2. 外语
  3. Cancer and Chemicals Last year, California governor George Deukmejian called together many of the state’s best scientific mi

Cancer and Chemicals Last year, California governor George Deukmejian called together many of the state’s best scientific mi

admin2013-04-25  95
问题                 Cancer and Chemicals
    Last year, California governor George Deukmejian called together many of the state’s best scientific minds to begin implementing Proposition 65, the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. This new law bans industries from discharging chemical suspected of causing cancer (carcinogens) or birth defects into water supplies. Some claim it will also require warning labels on everything that might cause cancer.
    A day of esoteric science and incomprehensible jargon was predicted. But Bruce Ames, Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of California at Berkeley, had plans to liven the proceedings. Walking into the room, Ames looked like the quintessential scientist: wire-rimmed bifocals, rumpled suit, tousled hair and a sallow complexion that showed he spent more time in his laboratory than in the California sunshine. As someone intoned about the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, Ames began to interject his own views. "The whole world is chock—full of carcinogens," Ames declared. "A beer, with its 700 parts per billion of formaldehyde and five parts per 100 of alcohol is a thousand times more hazardous than anything in the water. If you have beer on your breath, does that mean you have to warn everyone who comes within ten feet of you?" In an era when headlines shout about the latest cancer scare, Ames has a different message: the levels of most man-made carcinogens are generally so low that any danger is trivial compared with the levels of natural carcinogens.
    Ames is not a quack. At age 59, he is one of the nation’s most respected authorities on carcinogenesis.
    But Ames slaughters sacred cows. He’s taking on the environmental movement, which some have called the single most important social movement of the 20th century. Based on animal tests of nearly 1000 chemicals, the data show that daily consumption of the average peanut-butter sandwich, which contains traces of aflatoxin (a naturally occurring mold carcinogen in peanuts), is 100 times more dangerous than our daily intake of DDT from food, and that a glass of the most polluted well water in the Silicon Valley is 1000 times less of cancer risk than a glass of wine or beer is. He’s not advising people to stop consuming peanut-butter, beer and wine. What he’s saying is that most cancer risks created by man are trivial compared with everyday natural risks, and it’s not clear how many of these are real risks. Both types distract attention from such enormous risk factors as tobacco.
(A)Ames’s cancer research began about 25 years ago over a bag of potato chips.
(B)It struck him that no one knew what each chemical did to human genes, and there was no easy way to find out.
(C)At that time, scientists testing for carcinogenicity had to set up time-consuming and costly lab experiments on rats and mice.
(D)Armed with the knowledge that bacteria are sensitive to substances that cause mutation, and that carcinogens were likely to be mutagens, Ames developed a carcinogen test using bacteria. The Ames test was hailed as a major scientific development and is now used worldwide.
    One day in 1974, Ames, now teaching at Berkeley, suggested that some students test various household products. To his surprise, many common hair dyes tested positive, as did a flame retardant used in children’s pajamas. Almost overnight, Ames became a hero of environmentalists when his findings led to new regulations and bans on certain chemicals. For the next decade public concern over carcinogens continued to rise. In fact, about half of all chemicals tested by Ames—both natural and man-made—turned out to be potentially carcinogenic when given in enormous dose to rats and mice. Ames at first assumed he had erred with his test. He hadn’t. His error had been making the common, but naive, assumption that only man-made chemicals could be dangerous. "Why assume nature is benign?" he now says. The campaign supporting California’s Proposition 65 convinced Ames that he had a duty to explain this to the public.
    Some people assume Ames is a stooge for the chemical industry, which he is not. He does no consulting for the chemical, drug or food companies, or for law firms. And he accepted no grants from business.
    Environmentalists reject Ames’s arguments, saying that we are obligated to keep the total exposure to carcinogens as low as possible. "Somehow he thinks there has to be a choice," says Carl Pope of the Sierra Club. "If we had to choose between TCE a suspected cancer-causing solvent in drinking water and public education on cigarette smoking, maybe he’s right. But we don’t have to make a choice. "
According to Ames, which of the following can be inferred about man-made carcinogens?
选项 A、They are no more harmful to people than a peanut-butter sandwich.
B、They are more harmful to people than a peanut-butter sandwich.
C、They are as harmful as a peanut-butter sandwich to people.
D、No definite conclusions have been made about them.
答案A
解析 本题为推论题，考查考生是否能对文章中没有明确阐述但暗示了的信息进行推断的能力。题目问：根据Ames的观点，对自然(致癌)物质可得出什么结论?本文主要论述的是天然致癌物质与人工致癌物质对人体的侵害。Ames认为，人工(致癌)物质并不比天然(致癌)物质更可怕，因此选择A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/zMyO777K
0

托福（TOEFL）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)