单选题
单选题
Dangerous Sunshine to Children
Two United Nations1 agencies warned on Tuesday that children are most at risk of developing skin cancers as a result of the long-term decline in the earth"s protective ozone layer. The agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP)2, issued the warning as they launched a global programme aimed at alerting schools to the dangers of exposure to the sun.
"As ozone depletion becomes more marked, and as people around the world engage more in sun-seeking behaviour, the risk of health complications from over-exposure to ultra-violet radiation is becoming a substantial public health concern," said WHO Director-general3 Lee Jong-wook. By reducing the time children and adolescents are exposed to direct sunlight, he said： "We can substantially reduce the risk of contracting skin cancers，cataracts and other conditions4 which might only appear much later in life. ”
In its 2002 World Health Report, the WHO said around the world an average of 66,000 people died every year from melanoma or other types of skin cancer. Independent scientific research shows that every year there are between two to three million new cases of non-malignant melanoma and around 130,000 malignant — and normally fatal 一 new full-blown skin cancer cases.
Although most known skin cancers seemed to occur in the industrialized world, WHO radiation and environmental health specialist Mike Repacholi told a news conference5，there were many cases believed to be unreported in poorer countries. Although people with darker skins were less susceptible to6 skin cancers, they were just as likely to contract eye cataracts as fairer-skinned populations，and people living close to the equator were even more likely to develop them.
As for the protection method, the WHO said that under the school plan, dubbed the Intersun Project7，the two agencies will distribute packages showing teachers how to develop their own sun education programmes, the WHO said. In a joint statement from the two agencies which also marked the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, UNEP Executive Director8 Klaus Toepfer said latest studies showed the protective shield was on the road to9 recovery. This was the result of international agreements over the past two decades to phase out10 use of various chemicals 一 like those used in some pesticides, refrigerators and aerosols.
“ But we must remain vigilant and more needs to be done before we can say that the problem is solved for good11，” said Toepfer. This included stopping illegal trade in banned chemicals and enforcing the agreements in developing countries. ” Only then can we . say that the sky above our heads will be safe for our children and their children to come, the former German environment minister said.
词汇：
protective / prə"tektɪv/adj.保护的，防护的
melanoma/ ˌmelə"nəʊmə/n. 黑素瘤
ozone/ ˈəʊzəʊn/n. 臭氧
non-malignant 非恶性的
alert/ ə"lɜ:t/vt. 向……发出警报；使警觉
malignant/ məˈlɪgnənt/adj. 恶性的
depletion / dɪ"pli:ʃn/n.耗尽
full-blown / ˈfʊlˈbləʊn/adj.成熟的
complication / ˌkɒmplɪˈkeɪʃn/n.并发症，并发病
fairer-skinned 肤色较浅的
ultra-violet 紫外线
dub/ dʌb/vt. 给……起外号
radiation/ ˌreɪdiˈeɪʃn/n. 放射，辐射
preservation/ ˌprezəˈveɪʃn/n保护
substantial / səb"stænʃl/adj.重大的
shield / ʃi:ld/n.屏，障；防护物，护罩
contract / "kɒntrækt/vt.患病；感染（恶习等）
aerosol / ˈeərəˌsɔ:l/n.烟，雾；烟雾剂
cataract/ "kætərækt/n. 白内障
vigilant/ ˈvɪdʒɪlənt/adj. 警惕的，警醒的
enforce/ ɪn"fɔ:s/vt. 实施，执行
注释：
1.United Nations (UN):联合国
2. World Health Organization (WHO)：世界卫生组织
UN Environmental Programme (UNEP)：联合国环境规划署
3.WHd Director-general:世界卫生组织总干事
4.condition：在医学文献中常常用来指“疾病”。
5.a news/press conference:记者招待会
6.susceptible to:对……易感的，容易受到…… 的
7.the Intersun Project:(世界卫生组织)保护儿童免受紫外线辐射的规划
8.UNEP Executive Director:联合国环境规划署执行主任
9.on the road to:在去……的旅途中
10.phase out:分阶段（逐步）结束
11.for good (and all)：永久地；决定性地
All of the following articles may use some chemicals unfavorable for the preservation of the ozone layer EXCEPT____
A:aerosols B:refrigerators C:pesticides D:medicines
Like street comer prophets proclaiming that tile end is near, scientists who study the earth’s atmosphere have been issuing predictions of impending doom for the past few years without offering any concrete proof. So far even the experts have had to admit that no solid evidence has emerged that this is anything but a natural phenomenon. And the uncertainty has given skeptics-especially Gingrichian politicians--plenty of ammunition to argue against taking the difficult, expensive steps required to stave off a largely hypothetical calamity.
