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  3

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.
By citing the surgeon general’s statement, the author intends to explain________.

选项 A、why smoking outdoors should be banned
B、that outdoor exposure causes substantial health damage
C、that the argument of outdoor-smoking-ban advocates is not solid
D、how the outdoor smoking ban in fact increases smoking exposure

答案C

解析 推断题。答案定位在第四段,作者使用两个confuse表明态度,指出该论述混淆了二手烟对呼吸系统和心脏病的影响,以及对DNA损害和癌症的影响,从医学上来看,其论断不是非常准确的。因此说明,室外禁烟的论据并不充足,选项C与作者观点一致,正确。选项A和D都与作者意图相反,故排除。第二段末句no evidence demonstrates(尚未证实会引起巨大的健康危害),与B说法相反,故排除B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/osH3777K
0

最新回复(0)