首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Can electricity cause cancer? In a society that literally runs on electric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for more
Can electricity cause cancer? In a society that literally runs on electric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for more
admin
2011-02-10
2.5K+
问题
Can electricity cause cancer? In a society that literally runs on electric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for more than a decade, a growing band of scientists and journalists has pointed to studies that seem to link exposure to electromagnetic fields with increased risk of leukemia and other malignancies. The implications are unsettling, to say the least, since everyone comes into contact with such fields, which are generated by everything electrical, from power lines and antennas to personal computers and micro-wave ovens. Because evidence on the subject is inconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard to decide whether concern about the health effects of electricity is legitimate or the worst kind of paranoia.
Now the alarmists have gained some qualified support from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the executive summary of a new scientific review, released in draft form late last week, the EPA has put forward what amounts to the most serious government warning to date. The agency tentatively concludes that scientific evidence "suggests a causal link" between extremely low- frequency electromagnetic fields those having very longwave-lengths--and leukemia, lymphoma and brain cancer. While the report falls short of classifying ELF fields as probable carcinogens, it does identify the common 60-hertz magnetic field as "a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans. "
The report is no reason to panic--or even to lose sleep. If there is a cancer risk, it is a small one. The evidence is still so controversial that the draft stirred a great deal of debate within the Bush Administration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from the Pentagon and the White House. But now no one can deny that the issue must be taken seriously and that much more research is needed.
At the heart of the debate is a simple and well-understood physical phenomenon: When an electric current passes through a wire, it generates an electromagnetic field that exerts forces on surrounding objects. For many years, scientists dismissed any suggestion that such forces might be harmful, primarily because they are so extraordinarily weak. The ELF magnetic field generated by a video terminal measures only a few milligauss, or about one-hundredth the strength of the earth’s own magnetic field. The electric fields surrounding a power line can be as high as 10 kilovolts per meter, but the corresponding field induced in human cells will be only about 1 millivolt per meter. This is far less than the electric fields that the cells themselves generate.
How could such minuscule forces pose a health danger? The consensus used to be that they could not, and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, that pack sufficient wallop to knock electrons out of the molecules that make up the human body. Such "ionizing" radiations have been clearly linked to increased cancer risks and there are regulations to control emissions.
But epidemiological studies, which find statistical associations between sets of data, do not prove cause and effect. Though there is a body of laboratory work showing that exposure to ELF fields can have biological effects on animal tissues, a mechanism by which those effects could lead to cancerous growths has never been found.
The Pentagon is far from persuaded. In a blistering 33-page critique of the EPA report, Air Force scientists charge its authors with having "biased the entire document" toward proving a link. "Our reviewers are convinced that there is no suggestion that (electromagnetic fields) present in the environment induce or promote cancer," the Air Force concludes. "It is astonishing that the EPA would lend its imprimatur on this report. " Then Pentagon’s concern is understandable. There is hardly a unit of the modern military that does not depend on the heavy use of some kind of electronic equipment, from huge ground-based radar towers to the defense systems built into every warship and plane.
What do you think ordinary citizens may do after reading the different arguments? ______
选项
A、They are indifferent.
B、They are worried very much.
C、They may exercise prudent avoidance.
D、They are shocked.
答案
C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/GkcO777K
本试题收录于:
NAETI中级口译笔试题库外语翻译证书(NAETI)分类
0
NAETI中级口译笔试
外语翻译证书(NAETI)
相关试题推荐
Humanbeingsaresuperiortoanimalsthattheycanuselanguageasatoolofcommunication.
Modernindustrialsocietygrantslittlestatustooldpeople.Infact,suchasocietyhasasystemofbuilt-inobsolescence.The
Atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,NorthAmericansocietyheld,asanideal,theNuclearFamily.Thispresumablyperfect
Japanandthenewlyindustrializedcountriesarepassinglabor-intensivesectsasgarment-makingovertolessdevelopednations
Accordingtoanewlypublisheddiscovery,problemsinthenormalwound-healingprocessmayresultfrompermanentscartissuein
Itisreportedthatalmost66%ofthelandinthewesternpartofthecountryaredevoidofcultivation.
Newdiscoveryprovesthegeneralbeliefthateatingbananascanhelppurge.Itsayspeoplemaysufferfromobviousconstipation
AdiscoveryinNewJerseyactuallycontributedtotheearlyeconomicdevelopmentoftheU.S.and,in1714aworkeruncoveredag
Themostfamousdiscoverythere,KingTut’sTomb,included______modelboatsthatservedasimilarfunctiontoSenwosret’sfull-s
随机试题
发生于截石位6、12点的结缔组织外痔多合并:
A.油脂性基质B.水溶性基质C.栓剂基质D.乳化剂E.气雾剂的抛射剂二甲基硅油
妊娠期妇女口腔保健的内容应包括,除了
50岁女性,汽车撞伤左小腿,局部肿痛畸形,反常活动,有片状皮肤擦伤出血,现场紧急处理时最重要的是
弹性滑动是由()引起的,弹性滑动是()避免的。
上述材料质量标准应达到( )。合同的履行以( )为前提和依据。
2013年7月5日,甲公司与乙公司协商债务重组,同意免去乙公司前欠款中的10万元,剩余款项在2013年9月30日支付;同时约定,截至2013年9月30日,乙公司如果经营状况好转,现金流量充裕,应再偿还甲公司6万元。当日,甲公司估计这6万元届时被偿还的可能性
纳税人发生下列()情形,不能按期纳税,经省级税务机关批准,可延期3个月纳税。
沧海桑田,斗转星移,多少______的作家暗淡了他们昔日的风采。然而,朱自清和他的散文却没有从文学历史的长河中消失。他那匆匆离去的背影,似乎已经遥远,却又愈发显得______。他的散文具有一种独特的抒情风格——质朴真挚、委婉蕴藉而又不失清新活泼,显出一种_
朋友从网络上传来著名生物学家道金斯《解析彩虹》中译本书稿嘱评。其中提到诗人济慈认为牛顿用三棱镜将太阳光分解成红、橙、黄、绿、青、蓝、紫的光谱,使彩虹的诗意丧失殆尽,因此科学不仅不美,还会破坏美感。这位19世纪英国著名诗人的声音在当代也会产生回响。
最新回复
(
0
)