專八閱讀訓練：The Affect of Electricity on Cancer
Can electricity cause cancer? In a society that literally runs onelectric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for morethan a decade, a growing band of scientists and journalists haspointed to studies that seem to link exposure to electromagneticfields with increased risk of leukemia and other malignancies. Theimplications are unsettling, to say the least, since everyonecomes into contact with such fields, which are generated by everything electrical, from power linesand antennas to personal computers and micro-wave ovens. Because evidence on the subject isinconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard to decide whether concern about the healtheffects of electricity is legitimate—or the worst kind of paranoia.
Now the alarmists have gained some qualified support from the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. 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. Theagency tentatively concludes that scientific evidence “suggests a casual link” between extremelylow-frequency electromagnetic fields—those having very longwave-lengths—and leukemia,lymphoma and brain cancer, While the report falls short of classifying ELF fields as probablecarcinogens, 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 lost 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 BushAdministration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from the Pentagon and the WhitHouse. But now no one can deny that the issue must be taken seriously and that much moreresearch is needed.
At the heart of the debate is a simple and well-understood physical phenomenon: When an electriccurrent passes through a wire, tit generates an electromagnetic field that exerts forces onsurrounding objects, For many years, scientists dismissed any suggestion that such forces mightbe harmful, primarily because they are so extraordinarily weak. The ELF magnetic field generatedby a video terminal measures only a few milligauss, or about one-hundredth the strength of theearth’s own magnetic field, The electric fields surrounding a power line can be as high as 10 kilovoltsper meter, but the corresponding field induced in human cells will be only about 1 millivolt permeter. 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 couldnot, and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, thatpack 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 areregulations to control emissions.
But epidemiological studies, which find statistical associations between sets of data, do not provecause and effect. Though there is a body of laboratory work showing that exposure to ELF fieldscan have biological effects on animal tissues, a mechanism by which those effects could lead tocancerous growths has never been found.
The Pentagon is for from persuaded. In a blistering 33-page critique of the EPA report, Air Forcescientists charge its authors with having “biased the entire document” toward proving a link. “Ourreviewers are convinced that there is no suggestion that (electromagnetic fields) present in theenvironment induce or promote cancer,” the Air Force concludes. “It is astonishing that the EPAwould lend its imprimatur on this report.” Then Pentagon’s concern is understandable. There ishardly a unit of the modern military that does not depend on the heavy use of some kind ofelectronic equipment, from huge ground-based radar towers to the defense systems built intoevery warship and plane.
1. The main idea of this passage is
[A] studies on the cause of cancer
[B] controversial view-points in the cause of cancer
[C] the relationship between electricity and cancer.
[D] different ideas about the effect of electricity on caner.
2. The view-point of the EPA is
[A] there is casual link between electricity and cancer.
[B] electricity really affects cancer.
[C] controversial.
[D] low frequency electromagnetic field is a possible cause of cancer
3. Why did the Pentagon and Whit House object to the release of the report? Because
[A] it may stir a great deal of debate among the Bush Administration.
[B] every unit of the modern military has depended on the heavy use of some kind of electronicequipment.
[C] the Pentagon’s concern was understandable.
[D] they had different arguments.
