上海外国语大学高级翻译学院2012年翻译硕士入学真题

词语翻译:30’ 1. Austerity measures 2. UNSECO 3. The US Senate 4. APEC 5. Washington Post 6. NATO 7. Arab Spring 8. Gary Locke 9. Reuters 10. Wall Street Journal 1. 十二五规划 2. 十七届六中全会 3. 全国人大 4. 新华社 5. 软实力 6. 中美战略经济对话 7. 上海合作组织 8. 珠江三角洲 9. “西气东输” 10. 北京共识 短文翻译 E-C The great schools revolution By The Economist From The Economist Published: September 23, 2011 Education remains the trickiest part of attempts to reform the public sector. But as ever more countries embark on it, some vital lessons are beginning to be learned FROM Toronto to Wroclaw, London to Rome, pupils and teachers have been returning to the classroom after their summer break. But this September schools themselves are caught up in a global battle of ideas. In many countries education is at the forefront of political debate, and reformers desperate to improve their national performance are drawing examples of good practice from all over the world. Why now? One answer is the sheer amount of data available on performance, not just within countries but between them. In 2000 the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) at the OECD, a rich-country club, began tracking academic attainment by the age of 15 in 32 countries. Many were shocked by where they came in the rankings. (PISA's latest figures appear in table 1.) Other outfits, too, have been measuring how good or bad schools are. McKinsey, a consultancy, has monitored which education systems have improved most in recent years. Technology has also made a difference. After a number of false starts, many people now believe that the internet can make a real difference to educating children. Hence the success of institutions like America's Kahn Academy. Experimentation is also infectious; the more governments try things, the more others examine, and copy, the results. Above all, though, there has been a change in the quality of the debate. In particular, what might be called "the three great excuses" for bad schools have receded in importance. Teachers' unions have long maintained that failures in Western education could be blamed on skimpy government spending, social class and cultures that did not value education. All these make a difference, but they do not determine outcomes by themselves. The idea that good schooling is about spending money is the one that has been beaten back hardest. Many of the 20 leading economic performers in the OECD doubled or tripled their education spending in real terms between 1970 and 1994, yet outcomes in many countries stagnated—or went backwards. Educational performance varies widely even among countries that spend similar amounts per pupil. Such spending is highest in the United States—yet America lags behind other developed countries on overall outcomes in secondary education. Andreas Schleicher, head of analysis at PISA, thinks that only about 10% of the variation in pupil performance has anything to do with money. Many still insist, though, that social class makes a difference. Martin Johnson, an education trade unionist, points to Britain's "inequality between classes, which is among the largest in the wealthiest nations" as the main reason why its pupils underperform. A review of reforms over the past decade by researchers at Oxford University supports him. "Despite rising attainment levels," it concludes, "there has been little narrowing of longstanding and sizeable attainment gaps. