Questões de Inglês

Instrução: Leia o texto Is there life on other planets? para responder a questão.

Is there life on other planets?

Hans Bodlaender

    There are many science fiction movies, television series and books about creatures from other planets. In most of these books and movies, aliens have spaceships that allow them to travel between different star systems, and on planets in these other systems, intelligent creatures live and look like people, but are different. We all know that reality is different from books. Physics tells us that strange things happen when we travel with a speed somewhat close to the speed of light – and, if modern physics is correct, it is impossible for humans to travel between star systems. If other creatures live on other planets, then they have to face the same type of problems, so it seems impossible for them to travel from their planets to ours. If there are intelligent creatures living on planets in other star systems, it seems, according to modern science, that we won’t meet them.

    If there is life on other planets, how did it originate? I see three hypotheses:

    1. On the other planet, life started in the same way as the evolution theory says that it started here. Apart from the fact that the evolution theory is not the well-rounded and totally scientifically proven theory that people want us to believe, in general, followers of the theory tell that the chance of life starting on a planet is rather small. A term sometimes used is: A magnificent accident. I believe the probability is even smaller than they say, too small to assume that it actually can have happened by accident, but even if you believe life on earth was such a magnificent accident, the chances that this has happened more than once are too small to assume that it may have happened.

    2. Life on different planets has a common origin. Say, some very primitive form of life originated somewhere travels to another planet, developing there into an intelligent form of life. There are quite a lot of questions to be asked of such a theory, and, again, calculating the probabilities seems to make it unlikely.

    3. Life on earth has been created by God. Possibly, God has also created life on other planets. If God has created life on earth, he may have created life on other planets too. As far as I can tell, the Bible does not say anything about this, so this remains possible. If there are intelligent beings on other planets, I would assume they would know God. Would they also have a fall to sin, like the humans? Would we meet them in heaven? Would there be atheists and religious extraterrestrials? We cannot know.

    So, if there are extra-terrestrial intelligent beings, or, even, other types of life on planets outside our solar system, then to me, that would be a new proof of the existence of God. But I cannot understand atheists that sincerely state they follow standard evolution theory and are at the same moment on a search for intelligent life on other planets.

    Finally, is there life on other planets in our solar system? Well, I guess, yes: probably on Mars, there now will be bacteria brought to the planet from earth by one of the Mars-expeditions that were recently carried out.

(http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion. Adaptado.)

Instrução: Leia o texto Is there life on other planets? para responder a questão.

Is there life on other planets?

Hans Bodlaender

    There are many science fiction movies, television series and books about creatures from other planets. In most of these books and movies, aliens have spaceships that allow them to travel between different star systems, and on planets in these other systems, intelligent creatures live and look like people, but are different. We all know that reality is different from books. Physics tells us that strange things happen when we travel with a speed somewhat close to the speed of light – and, if modern physics is correct, it is impossible for humans to travel between star systems. If other creatures live on other planets, then they have to face the same type of problems, so it seems impossible for them to travel from their planets to ours. If there are intelligent creatures living on planets in other star systems, it seems, according to modern science, that we won’t meet them.

    If there is life on other planets, how did it originate? I see three hypotheses:

    1. On the other planet, life started in the same way as the evolution theory says that it started here. Apart from the fact that the evolution theory is not the well-rounded and totally scientifically proven theory that people want us to believe, in general, followers of the theory tell that the chance of life starting on a planet is rather small. A term sometimes used is: A magnificent accident. I believe the probability is even smaller than they say, too small to assume that it actually can have happened by accident, but even if you believe life on earth was such a magnificent accident, the chances that this has happened more than once are too small to assume that it may have happened.

    2. Life on different planets has a common origin. Say, some very primitive form of life originated somewhere travels to another planet, developing there into an intelligent form of life. There are quite a lot of questions to be asked of such a theory, and, again, calculating the probabilities seems to make it unlikely.

    3. Life on earth has been created by God. Possibly, God has also created life on other planets. If God has created life on earth, he may have created life on other planets too. As far as I can tell, the Bible does not say anything about this, so this remains possible. If there are intelligent beings on other planets, I would assume they would know God. Would they also have a fall to sin, like the humans? Would we meet them in heaven? Would there be atheists and religious extraterrestrials? We cannot know.

    So, if there are extra-terrestrial intelligent beings, or, even, other types of life on planets outside our solar system, then to me, that would be a new proof of the existence of God. But I cannot understand atheists that sincerely state they follow standard evolution theory and are at the same moment on a search for intelligent life on other planets.

    Finally, is there life on other planets in our solar system? Well, I guess, yes: probably on Mars, there now will be bacteria brought to the planet from earth by one of the Mars-expeditions that were recently carried out.

(http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion. Adaptado.)

TEXTO:

Study suggests processed meat a real health risk

Eating bacon, sausage, hot dogs and other processed meats can raise the risk of heart disease and diabetes, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that identifies the real bad boys of the meat counter.

Eating unprocessed beef, pork or lamb appeared not to raise risks of heart attacks and diabetes, they said, suggesting that salt and chemical preservatives may be the real cause of these two health problems associated with eating meat.

The study, an analysis of other research called a meta-analysis, did not look at high blood pressure or cancer, which are also linked with high meat consumption.

"To lower risk of heart attacks and diabetes, people should consider which types of meats they are eating," said Renata Micha of the Harvard School of Public Health, whose study appears in the journal Circulation.

"Processed meats such as bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs and processed deli meats may be the most important to avoid," Micha said in a statement.

Based on her findings, she said people who eat one serving per week or less of processed meats have less of a risk.

