Readings in Sciencein association with Nature
最新科学と人の今を読む

Yuji Suzuki

NAN’UN-DO

Readings in Science

Copyright © 2015
by
Yuji Suzuki

All Rights Reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission
from the author and Nan’un-do Co., Ltd.

Unit 1Babies learn to babble like birds learn to sing7

Karen Ravn, 29 May 2013

Unit 2
		It’s not just Fukushima: Mass disaster evacuations
challenge planners — [1]15David Biello, 05 March 2012

Unit 3
		It’s not just Fukushima: Mass disaster evacuations
challenge planners — [2]24David Biello, 05 March 2012

Unit 4
		Baseball players reveal how humans evolved to throw
so well33

Sid Perkins, 26 June 2013

Unit 5Huge cancer study uncovers 74 genetic risk factors

42

Erika Check Hayden, 27 March 2013

Unit 6

Amorous insects predict the weather

XX

Brian Owens, 02 October 2013

Unit 73-D printed windpipe gives infant breath of life — [1]XX

Marissa Fessenden, 28 May 2013

Unit 83-D printed windpipe gives infant breath of life — [2]XX

Marissa Fessenden, 28 May 2013

Unit 9Pilot projects bury carbon dioxide in basalt

XX

Jeff Tollefson, 26 July 2013

Unit 10Disputed results a fresh blow for social psychology
Alison Abbott, 30 April 2013

XX

Unit 1 Babies learn to babble like birds learn to sing
Karen Ravn, 29 May 2013

Res earc h c h al l en g es t h eo ry o f i n n a t e vo c a l a b i l i t i e s 1 .
Researchers have found similar patterns in the ways humanbabies and songbirds learn their vocalizations2.
[Key Words & Phrases] psychology, language acquisition,
learning pattern, innate sequencing theory, babies, songbirds,
bubbling, singing, syllables, cross-species, etc.

1

innate vocal abilities: 生まれつきの能力音声能力。innate は「生まれつきの」，「生得の」「先天的な」を意味し，
2
vocalization: 発声

learned「生後学習された」に対する概念。

7

Babies learn to babble3 before they learn to talk, at first simply repeating
individual syllables (as in ba-ba-ba), and later stringing4 various syllables
together (as in ba-da-goo). Songbirds exhibit5 similar patterns duringsong-learning, and the capacity for this sort of syllable sequencing6 is
widely believed to be innate, and to emerge full-blown7 — a theory thatis challenged by a paper published on Nature’s website today8. A studyof three species — zebra finches9, Bengalese finches10 and humans —reports that none of the trio has it that easy. Their young all have to learn
how to string syllables together slowly, pair by pair.
“We discovered a previously unsuspected 11 stage in human vocal
development,” says first author Dina Lipkind, a psychologist now atHunter College in New York.
The researchers began by training young zebra finches (Taeniopygia
guttata) to sing a song in which three syllables represented by the letters
A, B and C came in the order ABC–ABC. They then trained the birds tosing a second song in which the same syllables were strung together in adifferent order, ACB–ACB.
Eight out of seventeen birds managed to learn the second song, but they
did not do so in one fell swoop12. They learned it as a series of syllable
pairs, first, say, learning to go from A to C, then fromC to B and finally from B to A. Forthermore, they didn’t do it overnight, as
the innate-sequencing theory predicts. Instead, on average, they learned
the first pair in about ten days, the second in four days, and the third in
two days.
The researchers found evidence of similar learning patterns in untrained
Bengalese finches (Lonchura striata domestica). For instance, in this bird’ssongs, some syllable pairs are reversible13 — sometimes syllable A comes
before syllable B and vice versa. Again, the innate-sequencing theory
predicts that young birds should acquire14 both orders at the same time,
but they do not. When the scientists tracked the development of sevensuch pairs, they found that the birds acquired the two orders an averageof about 18 days apart.

