研究称空气污染可能加速死亡，即使在“安全”水平 [美国媒体]

Even at levels considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, the fine particulates and ozone in air pollution were associated with premature risk of death, according to a new Harvard study.

来自哈佛大学的一份新鲜出炉的研究表明：即使空气污染处于美国环境保护署认定的安全级别，接触空气污染中的细微颗粒物及臭氧仍然存在导致早逝的风险。

译者注：下文中所提到的“细颗粒物X微克/立方米”可理解为“PM2.5值为X”。

At a time when the Trump administration is moving to delay and dismantle air quality regulations, a new study suggests that air pollution continues to cut Americans’ lives short, even at levels well below the legal limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
当特朗普政府正在推迟和废除空气质量的相关法规之时，一项新的研究表明，空气污染持续导致美国人折寿，甚至当空气污染水平远低于美国环境保护署所制定的法定水平时也是如此。

The nationwide study of more than 60 million senior citizens linked long-term exposure to two main smog pollutants — ozone and fine particulate matter — to an increased risk of premature death.
这份在全美范围内做的研究，观察了长期暴露于两种主要雾霾污染物——臭氧和细微颗粒物的6000万老年人的健康数据，发现这两种污染物增加了早逝的风险。

The analysis found no sign of a “safe” level of pollution, below which the risk of dying early tapered off.

分析结果表明，污染水平并不存在明显的“安全”界限值，也就是所谓的低于某个值早逝率就会明显降低。

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.

哈佛大学致力于此项研究的科学家们经过计算发现，倘若全国范围内减少1微克/立方米的细微颗粒物污染，则每年可挽救约12000人的生命。与此同时，如果把臭氧污染的标准降低10亿分之一，则每年可挽救1900人的生命。

译者注：臭氧污染标准是10亿分之70，这里降低10亿分之一指调成10亿分之69。下文有数据。

The study appears in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.
该论文发表在周四的《新英格兰医学杂志》上。

Fine particulate matter is composed of tiny health-damaging specks of pollution that can lodge deep in the lungs and are linked to cardiovascular disease. Ozone, the lung-searing gas in warm-weather smog, triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Both pollutants build up in the air largely as a result of emissions from vehicles, power plants and other major combustion sources.

细颗颗粒物由微小的、会损害健康的灰尘组成，可以伴随呼吸深入肺部并导致心血管疾病。而臭氧多出现于温暖天气环境下的雾霾中，会灼烧肺部引发哮喘和其他呼吸系统疾病。这两种污染物主要是由于车辆，发电厂和其他主要燃烧源的排放造成的。

For the analysis, researchers developed a new computer model that uses on-the-ground air-monitoring data and satellite-based measurements to estimate pollution levels across the continental U.S., breaking the country up into 1-square-kilometer zones. They paired that information with health data contained in Medicare claims records from 2000 to 2012 for all beneficiaries in the 48 contiguous states, a group that represents about 97% of the population ages 65 or older.

研究人员开发了一种新的计算机模型来进行分析，其使用地面空气监测数据和基于卫星的测量，将整个美国划分成各个1平方公里的区域来估算美国大陆的污染水平。他们将这些信息与2000年至2012年期间、48个州的特定调查群体的医疗保险索赔记录中包含的健康数据配对进行研究，这个群体占65岁或以上人口的97％。

The high-resolution data allowed scientists to estimate the health effects of air pollution at levels far below the federal limits. For fine particulate matter, which has a legal limit of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, they found that seniors faced an increased risk of premature death when exposed to as little as 5 micrograms per cubic meter, the lowest amount they measured. For ozone, which has an EPA limit of 70 parts per billion, they detected increased mortality at levels as low as 30 ppb, also the smallest concentration they measured.

高清晰的数据使得科学家估算出空气污染能对健康产生影响的最低水平远低于美国规定的限定值。目前对于细微颗粒物，美国规定的限定值是不得超过12微克/立方米，但他们发现老年人暴露于5微克/立方米的污染水平时，面临的早逝风险就将增加，这是他们测量的最低量。对于臭氧来说，美国环境保护署规定的限定值是每10亿分之70，他们检测到数据是10亿分之30以上就会有影响，也是他们测量获得的最小浓度。

The researchers calculated that when the concentration of particulate matter rose by 10 micrograms per cubic meter, the chances that a senior citizen would die during the study period rose by 7.3%. And when the ozone concentration rose by 10 ppb, the chances of early death rose by 1.1%. In both cases, the researchers controlled for factors like smoking behavior, weight and income, which are also likely to affect a senior’s risk of premature death.