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds remain at higher risks of poor outcomes." American studies confirm the point; Dan Goldhaber of the University of Washington claims that "non-school factors", such as family income, account for as much as 60% of a child's performance in school. Yet the link is much more variable than education egalitarians suggest. Australia, for instance, has wide discrepancies of income, but came a creditable ninth in the most recent PISA study. China, rapidly developing into one of the world's least equal societies, finished first. Culture is certainly a factor. Many Asian parents pay much more attention to their children's test results than Western ones do, and push their schools to succeed. Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea sit comfortably at the top of McKinsey's rankings (see table 2). But not only do some Western countries do fairly well; there are also huge differences within them. Even if you put to one side the unusual Asians, as this briefing will now do, many Western systems could jump forward merely by bringing their worst schools up to the standard of their best. C-E 社会实践是法律的基础,法律是实践经验的总结、提炼。社会实践永无止境,法律体系也要与时俱进。建设中国特色社会主义是一项长期的历史任务,完善中国特色社会主义法律体系同样是一项长期而又艰巨的任务,必须随着中国特色社会主义实践的发展不断向前推进。法律的生命力在于实施。中国特色社会主义法律体系的形成,总体上解决了有法可依的问题,对有法必依、执法必严、违法必究提出了更为突出、更加紧迫的要求。中国将积极采取有效措施,切实保障宪法和法律的有效实施,加快推进依法治国、建设社会主义法治国家的进程。 The future of the EU Two-speed Europe, or two Europes? Nov 10th 2011, 2:23 by Charlemagne | BRUSSELS NICOLAS Sarkozy is causing a big stir after calling on November 8th for a two-speed Europe: a “federal” core of the 17 members of the euro zone, with a looser “confederal” outer band of the ten non-euro members. He made the comments during a debate with students at the University of Strasbourg. The key passage is below (video here, starting near the 63-minute mark) “You cannot make a single currency without economic convergence and economic integration. It's impossible. But on the contrary, one cannot plead for federalism and at the same time for the enlargement of Europe. It's impossible. There's a contradiction. We are 27. We will obviously have to open up to the Balkans. We will be 32, 33 or 34. I imagine that nobody thinks that federalism—total integration—is possible at 33, 34, 35 countries. So what one we do? To begin with, frankly, the single currency is a wonderful idea, but it was strange to create it without asking oneself the question of its governance, and without asking oneself about economic convergence. Honestly, it's nice to have a vision, but there are details that are missing: we made a currency, but we kept fiscal systems and economic systems that not only were not converging, but were diverging. And not only did we make a single currency without convergence, but we tried to undo the rules of the pact. It cannot work. There will not be a single currency without greater economic integration and convergence. That is certain. And that is where we are going. Must one have the same rules for the 27? No. Absolutely not [...] In the