单选题After several nuclear disasters, a _____ has raged over the safety of nuclear energy.AquarrelBsuspicionCverdictDcontroversy
单选题
After several nuclear disasters, a _____ has raged over the safety of nuclear energy.
A
quarrel
B
suspicion
C
verdict
D
controversy
参考解析
解析：
句意：几次核灾难激起了一场关于核能的安全性的争论。controversy争论，辩论，所涉及的特别是社会、道德或政治问题。nuclear disasters和safety of nuclear energy形成对立关系，这种对立引起争论，因此D为正确答案。quarrel争论，强调以吵架、发生口角等形式引起的争论，不够正式。suspicion怀疑。verdict陪审团的判决，决定。
句意：几次核灾难激起了一场关于核能的安全性的争论。controversy争论，辩论，所涉及的特别是社会、道德或政治问题。nuclear disasters和safety of nuclear energy形成对立关系，这种对立引起争论，因此D为正确答案。quarrel争论，强调以吵架、发生口角等形式引起的争论，不够正式。suspicion怀疑。verdict陪审团的判决，决定。
相关考题：
Liquid semiconductor is used to _________.A. get rid of the radioactive wasteB. test the power of nuclear batteries.C. decrease the size of nuclear batteriesD. reduce the damage to lattice structure.
According to Jae Kwon, his nuclear battery _______.A. uses a solid semiconductorB. will soon replace the present ones.C. could be extremely thinD. has passed the final test.
The children stay in the nuclear family ____ they grow up and marry. Then they form. new nuclear families.A: becauseB: asC: untilD: since
Section A – This ONE question is compulsory and MUST be attemptedHesket Nuclear (HN) is a nuclear power station in Ayland, a large European country. The HN plant is operated by Hesket Power Company (HPC), which in turn is wholly owned by the government of Ayland. Initially opened in the late 1950s, the power station grew in subsequent decades by the addition of several other facilities on the same site. HN now has the ability to generate 5% of Ayland’s entire electricity demand and is one of the largest nuclear stations in Europe. At each stage of its development from the 1950s to the present day, development on the site was welcomed by the relevant local government authorities, by the businesses that have supported it, by the trade union that represents the majority of employees (called Forward Together or FT for short) and also by the national Ayland government. A nuclear reprocessing facility was added in the 1980s. This is a valuable source of overseas income as nuclear power producers in many other parts of the world send material by sea to HN to be reprocessed. This includes nuclear producers in several developing countries that rely on the cheaper reprocessed fuel (compared to ‘virgin’ fuel) that HN produces.HPC is loss-making and receives a substantial subsidy each year from the government of Ayland. HPC has proven itself uneconomic but is deemed politically and environmentally necessary as far as the government is concerned. The government of Ayland has reluctantly accepted that large subsidies to HPC will be necessary for many years but considers nuclear power to be a vital component of its energy portfolio (along with other energy sources such as oil, gas, coal, renewables and hydroelectric) and also as a key part of its ‘clean’ energy strategy. Unlike energy from fossil fuels (such as coal, gas and oil), nuclear power generates a negligible amount of polluting greenhouse gas. HN also provides much needed employment in an otherwise deprived part of the country. The HN power station underpins and dominates the economy of its local area and local government authorities say that the HN plant is vital to the regional economy.Since it opened, however, the HN power station has been controversial. Whilst being welcomed by those who benefi t from it in terms of jobs, trade, reprocessing capacity and energy, a coalition has gradually built up against it comprising those sceptical about the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power. Some neighbouring countries believe themselves to be vulnerable to radioactive contamination from the HN plant. In particular, two countries, both of whom say their concerns about HN arise because of their geographical positions, are vocal opponents. They say that their geographical proximity forced them to be concerned as they are affected by the location of the HN plant which was not of their choosing.The government of Beeland, whose capital city is 70 km across the sea from HN (which is situated on the coast), has consistently opposed HN and has frequently asked the government of Ayland to close HN down. The Beeland government claims that not only does ‘low-level’ emission from the site already contaminate the waters separating the two countries but it also claims that any future major nuclear ‘incident’ would have serious implications for the citizens of Beeland. There is some scientifi c support for this view although opinion is divided over whether Beeland is being irrational in its general opposition to HN.The government of Ceeland is also a vocal opponent of HN. Ceeland is located to the north of Beeland and approximately 500 km away from Ayland. Some nuclear scientists have said that with such a large stretch of water between the HN plant and Ceeland, even a much-feared incident would be unlikely to seriously impact on Ceeland. Some commentators have gone further and said that Ceeland’s concerns are unfounded and ‘borne of ignorance’. FT, the trade union for HN employees, issued a statement saying that Ceeland had no reason to fear HN and that its fears were ‘entirely groundless’.HN’s other vocal and persistent opponent is No Nuclear Now (NNN), a well-organised and well-funded campaigning group. Describing itself on its website as ‘passionate about the environment’, it describes HN’s social and environmental footprint as ‘very negative’. NNN has often pointed to an environmentally important colony of rare seals living near the HN plant. It says that the seals are dependent on a local natural ecosystem around the plant and are unable to move, arguing that the animals are at signifi cant risk from low-level contamination and would have ‘no