ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 3540|回复: 8
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]Passage2772-95-10/15

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-4-25 15:40:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]Passage2772-95-10/15

Passage2772-95-10/15


Passage 95 (10/15)


Radiation occurs from three natural sources: radioactive material in the environment, such as in soil, rock, or building materials; cosmic rays; and substances in the human body, such as radioactive potassium in bone and radioactive carbon in tissues. These natural sources account for an exposure of about 100 millirems a year for the average American.


The largest single source of man-made radiation is medical X rays, yet most scientists agree that hazards from this source are not as great as those from weapons test fallout, since strontium 90 and carbon 14 become incorporated into the body, hence delivering radiation for an entire lifetime. The issue is, however, by no means uncontroversial. The last two decades have witnessed intensified examination and dispute about the effects of low-level radiation, beginning with the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which reported in 1958 that “even the smallest amounts of radiation are likely to cause deleterious genetic and perhaps also somatic effects (somatic effects: []躯体效应).”


A survey conducted in Britain confirmed that an abnormally high percentage of patients suffering from arthritis of the spine who had been treated with X rays contracted cancer. Another study revealed a high incidence of childhood cancer in cases where the mother had been given prenatal pelvic X rays. These studies have pointed to the need to reexamine the assumption that exposure to low-linear energy transfer (linear energy transfer: []线能量传递, 线性能量转移) presents only a minor risk.


Recently, examination of the death certificates of former employees of a West Coast plant that produces plutonium for nuclear weapons revealed markedly higher rates for cancers of the pancreas, lung, bone marrow (bone marrow: n. 骨髓), and lymphatic system (lymphatic system: n.淋巴系统) than would have been expected in a normal population.


While the National Academy of Sciences committee attributes this difference to chemical or other environmental causes rather than radiation, other scientists maintain that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, leads to an increase in cancer risk. It is believed by some that a dose of one rem, if sustained over many generations, would lead to an increase of 1 percent in the number of serious genetic defects (genetic defects: 遗传缺陷) at birth, a possible increase of 1,000 disorders per million births.


In the meantime, regulatory efforts have been disorganized, fragmented, inconsistent, and characterized by internecine strife and bureaucratic delays. A Senate report concluded that coordination of regulation among involved departments and agencies was not possible because of jurisdictional disputes and confusion. One federal agency has been unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain sufficient funding and manpower for the enforcement of existing radiation laws, and the chairperson of a panel especially created to develop a coordinated federal program has resigned.



8.     The passage implies that each of the following statements about radiation has been disputed EXCEPT?


(A) Even small doses of radiation are likely to cause birth defects.


(B) Exposure to low-linear energy transfer presents only a minor risk.


(C) Many small doses of radiation are as harmful as a single large dose.


(D) Humans can tolerate a certain amount of radiation.


which reported in 1958 that “even the smallest amounts of radiation are likely to cause deleterious genetic and perhaps also somatic effects (somatic effects: []躯体效应).”D


(E) Exposure to radiation causes cancer.



Answer is D(一个觉得没害,一个觉得即使是微量,也有害); 我选C;

沙发
发表于 2004-4-25 20:25:00 | 只看该作者

   我觉得还是D,

   对于C:

While the National Academy of Sciences committee attributes this difference to chemical or other environmental causes rather than radiation, other scientists maintain that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, leads to an increase in cancer risk. It is believed by some that a dose of one rem, if sustained over many generations, would lead to an increase of 1 percent in the number of serious genetic defects (genetic defects: 遗传缺陷) at birth, a possible increase of 1,000 disorders per million births.

   这里就是说,National Academy of Sciences committee 不认为small radiation exposure造成了危害,但是 other scientists 认为有危害

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-4-25 21:26:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用dreadpower在2004-4-25 20:25:00的发言:

   我觉得还是D,


   对于C:


While the National Academy of Sciences committee attributes this difference to chemical or other environmental causes rather than radiation, other scientists maintain that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, leads to an increase in cancer risk. It is believed by some that a dose of one rem, if sustained over many generations, would lead to an increase of 1 percent in the number of serious genetic defects (genetic defects: 遗传缺陷) at birth, a possible increase of 1,000 disorders per million births.


   这里就是说,National Academy of Sciences committee 不认为small radiation exposure造成了危害,但是 other scientists 认为有危害


dreadpower老弟:National Academy of Sciences committee 不认为small radiation exposure造成了危害,但是 other scientists 认为有危害, 这不正好说明在Humans can tolerate a certain amount of radiation问题上有争议吗??,T8问的是没有争议的是那个??

我的脑子是不是锈掉了。还请指正。

地板
发表于 2004-4-25 21:53:00 | 只看该作者

     T8问的是下面问题都被争议过,除了哪个没被争议?

