单选题 The worsening crisis at the Fukushima Power Station in Japan has led to inevitable comparisons with the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster that killed workers at the plant instantly, caused cancers in the surrounding population and spread radioactive contamination so far that livestock restrictions are still in place at some farms around the Ukraine. The situation at Fukushima is certainly grave and immediately dangerous for those at the site who are fighting to make the crippled reactors and fuel storage ponds safe. But whatever warnings are now being issued by foreign governments to their citizens in Japan, there are significant differences that set this apart from the catastrophe in Ukraine. At Chernobyl the nuclear reactor exploded after a surge in power that blew the top off the power plant and sent hot fuel high into the upper atmosphere, where it floated across national borders. A fire that broke out in the graphite core forced more radioactive material into the air, helping it spread further. The reactor had no containment facility to even slow the release of radiation from the plant. The Fukushima boiling water reactor is a 40-year-old power plant and it has some glaring design flaws, but the reactors have been switched off for five days, so there is less fresh radioactive material around, and each core is contained within a 20cm-thick steel container, which is then protected by a steel-lined reinforced concrete outer structure. Even in the case of a meltdown, these measures should at least limit the amount of radiation released. But what of the population beyond? The risk from radiation falls off substantially with distance. The authorities have already imposed an exclusion zone of 12 miles around the power station, introduced food bans and dispensed potassium iodide pills to those in the surrounding area. For the more distant population, the most serious radioactive substances that would be released are caesium-137 and iodine-131. These are extremely volatile, so can be carried a long way. But dangerous doses are not likely to travel far on the wind. The danger comes when radioactive iodine and caesium rain down on the ground, on the pastureland, for example, and livestock eat it. Cows concentrate radioactive iodine in their milk. Radioactive caesium accumulates in muscles, and in the past has built up in grazing sheep. The threat to humans then comes from drinking milk and eating contaminated meat. Both can raise the risk of cancer—iodine especially by being absorbed into children's thyroid glands. What happened at Chernobyl, which was a much more serious accident than this, was that the local Soviet authorities were in denial, they didn't get people out of the area, they didn't evacuate quickly enough, and they allowed children to continue to drink heavily contaminated milk, and as a consequence, many children received high doses of radiation to the thyroid and we've seen thousands of thyroid cancers as a consequence.
单选题 Which of the following is the best title for the passage?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 以下哪一个是本文的最佳标题?切尔诺贝利核泄漏事故给日本留下的启示。第三段指出,福岛核泄漏事故与发生在乌克兰的切尔诺贝利核泄漏事故有很大的差异。最后一段进一步指出,切尔诺贝利所发生的事故比福岛所发生的事故要严重得多,其原因在于苏联地方政府曾矢口否认事故的发生,他们没有让灾民逃离灾区,没有及时疏散灾民,却让儿童继续饮用污染严重的牛奶。结果,许多孩子的甲状腺遭到严重的辐射,因此我们见到了数以万计的甲状腺癌患者。根据短文,我们可以推断,福岛的事故之所以没有切尔诺贝利的事故那么严重,是因为日本福岛从切尔诺贝利事故当中吸取了教训。A(一些国家审视日本,重新评估核计划。)在文中没有提及;C(福岛最近发生的事故引起了全世界的关注。)不是本文论述的重点;D(日本令人恐怖的事故表明,我们赖以生存的条件不是很好。)也不是本文论述的重点。
单选题 It can be inferred from the passage that ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 根据短文可以推断,辐射在日本蔓延的危险依然存在。根据第六段第二句.随着距离的增加,辐射的危险大大地减弱。这就暗示辐射在日本蔓延的危险依然
单选题 Which of the following is NOT true?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 以下那种陈述不正确?放射性物质也许给遥远的人带来死亡。根据第六段前两句,远处的人又有什么关系呢?随着距离的增大,辐射的风险大大减小。
单选题 The Chernobyl was regarded as a serious accident because ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 切尔诺贝利的事故被认为是一次严重的事故,因为当地政府曾否认那里的重大事故仍然威胁当地人的生命。从最后一段可以看出,切尔诺贝利核爆炸之所以被认为是比福岛核爆炸更为严重的事故,是因为苏联地方当局矢口否认事故,他们没有让人们及时疏散,而且让孩子们饮用污染严重的牛奶。