Until now, A draft report currently circulating on the Internet asserts that the global temperature rise can now be blamed, at least in part, on human activity. Statements like this have been made before by individual researchers-who have been criticized for going too far beyond the scientific consensus. But this report comes from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a respected UN sponsored body made up of more than 1,300 leading climate experts from 40 nations. This shift in scientific consensus is based not so much on new data as on improvements in the complex computer models that climatologists use to test their theories. Unlike chemists or molecular biologists, climate experts have no way to do lab experiments on their specialty. So they simulate them on supercomputers and look at what happens when human generated gases-carbon dioxide from industry and auto exhaust, methane from agriculture, chlorofluoro carbons from leaky refrigerators and spray cans-are pumped into the models virtual atmospheres.
Until recently, the computer models weren’t working very well. When the scientists tried to simulate what they believe has been happening over the past century or so, the results didn’t mesh with reality; the models said the world should now he warmer than it actually is. The reason is that the computer models had been overlooking an important factor affecting global temperatures: sulfur dioxides that are produced along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burned in cars and power plants. Aerosols actually cool the planet by blocking sunlight and mask the effects of global warmning. Once the scientists factored in aerosols, their models began looking more like the real world. The improved performance of the simulations was demonstrated in 1991, when they successfully predicted temperature changes in the aftermath of the massive Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines. A number of studies since have added to the scientists confidence that they finally know what they are talking about-and can predict what may happen if greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere unchecked.
The computer models failed to picture reality because______.
A:they only simulate what has happened over the past century B:they are wrongly programmed C:scientists didn’t take aerosols into consideration D:too many chemicals are produced along with CO2
Text 2
| Like street comer prophets proclaiming
that tile end is near, scientists who study the earth’s atmosphere have been
issuing predictions of impending doom for the past few years without offering
any concrete proof. So far even the experts have had to admit that no solid
evidence has emerged that this is anything but a natural phenomenon. And the
uncertainty has given skeptics-especially Gingrichian politicians--plenty of
ammunition to argue against taking the difficult, expensive steps required to
stave off a largely hypothetical calamity. Until now, A draft report currently circulating on the Internet asserts that the global temperature rise can now be blamed, at least in part, on human activity. Statements like this have been made before by individual researchers-who have been criticized for going too far beyond the scientific consensus. But this report comes from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a respected UN sponsored body made up of more than 1,300 leading climate experts from 40 nations. This shift in scientific consensus is based not so much on new data as on improvements in the complex computer models that climatologists use to test their theories. Unlike chemists or molecular biologists, climate experts have no way to do lab experiments on their specialty. So they simulate them on supercomputers and look at what happens when human generated gases-carbon dioxide from industry and auto exhaust, methane from agriculture, chlorofluoro carbons from leaky refrigerators and spray cans-are pumped into the models virtual atmospheres. Until recently, the computer models weren’t working very well. When the scientists tried to simulate what they believe has been happening over the past century or so, the results didn’t mesh with reality; the models said the world should now he warmer than it actually is. The reason is that the computer models had been overlooking an important factor affecting global temperatures: sulfur dioxides that are produced along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burned in cars and power plants. Aerosols actually cool the planet by blocking sunlight and mask the effects of global warmning. Once the scientists factored in aerosols, their models began looking more like the real world. The improved performance of the simulations was demonstrated in 1991, when they successfully predicted temperature changes in the aftermath of the massive Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines. A number of studies since have added to the scientists confidence that they finally know what they are talking about-and can predict what may happen if greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere unchecked. |
A:they only simulate what has happened over the past century B:they are wrongly programmed C:scientists didn’t take aerosols into consideration D:too many chemicals are produced along with CO2
A. Atmospheric Scientists
? ?B. The Calculations Made at the Berlin Workshop
? ?C. The Previous Calculations of the Effect of Aerosols
? ?D. The Scientists’ Agreement
? ?E. The Authoritative Conclusion
? ?F. Greenhouse Gases
Paragraph 4 ______
A:aerosols B:refrigerators C:pesticides D:medicines
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Global Warming
1 ? Smoke is clouding our view of global warming, protecting the planet from perhaps three-quarters of the greenhouse (温室) effect. That might sound like good news, but experts say that as the cover diminishes in coming decades, we are facing a dramatic increase of warming that could be two or even three times as great as official best guesses.
