IELTSwithJurabek

PART 2

Read the text and answer questions 14-26.

Urban Regeneration: an award-winning redevelopment project in Berlin

14A Just over a kilometre south of Berlin's Potsdamer Platz, near the left bank of the Landwehr Canal, an extensive, triangular-shaped area of waste ground once separated the neighbourhoods of Kreuzberg to the east and Schoneberg to the west. Known as Gleisdreieck, meaning "triangle of rails", it was formed by the intersection of different railway lines built in the mid-nineteenth century that entered Berlin from the south. Tracks, sheds and warehouses belonging to three old railway stations, Dresdner Bahnhof, Potsdamer Bahnhof and Anhalter Bahnhof, are situated on a raised area some twenty hectares in size, at a height of four metres above the surrounding ground level.

15B As the railway infrastructure gradually ceased to be used, the whole area of Gleisdreieck became increasingly run down and abandoned, to the point of being used as a rubbish tip after 1945. Meanwhile, vegetation took over, turning it into a surprising, natural haven in the middle of built-up areas. The closeness of the wall which divided the city of Berlin between 1961 and 1990 also contributed to the fact that Gleisdreieck was for decades clearly identified as no-man's-land. Only a station of the same name in Berlin's underground railway system testified to its existence. Shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, the German Museum of Technology was established there, attracting large numbers of visitors and giving visibility to the site. More importantly, the unification of the formerly divided city gave the zone more centrality, at which point it became imperative to identify a purpose for it.

16C After 2006, the State of Berlin put forward the proposal of converting Gleisdreieck into a large urban park that would integrate the different urban zones which converged there. The decades-long isolation of the site, which had formerly presented a problem, now represented an opportunity for joining the southern area of Potsdamer Platz with Kreuzberg and Schoneberg. The creation of the park would trigger one of the biggest urban expansions inside Berlin, all within a framework of multiple uses, and social characteristics. It was necessary to stimulate the development of sixteen new hectares of local amenities that would be capable of integrating different generations and social groups in a sustainable way, and in harmony with nature. Following intense discussion with local proprietors and residents, the need to reconcile these goals with the conservation of railway heritage also emerged.

17D Once the area had been subjected to a process of undergrowth clearance and decontamination, it was then organised around a combination of existing and added elements. The project as a whole was planned around a large central meadow, intersected from east to west by a concrete footpath, and from north to south by a pair of railway lines. Once a month, a train slowly travels along these lines from its parking shed to the German Museum of Technology. The concrete footpath, which is a continuation of one of the main Kreuzberg boulevards, starts in the east, bridges the four-metre difference in ground level by means of a stairway, and suddenly ends in the west on reaching the underground lines.

18E North of the meadow, there is a large concrete slab with rounded edges. Being south-facing, this functions as a big sunny terrace, full of benches complete with footrests. In the south, the meadow overlooks Yorkstrasse, an underpass crossed by more than fifteen former railway bridges. To the east of the meadow there is quite a dense forest of pre-existing maples, oaks and birches, as well as newly planted trees of the same species. In this area, a couple of large metal frames each hold two swings. The edges of the park are finished with a collection of distinctive, functional spaces, for example a nursery, sports fields, concave surfaces for skateboards, stages for dancing, community gardens, or simply areas covered in gravel obtained from the site itself.

19F Although initially the regeneration of Gleisdreieck Park was the subject of disagreement between those who were in favour of safeguarding the railway heritage, and those who wanted to regenerate the adjacent neighbourhoods, it was opened to the public in September 2011. The heart of Berlin now has a new green lung, in which the atmosphere of various small, very different corners fits neatly into a large-scale, wide-ranging and robust general order. This has been possible precisely because the intervention was not limited to conserving industrial remains in order to promote railway history. And as a reminder of the six decades of human absence, during which nature took over, the park has been able to conserve to some extent the spirit of the non-place that preceded it.

