War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers

War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers’ practice test and answers with explanations are given for your IELTS reading preparation. The reading passage has nine paragraphs along with 13 questions. The questions are divided into three categories:  locating information questions, true false not given questions, and summary completion questions.

Table of contents:

• Solution for War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers
• War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers IELTS Reading Practice Test
• Passage
• Questions
• Answers with Explanations

Solution for War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers

We have given War Debris Could Cause Cancer reading answers in the table below. Make sure to check your answers and correct the mistakes.

Answer Table

1. D	5. G	9. Not Given	13. Chemical toxicity
2. G	6. False	10. the military
3. E	7. True	11. High density
4. A	8. True	12. Self sharpening

War Debris Could Cause Cancer IELTS Reading Practice Test - Exam Review

Check out our YouTube Channel to Practice Full-Length IELTS Reading Tests Daily

 

War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers is given to develop your comprehension skills. To answer the questions quickly, read the passage attentively, underline the keywords and important details given in the passage. You can easily crack your IELTS reading module using skimming, scanning and paraphrasing skills.

Passage

We have provided War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading reading passage. Read the passage and answer all the questions(1-13). Check your answers with War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers with location.

War Debris Could Cause Cancer

1. Could the mystery of how depleted uranium might cause genetic damage be closer to being solved? It may be if a controversial claim by two researchers is right. They say that minute quantities of the material lodged in the body may kick out energetic electrons that mimic the effect of beta radiation. This, they argue, could explain how residues of depleted uranium scattered across former war zones could be increasing the risk of cancer and other problems among soldiers and local people.
   
   
2. Depleted uranium is highly valued by the military, who use it in the tips of armour­piercing weapons. The material’s high density and self-sharpening properties help it to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks and bunkers. Its use in conflicts has risen sharply in recent years. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that shells containing 1700 tonnes of the material were fired during the 2003 Iraq war. Some researchers and campaigners are convinced that depleted uranium is left in the people exposed to it. Governments and the military disagree, and point out that there is no conclusive epidemiological evidence for this. And while they acknowledge that the material is weakly radioactive, they say this effect is too small to explain the genetic damage at the levels seen in war veterans and civilians.
   
   
3. Organizations such as the UK’s Royal Society, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and UNEP have called for more comprehensive epidemiological studies to clarify the link between depleted uranium and any ill effects. Meanwhile, various test­tube and animal studies have suggested that depleted uranium may increase the risk of cancer, according to a review of the scientific literature published in May 2008 by the US National Research Council. The authors of the NRC report argue that more long-term and quantitative research is needed on the effects of uranium’s chemical toxicity. They say the science seems to support the theory that genetic damage might be occurring because uranium’s chemical toxicity and weak radioactivity could somehow reinforce each other, though no one knows what the mechanism for this might be.
   
   
4. Now two researchers, Chris Busby, and Ewald Schnug, have a new theory that they say explains how depleted uranium could cause genetic damage. Their theory invokes a well-known process called the photoelectric effect. This is the main mechanism by which gamma photons with energies of about 100-kilo electronvolts (keV) or less are blocked by matter: the photon transfers its energy to an electron in the atom’s electron cloud, which is ejected into the surroundings.
   
   An atom’s ability to stop photons by this mechanism depends on the fourth power of its atomic number - the number of protons in its nucleus - so heavy elements are far better at intercepting gamma radiation and X-rays than light elements. This means that uranium could be especially effective at capturing photons and kicking out damaging photoelectrons: with an atomic number of 92, uranium blocks low-energy gamma photons over 450 times as effective as the lighter element calcium, for instance.
   
   
5. Busby and Schnug say that previous risk models have ignored this well-established physical effect. They claim that depleted uranium could be kicking out photoelectrons in the body’s most vulnerable spots. Various studies have shown that dissolved uranium - ingested in food or water, for example - is liable to attach to DNA strands within cells, because uranium binds strongly to DNA phosphate. “Photoelectrons from uranium are therefore likely to be emitted precisely where they will cause the most damage to genetic material,” says Busby.
   
