In“Health and Climate Change: policy responses to protect public health" a group of European and Chinese academics built upon a 2009 report in The Lancet that outlined the expected public health impacts of climate change (full disclosure-the group of academics includes the author of this post). These impacts include increasing instances of respiratory, cardiovascular, and vector-borme diseases as well as under -nutrition and mental health challenges. But, even more immediately, the authors discuss how moving away from carbon-intensive energy technologies could improve public health today by reducing other types of air pollution including particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The core of this discussion lies on the fact that energy technologies that produce greenhouse gases also often produce these other air pollutants simulaneously. For example, diesel and gasoline vehicles, coal power plants, biomass (for example, wood and charcoal) for cooking, and many industrial processes (for example, mining, cement manufacturing, and smelting) all produce both carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM). These other air pollutants lead to higher rates of ilness and premature death in exposed populations. In the United Kingdom, air pollution from coal power plants is responsible for an estimated £3.1 billion per year in added health costs to treat conditions including lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. Overall, air pollution from the UK's power sector is responsible for approximately 3,800 premature deaths each year due to respiratory disease alone. Each year, pollution from the UK's transportation sector leads to 7,500 premature deaths across the country. Air pollution in China has an even more dramatic impact on human health. In 2010, air pollution led to an estimated 1.2 million premature deaths and the loss of 25 million healthy years of life. These premature deaths correspond to economic losses of up to USD 1.4 trillion. The average person in China will lose over 3 years (40 months) of life due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution even though the country already spends an estimated 0.37% of its GDP on cleaning the air. Countries could quickly and economically reduce air pollution and its direct impacts on public health by transition to low-carbon energy technologies, according to The Lancet report. For example, a combination of more fuel efficient vehicles and increasing amounts of walking and cycling in the U.K.'s urban areas could lead to a net savings of more than £15 billion by 2030 to the country's social security and healthcare systems. The overall message from the new Lancet report is that climate change mitigation could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century. Much of this opportunity lies in avoiding future negative health impacts from climate change. However, an arguably stronger 一and certainly more immediate 一case lies in the immediate benefits resulting from lower levels of air pollution as we move to low-carbon energy technologies. 'The Lancet' in line 2, paragraph 7, refers to_________.

In“Health and Climate Change: policy responses to protect public health" a group of European and Chinese academics built upon a 2009 report in The Lancet that outlined the expected public health impacts of climate change (full disclosure-the group of academics includes the author of this post). These impacts include increasing instances of respiratory, cardiovascular, and vector-borme diseases as well as under -nutrition and mental health challenges. But, even more immediately, the authors discuss how moving away from carbon-intensive energy technologies could improve public health today by reducing other types of air pollution including particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The core of this discussion lies on the fact that energy technologies that produce greenhouse gases also often produce these other air pollutants simulaneously. For example, diesel and gasoline vehicles, coal power plants, biomass (for example, wood and charcoal) for cooking, and many industrial processes (for example, mining, cement manufacturing, and smelting) all produce both carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM). These other air pollutants lead to higher rates of ilness and premature death in exposed populations. In the United Kingdom, air pollution from coal power plants is responsible for an estimated £3.1 billion per year in added health costs to treat conditions including lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. Overall, air pollution from the UK's power sector is responsible for approximately 3,800 premature deaths each year due to respiratory disease alone. Each year, pollution from the UK's transportation sector leads to 7,500 premature deaths across the country. Air pollution in China has an even more dramatic impact on human health. In 2010, air pollution led to an estimated 1.2 million premature deaths and the loss of 25 million healthy years of life. These premature deaths correspond to economic losses of up to USD 1.4 trillion. The average person in China will lose over 3 years (40 months) of life due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution even though the country already spends an estimated 0.37% of its GDP on cleaning the air. Countries could quickly and economically reduce air pollution and its direct impacts on public health by transition to low-carbon energy technologies, according to The Lancet report. For example, a combination of more fuel efficient vehicles and increasing amounts of walking and cycling in the U.K.'s urban areas could lead to a net savings of more than £15 billion by 2030 to the country's social security and healthcare systems. The overall message from the new Lancet report is that climate change mitigation could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century. Much of this opportunity lies in avoiding future negative health impacts from climate change. However, an arguably stronger 一and certainly more immediate 一case lies in the immediate benefits resulting from lower levels of air pollution as we move to low-carbon energy technologies. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