chance’ of survival if a more serious radioactive leak ever occurred. NNN points to such a leak that occurred in the 1970s, saying that such a leak proves that HN has a poor safety record and that a leak could easily recur.Each time an objection to the HN power station is raised, FT, the trade union, robustly defends the HN site in the media, and argues for further investment, based on the need to protect the jobs at the site. Furthermore, the radiation leak in the 1970s led to FT uniting with the HPC board to argue against those stakeholders that wanted to use the leak as a reason to close the HN site. The combination of union and HPC management was able to counter the arguments of those asking for closure.HN places a great deal of emphasis on its risk management and often publicises the fact that it conducts continual risk assessments and is in full compliance with all relevant regulatory frameworks. Similarly, FT recently pointed out that HN has had an ‘impeccable’ safety record since the incident in the 1970s and says on its website that it is ‘proud’ that its members are involved in ensuring that the company is continually in full compliance with all of the regulatory requirements placed upon it.The board of HPC, led by chairman Paul Gog, is under continual pressure from the government of Ayland to minimise the amount of government subsidy. Each year, the government places challenging targets on the HPC board requiring stringent cost controls at the HN power station. In seeking to reduce maintenance costs on the expiry of a prior maintenance contract last year, the board awarded the new contract to an overseas company that brought its own workers in from abroad rather than employing local people. The previous contract company was outraged to have lost the contract and the move also triggered an angry response from the local workforce and from FT, the representative trade union.FT said that it was deplorable that HPC had awarded the contract to an overseas company when a domestic company in Ayland could have been awarded the work. The union convenor, Kate Allujah, said that especially in the nuclear industry where safety was so important, domestic workers were ‘more reliable’ than foreign workers who were brought in purely on the basis of cost and in whose countries safety standards in similar industries might not be so stringent. HPC said that it had done nothing illegal as the foreign workers were allowed to work in Ayland under international legal treaties. Furthermore, it argued that pressure by FT to raise wages over recent years had created, with the government’s subsidy targets, the cost pressure to re-tender the maintenance contract.On HN’s 50th anniversary last year, NNN published what it called a ‘risk assessment’ for the HN power station. It said it had calculated the probabilities (P) and impacts (I) of three prominent risks.Risk of major radioactive leak over the next 10 years: P = 10%, I = 20Risk of nuclear explosion over the next 50 years: P = 20%, I = 100Risk of major terrorist attack over next 10 years: P = 10%, I = 80Impacts were on an arbitrary scale of 1–100 where 100 was defi ned by NNN as ‘total nuclear annihilation of the area and thousands of deaths’.The governments of Beeland and Ceeland seized upon the report, saying that it proved that HN is a genuine threat to their security and should be immediately closed and decommissioned. HN’s risk manager, Keith Wan, vigorously disagreed with this assessment saying that the probabilities and the impacts were ‘ridiculous’, massively overstated and intended to unnecessarily alarm people. HN’s public relations offi ce was also angry about it and said it would issue a rebuttal statement.Required:(a) Distinguish between voluntary and involuntary stakeholders, identifying both types of stakeholders in Hesket Nuclear. Assess the claims of THREE of the involuntary ‘affected’ stakeholders identifi ed. (12 marks)(b) The trade union, Forward Together, has had a long relationship with HN and represents not only the main workforce but also the employees of the maintenance company replaced by the foreign workers.Required:Explain the roles of employee representatives such as trade unions in corporate governance and critically evaluate, from the perspective of HPC’s board, the contribution of Forward Together in the governance of HPC. (10 marks)(c) Explain what an agency relationship is and examine the board of HPC’s current agency relationship and objectives. Briefl y explain how these would differ if HPC was a company with private shareholders. (10 marks)(d) As a part of HPC’s public relations effort, it has been proposed that a response statement should be prepared for the company’s website to help address two major challenges to their reputation.Required:Draft this statement to include the following:(i) Referring to the NNN report, explain why accurate risk assessment is necessary at Hesket Nuclear. (8 marks)(ii) Explain what a social and environmental ‘footprint’ is and construct the argument that HN’s overall social and environmental footprint is positive. (6 marks)Professional marks will additionally be awarded in part (d) for drafting a statement that is clear, has a logical fl ow, is persuasive and is appropriately structured. (4 marks)
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.30.It can be inferred from the last paragraph thatA.Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.B.the authority of the NRC will be defied.C.Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.D.Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.27.By entering into the 2002 agreement,Entergy intended toA.obtain protection from Vermont regulators.B.seek favor from the federal legislature.C.acquire an extension of its business license.D.get permission to purchase a power plant.
