纽约时报 环保署对空气污染所持态度过于乐观(3)（在线收听）

Mr. Wehrum acknowledged that the administration was considering a handful of analyses

这一措施预计会造成1400人早逝，韦鲁姆承认，

that would reduce the prediction of 1,400 premature deaths as a result of the measure.

政府正在考虑几种能够降低这一数额的分析方法。

He called the attention given to that initial forecast “unfortunate”

他称，人们关注到了环保署最初的这一预测，此乃“不幸”，

and said the agency had included the figure in its analysis

他还表示，该机构之所以将这一数字纳入其分析范围，

to show the varied results that can be achieved based on different assumptions.

是为了显示预测结果会因假设不同而不同。

Mr. Wehrum said the analyses the agency is conducting “illuminate the issue” of particulate matter

韦鲁姆说，该机构正在进行的分析“阐明了”颗粒物问题，

and the question of what level is acceptable for the purposes of policymaking.

也阐明了制定政策时怎样的水平才能被接受的问题。

He said new approaches would allow for public debate to move ahead

他说，新方法会推进公众辩论，

and that any new methods would be subject to peer review if they became the agency’s primary tool for measuring health risks.

而且，任何方法，在成为该机构衡量健康风险的主要工具之后，都要受到同行的审查。

“This isn’t just something I’m cooking up here in my fifth-floor office in Washington,” Mr. Wehrum said.

“这并不是我正在华盛顿五楼的这间办公室里做的唯一事情，”威鲁姆说。

Roger O. McClellan, who has served on E.P.A. advisory boards

罗杰·麦克莱伦是环保署顾问委员会的成员，

and as president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, an industry-financed research center,

也是行业资助的研究中心“化学工业毒理学研究所”的所长，

said that the data for health risks below the particulate matter standard was weak

他表示，有关水平低于颗粒物标准的空气的健康风险数据比较疲弱，

and that he did not accept the argument that agencies must calculate risk “down to the first molecule of exposure.”

而且，他不接受各大机构在计算风险的时候要计算“到第一个暴露的分子”这样的观点。

“These kinds of approaches —

“这些方法——

that every molecule, every ionization, carries with it an associated calculable health risk —

每一个分子，每一次电离都会带来相应的，可计算的健康风险——

are just misleading,” Mr. McClellan said.

——就是在误导大家，”麦克莱伦说。

To put the matter in perspective, most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits.

大多数科学家都一致表示，客观来讲，颗粒物标准就如同限速标准。

On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety.

在很多高速公路上，65英里的限速都被认为是保护公共安全的一个合理措施。

But that doesn’t mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 m.p.h., or even 25.

但这并不意味着时速55英里，甚至是25英里时发生交通事故的风险就会消失。

Jonathan M. Samet, a pulmonary disease specialist who is dean of the Colorado School of Public Health,

乔纳森·萨梅特是科罗拉多公共卫生学院院长兼肺病专家，

said the most recent studies showed negative health effects well below the 12-microgram standard.

他说，最近的多项研究表明，微粒水平远低于12微克这一标准的空气依然会给人体健康带来负面影响。

“It’s not a hard stop where we can say ‘below that, air is safe.’

“这一标准并不是硬性标准，所以我们不能说，‘低于这一水平，空气就是安全的。’

That would not be supported by the scientific evidence,” Dr. Samet said.

这种说法是不会得到科学证据的佐证的，”萨米特博士说。

“It would be very nice for public health if things worked that way, but they don’t seem to.”

“如果那样真能奏效的话，对公共卫生将是非常有益的，但事实似乎并非如此。”

Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute,

丹尼尔·格林鲍姆是健康影响研究所的所长，

a nonprofit research organization that is funded by the E.P.A. and industry groups,

这是环保署和行业团体联合资助的一个非盈利研究组织，

acknowledged there was uncertainty around the effects of fine particulate matter exposure below the standard.

格林鲍姆承认，低于标准水平的细颗粒物暴露量的影响依然存在不确定性。

He said it was reasonable of the Trump administration to study the issue,

他说，特朗普政府研究这个问题是合理的，

but he questioned moving ahead with a new system before those studies are in.

但他对还未开始这些研究就采纳新系统继续迈进这种做法提出了质疑。

“To move away from the way this has been done without the benefit of this full scientific peer review is unfortunate,” he said.

他说:“没有进行全面而科学的审查就改变传统的评估方法是不会有好结果的。”