4. It can be inferred from physical phenomenon
[A] the force of the electromagnetic field is too weak to be harmful.
[B] the force of the electromagnetic field is weaker than the electric field that the cells generate.
[C] electromagnetic field may affect health.
[D] only more powerful radiation can knock electron out of human body.
5. What do you think ordinary citizens may do after reading the different arguments?
[A] They are indifferent. [B] They are worried very much.
[C] The may exercise prudent avoidance. [D] They are shocked.
答案詳解：
1. D 電力對癌癥影響的不同觀點。文章一開始就提出了“電會致癌嗎?”這個問題。十多年來，一大批科學家和新聞界人士都指出：研究結(jié)果似乎表示：接觸電磁場可能會增加患白血病和其他惡性腫瘤的危險性。所以說到目前為止還難以確定電力對健康的影響究竟是理性的，還是杞人憂天。見難句注釋1。第二段公布了環(huán)保署的報告，見難句注釋3。第三段說明：即使有致癌危險也是極微的。但應(yīng)予以認真對待，進行更多的研究。而第七段中空軍方面的科學家還沒有被說服(見難句注釋9)，明確提出，我們的評論員認為沒有跡象說明環(huán)境中存在的電力會誘發(fā)或促發(fā)癌癥。
A. 對致癌因素的研究。 B. 致癌原因方面有爭議的觀點，這兩項根本部隊，和文內(nèi)電力毫無關(guān)系。 C. 電力和癌癥的關(guān)系，文中涉及的是電力究竟會不會致癌的兩種觀點，而不是兩者之關(guān)系。
2. A. 電和致癌有一定難以確定的關(guān)系。答案在第二段第三句，環(huán)保署目前的結(jié)論是據(jù)科學證據(jù)指出極低頻電磁場——具有長波的電磁場——和白血病，淋巴瘤及腦癌之間有著難以確定的聯(lián)系，見難句注釋3。
A. 電確實致癌，不對。C. 有爭議的。說的不夠清楚，爭議什么。D. 低頻磁場是一個可能致癌因素。這只是論點的一面。
3. B. 現(xiàn)代軍事的任何部門都一直依賴于應(yīng)用大量應(yīng)用電子設(shè)備。五角大樓和白宮所以反對環(huán)保署公布報告之理由就在此?？哲姺矫娴膶＜宜哉f環(huán)保署方面的報告“歪曲了整個文件以證明兩者之間的關(guān)系”也在此。見難句注釋4。所以文內(nèi)說“角大樓的關(guān)注是可以理解的。”
A. 報告會在布什政府內(nèi)引起大規(guī)模的辯論，這是結(jié)果。C. 五角大樓的關(guān)注是可以理解的，這不是原因。 D. 他們有不同的觀點。
4. 磁場力太弱不會產(chǎn)生有害作用。答案在第四段第二，三句，當電流通過電纜，產(chǎn)生磁場，對周圍物體產(chǎn)生(影響)力。許多年來，科學家把任何有關(guān)“這些力可能有害的想法”置于一邊(不予考慮)，主要是因為它們(所產(chǎn)生的力)非常弱。
B. 磁場力比細胞產(chǎn)生的電磁場弱。只是明確指出的事實。C. 磁場力對人的健康有害。不對。D. 只有更強的輻射才能把人體中的電子擊出來。不對。
5. C. 他們會采取謹慎小心避開電器的途徑。因為他們不可能象A項那樣漠不關(guān)心。這種問題直接影響人的生命。
B. 他們非常擔憂。D. 他們感到震驚，這兩項都不可能，因為還在爭議中，唯一的途徑是盡量避開和電器接觸。
詞匯：
1. preposterous 反常的，十分荒謬的，乖戾的
2. leukemia 白血病
3. malignancy 惡性腫瘤
4. legitimate 合法的，合理的
5. paranoia 偏執(zhí)狂，妄想狂。這里指：無根據(jù)的擔心。
6. lymphoma 淋巴瘤
7. carcinogen 致癌物
8. minuscule 很小的，很不重要
9. consensus 輿論
10. wallop 亂竄，猛沖，沖擊力
11. epidemiological 流行病學的
12. blistering 羅嗦的，胡扯的
13. critique 評論，批評
14. imprimatur 出版許可(官方審查后的)，批準
難句譯注：
1. Because evidence on the subject is inconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard todecide whether concern about the health effects of electricity is legitimate—or the worst kind ofparanoia.
[參考譯文] 由于這問題的證據(jù)還不是結(jié)論性的，而且常常是矛盾的，所以就難以斷定有關(guān)電力對身體的影響的顧慮是合乎情理，還是毫無根據(jù)的懷疑。
2. EPA——U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 美國環(huán)境保護署
3.While the report falls short (缺乏，不夠) of classifying ELF fields as probable carcinogens, itdoes identify the common 60-hertz magnetic field as “a possible, but not proven, cause of cancerin humans.”
[參考譯文] 雖然報告沒有把極低頻磁場歸類為可能致癌物，但它確實指出通常60赫茲的磁場是“一種雖尚未證實，但可能導致人患癌癥的因素。”
4. The evidence is still so controversial that the draft stirred a great deal ofdebate within the Bush Administration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from thePentagon and the Whit House
[參考譯文] 證據(jù)爭議性仍然很大，所以報告草案在布什政府內(nèi)引起巨大的爭辯，而環(huán)保署無視無角大樓和白宮的強烈反對，公布了這份報告。
5. This is far less than the electric fields that the cells themselves generate.
[參考譯文] 這遠比細胞所產(chǎn)生的電磁場低的多。
6. …and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, thatpack sufficient wallop to knock electrons out of the molecules that make up the human body.
[參考譯文] 而且?guī)资陙?，科學家專注于更為強大的輻射類別，如X光射線，其聚合的沖擊力足以把電子從組成人體的分子中撞出來。
7. But epidemiological studies, which find statistical associations between sets of data, do not provecause and effect.
[參考譯文] 可是流行病學的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，幾組資料在數(shù)據(jù)方面有所關(guān)聯(lián)，卻沒有證實其因果關(guān)系。
8. a body of laboratory work 一批研究成果。
9. In a blistering 33-page critique of the EPA report, Air Force scientists charge its authors withhaving “biased the entire document” toward proving a link.
[參考譯文] 在長達33頁的對環(huán)保署文件的十分尖銳的批評中，空軍方面的科學家指責，作者歪曲整個文件以證明癌癥和電磁場之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。
10. It is astonishing that the EPA would lend its imprimatur on this report.
[參考譯文] 令人驚訝的是環(huán)保署竟然批準許可這份報告的出籠。
寫作方法與文章大意：
文章以問答的方式，對比的寫作方法，寫出了圍繞電力是否影響健康——是否致癌因素的兩種觀點，及其觀點的依據(jù)。一種是美國環(huán)境保護署為代表的：極低頻磁場是一種可能但還未被證實的致癌因素，而且無視白宮和五角大樓反對，公布了這份報告。理由是科學證據(jù)提出了兩者之間的關(guān)聯(lián)偶然性。另一種以空軍中科學家為主的觀點：電磁場不會誘發(fā)或觸發(fā)癌癥，而且以歪曲整個文件來證明兩者之關(guān)系，批評了環(huán)保署。其理由人人皆知。因軍隊中任一單位都有點——從地面雷達到艦艇飛機防衛(wèi)系統(tǒng)。
