If there was a single act that would improve your health, cut your risk of food-borne illnesses, and help preserve the environment and the welfare of millions of animals, would you do it? The act I’m referring to is the choice you make every time you sit down to a meal. More than a million Canadians have already acted: they have chosen not to eat meat. And the pace of change has been dramatic. Vegetarian food sales are showing unparalleled growth. Especially popular are meat-free burgers and hot dogs, and the plant-based cuisines of India, China, Mexico, Italy and Japan. Fuelling the shift toward vegetarianism have been the health recommendations of medical research. Study after study has uncovered the same basic truth: plant foods lower your risk of chronic disease; animal foods increase it. The American Dietetic Association says: “Scientific data suggest possible relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases.“ Animal foods have serious nutritional drawbacks: They are devoid of fiber, contain far too much saturated (饱和的) fat, and may even carry traces of hormones, steroids (类固醇) and antibiotics. It makes little difference whether you eat beef, pork, chicken or fish. Animal foods are also gaining notoriety as breeding grounds for E. coli (大肠杆菌), campylobacter (弯曲菌) and other bacteria that cause illness. So why aren’t governments doing anything about this? Unfortunately, they have bowed to pressure from powerful lobby groups such as the Beef Information Center, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. According to documents retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act, these groups forced changes to Canada’s latest food guide before it was released in 1993. This should come as no surprise: Even a minor reduction in recommended intakes of animal protein could cost these industries billions of dollars a year. While health and food safety are compelling reasons for choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, there are also larger issues to consider. Animal-based agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the face of the Earth. 23.Which of the following are NOT recommended as healthy meals? 24.Why there has been a shift toward vegetarianism ? 25.Which of the following are NOT the nutritional drawbacks of Animal foods? 26.Who were responsible for the change of Canada’s latest food guide before it was released in 1993? Meatless hot dogs. Meat-free burgers. The plant-based cuisines of India, China, Mexico, Italy and Japan. Meals of animal protein.

My cousin just called. They didn’t manage to get a lift and are stranded at the beach. My cousin called because they met something strange at the beach and needed a lift. A stranger didn’t give my cousin a lift at the beach. My cousin is now stuck in a lift near the beach. My cousin is at the beach now because he couldn’t get a lift.

A: You are Blakey, are you? Take a seat. I saw you took your ’A’ levels in English, French and History, and continued with the Arts at university. What has prompted you to want to change to medicine? B: Well, I’ve always, even at school, been interested, but it was a big decision to take, and I wasn’t sure at the time I had the right temperament. I really wanted to write. A: So the fact is you’d rather be a writer than a doctor? B: Not necessarily. It might have been true once, but for some time now my mind’s been set on becoming a doctor. A: But you are capable of a change of heart. B: I’m sorry, did you mean that as a question? A: Well, no, I don’t think I am at all. And you left university without taking a degree, is that right? B: Yes. A: Why was this? B: Looking back, I reckon I took on too much, too many activities. A: Could you explain to us what these activities were? B: I produced several plays for the college dramatic society; I spoke at the Union debates, and did a bit of social work. A: Social work? B: Yes. A: And if your application were successful, could you support yourself? You have no grant? B: No. A: Have you any private means? B: I think I could manage all right. A: How could you manage? B: I had a part-time job during vacations, which enabled me to save… A: Could you tell us, the weekly income? B: Er, that’s about 85 dollars. A: What are your interests? How do you spend your spare time? B: Once, I even took part in a fishing match. A: Do you play rugby? B: No, I was at a soccer school. A: Did you ever win any prizes at anything? B: No. A: Have you any members of your family been in the medical profession? B: No, most of my relations work in the pits. A: Hm. I think that covers pretty well everything. In due course you will hear from us. 11.What’s the possible relationship between the two speakers? 12.What is Blakey applying to work as? 13.What do Blakey’s parents possibly do? 14.What could possibly be the result of the interview? Student and teacher. Job applicant and interviewer. Co-workers. Father and son.

Learning a foreign language can be difficult and at times frustrating. However, the rewards usually outweigh the difficulties involved.

