Although Consumers Union concedes that "no confirmed cases of harm to humans from manufactured nanoparticles have been reported", it adds that "there is cause for concern based on several worrisome findings from the limited laboratory and animal research so far." It worries that particles that are nontoxic at normal sizes may become toxic when nanosized; that these nanoparticles, which are already present in cosmetics and food, can more easily "enter the body and its Vital organs, including the brain", than normal particles; and that nanomaterials will linger longer in the environment. All of this really comes down to pointing out that some particles are smaller than others. Size is not a reliable indicator of potential harm to human beings, and nature itself is filled with nanoparticles. But the default assumption of danger from the new is palpable . Anti-nanotech sentiment has not been restricted to Consumers Union's relatively short list of concerns. In France, groups of hundreds of protesters have rallied against even such benign manifestations of the technology as the carbon nanotubules that allow Parkinson' s sufferers to stop tremors by directing medicine to their own brains. In England members of a group called THRONG (The Heavenly Righteous Opposed to Nanotech Greed) have disrupted nanotech business conferences dressed as angels. In 2005 naked protesters appeared in front of an Eddie Bauer store in Chicago to condemn one of the more visible uses of nanotech: stain-resistant pants. These nanopants employ billions of tiny whiskers to create a layer of air above the rest of the fabric, causing liquids to roll off easily. It's not quite what Kurzweil and Crichton had in mind, nor is it "little robots in your pants", as CNN put it. But nanotechnology arguably embraces any item that incorporates engineering at the molecular level, including mundane products like this one. Just as the nano label can be broadly applied to products for branding and attention-grabbing purposes, so too can critics use the label to condemn barely related developments by linking them to the (still hypothetical) problems of nanopollution and gray goo. But there's a danger in thinking of nanotech only in god-or-goo terms. People at both extremes of the controversy fail to appreciate the humble, incremental, yet encouraging progress that nanotech researchers are making. And focusing on dramatic visions of nanotech heaven or hell may foster restrictions that delay or block innovations that can extend and improve our lives.
单选题 What worries Consumers Union is that nanoparticles______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节分析题。第一段前两句:虽然消费者协会承认“至今没有关于制造的纳米粒子产生对人体有害的确诊病例”;但却补充说,根据目前有限的实验室和动物研究获得的几项令人不安的发现表明,这种担心是不无道理的。接下来后文具体指出令人担忧的具体问题,如粒子在纳米化后可能有毒。也就是说,令消费者协会忧虑的是目前的产品可能会危害人类,C选项为正确答案。
单选题 The word "palpable" in the last sentence of the first paragraph most probably means______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:此题为词义理解题。detectable指“可检测的,可发现的”;available指“可利用的”;understandable指“可以理解的”;tangible指“可触知的;有形的”。将四个选项一一代入,联系上文分析,人们对纳米粒子可能危害人类的担忧,可知D选项最符合文意,意为:但切实可以感到人们对新生事物潜在危险自然而然的担心。
单选题 The example of carbon nanotubules is cited to show that______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节推断题。根据第二段的第二句:在法国,上百名抗议者集会抗议甚至是像碳纳米管如此良性的临床技术,它可以将药物直接注射到脑部而使帕金森患者停止颤动。由此推断出,碳纳米管的例子表明“甚至纳米技术潜在的益处也可能导致忧虑”,A选项为正确答案。
单选题 It seems that nanopants______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节推断题。根据第三段后两句:这并不完全像柯兹维和克莱顿所想那样,也不像美国有线新闻网所说的那样,“裤子内的小机器人”。尽管存在争议,但纳米技术还是渗人到了任何融合分子工程学的物品中,包括纳米裤这类大众产品。因此推断,纳米裤看起来不是像一些人想象的那样有伤害,D选项为正确答案。
单选题 The author argues that nanotech is______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:此题为观点态度题。最后一段从第二句开始是作者自己表达的态度:但是,仅仅用好或者坏作为衡量纳米技术的标准是不科学的。站在争议两端的人们都没有正确评价纳米技术研究者所带来的科技进步。此外,采用夸张的视角关注纳米技术,把它想象为天堂或者地狱,可能会演化成约束力量而拖延或阻碍那些能够延长人类寿命,改善人类生活的创新行为。因此,C选项为正确答案。