8

Babble on
Perhaps most surprisingly, the study found evidence that human babies
follow a similar learning pattern. When the researchers analysed
databases of vocal recordings from nine infants, they found that theirwell-known babbling progression — from repeating the same syllable
to stringing different syllables together — did not happen quickly, but
occurred gradually, over a period of 20–30 weeks.
“The study provides beautiful evidenceof stepwise15 transitions in songbirds,
as well as analyses that are suggestiveof16 the same phenomenon in humani n f a n t s ,” s a y s M i c h a e l F r a n k , alanguage-acquisition 17 researcher at
Stanford University in California. But
he cautions that the hypothesis forbabies should be tested experimentally.
Michael Goldstein, a psychologist who heads a bird and baby lab at Cornell
University in Ithaca, New York, questions whether the learning patterns
exhibited by the finches can even be generalized across the species’
tuneful18 relatives. “There’s no such thing as a generic19 songbird,” hesays. He also points out that the study used only small sample sizes.
Goldstein is also heartened by the study’s cross-species20 comparisons. “A
lot of people talk about the parallels21 between birds and babies,” he says,“but very few actually study them. It’s good that they’ve done this.”

string together: ～ を 一 列 に つ な ぎ 合 わ せ る cf. 名 詞 ＝ ヒ モ， 一
6exhibit: 示 すsequencing: シ ー ケ ン ス， 順 序 に 並 べ る こ と
78 See Lipkind, D. et al. Naturefull-blown: 完 全 に 成 熟 し た， 満 開 の
cf. sequence: 順 番 に 並 べ る
910zebra finches: キンカチョウ
Bengalese finches:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12173 (2013).
11
12
ジュウシマツunsuspected: 思いも寄らない，気がつかなかった
in one fell swoop: 突然 = all at
13
14
reversible: 逆にできる，裏にできる
acquire: 習得once cf. fell: 鋭い，急な； swoop 掴む事
15
す る cf. acquire language = 言 語 を 習 得 す る， 名 詞 = acquisition
stepwise: ス テ ッ プ 的 に は cf.
3

babble: 喃 語 を 言 う， バ ブ バ ブ 言 う

列， 過 去 形・ 過 去 分 詞 形 ＝ strung

4

5–wise を 名 詞 に つ け る と「～ 的 に は 」 と い う 副 詞 に な る。 money + -wise (money-wise) = 金 銭 的 に は
16
1718
suggestive of: ～ を 示 唆 す る
language-acquisition: 言 語 習 得
tuneful: 音 楽 的 な
19
generic: 総称の，一般的な cf. a generic songbird: ソングバードと総称できる（一般化できる）もの，genericdrugs ＝ 会社名を特定せずに売られる薬 20 cross-species: 異種間 21 parallel: 類似

Unit 1

9

Exercise 1 Answer the following questions.
[1]	According to the article, which one of the following statements is correct?

		 (1)	Babies first repeat syllables and then string them together.
		 (2) Babies repeat syllables before they babble.
		 (3) They string syllables together before they babble.
[2]	According to the article, which one of the following statements is wrong?

		 (1)	Babies already know at birth how to string syllables together.
		 (2) The innate theory of sequencing syllables is wrong.
		 (3)	Zebra finches and Bengalese finches must learn how to sequence syllables.
[3]	Fill in the following blank space with the most appropriate expression. “Somescholars believe that language is		 (1) innate，not learned after birth.”(2) challenged(3) strung[4] How did Lipkind and her colleagues train young zebra finches?

		 (1)	The birds first learned to sing a song with three syllables in a certain order, andthen another song with the same syllables in a different order.
		 (2)	The bird learned to sing the two different songs with six different syllables in thesame order.
		 (3)	The birds learned to sing two different versions of the ABC song by changing theorder of the three letters.
[5]	H ow did the young zebra finches learn the two songs used in Lipkind’s
experiment?

		 (1)	They had to spend much time and effort to learn the second song as a series ofsyllable pairs.
		 (2)	They spent much less time and effort than Lipkind had thought to learn bothsongs as a series of syllable pairs.
		 (3)	They learned the second song quite easily by separating all syllables into pairs, as
the innate-sequencing theory predicts.
[6]	Fill in the following blank. “If sequencing syllables is, the birds

did not have to spend so much time and effort to learn a song in which thesame syllables were put together in a different order.”		 (1) innate

10(2) not innate(3) on average[7]	W hich one of the following statements does not reflect Lipkind and hercolleagues’ finding on untrained Bengalese finches?