One criticism levelled at such studies is that it is difficult to tell if mobile phones are promoting growth, or growth is promoting the adoption of mobile phones, as people become able to afford them. It is easy to imagine ways in which mobile phones could stimulate economic activity-- they make up for poor infrastructure by substituting for travel, allow price data to be distributed and enable traders to engage with wider markets, and so on. Furthermore, phones do this without the need for government intervention. Mobile phone networks are built by private companies, not governments or charities, and are economically self-sustaining. Mobile operators build and run them because they make a profit doing so, and fishermen, carpenters and porters are willing to pay for the service because it increases their profits. The resulting welfare gains are indicated by the profitability of both the operators and their customers. All governments have to do is to issue licenses to operators, establish a clear and transparent regulatory framework and then wait for the phones to work their economic magic.

越来越多的中国人发现，每天挤时间看书越来越困难。而在过去10年中，中国的互联网用户数量激增，这表明人们的阅读习惯正在发生巨大变化。专家将这一趋势归因于当今社会鼓励一夜成名或快速成功的社会价值观，而摒弃了过去的那种靠勤奋努力获得成功的观念。在当今的读图时代，人们更喜欢新奇的、带有视觉冲击的东西。然而，书集聚了知识的精华，这仅靠在互联网上浏览“速食”信息是无法得来的。

The World Trade Organization(WTO)is【C1】______dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. It has more than【C2】______, accounting for over 90% of world trade. Over 30 others are negotiating membership. Decisions are made by the entire membership. This is typically by consensus.【C3】______is also possible but it has never been used in the WTO, and【C4】______under the WTO’ s predecessor, GATT. The WTO’ s agreements have been ratified in all【C5】______. The WTO’s【C6】______is the Ministerial Conference which meets at least once every two years. Below this is the【C7】______which meets several times a year in the Geneva headquarters. The General Council also meets as the Trade Policy Review Body and the【C8】______. At the next level, the Goods Council, Services Council and Intellectual Property Council report to【C9】______. Numerous specialized committees,【C10】______deal with the individual agreements and other areas such as the environment,【C11】______applications and regional trade agreements. The WTO Secretariat,【C12】______, has around 500 staff and is headed by a director- general. It does not have【C13】______outside Geneva. Since decisions【C14】______the members themselves, the Secretariat does not have the【C15】______that other international bureaucracies are given. The Secretariat’s【C16】______are to supply technical support for the various councils and committees and the ministerial conferences, to【C17】______for developing countries, to analyze world trade, and to explain WTO affairs to【C18】______. The Secretariat also provides some forms of【C19】______in the dispute settlement process and advises governments wishing to become members of the WTO. The annual budget is【C20】______Swiss francs.The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. It has more than 130 members, accounting for over 90% of world trade. Over 30 others are negotiating membership. Decisions are made by the entire membership. This is typically by consensus. A majority vote is also possible but it has never been used in the WTO, and was extremely rare under the WTO’s predecessor, GATT. The WTO’s agreements have been ratified in all members’ parliaments. The WTO’s top level decision-making body is the Ministerial Conference which meets at least once every two years. Below this is the General Council which meets several times a year in the Geneva headquarters. The General Council also meets as the Trade Policy Review Body and the Dispute Settlement Body. At the next level, the Goods Council, Services Council and Intellectual Property Council report to the General Council. Numerous specialized committees, working groups and working parties deal with the individual agreements and other areas such as the environment, development, membership applications and regional trade agreements. The WTO Secretariat, based in Geneva, has around 500 staff and is headed by a director- general. It does not have branch offices outside Geneva. Since decisions are taken by the members themselves, the Secretariat does not have the decision-making role that other international bureaucracies are given. The Secretariat’s main duties are to supply technical support for the various councils and committees and the ministerial conferences, to provide technical assistance for developing countries, to analyze world trade, and to explain WTO affairs to the public and media. The Secretariat also provides some forms of legal assistance in the dispute settlement process and advises governments wishing to become members of the WTO. The annual budget is roughly 117 million Swiss francs.