In“Health and Climate Change: policy responses to protect public health" a group of European and Chinese academics built upon a 2009 report in The Lancet that outlined the expected public health impacts of climate change (full disclosure-the group of academics includes the author of this post). These impacts include increasing instances of respiratory, cardiovascular, and vector-borme diseases as well as under -nutrition and mental health challenges. But, even more immediately, the authors discuss how moving away from carbon-intensive energy technologies could improve public health today by reducing other types of air pollution including particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The core of this discussion lies on the fact that energy technologies that produce greenhouse gases also often produce these other air pollutants simulaneously. For example, diesel and gasoline vehicles, coal power plants, biomass (for example, wood and charcoal) for cooking, and many industrial processes (for example, mining, cement manufacturing, and smelting) all produce both carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM). These other air pollutants lead to higher rates of ilness and premature death in exposed populations. In the United Kingdom, air pollution from coal power plants is responsible for an estimated £3.1 billion per year in added health costs to treat conditions including lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. Overall, air pollution from the UK's power sector is responsible for approximately 3,800 premature deaths each year due to respiratory disease alone. Each year, pollution from the UK's transportation sector leads to 7,500 premature deaths across the country. Air pollution in China has an even more dramatic impact on human health. In 2010, air pollution led to an estimated 1.2 million premature deaths and the loss of 25 million healthy years of life. These premature deaths correspond to economic losses of up to USD 1.4 trillion. The average person in China will lose over 3 years (40 months) of life due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution even though the country already spends an estimated 0.37% of its GDP on cleaning the air. Countries could quickly and economically reduce air pollution and its direct impacts on public health by transition to low-carbon energy technologies, according to The Lancet report. For example, a combination of more fuel efficient vehicles and increasing amounts of walking and cycling in the U.K.'s urban areas could lead to a net savings of more than £15 billion by 2030 to the country's social security and healthcare systems. The overall message from the new Lancet report is that climate change mitigation could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century. Much of this opportunity lies in avoiding future negative health impacts from climate change. However, an arguably stronger 一and certainly more immediate 一case lies in the immediate benefits resulting from lower levels of air pollution as we move to low-carbon energy technologies. According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT true?

The 2009 HINI influenza pandemic left a troubling legacy in Europe: More than 1300 people who received a vaccine to prevent the flu developed narcolepsy, an incurable, debilitating condition that causes overpowering daytime sleepiness, sometimes accompanied by a sudden muscle weakness in response to strong emotions such as laughter or anger. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, but how the vaccine might have triggered the condition has been unclear. In a paper in Science Translational Medicine (STM this week, researchers offer a possible explanation. They show that the vaccine, caled Pandemrix, triggers antibodies that can also bind to a receptor in brain cells that help regulate sleepiness. The work strongly suggests that Pandemrix triggered an autoimmune reaction that led to narcolepsy in some people who are genetically at risk. “They put together quite a convincing picture and provide a plausible explanation for what has happened," says Pasi Penttinen, who heads the influenza program at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.“It's really the kind of work we've been waiting for 5 years." But the results still need to be confirmed in a larger study, the authors and other narcolepsy researchers say. A 2013 paper in STM by another group, documenting a difrent type of vaccine-triggered autoimmune reaction, was retracted after the results proved irreproducible. Narcolepsy, a myterious malady that afects roughly one in 3000 people in Europe, most often appears in childhood or adolescence. Patients lose certain brain cells in the hypothalamus, leading to a deficiency of hypo-cretin, a molecule that helps regulate the sleep-wake cycle. Researchers suspect an autoimmune reaction is to blame because many people who develop narcolepsy-and just about everyone with the vaccine-associated form-have a specific variant in a gene in the HLA family, which helps the body distinguish its own proteins from those made by microbial invaders. When they heard about the rise in narcolepsy in 2010, neuroscientist Lawrence Steinman and rheumatologist Sohail Ahmed began scouring databases for proteins expressed in the brain that might resemble those in the vaccine. Their search turned up a suspect: a piece of a receptor for hypo-cretin resembles part of the HIN1 influenza nucleoprotein- which binds to the virus genome and plays a key role in its replication.The flu vaccine is designed to trigger antibodies to influenza's surface proteins, but if it elicits antibodies to the nucleoproteinas well, those might well latch on to the hypocretin receptor, and eventually lead to death of the cells, the researchers thought. In the new work, the researchers added serum from Finnish narcolepsy patients who had received Pandemrix to cells that were engineered to display human hypo cretin receptor 2 on their surface. Antibodies from the patients bound to these cells in 17 of 20 samples. Serum from Italians who had been vaccinated with a different pandemic vaccine from Novartis, called Focetria, did not have such antibodies. The researchers also showed that Focetria, which has not been linked to narcolepsy, had a much lower concentration of nucleoprotein than Pandemrix did.The passage answers which of the following questions?