		 (1) The birds learned two syllables A and B at the same time.
		 (2)	The birds learned either syllable A first and then syllable B or syllable B first andthen syllable A, not both at the same time.
		 (3)	The birds spent a lot of time to acquire the two orders, which disproves the innatesequencing theory.
[8]	Which one of the following statements is closest to the piece of evidence
Lipkind claims to reject the innate-sequencing theory?

		 (1)	With human babies’ babbling, progression from repeating the same syllables tostringing different syllables together takes over 20 days.
		 (2)	Human babies’ well-known babbling progression follows a pattern similar to
songbirds’ but happens very quickly.
		 (3)	Human babies repeat the same syllables well over a period of 20-30 weeks before
stringing them together.
[9] Michael Frank:		 (1)	thinks that Lipkind needs more experiments in order to apply the evidence ofstepwise transition in songbirds to human babies’ babbling.
		 (2)	agrees that the evidence of the stepwise transitions in songbirds can be applied tohuman babbling.
		 (3)	rejects both Lipkind’s evidence of stepwise transition in songbirds, and herevidence of the same phenomenon in human infants.
[10] Michael Goldstein:		 (1)	casts doubt on Lipkind’s study because it generalizes finches’ learning pattern
across other species’, and the samples used were too limited.
		(2)	questions whether the species’ tuneful relatives can be generalized as genericsongbirds.
		(3)	points out that Lipkind’s study has proved that there is no such thing as a genericsongbird.

Unit 111

[11] Goldstein, however ...

		 (1)	finds Lipkind’s research very significant because it examines similarities among
different species.
		 (2)	is heartened by talk about parallels between birds and babies.
		 (3)	says that it’s good that babies and birds actually have those parallels.
[12]	Which one of the following statements best reflects the article’s conclusion on
Lipkind’s research?

		 (1)	More experiments on both human infants and birds are necessary to prove herfindings.
		 (2)	Based on many false assumptions, her research does not prove anything at all.
		 (3)	Cross-species comparisons shouldn’t be used because they are still unproven.

Exercise 2	Choose the correct word or expression to best complete
each sentence.

[1] Babies, but may be trying to say something.

		 (1) babble(2) acquire[2]	Whether or not language is an		 (1) innate(3) swoop
ability is a difficult question.

(2) analyzed(3) exhibited[3] She spent her school days without knowing her		 (1) unsuspected[4] Researchers tried to		 (1) string together(2) overnight[6]	Education(3) reversible

pieces of information.

(2)caution[5] I got all my Christmas shopping done		 (1) in one fell swoop

talent for music.

(2) experimentally(3)occur.

(3) pair by pair

, information communication technology (ICT) has

brought much change.

		 (1) –wise[7] I seem to have		 (1) acquired[8] Greetings are a		 (1) cross-species
12(2) parallel(3) patterns

two copies of this book by mistake.

(2) generalized(3) heartened

behavior among all animals.

(2) on average(3) caution

[9] His manner was		 (1) suggestiveof an ancient warlord.

(2) untrained[10] The new engines had a		 (1) generic(3) similar

problem with their fans.

(2)tuneful(3) full-blown

Exercise 3 Further research[1] Expand and update the research mentioned in this article.
		 (1) Read one of the related stories listed below.
		 (2)	Try to find and skim one or two related stories in the latest Nature News &Comment (http://www.nature.com/news/) or other literature.
[Related stories]		 (1) Babies’ brains may be tuned to language before birth			(http://www.nature.com/news/babies-brains-may-be-tuned-to-languagebefore-birth-1.12489)
		 (2) Why tongue twisters are hard to say			(http://www.nature.com/news/why-tongue-twisters-are-hard-tosay-1.12471)
		 (3) Finches learn even when practice isn’t perfect			(http://www.nature.com/news/finches-learn-even-when-practice-isn-tperfect-1.10675)[2]	What do you think of the research? Write a short essay in English.
		 (200 words)
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		