   
6. Busby and Schnug base their claim on calculations of the photoelectrons that would be produced by the interaction between normal background levels of gamma radiation and uranium in the body. “Our detailed calculations indicate that the phantom photoelectrons are the predominant effect by far for uranium genome toxicity, and that uranium could be 1500 times as powerful as an emitter of photoelectrons than as an alpha emitter.” Their computer modeling results are described in a peer-reviewed paper to be published this month by the IPNSS in a book called Loads and Fate of Fertiliser-Derived Uranium.
   
   
7. Hans-Georg Menzel, who chairs the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s committee on radiation doses, acknowledges that the theory should be considered, but he doubts that it will prove significant. He suspects that under normal background radiation, the effect is too weak to inflict many of the “double hits” of energy that are known to be most damaging to cells. “It is very unlikely that individual cells would be subject to two or more closely spaced photoelectron impacts under normal background gamma irradiation,” he says. Despite his doubts, Menzel raised the issue last week with his committee in St Petersburg, Russia, and says that several colleagues “intended to collect relevant data and perform calculations to check whether there was any possibility of a real effect in living tissues”. Organizations in the UK, including the Ministry of Defence and the Health Protection Agency, say they have no plans to investigate Busby’s hypothesis.
   
   
8. Radiation biophysicist Mark Hill of the University of Oxford would like to see a fuller investigation, though he suggests this might show that the photoelectric effect is not as powerful as Busby claims. “We really need more detailed calculations and dose estimates for realistic situations with and without uranium present,” he says. Hill’s doubts center on an effect called Compton scattering, which he believes needs to be factored into any calculations. With Compton scattering, uranium is only 4.5 times as effective as calcium at stopping gamma photons, so Hill says that taking it into account would reduce the relative importance of uranium as an emitter of secondary electrons. If he is right, this would dilute the mechanism proposed by Busby and Schnug.
   
   
9. The arguments over depleted uranium are likely to continue, whatever the outcome of these experiments. Whether Busby’s theory holds up or not remains to be seen, but investigating it can only help to clear up some of the doubts about this mysterious substance.

Questions

Questions 1-5

The reading Passage has nine paragraphs A-I.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter A-I, in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet. 

NB     you may use any letter more than once

1. a famous process is given relating to the new theory.
2. a person who acknowledges but suspects the theory.
3. the explanation of damage to DNA.
4. a debatable and short explanation of the way of creating problems of soldiers.
5. Busby’s hypothesis is not in the investigation plans of organizations. 

Questions 6-9

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage?
In boxes 6-9 on your answer sheet, write

TRUE                  if the statement is true
FALSE                if the statement is false
NOT GIVEN        if the information is not given in the passage

6. All people believe that depleted uranium is harmful to people’s health.

7. Heavier elements can perform better at preventing X-rays and gamma radiation.

8. By particular calculations, it is known that the main effect of uranium genome toxicity is phantom photoelectrons.

9. Most scientists support Mark Hill’s opinion.

Questions 10-13

Complete the following summary of the paragraphs of Reading Passage using no more than two words from the Reading Passage for each answer. 
Write your answers in boxes 10-13 on your answer sheet. 

10.________________ attaches importance to depleted uranium due to its 11.______________ and 12. ____________ features, which are helpful in the war. However, it has ill effects on people, and then causes organizations to appeal to do more relative studies. According to some scientists, we should do research on the impact of uranium 13.______________ which may be enhanced with weak radioactivity.

Answers for War Debris Could Cause Cancer with Explanations

War Debris Could Cause Cancer Reading Answers with explanations are given below to understand the reason behind the answers.

(Note: The text in Bold mentions the location and keywords for the justification. The lines in italics show the referring lines of the passage.)

1. Answer: D

Explanation: 1st and 2nd line of paragraph D states that Now two researchers, Chris Busby, and Ewald Schnug, have a new theory that they say explains how depleted uranium could cause genetic damage. Their theory invokes a well-known process called the photoelectric effect. These lines illustrate Busby and Schnug’s theory, which explains how depleted uranium can lead to genetic damage, and this invokes a well-known (famous) process of the photoelectric effect. Thus, the statement can be found in paragraph D.

