The destruction of our natural resources and contamination of our food supply continue occur, largely because of the extreme difficulty in affixing (把…固定) legal responsibility on those who continue to treat our environment with reckless abandon (放任). Attempts to prevent pollution by legislation, economic incentives and friendly persuasion have been net by lawsuits, personal and industrial denial and long delays—not only in accepting responsibility, but more importantly, in doing something about it.

It seems that only when government decides it can afford tax incentives or production sacrifices is there any initiative for change. Where is industry’s and our recognition that protecting mankind’s great treasure is the single most important responsibility? If ever there will be time for environmental health professionals to come to the frontlines and provide leadership to solve environmental problems, that time is now.

We are being asked, and, in fact, the public is demanding that we take positive action. It is our responsibility as professionals in environmental health to make the difference. Yes, the ecologists, the environmental activists and the conservationists serve to communicate, stimulate thinking and promote behavioral change. However, it is those of us who are paid to make the decisions to develop, improve and enforce environmental standards, I submit, who must lead the charge.

We must recognize that environmental health issues do not stop at city limits, county lines, state or even federal boundaries. We can no longer afford to be tunnel-visioned in our approach. We must visualize issues from every perspective to make the objective decisions. We must express our views clearly to prevent media distortion and public confusion.

I believe we have a three-part mission for the present. First, we must continue to press for improvements in the quality of life that people can make for themselves. Second, we must investigate and understand the link between environment and health. Third, we must be able to communicate technical information in a form that citizens can understand. If we can accomplish these three goals in this decade, maybe we can finally stop environmental degradation, and not merely hold it back. We will then be able to spend pollution dollars truly on prevention rather than on bandages.

1. We can infer from the first two paragraphs that the industrialists disregard environmental protection chiefly because ________.

A) they are unaware of the consequences of what they are doing

B) they are reluctant to sacrifice their own economic interests

C) time has not yet come for them to put due emphasis on it

D) it is difficult for them to take effective measures

2. The main task now facing ecologists, environmental activists and conservationists is ________.

A) to prevent pollution by legislation, economic incentives and persuasion

B) to arouse public awareness of the importance of environmental protection

C) to take radical measures to control environmental pollution

D) to improve the quality of life by enforcing environmental standards

3. The word “tunnel-visioned (Line 2, Para. 4) most probably means “________”.

A) narrow-minded

B) blind to the facts

C) short-sighted

D) able to see only one aspect

4. Which of the following, according to the author, should play the leading role in the solution of environmental problems?

A) Legislation and government intervention.

B) The industry’s understanding and support.

C) The efforts of environmental health professionals.

D) The cooperation of ecologists, environmental activists and conservationists.

5. Which of the following is true according to the last paragraph?

A) Efforts should be exerted on pollution prevention instead of on remedial measures.

B) More money should be spent in order to stop pollution.

C) Ordinary citizens have no access to technical information on pollution.

D) Environmental degradation will be stopped by the end of this decade.


1.B 2.B 3.D 4.C 5.C