Chester City Library offers a range of Library Special Needs Services to people who don't have access to our library service in the usual way. As long as you live in Chester City, we'll provide a wide range of library services and resources including:

    Large printed and ordinary printed books

    Talking books on tape and CD

    DVDs and music CDs

    Magazines

    Reference and information requests

    Home delivery service

    Let us know what you like to read and we will choose the resources for you. Our staff will deliver the resources to your home for free. We also provide a service where we can choose the resources for you or someone instead of you choose the things from the library. You can also choose the resources you need personally.

    Talking books and captioned videos

    The library can provide talking books for people who are unable to use printed books because of eye diseases. You don't have to miss out on reading any more when you can borrow talking books from the library. If you have limited hearing which prevents you from enjoying movies, we can provide captioned videos for you at no charge.

    Languages besides English

    We can provide books in a range of languages besides English. If possible, we will request these items from the State Library of NSW, Australia.

    How to join?

    Contact the Library Special Needs Coordinator to register or discuss if you are eligible (合适的) for any of the services we provide-Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday 9am-5pm on 4297 2522 for more information.

    Why do some people live to be older than others? You know the standard explanations: keeping a moderate diet, engaging in regular exercise, etc. But what effect does your personality have on your longevity(长寿)? Do some kinds of personalities lead to longer lives? A new study in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society looked at this question by examining the personality characteristics of 246 children of people who had lived to be at least 100.

    The study shows that those living the longest are more outgoing, more active and less neurotic (神经质的) than other people. Long-living women are also more likely to be sympathetic and cooperative than women with a normal life span. These findings are in agreement with what you would expect from the evolutionary theory: those who like to make friends and help others can gather enough resources to make it through tough times.

    Interestingly, however, other characteristics that you might consider advantageous had no impact on whether study participants were likely to live longer. Those who were more self-disciplined, for instance, were no more likely to live to be very old. Also, being open to new ideas had no relationship to long life, which might explain all those bad-tempered old people who are fixed in their ways.

    Whether you can successfully change your personality as an adult is the subject of a longstanding psychological debate. But the new paper suggests that if you want long life, you should strive to be as outgoing as possible.

    Unfortunately, another recent study shows that your mother's personality may also help determine your longevity. That study looked at nearly 28,000 Norwegian mothers and found that those moms who were more anxious, depressed and angry were more likely to feed their kids unhealthy diets. Patterns of childhood eating can be hard to break when we're adults, which may mean that kids of depressed moms end up dying younger.

    Personality isn't destiny, and everyone knows that individuals can learn to change. But both studies show that long life isn't just a matter of your physical health but of your mental health.

The Truth About the Environment

    For many environmentalists, the world seems to be getting worse. They have developed a hit-list of our main fears: that natural resources are running out, that the population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat, that species are becoming disappeared in huge numbers, and that the planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

    But a quick look at the facts shows a different picture. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming disappeared, only about 0.7% of them are dying out in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been best cured not by limiting economic growth, but by accelerating it.

    Yet public opinion surveys suggest that many people hold the belief that environmental standards are declining and four factors seem to cause this gap between what they know and what the reality is.

    One is the unbalanced budget for scientific research. Scientific funding goes mainly to areas with many problems. That may be wise policy, but it will also create an impression that many more potential problems exist than is the case.

    Secondly, environmental groups need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes overstate their arguments. In 1997, for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a press release entitled: „Two thirds of the world's forests lost forever'. The truth turns out to be nearer 20%.

    A third source of confusion is the attitude of the media. People are extremely more curious about bad news than good. Newspapers and broadcasters are there to provide what the public wants: That, however, can lead to significant misunderstanding. An example was that America came across EI Nino(厄尔尼诺) in 1997 and 1998. This climatic phenomenon was accused of breaking tourism, causing allergies, melting the ski-slopes, and causing 22 deaths. However, according to an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the damage was estimated at $4 billion but the benefits amounted to some $19 billion.

    The fourth factor is poor individual knowledge. People worry that the endless rise in the amount of things everyone throws away will cause the world to run out of places to dispose of waste. Yet, even if America's trash output continues to rise as it has done in the past, and even if the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces through the entire 21st century will still take up only one 12,000th of the area of the entire United States.