2. Answer: G

Explanation: 1st line of paragraph G mentions that Hans-Georg Menzel, who chairs the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s committee on radiation doses, acknowledges that the theory should be considered, but he doubts that it will prove significant. These lines suggest that Hans-Georg Menzel from the radiological protection committee acknowledges the theory to be considered, but doubts if it will prove significant. Therefore, the statement can be found in paragraph G, so, the answer is G.

3. Answer: E

Explanation: The last line of paragraph E describes that “Photoelectrons from uranium are therefore likely to be emitted precisely where they will cause the most damage to genetic material,” says Busby. These lines indicate Busby saying that the photoelectrons from the uranium are expected to be emitted in a way by causes the most damage to the genetic material (DNA). Thus, the statement can be found in paragraph E, so, the answer is E.

4. Answer: A

Explanation: The last line of paragraph A justifies that This, they argue, could explain how residues of depleted uranium scattered across former war zones could be increasing the risk of cancer and other problems among soldiers and local people. These lines illustrate a debatable and short explanation of the way creating problems for soldiers, i.e., the depleted uranium scattered across the former war zones might increase the risk of cancers and other health issues among the soldiers and local people in the place.  

5. Answer: G

Explanation: The last line of paragraph G indicates that Organizations in the UK, including the Ministry of Defence and the Health Protection Agency, say they have no plans to investigate Busby’s hypothesis. We can understand from these lines that Busby’s hypothesis is not in the investigation plans of organizations. 

6. Answer: False

Explanation: The last line of paragraph A narrates that This, they argue, could explain how residues of depleted uranium scattered across former war zones could be increasing the risk of cancer and other problems among soldiers and local people. These lines suggest a debatable and short explanation of the way creating problems for soldiers, i.e., the depleted uranium scattered across the former war zones might increase the risk of cancers and other health issues among the soldiers and local people. Thus, only two researchers claimed that depleted uranium is harmful to people’s health. As a result, the statement contradicts the information, so, the answer is False.

7. Answer: True

Explanation: The second paragraph of Section D cites that An atom’s ability to stop photons by this mechanism depends on the fourth power of its atomic number - the number of protons in its nucleus - so heavy elements are far better at intercepting gamma radiation and X-rays than light elements. This means that uranium could be especially effective at capturing photons and kicking out damaging photoelectrons: with an atomic number of 92, uranium blocks low-energy gamma photons over 450 times as effective as the lighter element calcium, for instance. These lines indicate the ability of an atom to stop photons which depend on the fourth power of its atomic number and the number of protons in its nucleus, as a result of which the heavy elements are far better at intercepting gamma radiation and x-rays than light elements. 

8. Answer: True

Explanation: 1st and 2nd line of paragraph F proves that Busby and Schnug base their claim on calculations of the photoelectrons that would be produced by the interaction between normal background levels of gamma radiation and uranium in the body. “Our detailed calculations indicate that the phantom photoelectrons are the predominant effect by far for uranium genome toxicity, and that uranium could be 1500 times as powerful as an emitter of photoelectrons than as an alpha emitter.” We can deduce from these lines that Busby and Schnug are claiming the calculations of photoelectrons to be produced by the interaction between normal background levels of gamma radiation and uranium. Their calculations revealed that by specific calculations, it is known that the main effect of uranium genome toxicity is phantom photoelectrons.

9. Answer: Not given

Explanation: There is no information available regarding this question.

10. Answer: The Military

Explanation: 1st line of paragraph B represents that Depleted uranium is highly valued by the military, who use it in the tips of armour­piercing weapons.

11. Answer: High Density

Explanation: 2nd line of paragraph B expresses that The material’s high density and self-sharpening properties help it to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks and bunkers. 

12. Answer: Self-sharpening

Explanation: 2nd line of paragraph B tells that The material’s high density and self-sharpening properties help it to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks and bunkers. 

13. Answer: Chemical Toxicity

Explanation: 3rd line of paragraph C says that The authors of the NRC report argue that more long-term and quantitative research is needed on the effects of uranium’s chemical toxicity. 

Other Reading Tests

• Urban planning in singapore reading answers
• Timekeeper invention of marine chronometer reading answers
• The power of nothing reading answers