With the development of science and technology, health care today is often quite painless, except when the bill arrives. With the development of science and technology, we often don’t need to pay for health care until the bill comes. With the development of science and technology, health care is usually not painful, but it has become more expensive. With the development of science and technology, health care is usually free of charge. With the development of science and technology, health care has become more and more convenient.

A: Did you find Xavier, Allison? B: Yeah, but the class was moved to another building, so I got lost and I was late by 20 minutes for the class at 8 am. A: Don’t worry about it. It was a freshmen class, so I’m sure that you weren’t the only person who was late. How was your first biology class? B: It’s seems like the first day is just going over the syllabus and finding out what will be expected of us. There will be three short papers in my biology class, and one class presentation. The professor said he would take daily roll, but we could be allowed three absences without affecting our grades. I hope that I’ll be able to deal with all of the tests! A: I’ve just finished my nursing class. The professor said we had to do a considerable amount of reading. And I still have an English class at 11. B: So do I. we must be in a same class] Is that with Dr. Thompson? A: Yes, that’s the one! At least there’ll be a familiar face in class! B: Look at the time! We’d better start off to class! A: Which way are we going? The English class is in McKane Hall, isn’t it? B: Yeah, I think it’s on upper campus. We’d better hurry! It’s a bit of walk. 19.When does the conversation probably take place? 20.What time is Allison’s classes today? 21.What is Xavier according to the conversation? 22.Which of the following is NOT true about Dr. Thompson? In the morning before 8 o’clock. In the morning at 11 o’clock. In the morning before 11 o’clock. In the afternoon after 11 o’clock.

SW: Good evening, this is Sports World greeting you here at 20:30 GMT. Have you ever participated in a risky sport? What was it? In today’s program we have Jenny Adams, a very athletic woman to talk to us about risky sports. Hang gliding is a dangerous sport. Jenny, what do you enjoy about the sport, and have you ever had an accident? Jenny: No, I’ve never been seriously injured. Maybe I’ve just been lucky. Once my glider turn upside down, and I lost control. I almost crashed, but I parachuted away just in time. And I’ve always felt hang gliding is quite safe—though landing is sometimes difficult. But it’s fantastic to be able to fly like a bird! SW: And you’ve been mountain climbing for years now, right? What is the most difficult part? Jenny: Yes, I’ve been mountain climbing for 3 years, and the toughest part I believe is the high altitudes. They could be rather hard on the human body. I’ve experienced lack of oxygen, tiredness, and dehydration. I’ve lived through storms, avalanches, and strong winds. But that’s what I like about mountain climbing—overcoming danger. SW: What exactly are the bends? And have you ever experienced them while scuba diving? Jenny: You get the bends when you’ve been deep under water. If you come up out of the water too quickly, bubbles form in your blood. The bends can be serious, and they can even cause death. But the bends are rare. Scuba diving isn’t really dangerous. And it lets you explore another world. SW: Thank you Jenny for join us in the talk. And next time we’ll have Tom Barker to share with us his story in white-water rafting, and bungee jumping. 27.How many kinds of risky sports are Jenny doing? 28.What’s the most difficult part in mountain climbing according to Jenny? 29.Which of the following is NOT one of the dangers of mountain climbing? 30.Which of the following is NOT true for bends? 2. 3. 4. 5.

We often hear that computers are cold or inhuman, but in fact many people are more comfortable with a computer than with another person. Computers are patient and do not judge the people who use them. They are fast and reliable. Many students who would be embarrassed to show a teacher that they do not understand something are happy to ask a computer questions. Some patients would rather explain their health problems to a computer than to a doctor. The intimate relationship between a person and a computer meets no bounds.