研究人员估算出当颗粒物浓度增加10微克/立方米时，老年人在研究期间死亡的机会增加了7.3％。当臭氧浓度上升10亿分之10时，早逝的机会增加了1.1％。在这两种情况下，研究人员都控制了吸烟行为，体重和收入等因素的影响，因为这也可能影响到老年人早逝的风险。

The air that we are breathing right now is harmful, it's toxic.
— Francesca Dominici, data scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

我们现在所呼吸的香甜空气对身体有害，这玩意有毒啊。

——本研究作者：哈佛大学公共卫生学院科学家Francesca Dominici

The findings suggest that even though federal limits on the nation’s most widespread air pollutants are updated periodically based on scientific reviews required under the Clean Air Act, they are not strong enough to fully protect the public.

调查结果表明，尽管根据清洁空气法的要求，美国对全国最广泛的空气污染物的限定值定期进行科学评估，但这还不足以完全保护公众。

Critics may claim that stronger standards would offer diminishing returns, but the study results provide new evidence that they would actually increase health benefits, with fewer people getting sick and dying from dirty air, said Francesca Dominici, a data scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the study’s principal investigator.

本研究的主要研究员、哈佛大学公共卫生学院的数据科学家Francesca Dominici表示，批评者可能会声称更严格的标准将会使得收益递减，但研究结果提供了新的证据，证明他们实际上可以增加健康效益，减少人们因肮脏的空气患病乃至死亡的情况。

“We are seeing that the air that we are breathing right now is harmful, it's toxic,” Dominici said.

Dominici表示：“我们发现我们现在所呼吸的香甜空气对身体有害，这玩意有毒啊。”

An editorial that accompanies the study said the findings “stress the need for tighter regulation of air-pollutant levels” and stricter limits on fine particulate matter.

随研究报告发布的一篇社论表示，调查结果“强调需要更严格地调控空气污染物水平”和对细微颗粒物的限定值应设置得更严格。

“Despite compelling data, the Trump administration is moving headlong in the opposite direction,” the editorial said, citing the president’s recent steps to dismantle emissions-cutting rules, withdraw from the Paris climate accord and slash the EPA’s budget. “The increased air pollution that would result from loosening current restrictions would have devastating effects on public health.”

“尽管有令人信服的数据，特朗普政府正在朝着相反的方向前进，”该社社长表示，总统最近采取措施来摧毁减排规则，退出巴黎气候协议并削减了环保署的预算。 “放宽目前的限制所造成的空气污染将会对公共卫生产生破坏性影响。”

The findings have important implications for California, where millions of people breathe the nation’s highest levels of ozone and fine particulate matter. Despite decades of improvement, the air in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley remains far from meeting federal health standards.

这些发现对加利福尼亚有重要的影响，数百万人呼吸着全美国最严重程度的臭氧和细微颗粒物。尽管经过了数十年的改善，南加州和圣华金谷的空气仍然远远达不到联邦卫生标准。

The new study adds to a robust body of research going back to the early 1990s associating fine-particle pollution with shortened lives. But most of those studies were limited to populations in wealthier and well-monitored urban areas, the researchers said.

新的研究是一个可以追溯到20世纪90年代初的，将细微颗粒物污染与折寿联系起来的研究的补充。但研究人员说，大多数这些研究只限于富裕和监测良好的城市地区的人口。

The enormous sample size — encompassing nearly all Americans over 65 — allowed scientists to examine air quality differences across all parts of the country, including small cities and rural areas, and among various ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

研究使用了几乎所有超过65岁的美国人的巨大样本量，这使得科学家可以检查美国各地，包括小城市和农村地区以及各种民族和社会经济群体之间的空气质量差异。

The researchers found that men, blacks, Asians, Latinos and lower-income seniors all faced higher risks of premature death from fine particulate matter. Black seniors were three times as likely as seniors overall to die prematurely.

研究人员发现，男性，黑人，亚裔，拉美裔和低收入的老年人都面临因较高的细微颗粒物而早逝的风险。黑人老年人早逝的概率是老年人平均水平的三倍。

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must review national air quality standards for six major pollutants every five years and adjust them if necessary to reflect the latest science.

根据清洁空气法，美国环境保护署必须每五年检查一次美国前六大污染物的安全标准，并根据需要进行调整，以适应最新科研成果。

The 12-micrograms-per-cubic-meter standard for fine particulate matter was last updated in 2012. The federal standard for ozone was last strengthened in 2015 and is now being reexamined by the Trump administration.

细微颗粒物的标准目前是12微克/立方米，最后一次更新是在2012年。臭氧标准在2015年得到了加强，目前正在由特朗普政府重新审查。

This month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a one-year delay in implementing the federal ozone standard, citing “increased regulatory burdens, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.” The decision allows California and other states with ozone levels above the current standard to postpone the adoption of emissions-cutting measures.

本月，美国环境保护署署长Scott Pruitt宣布延迟实施联邦臭氧标准一年，其原因是“监管负担加重，基建投资上有限制，以及事务花费增加”。该决定允许加州和其他臭氧水平高于目前标准的州推迟采取减排措施。

Pruitt, who in his previous job as attorney general of Oklahoma made a career of suing to block EPA regulations, is also moving to reshape the agency’s science advisory boards. These include the committee that makes recommendations on federal air quality standards.

