On the first Earth Day, the U.S. was a poisoned nation. Dense air pollution blanketed cities like Los Angeles, where smog alerts were a fact of life. Dangerous pesticides like DDT were still in use, and water pollution was rampant—symbolized by raging fires on Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River. But the green movement that was energized by Earth Day— and the landmark federal actions that followed it—changed much of that. Today air pollution is down significantly in most urban areas, the water is cleaner, and even the Cuyahoga is home to fish again.
But if the land is healing, Americans may be sickening. Since World War Ⅱ, production of industrial chemicals has risen rapidly, and the U.S. generates or imports some 19 billion kg of them per day. These aren’t the sorts of chemicals that come to mind when we picture pollution—huge plants spilling contaminated wastewater into rivers. Rather, they’re the molecules that make good on the old "better living through chemistry" promise, appearing in items like unbreakable baby bottles and big-screen TVs. Those chemicals have a, habit of finding their way out of everyday products and into the environment—and ultimately into living organisms. A recent biomonitoring survey found traces of 212 environmental chemicals in Americans—including toxic metals, pesticides, etc. "It’s not the environment that’s contaminated so much," says the director of the Cincinnati Children’s Environmental Health Center. "It’s us."
As scientists get better at detecting the chemicals in our bodies, they’re discovering that even tiny quantities of toxins can have a potentially serious impact on our health—and our children’s future. Chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates—key ingredients in modern plastics—may disrupt the delicate endocrine system. A host of modern ills that have been rising unchecked for a generation—obesity, diabetes, attention-deficit disorder —could have chemical connections. "We don’t give environmental exposure the attention it deserves," says Dr. Philip Landrigan. "But there’s an emerging understanding that kids are uniquely susceptible to environmental hazards."
Washington has been slow to arrive at that conclusion. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the 34-year-old vehicle for federal chemical regulation, has generally been a failure. The burden of proving chemicals dangerous falls almost entirely on the government. And the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been able to issue restrictions on only a handful of chemicals and has lacked the power to ban even some dangerous cancer-causing substances.
But change is coming. The Obama Administration is taking a closer look at chemicals. More important, Congress may finally be ready to act. "We can’t permit this assault on our children’s health—and our own health—to continue," says Senator Frank Lautenberg.
According to Senator Frank Lautenberg, ()
A. actions should be taken to protect children from the environmental chemicals
B. more people begin to realize children’s susceptibility to environmental hazards
C. we should give more attention to environmental exposure
D. it’s more important and urgent to protect children’s health
参考答案:A
解析:
[试题类型] 推理引申题。
[解题思路] 根据题干关键词Senator Frank Lautenberg定位至末段最后两句:更重要的是,国会可能最终会采取行动。参议员弗兰克·劳滕伯格说:“我们绝不允许这种对我们的后代以及我们自已的健康造成伤害的情况继续发生。”由此可知,在劳滕伯格看来,政府应该采取措施保护孩子的健康以及我们自己的健康,使大家不受环境中有售化学物质的伤害,故选项[A]为答案。
[干扰排除] 选项[B]、[C]是根据第三段菲利普·兰德里根博士所陈述的内容设置的干扰项,故排除。参议员富兰克·劳滕伯格并没有将保护孩子的健康与其他问题进行对比,因此不能得出保护孩子的健康更加重要的结论,故排除选项[D]。