Unit 1

13

Exercise 4 Practice English math terms.
	Learn how to pronounce each of the following terms used in graphs,
charts and figures.（グラフ、チャート、図等の読み方）[1] bar graph ／ bar chart（棒グラフ）[2] line graph（折れ線グラフ）[3] pie chart ／ circle chart（円グラフ） [4] bar graph（帯グラフ）[5] distribution（分布図）[6] histgram（柱状グラフ）[7] title（表題）		[8] item（項目）[9] row（行）
		[10] column（列）[11] cell(s)（セル）		[12] unit（単位）14[13] segment(s)（円グラフの各部分）[14] bar（棒グラフの棒）[15] straight line（直線）[16] curve（曲線）[17] solid line（実線）[18] broken line（破線）[19] dotted line（点線）[20] undulating line（波線）[21] fluctuating line（変動線）[22] origin（原点）[23] x-axis（X 軸）[24] y-axis（Y 軸）[25] The horizontal/first axis（横軸）[26] The vertical/second axis（縦軸）Unit 2 It’s not just Fukushima: Mass disasterevacuations challenge planners — [1]David Biello, 05 March 2012

The Fukushima evacuation zone raises the issue of what
would happen during an evacuation1 in heavily populated US
metropolises during a nuclear meltdown. More than 180 million
people live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant in the US —the radius2 the US suggested (residents) be evacuated during
the nuclear crisis at Fukushima Daiichi.
Being twice as long as most other essays compiled in thistextbook, this essay was cut half to be covered in Unit 2 and Unit 3.
[Key Words & phrases] nuclear accident, disasters, physics,
medicine, evacuation, policy, society/community, living, etc.

1

evacuation: 避難，cf. evacuate: 避難する2

radius: 半径，半径範囲15On March 11, 2011, Japan suffered a massive 3 earthquake andsubsequent4 tsunami that destroyed roads, bridges, and buildings; killed
nearly 16,000 people; and critically 5 disabled three reactors 6 at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. By March 12, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)7 was already considering urging8 Americans
within 50 miles of the stricken nuclear reactors to evacuate, given9 an
explosion in Unit 110 that destroyed the reactor building and exposed11
spent12 nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials13 into the air.
“If this happened in the U.S., we would go out to 50 miles,” said Bill
Borchardt, NRC executive director for operations14 on March 17, according
to transcripts15 of the days following the catastrophe16; “That would be ourevacuation recommendation17.”
In fact, in the U.S., more than four million Americans live within 10 milesof the 63 of nuclear power plant sites with at least one operating18 reactor,
according to data compiled19 by the NRC based on the 2000 census.20 That
number swells21 when the radius extends outward to22 50 miles, to affect23
more than 180 million Americans, and includes major metropolitan areas
such as New York City, Philadelphia, San Diego and even West Palm
Beach, Fla24.
In the wake of25 the meltdowns in Japan, and subsequent evacuations,
could all these people in the U.S. be evacuated or take some form ofprotective action in time26 in similar circumstances?
Planning for the worst
Nuclear power plants are surrounded by two “emergency planningzones27” developed out of accident analyses conducted28 in the 1960s and1970s: a roughly 10-mile radius around the plant that must anticipate29
being exposed to30 a radioactive plume31, and a roughly 50-mile radiusaround the plant that must prepare for possibly being exposed toradioactive particles32 that drop out of a plume. “Neither33 are zones thatare fixed, and that is the absolute boundary34,” explains the NRC’s Patricia
Milligan, the senior technology advisor for preparedness and response in
the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response35. “We don’t expectthat nuclear power plant operators would stop taking action because it’s
at 10.5 miles. The plans are built so that 10 miles provides a reasonablebasis, and if you need to expand36, you could.”16

That is exactly what happened in the case of Fukushima. Just hours
after37 the tsunami on March 11, the Japanese government ordered anevacuation of those living within three kilometers of the stricken38 nuclear
reactors, and suggested those living within 10 kilometers stay indoors
with the windows closed. As the situation progressively 39 worsened
and radiation hot spots were discovered farther afield40, the Japanese
government expanded the evacuation order.
The goal in the zones prescribed41 by U.S. regulations is to avoid any
radiation doses42 that exceed43 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s“protective action guidelines”44 for exposure45 to a plume of radioactive
material being released from a nuclear power plant. The U.S. rules notethat evacuation, or sometimes getting indoors “should normally beinitiated46 at one rem47,” or 10 millisieverts48. (A rem is a dosage unit49
of x-ray and gamma-ray radiation exposure.) Workers within a nuclear
power plant can receive doses of up to 50 millisieverts per year. It takes
immediate50 exposure to as much as two sieverts51 of radiation to cause
sickness straightaway52.
As bad as it’s gotten
Rulemaking is based on the best available data. So what has beenlearned from previous close calls53 from nuclear and nonnuclear incidents
alike? On March 28, 1979, the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island
in Pennsylvania54 suffered a partial meltdown that led to the release ofradioactive materials. In the fog of confusion55 that surrounded the event,Pennsylvania government officials advised children and pregnant women
within a five-mile radius of the facility to leave. That radius of evacuation
ultimately 56 extended some 20-miles around the plant, although the
majority of local residents did not evacuate. Those who stayed were urged
to remain indoors, and farmers were urged to shelter their animals andfeed them stored food.
In the end, despite the partial meltdown and release of radioactive
material, numerous studies have found limited or no health effects.
But the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power history did
point out flaws57 in evacuation planning. “Three Mile Island was a very
enlightening58 accident in terms of 59 how an accident progresses,” Milligan
notes.