2 ?This was the dramatic conclusion reached last week at a workshop in Dahlem, Berlin, where top atmospheric scientists got together, including Nobel prizewinner Paul Crutzen ?and Swedish ?scientist ?Bert ?Bolin, ?former ?chairman ?of ?the ?UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
3 ? IPCC scientists have suspected for a decade that aerosols (浮质) of smoke and other particles from burning rainforest, crop waste and fossil fuels are blocking sunlight and counteracting the warming effect of carbon dioxide (二氧化物) emissions. Until now, they reckoned that aerosols reduced greenhouse warming by perhaps a quarter, cutting increases by 0.2℃. So the 0.6℃ of warming over the past century would have been 0.8℃ without aerosols.
4 ?But the Berlin workshop concluded that the real figure is even higher—aerosols may have reduced global warming by as much as three-quarters, cutting increases by 1.8℃. If so, the good news is that aerosols have prevented the world getting almost two degrees warmer than it is now. But the bad news is that the climate system is much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously guessed.
5 ?As those gases are expected to continue accumulating in the atmosphere while aerosols stabilize or fall, that means "dramatic consequences for estimates of future climate change", the scientists agreed in a draft report from the workshop.
The conclusion reached at the Berlin workshop______
{{B}}第一篇{{/B}}
| ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? {{B}}Effects of Environmental
Pollution{{/B}} ? ?If pollution continues to increase at the present rate, formation of aerosols (浮质) in the atmosphere will cause the onset (开始) of an ice age in about fifty year’s time. This conclusion reached by Dr S. I. Rasoo1 and Dr S. H. Scheider of the United States Goddard Space Flight Center, answer the apparently conflicting questions of whether an increase in the carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) content of the atmosphere will cause the Earth warm up or increasing the aerosol question is dominant. ? ?Two specters haunting conservationists have been the prospect that environmental pollution might lead to the planet’s becoming unbearably hot or cold. One of these ghosts has now been laid, because it seems that even an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to eight times its present value will produce an increase in temperature of only 2℃, which would take place over several thousand years. But the other problem now looms larger than ever. ? ?Aerosols are collection of small liquid or solid particles dispersed in air or some other medium. The particles are all so tiny that each is composed of only a few hundred atoms. Because of this they can float in the air for a very long time. Perhaps the most commonly experienced aerosol is industrial smog (烟雾) of the kind that plagued London in the 1950s and is an even greater problem in Los Angeles today. These collections of aerosols reflect the Sun’s heat and thereby cause the Earth to cool. ? ?Dr Rasoo1 and Dr Schneider have calculated the exact effect of a dust aerosol layer just above the Earth’s surface in the temperature of the planet. As the layer builds up, the present delicate balance between the amount of heat absorbed from the Sun and the amount radiated from the Earth is disturbed. The aerosol layer not only reflects much of the Sun’s light but also transmits the infrared (红外线) radiation from below. So, while the heat input to surface drops, the loss of heat remains high until the planet cools to a new balanced state. ? ?Within fifty years, if no steps are taken to stop the spread of aerosols in the atmosphere, a cooling of the Earth by as much as 3.5~C seems inevitable. If that lasts for only a few years it would start another ice age, and because the growing ice caps at each pole would themselves reflect much of the Sun’s radiation it would probably continue to develop even if the aerosol layer were destroyed. ? ?The only bright spot in this gloomy forecast lies in the hope expressed by Dr Rasoo1 and Dr Schneider that nuclear powder may replace fossil fuels in time to prevent the aerosol content of atmosphere from becoming critical. |
A:"pollution" B:"carbon dioxide" C:"aerosols" D:"ghosts"
The only way to stop the spread of aerosols in the atmosphere, according to Dr Rasool and Dr Schneider, is to use
A:fossil fuels. B:electric power. C:nuclear energy. D:coal power.
您可能感兴趣的题目