PASSAGE 3

Read the text and answer questions 27-40

THE FLUORIDATION CONTROVERSY

The long-standing debate about whether to fluoridate our drinking water continues

Fluoridation is the addition of fluorine to public water supplies with the aim of reducing tooth decay. The fluorine, when mixed with water, becomes fluoride and the desired concentration of fluoride in public water is approximately one part per million, depending on the regional temperature and hence the amount of water people are likely to drink. Many studies, such as those by McClure in 1970 through to Burt in 1983, have shown that when children drink fluoridated water, their average rate of tooth decay seems greatly reduced. A typical figure claimed is 50 percent reduction. This apparently enormous benefit for children's teeth is the major argument in favor of fluoridation.

Three main grounds for opposition to fluoridation have been expressed. First, opponents claim the benefits are exaggerated or not established. Second, there are claims of health risks to parts of the population, for example, allergic reactions. It is also accepted that high levels of fluoride can cause discoloration of otherwise healthy teeth. Proponents do not consider this to be a problem in such small concentrations, whereas opponents disagree - especially because some people drink more water and obtain much more than the standard 1 milligram of fluoride per day. Third, fluoridation is thought to be an infringement on individual rights because it is compulsory medication of all members of a community.

An understanding of the fluoridation issue has important implications. If, according to the experts, fluoridation is unquestionably a beneficial and non-hazardous measure, then the wisdom of allowing the public to vote on, and reject it must be questioned.

Almost all studies that have been done have assumed that the scientific aspects of the controversy are unproblematic, and they have excluded science from sociological examination. The traditional view is that science is a special kind of knowledge, which is established through scientific methods and objectively applied by members of a scientific community. However, in recent years there has been a major challenge to this picture by a sociology of science that shows how scientific knowledge is socially negotiated, and inevitably linked to the values of the relevant parties, both scientists and nonscientists. These challengers do not see scientific knowledge as exempt from social inquiry.

Kuhn (1970) argued that scientific knowledge does not always develop as an orderly process, but is characterized by periodic revolutions, in which the methods of study and the assessment criteria change in a fragmented way. According to Kuhn, the shift from one scientific way of thinking to another is not made solely on the basis of clear rules of formal scientific practice, but can include social factors, though Kuhn has never developed a full analysis of what these might be. Collins (1975) took this concept further when he asserted that the outcome of experiments was not something whose meaning could be immediately comprehended, but rather something for interpretation, discussion between scientists, and reinterpretation in the light of other experiments.

One interpretation of this analysis of science is that traditional distinctions between facts and theories, and between scientific knowledge and values, can no longer be justified. Because social processes are involved at all stages of the creation, evaluation, and establishing of scientific knowledge, social values may also be involved.

In the same way as many scientists who study fluoridation have overlooked social values, sociologists have also downplayed an important part of the debate by ignoring the number of eminent scientists who have questioned aspects of fluoridation. An example is the study by Sutton in 1960, which analyzed the classic North American studies of the effect of fluoridation on tooth decay, and found that each showed significant methodological shortcomings. Sutton's detailed study throws doubt as to the extent of reductions in tooth decay from fluoridation. Yet Sutton's book is not cited in a single analysis of the fluoridation issue by any sociologist.

In a situation of some scientific uncertainty, differences in values are highlighted. A supporter of fluoridation might argue: "The evidence for the benefits of fluoridation is quite substantial, while the evidence for harm is limited and dubious. I think the likely benefits outweigh the possible dangers; hence I support fluoridation because it is the cheapest and easiest way to make sure every child reaps the benefits." An opponent might argue, "Though the evidence for the benefits of fluoridation is substantial, there is some doubt about it. Since fluoridation is not necessary for good teeth, we should forego the benefits if there is some slight chance of harm. Some scientists claim that a small percentage of the population could be harmed by fluoride. Therefore I oppose fluoridation of water supplies and favor the voluntary use of fluoride tablets by those who want to take them."

Both arguments consider the scientific evidence concerning fluoridation, but differ in their assessments of the social benefits and costs. This difference is not between rationality and irrationality but is a legitimate difference in values, for example, the positive value placed on good teeth, the negative value placed on possible health risks, and the social benefits or costs of compulsory or voluntary intake of fluorides.

From the sociological point of view, opposition to fluoridation is not necessarily irrational. Rather, claims to rationality and to scientific authority are better seen as part of a strategy to promote fluoridation than as incontrovertible statements of fact. Second, social values are likely to be bound up in any decision about fluoridation, so this is not an issue on which declarations by scientific experts ought to be considered the final word.