Pruitt前一份工作是在俄克拉荷马州当总检察长，这段仕途的亮点是起诉组织环境保护署的法规生效，如今他也致力于改造环境保护署下属的科学咨询委员会。这个委员会包括制定联邦空气质量标准的委员们。

Environmentalists and health advocates fear Pruitt will replace academic experts with representatives of regulated industries.

环保人士和健康倡导者担心，Pruitt将以出身于受监管的行业代表们来取代学术专家们。


Pointofusesolutions
Yep, THIS is the dirty giant secret of polluting industries - they are making us buy something we REALLY don't want (sound familiar) and pay with our health and our lives, while they are "free" to poison our air, water, land and bodies with no penalties. 
This is the most anti-free-market dynamic possible because by externalizing these enormous costs, the price signals sent to the market are completely wrong. Gas should be $150/gallon so that it is not used, so it stops killing us, but polluting industries have bribed our government and lied to us so much that they are getting away with murder - literally - and don't have to price it in to their products.
why is this any more ok with right wingers than with environmentalists and healthcare experts?

这就对了，这就是污染行业肮脏的惊人秘密——他们让我们买一些我们其实不怎么想要的东西（听起来很耳熟吧），代价是我们的健康和生命，而他们“自由”的污染我们的空气、水、土地、身体却不会受到惩罚。
这很可能是最反自由市场的情况，因为这些成本都被外化了。发送到市场的价格信号是完全错误的。 天然气应该是150美元/加仑，这样就没人会用了，那么我们就不会被它所害。但污染的行业贿赂我们的政府，对我们撒谎说什么他们远离谋杀，不把这些因素算进他们的产品定价里面。
为什么会有人觉得右翼人士要比环保人士和健康专家更能让人接受呢？

Jason Johnston
Heavy-duty diesel trucks are the #1 source of deadly ozone pollution in Southern California and the Central Valley. We now have the technology that can eliminate these emissions and solve this problem. The South Coast Air District’s recently adopted clean air plan calls for the aggressive deployment of this technology in the next 6 years: www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan The 16,000 trucks in the Port of LA and Long Beach is a great place to start. Political leadership and access to funding will be critical.

重型柴油卡车是南加州和中央山谷首要的致命臭氧污染源。我们现在的科技水平已经可以消除这些影响并解决问题。南海岸空气管理局最近已经吸纳了空气洁净方案，并将在接下来的6年里部署此项科技：（链接）。在洛杉矶港和长滩的16000辆卡车就将是计划的开始。政治领导和资金支持将是此计划的重中之重。

Skip Adam
The answer is simple 
BUILD THE WALL
It is time to limit the out of control Population growth ......

解决办法很简单啊，修墙就好了
是时候控制人口疯涨了...

Ben Hammer
Try going after the biggest polluters: Cars and Diesel Trucks. What if all the cars were electric charged from solar power and Trucks use natural gas instead of diesel. This would have a huge reduction in both carbon emissions and particulates. The Obama ozone plan tried to control very low sources of pollution at a huge cost. We should spend the money on renewable energy and clean vehicles instead.

试试盯紧重污染源：汽车和柴油卡车。想想看如果汽车都是通过太阳能充电的，卡车用天然气而不是柴油的会怎样。这将同时大大削减二氧化碳和细微颗粒物的排放。奥巴马的臭氧控制计划试图控制很小的一部分污染源，却要付出巨大的代价。我们应该把钱花在可再生能源和替换清洁能源机动车上。

Acuguy
Right on, Ben. When uating to costs of electric vehicles, we should factor-in the cost savings of preventing respiratory damage in ages from children to the elderly. The technology is already there, we just lack the political will to make it happen. We have 2 electric cars (no Teslas) and they are simply better cars to boot!

(回上一贴）楼上你说得对，当评估电机动车的成本时，我们应该把防止儿童到老年人的呼吸损伤所带来的成本考虑进去。我们已经拥有相关科技，就是没有政治意愿来实现它。我们家有两部电动汽车（不是特斯拉），它们比一般的车好多啦！

Max Plank
Are you charging your electric cars from 100% GREEN electricity?

(回上一贴)你给你的电动汽车充电，用的电是100%的绿色来源吗？

Airmarshalofbloviana
Thought building along transportation routes was the hallmark of sustainable communities? Btw, it was scientifically reported that dietary sodium intake advice has been wrong for years. Anyone interested in how many hearts failed due to ineffective sodium / potassium levels in cardiac musculature?

我记得运输线路沿途的建筑物上面都有可持续性社区的标识？顺便说一下，多年以来所谓膳食中不能摄入过量钠的错误言论也是那些科学家们搞出来的，有多少例心脏衰竭是因为钠/钾摄入不足所导致的你们知道吗？

Metaphor 4
I am. Prove your point.

(回上一贴)我就是你说的这种情况，你说的对。