Our culture has caused most Americans to assume not only that our language is universal but that the gestures we use are understood by everyone. We do not realize that waving good-bye is the way to summon a person from the Philippines to one’s side, or that in Italy and some Latin-American countries, curling the finger to oneself is a sign of farewell. Those private citizens who sent packages to our troops occupying Germany after World War II and marked them GIFT to escape duty payments did not bother to find out that “Gift“ means poison in German. Moreover, we like to think of ourselves as friendly, yet we prefer to be at least 3 feet or an arm’s length away form others. Latins and Middle Easterners like to come closer and touch, which makes Americans uncomfortable. Our linguistic and cultural blindness and the casualness with which we take notice of the developed tastes, gestures, customs and languages of other countries, are losing us friends, business and respect in the world. Even here in the United States, we make few concessions to the needs of foreign visitors. There are no information signs in four languages on our public buildings or monuments; we do not have multilingual guided tours. Very few restaurant menus have translations, and multilingual waiters, bank clerks and policemen are rare. Our transportation systems have maps in English only and often we ourselves have difficulty understanding them. When we go abroad, we tend to cluster in hotels and restaurants where English is spoken. The attitudes and information we pickup are conditioned by those natives—usually the richer—who speak English. Our business dealings, as well as the nation’s diplomacy, are conducted through interpreters. For many years, America and Americans could get by with cultural blindness and linguistic ignorance. After all, America was the most powerful country of the free world, the distributor of needed funds and goods. But all that is past. American dollars no longer buy all good things, and we are slowly beginning to realize that our proper role in the world is changing. A 1979 Harris poll reported that 55 percent of Americans want this country to play a more significant role in world affairs; we want to have a hand in the important decisions of the next century, even though it may not always be the upper hand.

Is language, like food, a basic human need without which a child at a critical period of life can be starved and damaged? Judging from the drastic experiment of Frederick Ⅱ in the thirteenth century, it may be. Hoping to discover what language a child would speak if he heard no mother tongue, he told the nurses to keep silent. All the infants died before the first year. But clearly there was more than lack of language here. What was missing was good mothering. Without good mothering, in the first year of life especially, the capacity to survive is seriously affected. Today no such severe lack exists as that ordered by Frederick. Nevertheless, some children are still backward in speaking. Most often the reason for this is that the mother is insensitive to the signals of the infant, whose brain is programmed to learn language rapidly. If these sensitive periods are neglected, the ideal time for acquiring skills passes and they might never be learned so easily again. A bird learns to sing and to fly rapidly at the right time, but the process is slow and hard once the critical stage has passed. Experts suggest that speech stages are reached in a fixed sequence and at a constant age, but there are cases where speech has started late in a child who eventually turns out to be of high IQ. At twelve weeks a baby smiles and makes vowel-like sounds; at twelve months he can speak simple words and understand simple commands; at eighteen months he has a vocabulary of three to fifty words. At three he knows about 1,000 words which he can put into sentences, and at four his language differs from that of his parents in style rather than grammar. Recent evidence suggests that an infant is born with the capacity to speak. What is special about man’s brain, compared with that of the monkey, is the complex system which enables a child to connect the sight and feel of, say, a toy-bear with the sound pattern “toy-bear“. And even more incredible is the young brain’s ability to pick out an order in language from the mixture of sound around him, to analyze, to combine and recombine the parts of a language in new ways. But speech has to be induced, and this depends on interaction between the mother and the child, where the mother recognizes the signals in the child’s babbling, grasping and smiling, and responds to them. Insensitivity of the mother to these signals dulls the interaction because the child gets discouraged and sends out only the obvious signals. Sensitivity to the child’s non-verbal signals is essential to the growth and development of language.