    It is extremely important that we look at the facts if we want to make the best possible decisions for the future. It may be costly to be overly optimistic, but more costly still to be too pessimistic.

    Steven Spielberg's 2002 science-fiction thriller Minority Report produced a world where computers could read minds and predict the future. It seemed fanciful at the time, but fantasy is edging closer to fact.

    On Jan 31, a team of scientists at UC Berkeley, led by Robert Knight programmed computers to decode (破译) brain waves and replay them as words. Five months earlier, another group of Berkeley scientists showed their colleagues short movies and used computers to play back in color what people saw.

    These experiments are a big advance from 2006, when a French scientist first replayed images from a human mind, a black-and-white checkerboard pattern. The possibilities are great: a disabled person could" speak"; doctors could access the mind of a patient who fainted; you could rewatch your dreams on an iPad. There are, of course, equally dark side, such as the involuntary take out of information from the brain.

    In spite of these breakthroughs, Jack Gallant, the neuroscientist who led the first Berkeley team, says current technology for decoding brain activity is still "relatively primitive". The field is held back by its poor machinery, in particular the FMRI.

    "Eventually," says Gallant, "someone will invent a decoding machine you can wear as a hat." Such an advance into the human mind, he says, might take 30 years.

    Still, the recent advances at Berkeley offer small answers, which scientists can use to begin unlocking the secrets of memory and consciousness.

    Breathing dirty air comes at a high price. Air pollution lowers the average life spans (寿命) by a year worldwide and in more polluted parts of Asia and Africa, dirty air shortens lives up to twice that much. Scientists shared their new findings in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. The study used data gathered in 2016 as part of a project known as the Global Burden of Disease and was the first major country-by-country look at the connection between the length of life and what's known as fine PM.

    Air pollution has been linked to many health problems. Most earlier studies had looked at how tiny air pollutants affected rates of illness or death. Joshua Apte is an environmental scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. By looking at life expectancy (预期寿命), his team had hoped to make the threat easier to understand. PM2.5 is what scientists call tiny particles (颗粒) of pollution in the air. Higher levels of PM2.5 can cause health problems and cut months, if not years, from the average length of life. This analysis shows how pollution affects life expectancy in different parts of the world.

    The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends limiting PM2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Apte's group calculated how holding pollution to this low level would help people. In countries with very dirty air, meeting this standard would lengthen people's lives. However, in countries whose air already meets this standard, the study shows no gain in life expectancy. In other words, meeting the WHO standard won't reduce health costs resulting from dirty air because even below 10 micrograms per cubic meter, pollution still causes serious risks. Meanwhile, the scientists compared how other threats including smoking and cancer shorten the length of life across the globe.

    The earliest known copy of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa—thought to have been painted at the same time as the original masterpiece—has been discovered at the Prado Museum in Madrid, Spain. The work offers art-lovers an attractive clue to what the model for the world's most famous painting really looked like. Controllers of the museum found the picture hidden beneath layers of paints during restoration work on a picture initially thought to have been a later replica(exact copy) of the Mona Lisa.

    The restored version shows the same woman that Leonardo depicted (描画), against a landscape similar to that shown in the background of the original, which now hangs in the Louvre in Paris. And while the features of Leonardo's Mona Lisa have been dulled by centuries of dirt and layers of cracked paints—which are unlikely ever to be removed—in the recently-rediscovered copy, she appears fresher-faced and younger than her better-known "twin".

    News of the find was revealed at a meeting at London's National Gallery, linked to its "Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan" exhibition. "This sensational (轰动的) find will transform our understanding of the world's most famous picture," the Art Newspaper reported, adding that the clues found on the Madrid version suggest that the original and the copy were begun at the same time and painted next to each other, as the work went on.

    Miguel Falomir, manager of Italian painting at the Prado, told reporters that expert analysis suggested a strong link between Leonardo and the artist who painted the copy. "The painting was done in the painter's own workshop," he said. "It is absolutely consistent with Leonardo's work, but Leonardo didn't actually do any work on it himself."