Unit 217

First and foremost 60, it became clear that nuclear accidents to date,including Fukushima, are slow-moving affairs. In the case of Fukushima,
there were at least 14 hours between the loss of electricity to power61
the pumps keeping cooling water on the nuclear fuel, and a melt down.
In nonnuclear emergencies, such as the release of toxic gases62, only
minutes may pass before catastrophe63 hits. “When there are conditions
immediately dangerous to life and health, you don’t have hours, you havesignificantly64 less time than that to get people out of the way of chlorine
gas or a wildfire,” Milligan says. Nuclear accidents also tend to affect amuch smaller area than, for example, a major hurricane like Katrina65 thatcovered a swath66 of territory 400 miles wide, and caused approximately67
two million people to evacuate Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi coastal
areas. “Evacuations can occur very effectively and very quickly in thiscountry,” Milligan adds. (To be continued in Unit 3.)

45
subsequent: 引 き 継 い で く る
critically: 危 機 的 に， 深 刻 に， 重 篤 に
8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): 原 子 力 規 制 委 員 会
urging~ to:910given: ～ を 仮 定 す る と， ～ が あ る と す れ ば
Unit 1: 第 一 原 子 炉urge ~ to, ～ す る こ と を 強 い る
1112
13
exposed: 露 出 し た， 野 ざ ら し のspent: 使 用 済 み のradioactive materials: 放 射 線 物
3
6

massive: 巨 大 な
reactor: 原 子 炉

質

14

7

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part001/part001-0032.html

16
17transcript: 記 録， 調 査 書
catastrophe: 災 害
evacuation recommendation: 避 難 勧
18
19
告operating: 稼 働 中 の，cf. operate: 稼 働 す る
compiled: 編 纂 さ れ た，cf. compile: 編 纂
20
21
22
する
census: 調 査
swell: 膨 ら む
extend outward to: 外 側 に ～ ま で 延 長 す る，cf. to: ～23まで
to affect: そ の 結 果 影 響 を 与 え る，cf. affect: 影 響 を 与 え る，to affect: 結 果 的 用 法 の 不 定 詞
24
25
West Palm Beach, Fla: フロリダ州海岸沿いの観光都市，cf. Fla: Florida
in the wake of: ～をうけ26
27てin time: 間に合うように cf. protective action in time: 間に合う防護行動
emergency planningzones: NRC が 定 め る 原 発 事 故 緊 急 非 難 区 域，http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/
28
conducted: 実施された，cf. conduct: 実施すabout-emerg-preparedness/planning-zones.html
29
30
る
anticipate: 見込む，期待する
be exposed to: ～にさらされる，cf. expose A to B: A を B にさら
31
32
すradioactive plume: 放射性プリューム，放射能雲，cf. plume: 雲，ガス状の物
particles: 分子，粒子
33
neither: ここでは Neither a roughly 10-mile radius (around the plant) nor a roughly 50-mile radius
34
35
の意味
the absolute boundary: 絶 対 的 境 界 線
The Office of Nuclear Security and Incident
Response: US NRC 内で原子力施設の安全に関する技術的事案の評価を司る部署。http://www.nrc.gov/about36
37
expand: 広 げ る
just hours after: ま さ に ～ の 何 時 間 後
nrc/organization/nsirfuncdesc.html
38
39
40
41
stricken: 打撃を受けた
progressively: 刻々と
farther afield: さらに遠くでprescribed: 規定
42
43
44
された
radiation doses: 放射線量
exceed: 越える
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/
45
exposure: 被 爆，cf. expose の 名 詞 形
er/pag-manual-interim-public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf
46
47
initiated: 開 始 さ れ た，cf. initiate: 始 め る， 開 始 す る
rem: レ ム，cf. 1 レ ム は 1.07185 レ ン ト ゲ ン
48
49
50
51
millisieverts: ミリシーベルト
a dosage unit: 計量単位
immediate: 瞬間的な
sievert:
52
53
54
シーベルト
straightaway: 直 ち にclose call: 危 機 一 髪Three Mile Island: 1979 年 3 月
55
28 日 ア メ リ カ 東 部 ス リ ー マ イ ル 島 原 子 力 発 電 所 事 故。
confusion: 戸 惑， 困 惑，cf. confuse: 戸 惑 わ
56
57
58
59
せ る， 困 惑 さ せ る
ultimately: 最 終 的 に， 結 局
flaw: 欠 陥
enlightening: 啓 発 的 な
in
60
61
62
foremost: 真っ先にpower: ～に動力を与える
toxic gases: 有terms of: ～と言う意味で
63
64
65
毒ガス
catastrophe: 天 災， 災 害
significantly: か な り， 大 き く
Katrina: 2008 年 5 月
66
67
ア メ リ カ を 襲 っ た 最 大 級 の ハ リ ケ ー ン・ カ ト リ ー ナ。
swath = area
approximately: 大 方， 約
15

