2. 职称英语
  3. Cancer and ChemicalsLast year, California governor Geor

Cancer and ChemicalsLast year, California governor Geor

游客2025-02-06  2
问题                         Cancer and Chemicals
Last year, California governor George Deukmejian called together many of the state’s best scientific minds to begin implementing Proposition 65, the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. This new law bans industries from discharging chemical suspected of causing cancer(carcinogens)or birth defects into water supplies. Some claim it will also require warning labels on everything that might cause cancer.
    A day of esoteric science and incomprehensible jargon was predicted. But Bruce Ames, Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of California at Berkeley, had plans to liven the proceedings. Walking into the room, Ames looked like the quintessential scientist: wire-rimmed bifocals, rumpled suit, tousled hair and a sallow complexion that showed he spent more time in his laboratory than in the California sunshine. As someone intoned about the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, Ames began to interject his own views. "The whole world is chock—full of carcinogens," Ames declared. "A beer, with its 700 parts per billion of formaldehyde and five parts per 100 of alcohol is a thousand times more hazardous than anything in the water. If you have beer on your breath, does that mean you have to warn everyone who comes within ten feet of you?" In an era when headlines shout about the latest cancer scare, Ames has a different message: the levels of most man-made carcinogens are generally so low that any danger is trivial compared with the levels of natural carcinogens.
    Ames is not a quack. At age 59, he is one of the nation’s most respected authorities on carcinogenesis.
    But Ames slaughters sacred cows. He’s taking on the environmental movement, which some have called the single most important social movement of the 20th century. Based on animal tests of nearly 1 000 chemicals, the data show that daily consumption of the average peanut-butter sandwich, which contains traces of aflatoxin(a naturally occurring mold carcinogen in peanuts), is 100 times more dangerous than our daily intake of DDT from food, and that a glass of the most polluted well water in the Silicon Valley is 1 000 times less of cancer risk than a glass of wine or beer is. He’s not advising people to stop consuming peanut-butter, beer and wine. What he’s saying is that most cancer risks created by man are trivial compared with everyday natural risks, and it’s not clear how many of these are real risks. Both types distract attention from such enormous risk factors as tobacco.
     (A)Ames’s cancer research began about 25 years ago over a bag of potato chips.(B)It struck him that no one knew what each chemical did to human genes, and there was no easy way to find out.(C)At that time, scientists testing for carcinogenicity had to set up time-consuming and costly lab experiments on rats and mice.(D)Armed with the knowledge that bacteria are sensitive to substances that cause mutation, and that carcinogens were likely to be mutagens, Ames developed a carcinogen test using bacteria. The Ames test was hailed as a major scientific development and is now used worldwide.
    One day in 1974, Ames, now teaching at Berkeley, suggested that some students test various household products. To his surprise, many common hair dyes tested positive, as did a flame retardant used in children’s pajamas, Almost overnight, Ames became a hero of environmentalists when his findings led to new regulations and bans on certain chemicals. For the next decade public concern over carcinogens continued to rise. In fact, about half of all chemicals tested by Ames— both natural and man-made—turned out to be potentially carcinogenic when given in enormous dose to rats and mice. Ames at first assumed he had erred with his test. He hadn’t. His error had been making the common, but naive, assumption that only man-made chemicals could be dangerous. "Why assume nature is benign?" he now says. The campaign supporting California’s Proposition 65 convinced Ames that he had a duty to explain this to the public.
    Some people assume Ames is a stooge for the chemical industry, which he is not. He does no consulting for the chemical, drug or food companies, or for law firms. And he accepted no grants from business.
    Environmentalists reject Ames’s arguments, saying that we are obligated to keep the total exposure to carcinogens as low as possible. "Somehow he thinks there has to be a choice," says Carl Pope of the Sierra Club. "If we had to choose between TCE [a suspected cancer-causing solvent] in drinking water and public education on cigarette smoking, maybe he’s right. But we don’t have to make a choice. " [br] Which of the following can be inferred about Ames’s attitude towards California’s Proposition 65?
选项 A、Watch-and-wait.
B、No-comment.
C、Critical.
D、Respectful.
答案 C
解析 本题也是推论题。题目问：Ames对于加州65号议案的态度是什么?文章第六段结尾的句子“The campaign supporting California’s Proposition 65 convinced Ames that he had a duty to explain this to the public”的意思是：这项议案使Ames确信他有义务向公众解释为什么天然致癌物质比人工致癌物质更有害。而文章的第七段说“Some people assume Ames is astooge for the chemical industry，which he is not．He does no consulting for the chemical．drugor food companies，or for law firms．And he accepted no grants from business”的意思是Ames既没有收取咨询费也没有获取商业报酬，凭什么他得作出解释?所以在四个选项A(观望的)、B(不发表评论的)、C(批评的)、D(恭敬的)中，C项最为合适。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3945393.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)