使用气相色谱进行分析时，对于卤代烃、硝基化合物等电子亲和能力较强的物质，最适合的检测

从花粉到花生，让人类产生过敏变态反应的东西实在太多了。变态反应研究起步相对较晚，“变态反应”这一术语是儿科医生冯·皮尔凯和贝拉·锡克在20世纪首先提出的。几乎同一时期，“过敏症”使生理学家查尔士·里歇声名远播并荣膺1913年诺贝尔奖。此后多年，变态反应研究始终将过敏视为一种病态或障碍，极少有科学家探询究竟为何存在这种严重而有潜在危险的免疫反应，更不用说免疫系统为什么会以这种方式对貌似无害、却经常充当过敏原的物质作出反应。 

上世纪60年代有关多细胞真核寄生物引发免疫反应的研究回答了这个问题。研究人员发现，人体如果受到蠕虫这种寄生虫的感染会导致高含量免疫球蛋白E的生成，而引起变态反应的正是这一抗体。从那时起，有种观点盛行不衰：在进化中，人体为抵御寄生虫，发生变态反应，但却把免疫反应的目标弄错了。 

加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校的玛吉·普罗菲特在1991年对变态反应作出了一种非主流理论解释。她推测，在进化中，变态反应的形成是为了启动免疫系统，保护我们不受环境毒素（例如有毒的植物化学物质和毒液）的伤害。过敏原在多数人看来是无害的，但有很多事实上就是毒素。所以，与其把变态反应看成对蠕虫目标锁定有误的反应，倒不如视之为一种有益的反应，目的在于防御环境中的有毒物质。 

虽然“毒素假设”至今仍不受生物医学界重视，但是其仍有一定合理性。首先，流鼻涕等过敏症状可以理解为身体力求摆脱过敏原的一种尝试，类似于食物和空气中的有毒物质引起类似的驱逐反应。其次，变态反应往往发生在接触毒素后的几秒钟或几分钟内，与需要一定时间方才显现的蠕虫感染相比，有一定差异。此外，患有过敏症的人常对过敏原变得极度敏感，环境中稍有微量便立即反应。考虑到对细菌和病毒的免疫反应都不能如此灵敏，对蠕虫表现得如此敏感就不是那么令人信服了。最后，充当过敏原的物质多种多样。“蠕虫假设”无法解释为什么这么多的物质都能造成变态反应，但“毒素假设”却预料到这些过敏原可能共同具有一种造成伤害的能力。“毒素假设”也无法直接解释面对环境中哪怕是微乎其微的过敏原，肌体为什么有时候会作出如此严重的、潜在致死的过敏反应。 

过敏症的多数患者会发现，变态反应可能有益的说法是令人难以置信的。但是，反应的好处可能类似于疼痛的好处：疼痛固然给人带来不快，但这种不快会帮助我们避开损害我们肌体的环境原，从而使我们更有幸存的可能。

关于变态反应研究，下列说法正确的是

A.自古以来一直受到重视 

B.过敏症这一术语是由冯·皮尔凯提出的 

C.最初将过敏视为对身体有害的变态反应 

D.贝拉·锡克因在该领域的成就而获得诺贝尔奖

采取气体试样时，应该注意哪些问题？

简述民事责任的特征。

To Err is Human

by Lewis Thomas
Everyone must have had at least one personal experience with a computer error by this time. Bank balances are suddenly reported to have jumped from $ 379 into the millions, appeals for charitable contributions are mailed over and over to people with crazy sounding names at your address, department stores send the wrong bills, utility companies write that they’re turning everything off, that sort of thing. If you manage to get in touch with someone and complain, you then get instantaneously typed, guilty letters from the same computer, saying, "Our computer was in error, and an adjustment is being made in your account."
These are supposed to be the sheerest, blindest accidents. Mistakes are not believed to be the normal behavior of a good machine. If things go wrong, it must be a personal, human error, the result of fingering, tampering a button getting stuck, someone hitting the wrong key. The computer, at its normal best, is infallible.
I wonder whether this can be true. After all, the whole point of computers is that they represent an extension of the human brain, vastly improved upon but nonetheless human, superhuman maybe. A good computer can think clearly and quickly enough to beat you at chess, and some of them have even been programmed to write obscure verse. They can do anything we can do, and more besides.
It is not yet known whether a computer has its own consciousness, and it would be hard to find out about this. When you walk into one of those great halls now built for the huge machines, and standing listening, it is easy to imagine that the faint, distant noises are the sound of thinking, and the turning of the spools gives them the look of wild creatures rolling their eyes in the effort to concentrate, choking with information. But real thinking, and dreaming, are other matters. On the other hand, the evidence of something like an unconscious, equivalent to ours, are all around, in every mail. As extensions of the human brain, they have been constructed the same property of error, spontaneous, uncontrolled, and rich in possibilities.

The author compared the faint and distant sound of the computer to the sound of thinking and regarded it as the product of ______.

A. dreaming and thinking

B. some property of errors
C. consciousness


D. possibilities

夜间着陆，航空器打开着陆灯的高度通常至少在（）

A、30－10米

B、80－50米

C、100－70米