18

Exercise 1 Answer the following questions.
[1]	W hat were heavily damaged at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant by theearthquake and the tsunami on March 11, 2011?

		 (1) Its bridges.

(2) Its three reactors.

(3) Its roads.

[2]	By March 12, 2011, the U.S. NRC made a decision to direct Americans living
within 50 miles from the reactors to evacuate ...

		 (1) if an explosion in Unit 1 happened to destroy the reactor building.
		 (2) before an explosion in Unit 1 destroyed the reactor building.
		 (3) as soon as the tsunami struck the nuclear power plant.
[3]	NRC executive director for operation must have transcribed all the happeningsand decisions made after		 (1) the catastrophe.

(2) evacuation.

(3) Unit 1.

[4]	How many sites of nuclear power plants in the US have at least one operating
reactor in 2000?

		 (1) About 50.

(2) About 10.

(3) About 60.

[5] What is the author’s worry if the meltdowns occurred in the US?

		 (1)	There will be 4 million to 180 million Americans who must evacuate, dependingon the radius, ranging from 10 miles to 50 miles from the reactors.
		 (2)	There are 63 nuclear plants near major metropolitan areas such as New York City,
Philadelphia, San Diego and West Palm Beach.
		 (3)	Unlike people in Japan, 180 million people near the nuclear plants, may not be
willing to evacuate in time in the wake of similar meltdowns.
[6]	What is meant by “Neither are zones that are fixed and that is the absoluteboundary”?

		 (1)	There are no plans that provide a reasonable basis for a roughly 10 mile-radius, sothat you could expand it up to 50 miles.
		 (2)	It is impossible to draw a clear line between areas that are affected by radioactive
plumes or particles and those that are not affected by them.
		 (3)	Neither a roughly 10-mile radius around the plant nor a roughly 50-mile radiusaround it is sufficient for preparedness.

Unit 219

[7] What is the goal in the zones prescribed by U.S. regulations?

		 (1)	To protect U.S. citizens from exposure to radiation doses higher than theprotective action guidelines.
		 (2)	To either evacuate people or direct them to stay indoors in order to avoid any
radiation doses.
		 (3)	To protect workers within a nuclear plants from receiving radiation doses of 50
millsieverts per year, which instantly causes sickness.
[8] On what is rulemaking for “protective action guidelines” ?

		(1) It should be based on the best available data learned strictly from nuclear incidents.
		 (2) It should be based on both previous nuclear and nonnuclear incidents.
		 (3)	The data learned from the meltdown at Three Mile Island should be omitted since
it was only a partial meltdown.
[9]	Choose a statement not mentioned in the article concerning the nuclear
incident at Three Mile Island.

