E-C Translation
Compulsory Translation
There was, last week, a glimmer of hope in the world food crisis. Expecting a bumper harvest, Ukraine relaxed restrictions on exports. Overnight, global wheat prices fell by 10 percent.
By contrast, traders in Bangkok quote rice prices around $1,000 a ton, up from $460 two months ago.
Such is the volatility of today’s markets. We do not know how high food prices might go, nor how far they could fall. But one thing is certain: We have gone from an era of plenty to one of scarcity. Experts agree that food prices are not likely to return to the levels the world had grown accustomed to any time soon. Imagine the situation of those living on less than $1 a day - the “bottom billion,” the poorest of the world’s poor. Most live in Africa, and many might typically spend two-thirds of their income on food.
In Liberia last week, I heard how people have stopped purchasing imported rice by the bag. Instead, they increasingly buy it by the cup, because that’s all they can afford.
Traveling though West Africa, I found good reason for optimism. In Burkina Faso, I saw a government working to import drought resistant seeds and better manage scarce water supplies, helped by nations like Brazil. In Ivory Coast, we saw a women’s cooperative running a chicken farm set up with UN funds. The project generated income - and food - for villagers in ways that can easily be replicated. Elsewhere, I saw yet another women’s group slowly expanding their local agricultural production, with UN help. Soon they will replace World Food Program rice with their own home-grown produce, sufficient to cover the needs of their school feeding program.
These are home-grown, grass-roots solutions for grass-roots problems - precisely the kind of solutions that Africa needs. Topic 1
For a decade, metallurgists studying the hulk of the Titanic have argued that the storied ocean liner went down quickly after hitting an iceberg because the ship's builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. More than 1,500 people died.
Now a team of scientists has moved into deeper waters, uncovering evidence in the builder's own archives of a deadly mix of great ambition and use of low-quality iron that doomed the ship, which sank 96 years ago Tuesday.
The scientists found that the ship's builder, Harland and Wolff, in Belfast, struggled for years to obtain adequate supplies of rivets and riveters to build the world's three biggest ships at once: the Titanic and two sisters, Olympic and Britannic. Each required three million rivets, and shortages peaked during Titanic's construction.
\"The board was in crisis mode,\" said Jennifer Hooper McCarty, a member of the team that studied the company's archive and other evidence. \"It was constant stress. Every meeting it was, 'There's problems with the rivets, and we need to hire more people.' \"
The team collected other clues from 48 Titanic rivets, using modern tests, computer simulations, comparisons to century-old metals and careful documentation of what engineers and shipbuilders of the era considered state of the art.
The scientists say the troubles began when the colossal plans forced Harland and Wolff to reach beyond its usual suppliers of rivet iron and include smaller forges, as disclosed in company and British government papers. Small forges tended to have less skill and experience.
Adding to the threat, the company, in buying iron for Titanic's rivets, ordered No. 3 bar, known as \"best,\" not No. 4, known as \"best-best,\" the scientists found. T
hey also discovered that shipbuilders of the day typically used No. 4 iron for anchors, chains and rivets.
So the liner, whose name was meant to be synonymous with opulence, in at least one instance relied on cheap materials.
The scientists argue that better rivets would have probably kept the Titanic afloat long enough for rescuers to have arrived before the icy plunge, saving hundreds of lives
C-E Translation Compulsory Translation
“中国制造”模式遭遇发展瓶颈，这种模式必须要改进和提高。一些外国人认为，“中国制造”大约就是质量低下的代名词。不可否认，少数产品的确存在质量问题，让大多数价廉质优的产品代其受罪。
质量是产品的生命线。随着外国市场的夸大，中国企业也意识到质量的重要性。因此一场旨在提高质量，提供优良服务的运动正在兴起。
在传统的制造业中，中国企业通过技术创新和质量管理，为国际市场提供高质量的产品。在新兴的信息产业，中国企业以高科技为师，增强和外国企业的交流与合作，提高产品质量。 近几年来，中国政府通过立法和社会监督保证产品质量，创造全社会重视产品问题的环境。
“中国制造”模式遭遇发展瓶颈，这种模式必须要改进和提高。一些外国人认为，“中国制造”大约就是质量低下的代名词。不可否认，少数产品的确存在质量问题，让大多数价廉质优的产品代其受罪。
质量是产品的生命线。随着外国市场的夸大，中国企业也意识到质量的重要性。因此一场旨在提高质量，提供优良服务的运动正在兴起。
在传统的制造业中，中国企业通过技术创新和质量管理，为国际市场提供高质量的产品。在新兴的信息产业，中国企业以高科技为师，增强和外国企业的交流与合作，提高产品质量。 近几年来，中国政府通过立法和社会监督保证产品质量，创造全社会重视产品问题的环境
Topic 1
1996年，一位摄影师在新疆喀纳斯自然保护区无意间拍到一只白熊。自此以后的十年里，白熊藏身于深山之中，再无音讯。直到2003年，人们才再次在该自然区又发现了白熊的踪迹。
在熊的家族里，只有北极熊是白色的。但是，这个庞然大物是如何离开极地寒带，来到这个寒温带的地方呢?难道它是通过通往北极的水路来到此地?这一猜测遭到动物学家的质疑。首先，北极熊不能在温带的树林中生活。其次，。。。。。。。。。
2006年，一个科学考察队在白熊出没的地区发现了熊冬眠的冬窝儿，还发现了一小团白色的动物毛发。DNA样本鉴定为棕熊的毛发。但是，也有可能，至少那团毛发不属于照片中的白熊。 Topic 2 Topic 2
蓝藻是一种简单的水生植物，它可以在河湖、湿地、树干和温泉自然蔓延生长。当蓝藻细胞达到一定程度时，蓝藻的“密集孽生”会使水体变色、引起泡沫、散发臭气、影响贝类和鱼类的生存，还会使水质大幅度下降。
2007年夏天，富营养物和其他污染导致蓝藻在太湖、巢湖、滇池发生了蓝藻“密集孽生”现象，影响了城市供水及水生产品生长。
“密集孽生”最严重的是太湖东部。太湖是我国第三大淡水湖。这次“密集孽生”导致周边100多万居民供水问题长达10天之久。为了防止污染，当地环保部门关闭了770家化工厂。 2008年夏天，长期的温暖、干燥气候导致蓝藻在部分地区发生。9月，一艘可以快速、有效地清除蓝藻的船在江苏省投入使用 House Unveils Health Bill, Minus Key Details
WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama’s call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, unveiling a bill that they said would cover 95 percent of Americans. But they said they did not know how much it would cost and had not decided how to pay for it.