end, clearly, there will be two European gears: one gear towards more integration in the euro zone and a gear that is more confederal in the European Union.” At first blush this is statement of the blindingly obvious. The euro zone must integrate to save itself; even the British say so. And among the ten non-euro states of the EU there are countries such as Britain and Denmark that have no intention of joining the single currency. The European Union is, in a sense, made up not of two but of multiple speeds. Think only of the 25 members of the Schengen passport-free travel zone (excluding Britain but including some non-EU members), or of the 25 states seeking to create a common patent (including Britain, but excluding Italy and Spain). But Mr Sarkozy’s comments are more worrying because, one suspects, he wants to create an exclusivist, protectionist euro zone that seeks to detach itself from the rest of the European Union. Elsewhere in the debate in Str asbourg, for instance, Mr Sarkozy seems to suggest that Europe’s troubles—debt and high unemployment—are all the fault of social, environmental and monetary “dumping” by developing countries that pursue “aggressive” trade policies. For another insight in to Mr Sarkozy’s thinking about Europe, one should listen to an interview he gave a few days earlier, at the end of the marathon-summitry in Brussels at the end of October: “I don't think there is enough economic integration in the euro zone, the 17, and too much integration in the European Union at 27.” In other words, France, or Mr Sarkozy at any rate, does not appear to have got over its resentment of the EU’s enlargement. At 27 nations-strong, the European Union is too big for France to lord it over the rest and is too liberal in economic terms for France’s protectionist leanings. Hence Mr Sarkozy’s yearning for a smaller, cosier, “federalist” euro zone. This chimes with the idea of a Kerneuropa ("core Europe") promoted in 1994 by Karl Lamers and Wolfgang Sch?uble, who happens to be Germany's current finance minister. Intriguingly, it is the first time that Mr Sarkozy, once something of a sceptic of European integration, has spoken publicly about “federalism”, although he had made a similar comment i n private to European leaders in March (see my column). It echoes the views of Mr Sarkozy's Socialist predecessor, Fran?ois Mitterrand. Such ideas appeared to have been killed off by the large eastward enlargement of the EU in 2004, and by the French vot ers’ rejection of the EU's new constitution in 2005. But the euro zone’s debt crisis is reviving these old dreams. But what sort of federalism? Mr Sarkozy probably wants to create a euro zone in France’s image, with power (and much discretion) concentrat ed in the hands of leaders, where the “Merkozy” duo (Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy) will dominate. Germany will no doubt want a replica of its own federal system, with strong rules and powerful independent institutions to constrain politicians. Le Monde carries a series of articles (in French) on what a two-speed Europe may mean. If the euro zone survives the crisis—and the meltdown of Italy’s bonds in the markets suggests that is becoming ever more difficult—it will plainly