The biggest danger facing the global airline industry is not the effects of terrorism, war, SARS and economic downturn. It is that these blows, which have helped ground three national flag carriers and force two American airlines into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, will divert attention from the inherent weaknesses of aviation, which they have exacerbated. As in the crisis that attended the first Gulf war, many airlines hope that traffic will soon bounce back, and a few catastrophic years will be followed by fuller planes, happier passengers and a return to profitability. Yet the industry’s problems are deeper—and older—than the trauma of the past two years implies. As the centenary of the first powered flight approaches in December, the industry it launched is still remarkably primitive. The car industry, created not long after the Wright Brothers made history, is now a global industry dominated by a dozen firms, at least half of which make good profits. Yet commercial aviation consists of 267 international carriers and another 500-plus domestic ones. The world’s biggest carrier, American Airlines, has barely 7% of the global market, whereas the world’s biggest carmaker, General Motors, has (with its associated firms) about a quarter of the world’s automobile market. Aviation has been incompletely deregulated, and in only two markets: America and Europe. Everywhere else deals between governments dictate who flies under what rules. These aim to preserve state-owned national flag-carriers, run for prestige rather than profit. And numerous restrictions on foreign ownership impede cross-border airline mergers. In America, the big network carders face barriers to exit, which have kept their route networks too large. Trade unions resisting job cuts and Congressmen opposing route closures in their territory conspire to block change. In Europe, liberalization is limited by bilateral deals that prevent, for instance, British Airways (BA) flying to America from Frankfurt or Paris, or Lufthansa offering transatlantic flights from London’s Heathrow. To use the car industry analogy, it is as if only Renaults were allowed to drive on French motorways. In airlines, the optimists are those who think that things are now so bad that the industry has no option but to evolve. Frederick Reid, president of Delta Air Lines. said earlier this year that events since the September llth attacks are the equivalent of a meteor strike, changing the climate, creating a sort of nuclear winter and leading to a “compressed evolutionary cycle“. So how. looking on the bright side. might the industry look after five years of accelerated development?

The first person I came across who’d got the measure of e-mall was an American friend who was high up in a big corporation. Some years ago, when this method of communication first seeped into business life from academia, his company in New York and its satellites across the globe were among the first to get it. In the world’s great seats of learning, e-mail had for some years allowed researchers to share vital new jokes. And if there was cutting-edge wit to be had, there was no way my friend’s corporation would be without it. One evening in New York, he was late for a drink we’d arranged. “Sorry,“ he said, “I’ve been away and had to deal with 998 e-mails in my queue.“ “Wow,“ I said, “I’m really surprised you made it before midnight.“ “It doesn’t really take that tong,“ be explained, “if you simply delete them all.“ True to form, he had developed a strategy before most of us had even heard of e-mail. If any information he was sent was sufficiently vital, his lack of response would ensure the sender rang him up. If the sender wasn’t important enough to have his private number, the communication couldn’t be sufficiently important. My friend is now even more senior in the same company, so the strategy must work, although these days, I don’t tend to send him many e-mails. Almost every week now, there seems to be another report suggesting that we are all being driven crazy by the torment of e-mall. But if this is the case, it’s only because we haven’t developed the same discrimination in dealing with e-mail as we do with post. Have you ever mistaken an important letter for a piece of unsolicited advertising and thrown it out? Of course you haven’t. This is because of the obliging stupidity of 99 per cent of advertisers, who just can’t help making their mailshots look like the junk mail that they are. Junk e-mail looks equally unnecessary to read. Why anyone would feel the slightest compulsion to open the sort of thing entitled “SPECIALOFFER@junk.com“ I cannot begin to understand. Even viruses, those sneaky messages that contain a bug which can corrupt your whole computer system, come helpfully labelled with packaging that shrieks “danger, do not open“. Handling e-mail is an art. Firstly, you junk anything with an exclamation mark or a string of capital letters, or from any address you don’t recognise or feel confident about. Secondly, while I can’t quite support my American friend’s radical policy, e-mails don’t all have to be answered. Because e-mailing is so easy, there’s a tendency for correspondence to carry on for ever, but it is permissible to end a strand of discussion by simply not discussing it any longer— or to accept a point of information sent by a colleague without acknowledging it. Thirdly, a reply e-mail doesn’t have to be the same length as the original. We all have e-mail buddies who send long, chatty e-mails, which are nice to receive, but who then expect an equally long reply. Tough. The charm of e-mail can lie in the simple, suspended sentence, with total disregard for the formalities of the letter sent by post. You are perfectly within the bounds of politeness in responding to a marathon e-mail with a terse one-liner, like: “How distressing. I’m sure it will clear up.“