The 2009 HINI influenza pandemic left a troubling legacy in Europe: More than 1300 people who received a vaccine to prevent the flu developed narcolepsy, an incurable, debilitating condition that causes overpowering daytime sleepiness, sometimes accompanied by a sudden muscle weakness in response to strong emotions such as laughter or anger. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, but how the vaccine might have triggered the condition has been unclear. In a paper in Science Translational Medicine (STM this week, researchers offer a possible explanation. They show that the vaccine, caled Pandemrix, triggers antibodies that can also bind to a receptor in brain cells that help regulate sleepiness. The work strongly suggests that Pandemrix triggered an autoimmune reaction that led to narcolepsy in some people who are genetically at risk. “They put together quite a convincing picture and provide a plausible explanation for what has happened," says Pasi Penttinen, who heads the influenza program at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.“It's really the kind of work we've been waiting for 5 years." But the results still need to be confirmed in a larger study, the authors and other narcolepsy researchers say. A 2013 paper in STM by another group, documenting a difrent type of vaccine-triggered autoimmune reaction, was retracted after the results proved irreproducible. Narcolepsy, a myterious malady that afects roughly one in 3000 people in Europe, most often appears in childhood or adolescence. Patients lose certain brain cells in the hypothalamus, leading to a deficiency of hypo-cretin, a molecule that helps regulate the sleep-wake cycle. Researchers suspect an autoimmune reaction is to blame because many people who develop narcolepsy-and just about everyone with the vaccine-associated form-have a specific variant in a gene in the HLA family, which helps the body distinguish its own proteins from those made by microbial invaders. When they heard about the rise in narcolepsy in 2010, neuroscientist Lawrence Steinman and rheumatologist Sohail Ahmed began scouring databases for proteins expressed in the brain that might resemble those in the vaccine. Their search turned up a suspect: a piece of a receptor for hypo-cretin resembles part of the HIN1 influenza nucleoprotein- which binds to the virus genome and plays a key role in its replication.The flu vaccine is designed to trigger antibodies to influenza's surface proteins, but if it elicits antibodies to the nucleoproteinas well, those might well latch on to the hypocretin receptor, and eventually lead to death of the cells, the researchers thought. In the new work, the researchers added serum from Finnish narcolepsy patients who had received Pandemrix to cells that were engineered to display human hypo cretin receptor 2 on their surface. Antibodies from the patients bound to these cells in 17 of 20 samples. Serum from Italians who had been vaccinated with a different pandemic vaccine from Novartis, called Focetria, did not have such antibodies. The researchers also showed that Focetria, which has not been linked to narcolepsy, had a much lower concentration of nucleoprotein than Pandemrix did.The phrase“latch on to' in line 4, paragraph 6 is closest in meaning to_________

The 2009 HINI influenza pandemic left a troubling legacy in Europe: More than 1300 people who received a vaccine to prevent the flu developed narcolepsy, an incurable, debilitating condition that causes overpowering daytime sleepiness, sometimes accompanied by a sudden muscle weakness in response to strong emotions such as laughter or anger. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, but how the vaccine might have triggered the condition has been unclear. In a paper in Science Translational Medicine (STM this week, researchers offer a possible explanation. They show that the vaccine, caled Pandemrix, triggers antibodies that can also bind to a receptor in brain cells that help regulate sleepiness. The work strongly suggests that Pandemrix triggered an autoimmune reaction that led to narcolepsy in some people who are genetically at risk. “They put together quite a convincing picture and provide a plausible explanation for what has happened," says Pasi Penttinen, who heads the influenza program at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.“It's really the kind of work we've been waiting for 5 years." But the results still need to be confirmed in a larger study, the authors and other narcolepsy researchers say. A 2013 paper in STM by another group, documenting a difrent type of vaccine-triggered autoimmune reaction, was retracted after the results proved irreproducible. Narcolepsy, a myterious malady that afects roughly one in 3000 people in Europe, most often appears in childhood or adolescence. Patients lose certain brain cells in the hypothalamus, leading to a deficiency of hypo-cretin, a molecule that helps regulate the sleep-wake cycle. Researchers suspect an autoimmune reaction is to blame because many people who develop narcolepsy-and just about everyone with the vaccine-associated form-have a specific variant in a gene in the HLA family, which helps the body distinguish its own proteins from those made by microbial invaders. When they heard about the rise in narcolepsy in 2010, neuroscientist Lawrence Steinman and rheumatologist Sohail Ahmed began scouring databases for proteins expressed in the brain that might resemble those in the vaccine. Their search turned up a suspect: a piece of a receptor for hypo-cretin resembles part of the HIN1 influenza nucleoprotein- which binds to the virus genome and plays a key role in its replication.The flu vaccine is designed to trigger antibodies to influenza's surface proteins, but if it elicits antibodies to the nucleoproteinas well, those might well latch on to the hypocretin receptor, and eventually lead to death of the cells, the researchers thought. In the new work, the researchers added serum from Finnish narcolepsy patients who had received Pandemrix to cells that were engineered to display human hypo cretin receptor 2 on their surface. Antibodies from the patients bound to these cells in 17 of 20 samples. Serum from Italians who had been vaccinated with a different pandemic vaccine from Novartis, called Focetria, did not have such antibodies. The researchers also showed that Focetria, which has not been linked to narcolepsy, had a much lower concentration of nucleoprotein than Pandemrix did.According to the passage, all of the following are true EXCEPT_________