require deep reform of the EU’s treaties. Done properly, by keeping the euro open to countries that want to join (like Poland) and deepening the single market for those that do not (like Britain), the creation of a more flexible EU of variable geometry could ease many of the existing tensions. Further enlargement need no longer be so neuralgic; further integration need no longer be imposed on those who do not want it. But done wrongly, as one fears Mr Sarkozy would have it, this will be a recipe for breaking up Europe. Not two-speed Europe but two separate Europes. The first steps toward integration, the idea of holding regular summits of leaders of the 17 euro-zone countries, has already caused early friction with Britain (see my earlier post here). This week there were further cracks when, during a meeting of the euro zone’s finance ministers in Brussels, their colleagues from the ten non-euro states held their own separate dinner in a hotel nearby. All this is alarming the European Commission, the EU’s civil service and the g uardian of its treaties. Speaking in Berlin on November 9th, its president, José Manuel Barroso, delivered what amounted to a direct rebuke to Mr Sarkozy. “The Commission welcomes, and urges—in fact we have been asking for a long time—a deeper integration of policies and governance within the euro area. Such integration and convergence is the only way to enhance discipline and stability and to secure the future sustainability of the euro. In other words, we have to finish the unfinished business of Maastricht—to complete the monetary union with a truly economic union. But stability and discipline must also go together with growth. And the single market is our greatest asset to foster growth. Let me be clear—a split union will not work. This is true for a union with different parts engaged in contradictory objectives; a union with an integrated core but a disengaged periphery; a union dominated by an unhealthy balance of power or indeed any kind of directorium. All these are unsustainable and will not work in the long term because they will put in question a fundamental, I would say a sacred, principle—the principle of justice, the principle of the respect of equality, the principle of the respect of the rule of law. And we are a union based on the respect of the rule of law and not on any power or forces. It would be absurd if the very core of our project—and economic and monetary union as embodied in the euro area is the core of our project—so I say it would be absurd if this core were treated as a kind o f "opt out" from the European Union as a whole.” Mr Sarkozy’s words seem to have caught the attention of Joschka Fischer, elder statesman of Germany's Green party and a former foreign minister, who said that the EU at 27 had become too unwieldy. “Let’s ju st forget about the EU with 27 members—unfortunately,” he told Die Zeit, a German weekly newspaper. “I just don’t see how these 27 states will ever come up with any meaningful reforms.” Indeed, some think the euro zone itself might be smaller than the 17 members (Greece may soon default and leave the euro). The speech that everybody is waiting for now is Mrs Merkel’s. The chancellor wants to change the treaties, and