《经济学家》读译参考之十八神奇尽失.docVIP

TEXT 18 Has all the magic gone? Apr 12th 2006 From The Economist print edition ON MARCH 27th a bathroom cleaner called Magic Nano went (A) sale in Germany. Three days later it was withdrawn from the market after nearly 80 people reported severe respiratory problems and six were admitted (B) hospital with fluid on their lungs. Although most of the symptoms soon cleared up, critics of nanotechnology, have been quick to identify this as （1）one of the first examples of a sinister technology run ★amok[1]. One problem (C) this criticism is that the respiratory problems were noticed only with the ★aerosol[2] spray-can form of the product. No problems have been reported with the same fluid in a pump bottle. Jürgen Kundke, of the Berlin-based Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, a government group that reports on consumer-health protection, points to similar respiratory effects in a Swiss product several years ago that was not marketed (D) a nanotechnology label. Another problem with blaming nanotechnology is that Kleinmann, the manufacturer based in Sonnenbühl, Germany, also produces a range of other products such as a ★windscreen[3] cleaner containing the ★self-same[4] nanotechnology. These have not harmed anyone. The technology (E) question contains very tiny ★silicate[5] particles suspended in a fluid. When they are applied to a surface, these particles block the minute ★crevices[6] in it, （2）reducing the scope for dirt, moisture and bacteria to cling to the surface. Neil McClelland, a spokesman (F) Kleinmann in Britain, said （3）the signs so far were that the culprit was the anti-corrosion liquid inside the ★propellant[7] can. The aerosol was the only product in the Magic Nano range that the company did not produce—it came from a supplier in Munich, called Hago, which also tested the product. On April 10th representatives from Kleinmann met scientists in Berlin to brief them (G) Magic Nanos ingredients. The product inside th