Compared to high heels , they don't look dangerous, but flip-flop wearers should think twice before slipping on a pair. The National Health Service spends PS40 million a year treating injuries caused by wearing the casual footwear. More than 200,000 people end up in hospital every year after suffering falls or developing long-term problems. Once worn only at the beach, flip-flops have become the regular summer footwear of choice for women, with two in five women owning at least one pair. But experts are warning the public of the dangers of wearing flip-flops, such as the risk of joint pains. They say flip-flops force people to change the way they walk so that when taking a walk with long steps they put pressure on the outside of their foot, rather than their heel, causing long-term damage. And there is also the risk of serious injury. Frequent complaints include twisted ankles, but some have broken their arms or wrists after falling because their flip-flops caught on uneven ground. Many also suffer aching toes as they constantly wear them. Mike, a spokesman, warned wearers of the damage done by flip-flops. He said, "They land on the outside and then roll the foot inwards putting all the pressure on the big toe." This constant rolling puts pressure on the ankle joint, causing it to weaken. The lack of support of the flip-flop also causes pain on the inside of the foot and lower leg. And if you're not used to wearing them, they can cause blisters , he added. Doctors say flip-flops cause far more damage as they are worn for longer periods of time. Emma Supple, consultant podiatrist , said, "Flip-flops are universally popular. They are easy to put on and easy to wear but women do need to be mindful that wearing on hard flat surfaces can cause considerable foot and leg problems." She encouraged women to wear suitable shoes to help recover from summertime injuries. Injuries caused by wearing the casual footwear include the following EXCEPT _ . A) Twisted ankles. B) Joint pains. C) Aching toes. D) Broken toes
D
Researchers have found more evidence that suggests a relationship between races and rates of lung cancer among smokers. A new study shows that black people and Native Hawaiians are more likely to develop lung cancer from smoking. It compared their risk to whites, Japanese-Americans and Latinos. Researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of Hawaii did the new study. The New England Journal of Medicine published the findings. The eight-year research studied more than 180,000 people. They included present and former smokers and people who never smoked. Almost 2,000 people in the study developed lung cancer. Researchers say genetics might help explain the racial and ethnic differences. There could be differences in how people's bodies react to smoke. But environmental influences, including the way people smoke, could also make a difference. African-Americans and Latinos in the study are reported smoking the fewest cigarettes per day. Whites are the heaviest smokers. But the scientists point out that blacks have been reported to breathe cigarette smoke more deeply than white smokers. This could fill their lungs with more of the chemicals in tobacco that cause cancer. Scientists know that some diseases effect different groups differently. And some drug companies have begun to develop racially targeted medicines. Last June, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a drug designed to treat heart failure in black patients. The name is BiDil. The agency called it "a step toward the promise of personalized medicine." People in the new study are made up of _ . A) heavy smokers in America B) the black and white people C) the Asians and Hawaiians D) smokers and non-smokers
D
Q: Can you believe your eyes? A recent experiment suggests that the answer to that question may depend on your age. Martin Doherty, a psychologist at the University of Stirling in Scotland, led the team of scientists. In this experiment, Doherty and his team tested the perception of some people, using pictures of some orange circles. The researchers showed the same pictures to two groups of people. The first group included 151 children aged 4 to 10, and the second group included 24 adults aged 18 to 25. The first group of pictures showed two circles alone on a white background. One of the circles was larger than the other, and these people were asked to identify the larger one. Four-year-olds identified the correct circle 79 percent of the time. Adults identified the correct circle 95 percent of the time. Next, both groups were shown a picture where the orange circles, again of different sizes, were surrounded by gray circles. Here's where the trick lies in. In some of the pictures, the smaller orange circle was surrounded by even smaller gray circles -- making the orange circle appear larger than the other orange circle, which was the real larger one. And the larger orange circle was surrounded by even bigger gray circles -- so it appeared to be smaller than the real smaller orange circle. When young children aged 4 to 6 looked at these tricky pictures, they weren't fooled -- they were still able to find the bigger circle with roughly the same accuracy as before. Older children and adults, on the other hand, did not do as well. Older children often identified the smaller circle as the larger one, and adults got it wrong most of the time. As children get older, Doherty said, their brains may develop the ability to identify visual context. In other words, they will begin to process the whole picture at once: the tricky gray circles, as well as the orange circle in the middle. As a result, they're more likely to fall for this kind of visual trick. Why are younger children not fooled? A) Because they are smarter than older children and adults. B) Because older people are influenced by their experience. C) Because people's eyes become weaker as they grow older. D) Because their brain can hardly notice related things together.
A: D
Q: A round of applause, please, for the Indian man who recently sang for 80 hours straight, setting a new Guinness world record. It's an impressive feat, to be sure, but let's just hope he still has a voice.According to Indian newspapers, Rajesh Burbure has been told to keep silent for several days so his vocal cords can heal. It was reported that Burbure and his family are in a celebratory mood. "It's a proud moment for all of us," his wife told DNAIndia.com. I, on the other hand, am unable to share their enthusiasm.Don't get me wrong: I hope the 35-year-old Burbure lives forever, sells a million records and becomes an international celebrity.But his record--singing for 80 hours straight--is about as meaningful as most of the other curious but crazy feats listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. Granted, I'm not qualified to speak on the subject.I've got no world records to my name, and I never expect to have any.Then again, maybe I am qualified to speak for those of us who have better things to do than train for years to sing an 80-hour medley of pop songs. But let's not just pick on poor Burbure.He's not the only person chasing meaningless accolades .The Guinness Book of World Records is full of the names of people who at one time grew the longest hair, or built the biggest bicycle, or baked the largest cheesecake. To all of these enterprising souls I ask, simply, "What was it all for?" Congratulations! For all of your painstaking effort, you became a footnote in a thick book that no one reads, except for you and the person who will eventually surpass you, with one more hour of singing, a few more centimeters of steel or a few more pounds of cheese. After all, records are made to be broken. Before someone wins a Guinness record, he or she has to _ . A) become an international celebrity B) know all about Guinness records C) practice a great deal D) bear great stress for fear of injury
A: C