The proposal would establish a new public health insurance plan to compete with private plans. Republicans and insurance companies strenuously oppose such an entity, saying it could lead to a government takeover of health care. The draft bill would require all
Americans to carry health insurance. Most employers would have to provide coverage to employees or pay a fee equivalent to 8 percent of their payroll. The plan would also end many insurance company practices that deny coverage or charge higher premiums to sick people.
“Health insurance for most American families is just one big surprise,” said Representative George Miller of California, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. “When you go to use it, you find out it’s not quite as it’s represented, and you spend hours on the phone with exclusions and discussions and referrals to other legal documents that you didn’t have at the time you purchased it.”
The 852-page House bill, as expected, is more expansive than the legislation taking shape in the Senate, where work on the issue bogged down this week after early cost estimates came in far higher than expected. The initial price tag for a measure drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, for example, was $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
Similar sticker shock could hit House members when they see the cost of their bill, which incorporates many ideas from health policy experts about how to fix the health system. Industry critics of the emerging Senate bill are likely to have even more objections to the House version, but House Democratic leaders can probably push their measure through on a party-line vote.
Under the House bill, health insurance would be regulated by a powerful new federal agency, headed by a presidential appointee known as the health choices commissioner. The draft bill was unveiled by three committee chairmen — Mr. Miller; Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and Charles B. Rangel of New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The chairmen, all first elected in the 1970s, have worked together in secret for months to develop a single bill. The proposal would expand Medicaid eligibility, increase Medicaid payments to primary care doctors and gradually close a gap in Medicare coverage of prescription drugs known as a doughnut hole. The bill would also reverse deep cuts in Medicare payments to doctors scheduled to occur in the next five years. Taken together, these provisions could significantly drive up the bill’s cost.
The bill would impose a new “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.” The tax would be based on a person’s income and could not exceed the average cost of a
basic health insurance policy. People could be exempted from the tax “in cases of hardship.”
Asked why there was no cost estimate for the bill, the House Democratic leader, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said: “Until we have a final product, we are reluctant to ask the Congressional Budget Office for a score. But whatever we do will be fully paid for.” House Democrats pledged to offset the cost of their legislation by reducing the growth of Medicare and imposing new, unspecified taxes.
Republicans, who had no role in developing the bill, denounced it as a blueprint for a vast increase in federal power and spending.
“Families and small businesses who are already footing the bill for Washington’s reckless spending binge will not support it,” said the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, who raised the specter of federal bureaucrats’ making medical decisions for millions of people.
Business groups also were not pleased. “There is enough to see here already to know that we would be compelled to oppose this bill,” said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation.
But John J. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., praised the House bill, saying it provided “a road map for what health care reform should look like.”
The House chairmen described their bill as a starting point in a battle that would dominate Congress this summer and ultimately involve the full range of interest groups in
Washington. The three House committees plan to hold as many as six hearings on the bill next week. Mr. Waxman said lawmakers were committed to considering all ideas, even a proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits, which he opposes. The House bill shows what Democrats mean when they speak of a “robust” public insurance plan.
Under the bill, the public plan would be run by the Department of Health and Human Services and would offer three or four policies, with different levels of benefits. The plan would initially use Medicare fee schedules, paying most doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, plus about 5 percent. After three years, the health secretary could negotiate with doctors and hospitals.
But the bill says, “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology” used to pay health care providers in the public plan.
Scott P. Serota, president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said, “A
government-run plan that pays based on Medicare rates, for any period of time, is a recipe for disaster.”
The bill would limit what doctors could charge patients in the public insurance plan, just as Medicare limits what doctors can charge beneficiaries.
In setting payment rates for doctors and hospitals under the public plan, the bill says, the government should try to reduce racial and ethnic disparities and “geographic variation in the provision of health services.”
The public plan would receive an unspecified amount of start-up money from the federal government. After that, it would have to be self-sustaining.
The bill would require drug companies to finance improvements in the Medicare drug benefit. Drug companies would have to pay rebates to the government on drugs dispensed to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
The bill would expand Medicaid to cover millions of people with incomes below 133 percent of the poverty level ($14,400 for an individual, $29,330 for a family of four). The cost would be borne by the federal government.
The government would also offer subsidies to make insurance more affordable for people with incomes from 133 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level ($43,300 for an individual, $88,200 for a family of four).
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容