2. 考研
  3. Hudson River Qredging Project of Toxic Chemicals The first phase of the long-delayed dredging of toxic chemicals from the Hu

Hudson River Qredging Project of Toxic Chemicals The first phase of the long-delayed dredging of toxic chemicals from the Hu

admin2013-05-04  5
问题               Hudson River Qredging Project of Toxic Chemicals
    The first phase of the long-delayed dredging of toxic chemicals from the Hudson River is over. The polluter, General Electric, and the Environmental Protection Agency have issued separate reports evaluating the six-month cleanup, which was designed as a trial run for a much larger second phase that will finally rid the river of the industrial wastes have poisoned its mud and fish for generations.
    Both reports acknowledge unexpected problems. In many places in the dredging zone the contaminated layers of deposit were far thicker than sampling probes had predicted. The volume of industrial residues released into the water and air was higher than expected. At times, dredges got hung up on debris, their jaws unable to seal in toxic contents. Removal was slowed by storms, rising water and a shortage of vessels.
    The reports will now go through peer review and comment. But it already seems clear that before the dredging resumes, both G.E. and the E. P. A, will have to make some adjustments in order to meet the goal of having the river cleaned up within the next five years. What shouldn’t change is G. E. s commitment to finish the job. The E. P, A, must make sure that happens, no matter how dire-sounding the company’s version of the first phase.
    G, E, fought in court for years to take the cheapest way out of the industrial waste problem. It argued for letting the potential cancer-causing substance lies in the river, decaying on their own, because it said dredging would stir them up and make the problem worse. G. E. ’s new report has similarly dire language. It said that the dredging had released "nearly 25 times more industrial wastes" than expected, and that waste levels had spiked in fish in the dredging zone. The E. P. A. ’s findings strike a very different tone. The agency said its own examination of the data show that the percentage of unexpected industrial wastes was actually far lower than G, E. reported and rising waste levels in nearby fish would be temporary. Most importantly, it said that the percentage of stirred-up industrial wastes that spilled over the last dam from the dredging hot spot into the cleaner lower river was actually lower than expected.
    This is one of the most expensive and complicated environmental cleanups in American history. But G. E. ’s engineers have the skills to do it. The only question is whether the company is willing to learn from Phase One and meet its responsibility, without any more delay, to clean up the Hudson, the E. P. A. must see that it does.
What’s the main difference between G. E. ’s report and that of E. P. A. ’s?
选项 A、The way of dealing with industrial wastes.
B、The difficulties of the waste dredging.
C、The expenses to be spent for chemicals cleanup.
D、The percentage of industrial waste in Hudson.
答案D
解析 推理判断题。根据题干关键词difference，G．E．’s report,E．P．A定位到原文第四段倒数第二句：．．．the percentage of unexpected industrial wastes was actually far lower than G．E．reported．。．环保局的调查数据表明河水中工业废弃物所占的比重实际上比通用公司所报告的要低得多，由此可知，通用公司和环保局的分歧在于河水中工业废弃物含量的多少，故选[D]项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/3Rd4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)