The American Meat Institute objected to the findings, saying it was only one study and that it stands in contrast to other studies and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

"At best, this hypothesis merits further study. It is certainly no reason for dietary changes," James Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute, said in a statement.

Most dietary guidelines recommend eating less meat. Individual studies looking at relationships between eating meat and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have had mixed results.

But studies rarely look for differences in risk between processed and unprocessed red meats, Micha said.

She and colleagues did a systematic review of nearly 1,600 studies from around the world looking for evidence of a link between eating processed and unprocessed red meat and the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

They defined processed meat as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives. Meats in this category included bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs or processed deli or luncheon meats.

Unprocessed red meat included beef, lamb or pork but not poultry.

They found that on average, each 1.8 oz (50 grams) daily serving of processed meat a day -- one to two slices of deli meats or one hot dog -- was associated with a 42 percent higher risk of heart disease and a 19 percent higher risk of developing diabetes.

They found no higher heart or diabetes risk in people who ate only unprocessed red meats.

The team adjusted for a number of factors, including how much meat people ate. They said lifestyle factors were similar between those who ate processed and unprocessed meats.

“When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol,” Micha said.

“ln contrast, processed meats contained, on average, four times more sodium and 50 percent more nitrate preservatives,” Micha added.

Last month, the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt added to foods to help Americans cut their high sodium intake.

The FDA has not yet said whether it will regulate salt in foods, but it is looking at the issue.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

De acordo com o texto acima...

TEXTO:

Study suggests processed meat a real health risk

Eating bacon, sausage, hot dogs and other processed meats can raise the risk of heart disease and diabetes, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that identifies the real bad boys of the meat counter.

Eating unprocessed beef, pork or lamb appeared not to raise risks of heart attacks and diabetes, they said, suggesting that salt and chemical preservatives may be the real cause of these two health problems associated with eating meat.

The study, an analysis of other research called a meta-analysis, did not look at high blood pressure or cancer, which are also linked with high meat consumption.

"To lower risk of heart attacks and diabetes, people should consider which types of meats they are eating," said Renata Micha of the Harvard School of Public Health, whose study appears in the journal Circulation.

"Processed meats such as bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs and processed deli meats may be the most important to avoid," Micha said in a statement.

Based on her findings, she said people who eat one serving per week or less of processed meats have less of a risk.

The American Meat Institute objected to the findings, saying it was only one study and that it stands in contrast to other studies and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

"At best, this hypothesis merits further study. It is certainly no reason for dietary changes," James Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute, said in a statement.

Most dietary guidelines recommend eating less meat. Individual studies looking at relationships between eating meat and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have had mixed results.

But studies rarely look for differences in risk between processed and unprocessed red meats, Micha said.

She and colleagues did a systematic review of nearly 1,600 studies from around the world looking for evidence of a link between eating processed and unprocessed red meat and the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

They defined processed meat as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives. Meats in this category included bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs or processed deli or luncheon meats.

Unprocessed red meat included beef, lamb or pork but not poultry.

They found that on average, each 1.8 oz (50 grams) daily serving of processed meat a day -- one to two slices of deli meats or one hot dog -- was associated with a 42 percent higher risk of heart disease and a 19 percent higher risk of developing diabetes.

They found no higher heart or diabetes risk in people who ate only unprocessed red meats.

The team adjusted for a number of factors, including how much meat people ate. They said lifestyle factors were similar between those who ate processed and unprocessed meats.

“When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol,” Micha said.

“ln contrast, processed meats contained, on average, four times more sodium and 50 percent more nitrate preservatives,” Micha added.

Last month, the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt added to foods to help Americans cut their high sodium intake.

The FDA has not yet said whether it will regulate salt in foods, but it is looking at the issue.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

De acordo com o texto acima...

Education women 'aid long life'

[1]    A well-educated woman positively influences both her own and
her partner's chances of a long life, Swedish research suggests.
    À man whose partner had only a school education has a 25%
greater risk of dying early than if she had had a university education,
[5] it suggests.
    The authors say educated women may be more likely to under-
stand the various health messages their families needed.
    The findings are based on a study of 1.5m working Swedes,
aged 30 to 59.

[10]    The study, in the journal of Epidemiology and Community
Healthcare, says that in the case of men, it is their income and social
status that affect women's lifespan.

    The researchers looked at data from the 1990 Swedish census
and followed up information on causes of death, including cancer

[15] and circulatory diseases like heart disease and stroke from the cause
of death registers up to 2003.

    University education
    À woman's education and social status were more important for
q man's life chances than his own education, the findings indicate.

[20]    And a woman's education also affects her own mortality, with
someone with a school education having a 53% greater risk of dying
early than a university educated woman.

    The authors said: "Education is of great importance through a
direct influence on mortality as well as indirectly via occupation and

[25] income.

    "Education may also have an indirect effect through its possible
importance for choice of partner.”

    Dr Robert Erikson, who led the research, said: "Women tradi-
tionally take more responsibility for the home than men do and, as a

[30] consequence, women's education might be more important for the
family lifestyle - for example, in terms of food habits - than men! s
education."

    "It's still the case that women tend to put the food on the table
and in that way have a very direct influence."

[35] "Women with higher education may also receive better medical
treatment and their partners may benefit too."

    Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, of the UK's Faculty of Public
Health, said: "This study shows how closely education, lifestyle and

long-term health are linked together. If we're serious about radically

[40] improving the health of the nation, we must fully invest in high-
quality education at all levels."

Fonte: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8291667.stm. Monday, 5 October 2009.