on November 9th she called for “a breakthrough to a new Europe”. But what sort of Europe that should be was left mostly unsaid. Now we are seven billion Now we are seven billion Oct 22nd 2011 | from the print edition IN 1980 Julian Simon, an economist, and Paul Ehrlich, a biologist, made a bet. Mr Ehrlich, author of a bestselling book, called “The Population Bomb”, picked five metals—copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten—and said their prices would rise in real terms over the following ten years. Mr Simon bet that prices would fall. The wager symbolised the dispute between Malthusians who thought a rising population would create an age of scarcity (and high prices) and those “Cornucopians”, such as Mr Simon, who thought markets would ensure plenty. Mr Simon won easily. Prices of all five metals fell in real terms. As the world economy boomed and population growth began to ebb in the 1990s, Malthusian pessimism retreated. It is returning. On October 31st the UN will dub a newborn the world’s 7 billionth living person. The 6 billionth, Adnan Nevic, born in October 1999, will be only two weeks past his 12th birthday. If Messrs Simon and Ehrlich had ended their bet today, instead of in 1990, Mr Ehrlich would have won. What with high food prices, environmental degradation and faltering green policies, people are again worrying that the world is overcrowded. Some want restrictions to cut population growth and forestall ecological catastrophe. Are they right? Lower fertility can be good for economic growth and society (see article). When the number of children a woman can expect to bear in her lifetime falls from high levels of three or more to a stable rate of two, a demographic change surges through the country for at least a generation. Children are scarcer, the elderly are not yet numerous, and the country has a bulge of working-age adults: the “demographic dividend”. If a country grabs this one-off chance for productivity gains and investment, economic growth can jump by as much as a third. Less is more However, the fall in fertility is already advanced in most of the world. Over 80% of humanity lives in countries where the fertility rate is either below three and falling, or already two or less. This is thanks not to government limits but to modernisation and individuals’ desire for small families. Whenever the state has pushed fertility down, the result has been a blight. China’s one-child policy is a violation of rights and a demographic disaster, upsetting the balance between the sexes and between generations. China has a bulge of working adults now, but will bear a heavy burden of retired people after 2050. It is a lurid example of the dangers of coercion. Enthusiasts for population control say they do not want coercion. They think milder policies would help to save the environment and feed the world. As the World Bank points out, global food production will have to rise by about 70% between now and 2050 to feed 9 billion. But if the population stays flat, food production would have to rise by only a quarter. When Mr Simon won his bet he was able to say that rising population was not a problem: increased demand attracts investment, producing more. But this process