     National Academy of Sciences committee 认为markedly higher rates for cancers of the pancreas, lung, bone marrow (bone marrow: n. 骨髓), and lymphatic system (lymphatic system: n.淋巴系统) than would have been expected in a normal population.这个是由于chemical or other environmental causes rather than radiation造成的,一定注意这里的 rather than,这里是表明争议焦点的所在

再结合other scientists maintain that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, leads to an increase in cancer risk. It is believed by some that a dose of one rem。。。。这些话明显是针对National Academy of Sciences committee 说的,是用来反驳National Academy of Sciences committee 的,我认为这里暗含的说:National Academy of Sciences committee 认为不是radiation造成了伤害(rather than)。而不是说National Academy of Sciences committee 认人能忍受伤害。

    呵呵,不是脑子锈了。第2次看你的问题时候,我觉得你说的很有道理,因为我仔细琢磨一下,觉得Humans can tolerate a certain amount of radiation也可以成为这两者的辩驳点。

     但是我凭感觉觉得两者意图不是在说tolate的问题,但是我不知道为什么有这样的感觉,后来回头再看到rather than的时候,才明白自己感觉是怎么回事

5#
 楼主| 发表于 2004-4-25 22:38:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用dreadpower在2004-4-25 21:53:00的发言:

     T8问的是下面问题都被争议过,除了哪个没被争议?


     National Academy of Sciences committee 认为markedly higher rates for cancers of the pancreas, lung, bone marrow (bone marrow: n. 骨髓), and lymphatic system (lymphatic system: n.淋巴系统) than would have been expected in a normal population.这个是由于chemical or other environmental causes rather than radiation造成的,一定注意这里的 rather than,这里是表明争议焦点的所在


他们认为这种不同是chemical和environmental causes, 也就是说认为radiation不导致这种癌症率的不同,换句话说就是人们能够tolerate certain amount of  radiation.


后面的一帮科学家说小的辐射将导致cancer, 也就是人们不能tolerate certain amount of radiaton.


dreadpower老弟原谅我的胡搅蛮缠,实在是陷的太深,不能自拔了??


C我明白了。主要是没有记住那个sustained.


再结合other scientists maintain that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, leads to an increase in cancer risk. It is believed by some that a dose of one rem。。。。这些话明显是针对National Academy of Sciences committee 说的,是用来反驳National Academy of Sciences committee 的,我认为这里暗含的说:National Academy of Sciences committee 认为不是radiation造成了伤害(rather than)。而不是说National Academy of Sciences committee 认人能忍受伤害。


   



6#
发表于 2004-4-25 23:03:00 | 只看该作者

   对,你的考虑正是我说的:“第2次看你的问题时候,我觉得你说的很有道理,因为我仔细琢磨一下,觉得Humans can tolerate a certain amount of radiation也可以成为这两者的辩驳点。”

   但是我觉得这个观点是你自己推想出来的,这个推想未必错误。虽然这个观点可以成为辩驳点,但是真正的辩驳点我认为是在chemical or other environmental causes rather than radiation。

     National Academy of Sciences committee  认为 chemical or other environmental causes higher rates for cancers of。。。而不是(rather than)  radiation causes higher rates for cancers 。没有提到:人是否可以忍受的问题。原文后面立即就针对这个说法给予反驳,那么这种反驳必须是针对 radiation or chemical or other environmental causes higher rates for cancers 的,而不是针对人能否忍受的:other scientists maintain 。。。也是在说即使小剂量radiation也可导致基因缺陷,所以那些病是由radiation造成的。我想你可能对于因为这个小剂量觉得在讨论tolrate 的问题。但是我理解为:两者在讨论是否因为 radiation 导致疾病问题。不是在说tolrate问题。

7#
发表于 2004-4-25 23:12:00 | 只看该作者

此题确实很难!

我感觉这倒像是道逻辑题。

while甲认为原因是B而不是A,乙认为是A造成了,哪怕很少的A都能造成。

问:两位有没有争论 即便最少的A也能导致(取非了原句:Humans can tolerate a certain amount of radiation.)?

个人同意dreadpower的分析,while从句重点是在分析,原因是谁,乙也争论是A造成了,而且,哪怕很少的A也能造成。后面的这个并不是双方争论的焦点。

8#
发表于 2004-4-26 08:36:00 | 只看该作者
偶这题也选了c,但是看了答案后,马后炮,感觉是d, 偶拿不出确确证据,只是一个感觉,因为欧觉得这题属信息题,出题点应该是dreadpower说的,但是说服力不强,所以只能说感觉而已。
9#
 楼主| 发表于 2004-4-26 09:04:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢dreadpower的讲解。zcxMM, dreadpower是对的,不是感觉,是逻辑正确。原文讨论的是有没有的问题,不是多少的问题。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-7-31 02:34
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部