2. 医学
  3. New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldn’t have

New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldn’t have

admin2021-11-29  8
问题     New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldn’t have to inhale even a tiny amount of secondhand smoke, whether in a bar or a Central Park meadow. But while there is a strong public-health case for banning smoking indoors, the case for banning it outdoors is much weaker—particularly when it runs the risk of a backlash that could undermine the basic goals of the antismoking movement.
    True, there is evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage.
    But that hasn’t stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that even transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardia events, such as heart attack, and that inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.
    However, the surgeon general’s statement confuses the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coronary arteries. It also confuses one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure.
    Moreover, bans like New York’s may actually increase exposure by creating smoke-filled areas near part entrances that cannot be avoided.
    To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility. The antismoking movement has always fought with science on its side, but New York’s ban on outdoor smoking seems to fulfill its opponents’ charge that the movement is being driven instead by an unthinking hatred of tobacco smoke. That, in turn, could Jeopardize more important fronts in the antismoking fight, in particular the 21 states that still allow smoking in bars and restaurants.
    A ban on outdoor smoking may provide a symbolic victory. But from a public health perspective, it’s pointless. Instead, anti-smoking organizations should focus on extending workplace protections, already enjoyed by millions of New Yorkers, to the 100 million Americans still denied the right to work without having to breathe in secondhand smoke.
The author’s attitude toward the New York’s ban can be best describe as________.
选项 A、enthusiastic
B、objective
C、critical
D、puzzled
答案C
解析 主旨题。文章开头说明室外禁烟决议会引发反驳效应，可能会破坏禁烟的根本目的。中间部分指出美国军医署的论断混淆不同概念，可能导致相反的效果，结尾处，作者明确指出室外禁烟只是形式，对公众健康意义不大。综合来看，文章观点非常明确，作者毫无困惑。因此D错误。作者对室外禁烟的评价是负面的，排除A、B两项，故正确答案为C。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/7zH3777K
本试题收录于： 医学博士外语题库考研分类
0

医学博士外语

考研

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)