From the earliest days, people have wanted to keep some record of their achievements. Thus they build monuments, or they tell stories from parents to children, or they write things down. To give shape to the stories, to show how events related to one another, ancient people began to write what we call histories. In both Greek and Latin, the word “historia“ means a story or a narrative. Historians were regarded as those who told the story of the past. One of the earliest historians, a Greek named Herodotus, always tried to make sure that information was as accurate as possible. Herodotus lived in the 400’s B.C. He wrote a detailed account of the Persian Wars, the great struggle between the Greeks and the Persians that had taken place in the years before he was born. A great deal of our information about these wars exists only because Herodotus found it out and wrote it down. Here, to give one example, is his account of how the battle of Salamis began. This was a naval battle at which the Athenian ships defeated the Persians that had taken place in the year 480 B.C. It was one of the turning points of the war, and the question was how the Greeks, badly outnumbered, dared to fight. Here is how Herodotus explained it: Themistocles, the Athenian leader, told them to board their ships, whereupon the Greeks put to sea. The fleet had hardly left shore when they were attacked by the Persians. At once, most of the Greeks began to retreat, and were about to touch land again when one of the Athenian captains shot forward and charged one of the enemy. The two ships became entangled, and could not be separated. At this the rest of the Greek fleet came up to help, and the battle began. Ever since Herodotus, historians have recovered and preserved information about past events that otherwise would have been lost. Modern historians have continued to look for new information which helps us understand the past more clearly and more accurately. The usefulness of historians and their works has been recognized by a number of American Presidents, who have made professional historians part of their White House staffs. 15.Which of the following is NOT mentioned as one of the ways people used to keep record of their achievements? 16.Which of the following is NOT true about Herodotus? 17.How did the Greeks dare to fight according to Herodotus? 18.In what way do American Presidents recognize the usefulness of historians and their works? They build monuments. They tell stories from parents to children. They write things down. They make professional historians part of their governments’ staffs.

If there was a single act that would improve your health, cut your risk of food-borne illnesses, and help preserve the environment and the welfare of millions of animals, would you do it? The act I’m referring to is the choice you make every time you sit down to a meal. More than a million Canadians have already acted: they have chosen not to eat meat. And the pace of change has been dramatic. Vegetarian food sales are showing unparalleled growth. Especially popular are meat-free burgers and hot dogs, and the plant-based cuisines of India, China, Mexico, Italy and Japan. Fuelling the shift toward vegetarianism have been the health recommendations of medical research. Study after study has uncovered the same basic truth: plant foods lower your risk of chronic disease; animal foods increase it. The American Dietetic Association says: “Scientific data suggest possible relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases.“ Animal foods have serious nutritional drawbacks: They are devoid of fiber, contain far too much saturated (饱和的) fat, and may even carry traces of hormones, steroids (类固醇) and antibiotics. It makes little difference whether you eat beef, pork, chicken or fish. Animal foods are also gaining notoriety as breeding grounds for E. coli (大肠杆菌), campylobacter (弯曲菌) and other bacteria that cause illness. So why aren’t governments doing anything about this? Unfortunately, they have bowed to pressure from powerful lobby groups such as the Beef Information Center, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. According to documents retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act, these groups forced changes to Canada’s latest food guide before it was released in 1993. This should come as no surprise: Even a minor reduction in recommended intakes of animal protein could cost these industries billions of dollars a year. While health and food safety are compelling reasons for choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, there are also larger issues to consider. Animal-based agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the face of the Earth. 23.Which of the following are NOT recommended as healthy meals? 24.Why there has been a shift toward vegetarianism ? 25.Which of the following are NOT the nutritional drawbacks of Animal foods? 26.Who were responsible for the change of Canada’s latest food guide before it was released in 1993? Meatless hot dogs. Meat-free burgers. The plant-based cuisines of India, China, Mexico, Italy and Japan. Meals of animal protein.