only applies to things with a price; not if they are free, as are some of the most important global goods—a healthy atmosphere, fresh water, non-acidic oceans, furry wild animals. Perhaps, then, slower population growth would reduce the pressure on fragile environments and conserve unpriced resources? That idea is especially attractive when other forms of rationing—a carbon tax, water pricing—are struggling. Yet the populations that are rising fastest contribute very little to climate change. The poorest half of the world produces 7% of carbon emissions. The richest 7% produces half the carbon. So the problem lies in countries like China, America and Europe, which all have stable populations. Moderating fertility in Africa might boost the economy or help stressed local environments. But it would not solve global problems. There remains one last reason for supporting family planning: on some estimates, 200m women round the world—including a quarter of African women—want contraceptives and cannot get them. A quarter of pregnancies are unplanned. In our view, parents ought to decide how many children to bring into the world and when—not the state, or a church, or pushy grandparents. Note, though, that this is not an argument about the global environment but individual well-being. Moreover, family planning appears to do little directly to control the size of families: some studies have shown no impact at all; others only a modest extra one. Encouraging smaller families in the highest-fertility places would still be worth doing. It might boost the economy and reduce the pressure of population in some fragile places. But the benefits would probably be modest. And they would be no substitute for other sensible environmental policies, such as a carbon tax. 1. What is Malthusian pessimism? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I.汉语百科知识 (1) 选择题 1. 关于语言与思维的关系是: A.语言决定思维 B.思维决定语言 C.语言是 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf ,思维是里 D.语言是里,思维是表 2. 以下哪一项是中国传统学术之缺门? A.文学 B. 算学 C. 历史学 D. 语法学 3. 《道德经》又称为? A.《论语》 B. 《孟子》 C. 《老子》 D. 《孝经》 4. 星期又被称为“周”,星期的“星”是指下列哪一个? A.恒星 B. 卫星 C. 行星 D.恒星、卫星、行星 5. 先秦九流十家中,小生产者出身的是? A. 墨家 B. 法家 C. 阴阳家 D. 杂家 6. 周易推衍是以什么作为原点出发? A. 天地 B. 日月 C. 男女 D. 阴暗 7. 兵家在《汉书? 艺文志》中为? A. 三教 B. 九流 C. 十家 D. 九流十家之外 8. 明确提出太极就是无极的是? A. 道家 B. 玄学家 C. 理学家 D. 考据家 9. 以下哪一个为佛教用语? A. 民主 B. 宇宙 C. 社会 D. 世界 10. 农历历法是指? A. 阴历 B. 阳历 C. 阴阳历 D. 太阴历 11. 以下哪种文体属于散文? A. 骈文 B. 韵文 C. 古文 D. 长短句 12. “白马非马”是谁说的? A. 惠施 B. 公孙龙 C. 赵高 D. 吕不韦 13. 以下哪一部文学作品是以现实生活为题材的? A.《水浒传》 B. 《金瓶梅》 C. 《红楼梦》 D. 《儒林外史》 14. 以下谁被称为“诗仙”? A.李白 B. 杜甫 C. 鲁迅 D. 郭沫若 15. 《边城》是谁的作品? A. 鲁迅 B. 郭沫若 C. 钱钟书 D. 沈从文 II.成语解释:(7’*5=35’) 1. 弊帚自珍 2. 五音不全 3. 越俎代庖 4. 风声鹤唳 5. 倚马可待 III.应用文写作(40’) 2岁女童不慎10楼坠落楼下女邻居伸手勇救小生命 浙江在线07月03日讯 昨天中午12点多,杭州滨江香溢白金海岸小区传来呼救声,小区22幢某单元10楼一个小女孩挂在窗外,她的双手抓在窗框上,只坚持了不到两分钟就突然掉落。 最危险的时候,有人伸出了最温暖的双手:同住在一个小区的女邻居吴菊萍,伸出手臂去接这个孩子…… 这个事情,很快被目击者发到了网上。很多网友都对吴菊萍竖起了大拇指。 也许很多人已经在微博上看过了事情的原委,但我们仍然想为你白描一下当时的场景:当时正逢午休,突然,一声惊呼从22幢的10楼传出:“不得了了,小孩子要掉下来了!”呼救的是22幢10楼的一位阿姨,在她家隔壁,一个2岁左右的小女孩两只手抓着窗框,脚因为踏空,整个人就悬在窗外,摇摇欲坠,不停地哭。 小女孩楼下住的是潘金文一家,听到外面的呼救,他立刻冲到阳台上。 整个小区都被惊动了,有人去敲门,有人给物业打电话,潘金文试了试,自己的手够不到。于是他把阳台上的一副木头梯子,使劲往外面伸,想接住小女孩。可梯子刚伸出去,小女孩就抓不牢掉了下来,脚碰了一下梯子,还是掉了下去。 就在大家以为惨剧就要发生的时候,楼下一位路过的女邻居突然向着空中伸出了手。小女孩重重地砸在这位女士的手臂上,然后滚落在一旁的草坪里,而这位女邻居也立即坐倒在地上。 