Reaching out across the Web .. ...分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/zuojun Zuojun Yu, physical oceanographer, freelance English editor

博文

水4.0:饮用水的过去、现在与未来 (双语Ch 6节选)

已有 1792 次阅读 2015-9-8 01:54 |个人分类:Water 4.0|系统分类:科普集锦|关键词:Water,4.0,,Chapter,6| Water, chapter


6

The Chlorine Dilemma

第六章

理水的困境

After the publication of Silent Spring and the much-publicized fire on the Cuyahoga River, all eyesturned to Washington, D.C., where concerned politicians pushed forward pollution-control legislation. Increased public attention and the lobbying efforts of environmental groups led to the allocation of federal funds to upgrade sewage treatment plants and to standards being set to control smog-producing gases emitted by factories and cars. But the energy andinfluence of the environmental movement did not stop there. The late 1960s was a time when idealistic people put their energy into making the world a better place—and among these idealists was a brash young lawyer and a group of scientists in New York who pioneered a new way of fighting pollution.

《寂静的春天》的出版,以及媒体对凯霍加河大火的大量道之后,公众的目光都向了特区,因在那里,关注境的政界人士正在极推过环染控制法案。公众关注度的增加以及组织的游,使得邦政府增加了理厂的分配金,并制定了排放准用以控制工厂和汽排放的那些致“烟(smog)”的气体。然而,保运生的威和影响力,并未就此束。20世60年代后期是理想主者把精力投入到世界得更美好的一个代。在理想主者中,有一位性急的年,他和一群纽约的科学家,开了与染抗争的新途径。

 

Alarmed by the effects of DDT described in Silent Spring, Victor Yannacone, a thirty-one-year-old lawyer, initiated a lawsuit against a Long Island mosquito control district claiming that in 1966 its use of the pesticidehad caused a fish kill in a pond near his house.1 Armed with his motto “Sue thebastards,” Yannacone teamed up with an assistant professor of biology at nearby Stony Brook University and an ecologist from Brookhaven National Laboratory inan attempt to prove that the mosquito district’s application of  DDT was not in the public’s best interest.2 The group’s approach of using the courts when a government agency failed toprotect the public was a still untested legal concept. While it too twelve years for them to achieve their goal, the success of Yannacone and his associates gave environmentalists a new tool with which to fight pollution: the class-action lawsuit.

31的律师维克多·阎纳康因《寂静的春天》描述了滴滴涕生的不良后果而引起警,他起诉长岛的一个蚊虫控制地区,在1996年使用剂导致他家附近池塘里的死亡[1]。他与石溪大学的一位生物学助理教授以及布克海文国家实验的一位生学家成三人小,以“起诉这帮混蛋”座右试图证明在蚊虫控制区使用滴滴涕不符合公众的最大利益[2]的做法在当属于法律意上的新尝试,即在政府机构不能保公众利益,公民可以通法庭诉讼方式来维护自己的利益。然他们经过12年的努力才达到目的,但阎纳康和他的合作伙伴的成功,给环保主者提供了一种新工具:集体诉讼

 

Shortly after the group’s high-profile DDT case went to court, they formed the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. Over the next few years, this non-governmental organization engaged in an ambitious campaign of class-action lawsuits against the users of DDT and other pesticides suspected of harming wildlife. They also hired a team of full-time scientists to support their efforts to branch out into new areas such as land, water, and energy conservation.3

在引人注目的滴滴涕剂污染案件开庭后不久,他成立了非利性的“境保基金会”。由于滴滴涕和其他的使用可能会害野生物,个非政府组织在接下来的几年里,起了一场轰轰烈烈的集体诉讼。他们还雇用了一批全的科学家,将诉讼围扩展到土壤、水及能源保等新的[3]

 

 

(Last two paragraphs of Chapter 6)

We now face a dilemma. Chlorine protects us from waterborne pathogens present in rivers and lakes as well as those that penetrate our water systemsafter the treatment process. It also maintains a protective coating on lead pipes, which are expensive and difficult to remove. But the use of chlorine results in the production of disinfection byproducts that cause cancer and possible other health problems, even if steps taken over the past thirty years have lowered the concentrations of these disinfection by products. The public’s recognition that cutting back on disinfectants could increase the rate of infectious disease, as well as citizens’ hesitancy to add new treatment processes, has meant that we may not be protected from the carcinogens that inspired Congress to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act.

们现在面着困境。气保免受河水和湖水中的水媒病原体,及渗入消毒理后的水分配系的水媒病原体的感染。它也可以在管内壁上持一膜,而更换这些旧的管道既费钱事。但是,些消毒副物会致癌,可能引起其他健康问题,即使去30年中采用的技降低了气消毒副物的度。公众不愿意增加新的(用水)理的程,他认识到减少消毒的使用会致疾病感染率的提高;都表明我无法避免与水中的致癌物接触,而当年促使国会通《安全用水法案》的正是些致癌物。

 

The solution to the chlorine dilemma will require an upgrade of our drinking water treatment systems. We can think of it as Water 3.1. The least expensive upgrade probably would involve the removal of humic substances—the precursors of chlorine disinfection byproducts—followed by continued use of chlorine. Activated carbon, a treatment process that is already being used insome cities, offers a viable means of accomplishing this goal. New technologies like ultrafiltration also could be used to remove humic substances. Alternatively, we could switch to chloramines or ozone and operate our distribution systemswithout residual chlorine, though this change would require large investmentsin maintaining our distribution systems and removing lead from difficult-to-reach locations. Although an increase in the monthly water bill of a few dollars per month would likely be acceptable to people worried about the health of their families, there is not yet a cry for change from the public, because utilities and regulators continue to insist that our drinking water is safe and healthy.

解决气消毒困境的法是对饮用水理厂的系性升。我可以将它称之“水3.1”。花最少的升是移除水体中的腐殖,因气消毒副物的前提,然后再使用气消毒。一些城市已在使用的活性炭理工,可为实现这一目提供一种可行的手段。超这类新技也可以用来去除腐殖。另外,我们还可以胺或臭氧,并且不用余,但是需要我大量人力物力来维护水分配系和消除偏地区用水中的然相比家人的健康而言,每个月增加几美元的水开支是可以接受的。但是,迄今止公众没有出要求改水系的呼声,因及其管机构一直认为,我们现在的用水是安全和健康的。

 

ps. I typed up the English myself, so errors are possible.


水4.0:用水的去、在与未来

[美]戴·塞德拉克 著

徐向荣 等    虞左俊 校

上海科学技出版社


出版时间:2015.08

ISBN:978-7-5478-2729-1

定价:38元


Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World's Most Vital Resource

Paperback:March 31, 2015

by David Sedlak (Author)





http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-919251.html

上一篇:水4.0:饮用水的过去、现在与未来 (双语Ch 5节选)
下一篇:OMG! 如此“赛先生”!

1 陈昌春

该博文允许实名用户评论 评论 (1 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2019-8-19 03:32

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部