		 (1)	Pennsylvania government officials recommended that children and pregnant
women within a five-mile radius of the plant should leave.
		 (2)	Either no or highly limited health effects have been reported despite the fact thatmost local residents remained home.
		 (3)	As soon as the radius of evacuation extended 20-miles, the majority not all, of
local residents evacuated.
[10]	What could be a flaw in the evacuation planning pointed out by the nuclear
plant accident at Three Mile Island?

		 (1)	There was no definite evacuation planning that suited the progress and expansionof the Three Mile Island accident.
		 (2)	Pennsylvania government officials did not give enough time for the residents toevacuate when they extended the radius of evacuation from 5 miles to 10 miles.
		 (3)	Pennsylvania officials did not report how numerous studies had pointed out only
limited or no health effects despite the partial meltdown and release of radioactive
material.
[11]	What did officials in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency learn from theThree Mile Island accident?

		 (1) How enlightening the accident was.
		 (2) How an accident goes.
		 (3) How a partial meltdown progresses.

20[12] Which one of the following statements is not mentioned in the article?

		 (1)	Compared to an emergency such as a nuclear meltdown, you have much moretime to evacuate.
		 (2) Little time is allowed for evacuation in the case of the release of toxic gases.
		(3) The area to be evacuated for a hurricane is much wider than for a nuclear meltdown.

Exercise 2	Choose the correct word or expression to best complete
each sentence.
the residents living nearby to quickly[1]	Fire department officials
evacuate.

		 (1) exposed[2]	(2) urged(3) compiled

the fact that he’s had six months to do this, he hasn’t mademuch progress.

		 (1) given[3] The		 (1) transcribed(2) straightaway

rocket fell somewhere near the launch site in the Pacific.

(2) prescribed[4] The greater Tokyo area has extended		 (1) outward(3) spentto more than 100 km.

(2) approximately[5] Airport security was extra tight		 (1) in the wake of(3) according to(3) afieldyesterday’s bomb attacks.

(2) as a result of[6]	This medicine label says that one(3) of courseshould be taken three times aday.

		 (1) noble gas[7] The		 (1) radius[8] The ready		 (1) flaw(2) dose(3) puffof this machine is well over 40cm.

(2) plume(3) remof guns in major cities in the USA escalates violence.

(2) confusion(3) availability[9] A commercial airplane was hit by lightening. It was really a		 (1) catastrophe(2) reactor.

(3) close call

Unit 221

[10] Automobiles

by diesel fuel are coming back again.

		 (1) powered(2) initiated(3) enlightened

Exercise 3 Further research[1] Expand and update the research mentioned in this article.
		 (1)	Read one of the stories listed below, which focus on the Fukushima
nuclear accident on March 11, 2011.
		 (2)	Try to find and skim one or two related stories in the latest Nature News &Comment (http://www.nature.com/news/) or other literature. Find latest
stories related to the massive earthquake, the tsunami, and the nuclear
accident on March 11, 2011 in Japan.
[Related stories]		 (1) Scientists report back from Fukushima exclusion zone			(http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-report-back-from-fukush imaexclusion-zone-1.10106)
		 (2) Fukushima reaches cold shutdown			(http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-reaches-cold-shutdown-1.9674)

		 (3) Japan earthquake and nuclear crisis news special			(http://www.nature.com/news/specials/japanquake/index.html)[2]	What do you think of the research? Write a short essay in English.
		 (200 words)
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		

22

Exercise 4 Practice English math terms.

Following the examples, write out each number.（Large Numbers 大きな数）

The numerical units → trillion↑

billion↑million thousand↑↑

123,456,789,123,456↓↓

hundred, ten[Examples]
134,000→ How many thousands? → One hundred thirty-four thousand.

56,000,000→ How many millions?

→ Fifty-six million.

278,000,000→ How many millions?

→ Two hundred seventy-eight million

91,000,000,000 → How many billions?

→ Ninety-one billion.

22,543,897,150 → Twenty-two billion, five hundred forty-three million, eight			hundred ninety-seven thousand, one hundred fifty.

[1] 351,438
		[2] 42,128,571
		[3] 6,321,987,405
		[4] 83,926,693,307
		
[5] 10,008,034,110,013
		

Unit 223