赶来的物业工作人员抱起小女孩送往医院,伸手接小孩的女子在老公的搀扶下一起去了滨江武警医院。随后,小女孩被转院去了省儿保。女子则去了富阳骨伤科医院。 小女孩名叫妞妞,肠道破裂伤势不轻 意外坠落的女孩子叫妞妞,今年才两岁,还没有开始上幼儿园,平时就在家里由爷爷奶奶照看。昨天中午只有奶奶和妞妞两个人在家。当时奶奶去14楼楼顶准备收被子,就把门反锁好出门了,但是她没想到就那么一会儿工夫,妞妞会自己爬到窗户外面。 昨天下午3点,我们来到妞妞家门口,门前还扔着一床没来得及收进的被子,还有一辆蓝色机器猫造型的童车,邻居说这就是妞妞平时骑的。 在省儿保的重症监护室里,我们看到了正在抢救中的妞妞,医生拿出了一件妞妞出事时穿的白色小裙子,上面有斑斑血迹。妞妞妈妈看到衣服,眼泪一下流了下来。 病床上的妞妞眼睛紧闭,额头上有擦破的血迹。医生初步诊断孩子的大肠小肠都有破裂迹象,48小时内有生命危险。 救人的女邻居,有个七个月大的宝宝 据记者了解,伸手接妞妞的是和妞妞家住同一幢楼的吴菊萍,她是阿里巴巴公司的一名员工。吴菊萍的上司说:“中午,她突然打电话给我说胳膊断了,可能要请两个月的假,但语气挺轻描淡写的。” 昨天下午1点左右,当吴菊萍还在去往医院接受治疗途中的时候,她没有想到,自己会被这么多的人关注。但她不想因此成名,所以婉拒了本报记者拍摄正面照的要求。 在她看来,她只是在大家都不知所措的时候做出了一个决定而已。 “当时我和我老公两个人正要出门。”昨天下午,我们在富阳骨伤科医院见到了吴菊萍。她安静地躺在病床上,开始讲述,“我们刚刚走到小区门口,就听到我婆婆很焦急的喊叫声。跑回去一看,就看到邻居家的宝宝挂在外面了。我没多想,只是想如果我能接她一下,这个孩子或许就有救。” 为了接住孩子,吴菊萍脑海中迅速闪过了各种 方法 快递客服问题件处理详细方法山木方法pdf计算方法pdf华与华方法下载八字理论方法下载 。“我开始想用我的那个阳伞接她一下的。”但是伞太小了,怕接不住。 吴菊萍决定伸手去接。她先脱掉了脚上的高跟鞋。她说,在孩子坠落的一刻,她完全是凭着本能让孩子掉到自己怀里。 “当时孩子直接砸到了我的左手臂上,接着我们就一起倒在地上了。那个时候我就想,手臂这么痛,八成是断了。” 吴菊萍的病情被诊断为:左尺挠骨多段粉碎性骨折。在拍出的CT中,可以明显看到,她的左前臂断为了三截。待挂点滴消肿后手术,治愈可能性95%,完全康复要半年。“以后这样的情况,我还是会选择去站出来救人。毕竟是一条生命。”吴菊萍是一个新手妈妈,她的宝宝才7个月大,但这次意外受伤很可能会让她不得不暂时中断孩子的母乳喂养。她已经请婆婆过来照顾宝宝。 拟以妞妞的家长向吴菊萍写一封表达谢意的信函。 III. 写作(60’) 根据以下材料,写一篇有关话题的议 论文 政研论文下载论文大学下载论文大学下载关于长拳的论文浙大论文封面下载 ,字数不少于800字。 东北一铁路 工程 路基工程安全技术交底工程项目施工成本控制工程量增项单年度零星工程技术标正投影法基本原理 安全隐患问题调查:通了我可不敢坐 2011年10月20日11:37:57来源:新华网【字号大小】【收藏】【打印】【关闭】 “这趟火车通了我可不敢坐!” ——东北一铁路工程违规分包、安全隐患问题调查 新华网北京10月20日电(舒静、王洪禹)一个总投资23亿的重要铁路项目,竟被层层转包、违规分包给一家“冒牌”公司和几个“完全不懂建桥”的包工头;本应浇筑混凝土的桥墩,竟在工程监理的眼皮底下,被偷工减料投入大量石块,形成巨大的安全隐患。 记者调查东北的一项在建铁路工程时发现,工程中潜藏的管理漏洞与质量问题令人惊心。一条连施工者都直言“通车后我可不敢坐”的铁路线,究竟在哪些环节出了问题,又在滋生怎样的灰色链条? 层层分包:施工队负责人称“不懂建桥” 曾做过厨师、开过饭店、修过路的农民工吕天博对建桥一窍不通,然而,2010年7月,吕天博却签订了一份“施工合同”,带着几十名农民工开始修建一项重要铁路工程的一座特大桥。 吕天博参与修建的铁路名为“靖宇至松江河线工程”,位于吉林省白山市的靖宇县和抚松县境内,线路全长74.1公里,2009年由铁道部批准建设,项目业主单位为沈阳铁路局。 2009年6月,沈阳铁路局对该项目进行公开招标,中国中铁九局集团有限公司(以下简称中铁九局)中标,随后将这一工程分割为多个标段,分包给多家建设公司,而其中一家江西昌厦建设工程集团公司(以下简称江西昌厦)又将工程包给几个并无资质的农民工队伍。吕天博向记者介绍说,江西昌厦承包的工程内容包括头道松花江二号特大桥、三号特大桥与胜利村隧道等,吕天博自己负责二号特大桥的施工,而三号桥及隧道工程的施工负责人和他一样,都是没有路桥建设经验的农民工,签订施工合同前,没人对他们进行过资质审查。更蹊跷的是,记者在调查此事时,又得到一个匪夷所思的消息:负责承包该项目的江西昌厦突然于2011年9月发表声明,称该公司从未与中铁九局签订过靖宇至松江河新建铁路项目的合同,并称被犯罪分子伪造该公司印章承接了该项工程。 为证明此事,江西昌厦一名姓黄的法律顾问还向记者出示了由南昌市公安司法鉴定中心出具的几份公司印章鉴定文书,黄律师称,与中铁九局和施工队签合同的并非江西昌厦的人员,而是一伙诈骗分子。 于是,一条投资数十亿的铁路工程,竟出现了被“骗子承包、厨子施工”的荒唐局面。 安全隐患:“这趟火车我可不敢坐!” 更为严重的是,在几座特大桥的施工过程中,还普遍存在偷工减料问题,由此带来的质量与安全隐患难以预测。 据吕天博、郑伟等施工人员反映,几座特大桥在修建过程中,一些原本应全部由混凝土浇灌的桥墩基座,都被填放了大量碎石、砂石等混合物,给桥墩留下极大的安全隐患,而项目经理部却照样签字验收。 通过多方取证和现场调查,记者找到了3号特大桥12、13号桥墩被投放石块的多份相关证据。 在头道松花江3号特大桥施工现场,记者找到一位住在工地附近的李瑞林老人,问及向桥墩内扔石块的事时,他十分肯定:“是有这事!在这干活的村里人都知道”。 李瑞林向记者介绍说,施工人员都是从对面山上的采石场买石头,有时白天监理在不敢填,工人就连夜将石头填入基座中。“12号墩(基座)是2011年6、7月施工的。施工那天,挖好的墩坑边上本来有一大堆石头,第二天早晨就没了,你说石头去哪了呢?” 一个名叫大伟的施工人员也在电话中承认,今年6月份,他曾亲自向12号桥墩内扔过石块:“一个姓高的雇我们干的,从山上石场买了5000元的石头,雇了两辆翻斗车,从下午两点开始,干了一下午和半宿,石头都用翻斗车扣到坑里去了。” 记者又从几段暗中拍摄的工地施工视频中看到,有多台铲车正将大量碎石和渣土向基座内倾倒,而施工现场开着黄色的灯,明显可看出视频拍摄时间是在夜里。 三号桥的另一名施工人员柴芳则在电话中回忆当时的情况:“5、13、8、9、11号墩,都用翻斗车往里翻石头,哪个都得一二百方的样子,石块不够用时,连废渣都呼呼往里推。”她还说:“13号墩就在江心,你要往下钻(取样检测),(钻下去)不到两米就都是石头……” 记者搜集到了3号特大桥的 设计 领导形象设计圆作业设计ao工艺污水处理厂设计附属工程施工组织设计清扫机器人结构设计 图纸,按照图纸,所有桥墩基座必须全部由混凝土浇灌。那么,在混凝土中掺杂石块,会有怎样的质量问题?记者就此采访了中铁大桥局桥梁科学研究院的一名赵姓研究员。他表示,这种偷工减料的行为会带来巨大隐患。“基座就好比是鞋,混凝土浇筑的桥墩是脚,鞋里如果有大量碎石子,能站得稳吗?”他介绍称,在桥墩低部投放石料会使桥墩底部出现斜坡或严重的受力不均。一旦铁路建成,长期遭受到各种力作用,就可能出现桥墩倾斜甚至断裂的后果。 对于这样的工程质量,一位叫丽明的施工人员更是直言:“他们扔石头,我说千万别这么整。将来这趟火车通了,我可不敢坐。”