In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts rather like a one-way mirror—the glass in the roof of a greenhouse which allows the sun’s rays to enter but prevents the heat from escaping. According to a weather expert’s prediction, the atmosphere will be 3 ℃ warmer in the year 2050 than it is today, if man continues to burn fuels at the present rate. If this warming up took place, the ice caps in the poles would begin to melt, thus raising sea level several meters and severely flooding coastal cities. Also. the increase in atmospheric temperature would lead to great changes in the climate of the northern hemisphere, possibly resulting in an alteration of earth’s chief food-growing zones. In the past, concern about a man-made warming of the earth has concentrated on the Arctic because the Antarctic is much colder and has a much thicker ice sheet. But the weather experts are now paying more attention to West Antarctic, which may be affected by only a few degrees of warming, in other words, by a warming on the scale that will possibly take place in the next fifty years from the burning of fuels. Satellite pictures show that large areas of Antarctic ice are already disappearing. The evidence available suggests that a warming has taken place. This fits the theory that carbon dioxide warms the earth. However, most of the fuel is burnt in the northern hemisphere, where temperatures seem to be falling. Scientists conclude, therefore, that up to now natural influences on the weather have exceeded those caused by man. The question is: Which natural cause has most effect on the weather? One possibility is the variable behavior of the sun. Astronomers at one research station have studied the hot spots and “cold“ spots (that is, the relatively less hot spots) on the sun. As the sun rotates, every 27.5 days, it presents hotter or “colder“ faces to the earth, and different aspects to different parts of the earth. This seems to have a considerable effect on the distribution of the earth’s atmospheric pressure, and consequently on wind circulation. The sun is also variable over a long term: its heat output goes up and down in cycles, the latest trend being downward. Scientists are-now finding mutual relations between models of solar-weather interactions and the actual climate over many thousands of years, including the last Ice Age. The problem is that the models are predicting that the world should be entering a new Ice Age and it is not. One way of solving this theoretical difficulty is to assume a delay of thousands of years while the solar effects overcome the inertia of the earth’s climate. If this is tight, the warming effect of carbon dioxide might thus be serving as a useful counter-balance to the sun’s diminishing heat.

A good marriage is good for the heart, according to new research supported by the Heart and Stroke Foundation. “There’s little question that a harmonious state of matrimony gives a healthy edge when it comes to medical matters of the heart,“ says Dr. Brian Baker, Heart and Stroke Foundation researcher. But he doesn’t prescribe wedding bells for his patients because, as he points out, not all marriages are happy. The study is being presented today at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress 2001, hosted by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society. The three-year study included 118 men and women with mild high blood pressure (hypertension). One third of the participants were women, two thirds were men. All were married, although there were no spousal couples in the study. At the beginning and the end of the three-year study, participants completed a questionnaire designed to measure how happy or unhappy—they were in their marriages. They also had their blood pressure measured, and underwent echocardiography to measure their hearts. “People with thicker heart walls tend to have higher blood pressure. Thinner heart walls indicate lower blood pressure,“ explains Dr. Baker, a psychiatrist specializing in cardiovascular medicine. For one 24-hour period the participants wore a device that monitored the daily fluctuations of their blood pressure while they went about their normal working lives. In the group whose marriages were under strain, heart wall thickness increased by an average of 8%. In the group who defined themselves as happily married, heart wall thickness actually decreased 5%. Also the unhappily married group showed higher mean blood pressures both over the 24-hour monitoring and over the entire three year period. “In a marriage that is not under strain, commitment and satisfaction are higher,“ says Dr. Baker. “But, in order to get the cardio protective effect, you have to have lots of contact. We found that when you have both satisfaction and are able to spend time together, then the blood pressure goes down. In a good marriage you spend more time together. Those people who felt they had strong marital support spent nearly twice as much time with their partners.“ “When the marriage is in trouble, you tend to avoid your partner.“ Such a marriage appears to encourage high blood pressure and unhealthy lifestyles, risk factors for heart disease and stroke. Dr. Anthony Graham, spokesperson for the Heart and Stroke Foundation says, “This study adds to the growing body of evidence indicating that there is a physiological dimension to unhappiness and stress. Living well should mean more than just physical fitness, important though that is. Feeling good about yourself and your relationships may also be good medicine.“