 .
A.The harm done by single-use plastics. |
B.The topic for the woman’s composition. |
C.Environmental issues. |
D.Some recent hot news. |
4 . 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. |
5 . 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. |
6 . 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 |
A.The price. | B.The food. | C.The environment. |
8 . 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. |
9 . 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 |
10 . 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. |