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.29.In the author’s view,the Vermont case will testA.Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.B.the mature of states’patchwork regulations.C.the federal authority over nuclear issues.D.the limits of states’power over nuclear issues.
共用题干第一篇Nuclear Power and Its DangerNuclear power's danger to health,safety,and even life itself can be summed up in one word:radiation.Nuclear radiation has a certain mystery about it,partly because it cannot be detected by human senses.It can't be seen or heard,or touched or tasted,even though it may be all around us.There are other things like that. For example,radio waves are all around us but we can't detect them,sense them,without a radio receiver. Similarly,we can't sense radioactivity without a radiation detector. But unlike common radio waves,nuclear radiation is not harmless to human beings and other living things.At very high levels,radiation can kill an animal or human being outright by killing masses of cells in vital organs.But even the lowest level of radiation can do serious damage.There is no level of radiation that is completely safe.If the radiation does not hit anything important,the damage may not be significant. This is the case when only a few cells are hit,and if they are killed outright,your body will replace the dead cells with healthy ones.But if the few cells are only damaged,and if they reproduce themselves,you may be in trouble.They reproduce themselves in a deformed way.They can grow into cancer. Sometimes this does not show up for many years.This is another reason for some of the mystery about nuclear radiation.Serious damage can be done without the victim being aware at the time that damage has occurred.A person can be irradiated and feel fine,then die of cancer five,ten,or twenty years later as a result.Or a child can be born weak or liable to serious illness as result of radiation absorbed by its grandparents.Radiation can hurt us.We must know the truth.According to the passage,the danger of nuclear power lies in________.A:nuclear mysteryB:radiation detectionC:nuclear radiationD:radiation level
共用题干第二篇Nuclear Power and Its DangerNuclear power's danger to health,safety,and even life itself can be summed up in one word:radiation.Nuclear radiation has a certain mystery about it,partly because it cannot be detected by human senses. It can't be seen or heard,or touched,or tasted,even though it may be all around us.There are other things like that.For example,radio waves are all around us but we can't detect them,sense them,without a radio receiver.Similarly,we can't sense radioactivity without a radiation detector. But unlike common radio waves, nuclear radiation is not harmless to'human beings and other living things.At very high levels,radiation can kill an animal or human being outright by killing masses of cells invital organs.But even the lowest level of radiation can do serious damage.There is no level of radiation that is comnpletely safe.If the radiation does not hit anything important,the damage may not be significant.This is the case when only a few cells are hit,and if they are killed outright.Your body will replace the dead cells with healthy ones.But if the few cells are only damaged,and if they reproduce themselves,you may be in trouble.They reproduce themselves in a deformed way.They can grow into cancer. Sometimes this does notshow up for many years.There is another reason for the mystery of nuclear radiation.Serious damage can be done without the victim being aware at the time that damage occurs. A person can be irradiated and feel fine,then die of cancer five,ten,or twenty years later as a result.Or a child can be born weak or liable to serious illness as a result of radiation absorbed by its grandparents.Radiation can hurt us.We must know the truth.According to the passage,the danger of nuclear power lise in_______________.A:nuclear mysteryB:radiation detectionC:nuclear radiationD:radiation level
共用题干The FamilyThe structure of a family takes different forms around the world and even in the same society.The family's form changes as it adapts to changing social and economic influences.Until recently, the most common form in North America was the nuclear family,consisting of a married couple with their minor children.The nuclear family is an independent unit.It must be prepared to fend for itself. Individual family members strongly depend on one another. There is little help from outside the family in emergencies.Elderly relatives of a nuclear family are cared for only if it is possible for the family to do so.In North America,the elderly often do not live with the family;they live in retirement communities and nursing homes.There are many parallels between the nuclear family in industrial societies,such as NorthAmerica,and of families in societies such as that of the Inuits,who live in harsh environments.The nuclear family structure is well adapted to a life of mobility. In harsh conditions,mobility allows the family to hunt for food.For North Americans,the hunt for jobs and improved social status also requires mobility.The nuclear family was not always the North American standard.In a more agrarian time,the small nuclear family was usually part of a larger extended family.This might have included grandparents,mother and father,brothers and sisters,uncles,aunts,and cousins.In North America today,there is a dramatic rise in the number of single-parent households.Twice as many households in the United States are headed by divorced, separated,or never-married individuals as are comprised of nuclear families. The structure of the family,not just in North America,but throughout the world,continues to change as it adapts to changing conditions.According to the passage,which is the definition of a nuclear family?A:.A nuclear family is a married couple with their minor children.B: A nuclear family is a single father with minor children.C: A nuclear family concludes parents,grandparents,and children.D: A nuclear family concludes parents,children,and aunts and uncles.
