(Question)
Article: An environment group called the Food Commission is unhappy and disappointed because of the sales of bottled water from Japan. The water, it angrily argues in public, has traveled 10,000 " _ " before it reaches Western customers. "Transporting water half-way across the world is surely the extremely stupid use of fuel when there is plenty of water in the UK." It is also worried that we are wasting our fuel by buying prawns from Indonesia (7,000 food miles) and carrots from South Africa (5,900 food miles). Counting the number of miles traveled by a product is a strange way of trying to tell the true situation of the environmental damage done by an industry. Most food is transported around the world on container ships that are extremely energy-efficient. It should be noted that a ton of butter transported 25 miles in a truck to a farmers' market does not necessarily use less fuel on its journey than a similar product transported hundreds of miles by sea, Besides, the idea of "food miles" ignores the amount of fuel used in the production. It is possible to cut down your food miles by buying tomatoes grown in Britain rather than those grown in Ghana; the difference is that the British ones will have been raised in heated greenhouses and the Ghanaian ones in the open sun. What is the idea of "food miles" does provide, however, is the chance to cut out Third World countries from First World food markets. The number of miles traveled by our food should, as I see it, be regarded as a sign of the success of the global trade system, not a sign of damage to the environment. Question: From the passage we know that the author is most probably _ . Yes or no, is the answer "a supporter of free global trade"?
(Answer)
No

(Question)
Article: Here's one number to keep in mind during your next cell phone conversation: 50. A new experiment shows that spending 50 minutes with an active phone pressed up to the ear increases activity in the brain. This brain activity probably doesn't make you smarter. When cell phones are on, they emit energy in the form of radiation that could be harmful, especially after years of cell phone usage. Scientists don't know yet whether cell phones are bad for the brain. Studies like this one are attempting to find it out. The 47 participants in the experiment may have looked a little strange. Each one had two Samsung cell phones attached to his or her head -- one on each ear. The phone on the left ear was off. The phone on the right ear played a message for 50 minutes, but the participants couldn't hear it because the sound was off. With this set-up, the scientists could be sure they were studying brain activity from the phone itself, and not brain activity due to listening and talking during a conversation. After 50 minutes with two phones strapped to their heads, the participants were given PET scans. The PET scan showed that the left side (the side with the phone turned off) of each participant's brain hadn't changed during the experiment. The right side of the brain, however, had used more glucose, which is a type of sugar that provides fuel to brain cells. These right-side brain cells were using almost as much glucose as the brain uses when a person is talking. This suggests that the brain cells there were active -- even without the person hearing anything. That activity, the scientists say, was probably caused by radiation from the phone. Henry Lai, who works at the University of Washington in Seattle, is uncomfortable with the data related to cell phones. Holding a cell phone to your ear during a conversation is "not really safe," Lai told Science News. Lai is a bioengineer at the University of Washington in Seattle. He wrote an article about the new study for a journal, but he did not work on the study.... Question: Why weren't the participants allowed to have a conversation on the phone during the experiment? Yes or no, is the answer "Because the scientists want to be sure of the accuracy of the experiment."?
(Answer)
No

(Question)
Article: Environmental activists in South Korea are condemning a government plan to hunt endangered whales for scientific research. They believe the plan is part of an effort to restart commercial whaling activities. Such activities are banned in many countries. South Korea announced the proposal in July at a meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Panama. The head of the South Korean delegation said the plan was needed to answer questions about minke whale populations. He said the hunt would take place near the South Korean coast. But he did not say how many of the animals would be caught. The International Whaling Commission has yet to make a decision on the South Korean plan. The organization banned commercial whaling in 1986 because of concerns about the survival of whale species. But now, some South Korean fishermen say they are facing a threat from minke whales. They say these animals are eating what would have been their catch. The plan was immediately condemned by anti-whaling nations. Wildlife activists also criticized the proposal. Han Jeong-hee works in Seoul for the environmental group Greenpeace."It's really regretful to hear that the South Korean government is, like, considering conducting scientific whaling. Scientific whaling is just, like, thinly disguised commercial whaling. And, you know, we are of course against all commercial whaling. Japan's the only country that is doing scientific whaling at the moment and South Korea is just trying to follow that." Apart from the plan in South Korea, an aquarium in the American state of Georgia also wants to import eighteen beluga whales from Russia. The United States currently has 31 beluga whales. They are living in six aquariums and marine parks. Four of them are at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta. The Georgia Aquarium has asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for permission to import the beluga whales. If it was approved, aquarium officials would send some of the animals to the other facilities. The Georgia... Question: The Georgia Aquarium wants to import beluga whales in that . Yes or no, is the answer "it wants to achieve research and educational purposes"?
(Answer)
No