单选题What does the passage mainly discuss?AThe acquisition of British Nuclear Fuels by Toshiba.BThe acquisition of Westinghouse Electric by Toshiba.CToshiba’s expansion in nuclear power business.DToshiba’s embarking on nuclear power business.
单选题In the second paragraph, the author mainly discusses ______. .Athe nuclear accidents in Japan last MarchBnuclear power policies in GermanyCGerman attitude towards nuclear powerDthe safety levels of nuclear power plants in Germany
单选题Which of the following is an appropriate title for this passage?AJapan's Nuclear Crisis Causes Fear in Europe.BThe Chernobyl Disaster Helps Europe Better Understand Nuclear Power Energy.CGerman Governments Supports Nuclear Power Energy.DGermany Has Learnt a Lesson From Japan.
单选题We can conclude from the passage about nuclear fusion EXCEPT ______.Ait has great potential to produce abundant clean energyBNIF has just finished constructing a practical fusion reactorCextreme temperatures are needed to work itDit has not been successfully used to produce net energy gain in labs
单选题As a result of sophisticated technologies, this device has several advantages over like products.AtraditionalBintelligentCindustriousDadvanced
单选题According to the passage, which of the following about Europe is TRUE?AIt is dependent on Russia for gas and oil.BIt has put an end to fossil fuels.CIt had a major nuclear accident this year.DIt is likely that they would rethink their nuclear power policies.
单选题Beijing has reiterated that（）will China use nuclear weapons first.Aunder no circumstancesBunder any circumstancesCunder every circumstancesDunder all circumstances
单选题According to the passage, all the following statements about Eastern Europe are true EXCEPT ______.Athey are eager to build new nuclear power plantsBthey have totally forgotten the Chernobyl accident 25 years agoCthey have improved their nuclear power plantsDthey want energy independence
单选题Hiper is being planned ______.Ato compete with NIFBbecause NIF experiment, even successful, would not produce enough energy to run a nuclear fusion plantCto use the same laser technology but on a larger scaleDto demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion
单选题Although no proof yet exists of the electromagnetic disturbances observed being the results of nuclear weapons testing, diplomats are treating the situation with utmost delicacy.Aof the electromagnetic disturbances observed being the results of nuclear weapons testingBregarding the observed electromagnetic disturbances having been the results of nuclear weapons testingCthat the electromagnetic disturbances observed were the results of nuclear weapons testingDthat nuclear weapons testing resulted in the electromagnetic disturbances having been observedEthat the electromagnetic disturbance observed were resulting from nuclear weapons testing
单选题According to Nishida, the current buying decision by Toshiba is a response to ______Afierce competition in nuclear power businessBfailure in other businesses like semiconductors and DVD playersCpopularity of nuclear power around the worldDexpected increase in market demand for nuclear power generation
单选题While some military planners claimed that it would be possible to win a war fought with nuclear weapons, many scientists argued that such a war could not truly be won, because the fallout from nuclear warfare would create a nuclear winter and it also would be rendering the earth uninhabitable.Ait also would be rendering the earth uninhabitableBrendering the earth uninhabitableCmight have uninhabitably rendered the earthDrender the earth uninhabitableEwould also have rendered the earth uninhabitable