劍橋雅思14Test4Passage3閱讀原文翻譯 Chelsea Rochman 海洋廢棄物

劍橋雅思14Test4Passage3閱讀原文翻譯 Chelsea Rochman 海洋廢棄物

劍橋雅思14 Test4 Passage3閱讀原文翻譯

第1段

Chelsea Rochman, an ecologist at the University of California, Davis, has been trying to answer a dismal question: Is everything terrible, or are things just very, very bad?

加利福尼亞大學(xué)戴維斯分校的生態(tài)學(xué)家Chelsea Rochman一直在努力回答一個(gè)令人沮喪的問題：萬事萬物都很糟糕嗎？還是事情僅僅是非常、非常壞而已？

第2段

Rochman is a member of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis marine-debris working group, a collection of scientists who study, among other things, the growing problem of marine debris, also known as ocean trash. Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris; in a recent paper published in the journal Ecology, Rochman and her colleagues set out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real.

Rochman是國家生態(tài)分析與整合中心海洋廢棄物工作組的成員之一。組成該工作組的科學(xué)家們?cè)诒姸鄦栴}之中研究海洋廢棄物，也就是海洋垃圾日益增長的問題。大量研究對(duì)海洋垃圾的狀態(tài)發(fā)出警報(bào)。在最近一篇發(fā)表于《生態(tài)學(xué)》雜志的論文中，Rochman和她的同事著手確定那些認(rèn)知中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)有多少是真實(shí)存在的。

第3段

Often, Rochman says, scientists will end a paper by speculating about the broader impacts of what they’ve found. For example, a study could show that certain seabirds eat plastic bags, and go on to warn that whole bird populations are at risk of dying out. ‘But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats,’ Rochman says. ‘There wasn’t a lot of information.’

Rochman說，科學(xué)家經(jīng)常會(huì)在論文結(jié)尾推測他們所做發(fā)現(xiàn)的更廣闊影響。例如，一項(xiàng)研究可能顯示特定的海鳥會(huì)吃塑料袋，進(jìn)而警告整個(gè)鳥群都存在滅絕的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?！暗聦?shí)是，沒有人檢測過那些認(rèn)知中的威脅”，Rochman說，“這方面并沒有很多的信息”。

第4段

Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris that were published through 2013. Within each paper, they asked what threats scientists had studied -366 perceived threats in all – and what they’d actually found.

Rochman和她的同事檢驗(yàn)了2013年全年發(fā)表的有關(guān)海洋垃圾影響的一百多篇論文。每篇文章中，他們探詢科學(xué)家研究的威脅是什么 – 共有366種威脅被注意到 – 以及他們實(shí)際發(fā)現(xiàn)了什么。

第5段

In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true. In the remaining cases, the working group found the studies had weaknesses in design and content which affected the validity of their conclusions – they lacked a control group, for example, or used faulty statistics.

83%的案例中，海洋垃圾的潛在威脅被證明是真實(shí)存在的。在剩下的案例中，工作組發(fā)現(xiàn)這些研究的設(shè)計(jì)和內(nèi)容存在缺陷，會(huì)影響結(jié)論的有效性。例如，它們?nèi)狈刂平M，或使用存在錯(cuò)誤的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)。

第6段

Strikingly, Rochman says, only one well-designed study failed to find the effect it was looking for, an investigation of mussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits. The plastic moved from the mussels’ stomachs to their bloodstreams, scientists found, and stayed there for weeks – but didn’t seem to stress out the shellfish.

Rochman說，令人震驚的是，只有一項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)良好的研究沒能發(fā)現(xiàn)它想要發(fā)現(xiàn)的影響。它是一項(xiàng)有關(guān)貽貝攝入微小塑料片的調(diào)查。 科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)，塑料從貽貝的胃部移動(dòng)到血液中，并在那里停留數(shù)周的時(shí)間，但這似乎沒有使該甲殼生物感到什么壓力。

第7段

While mussels may be fine eating trash, though, the analysis also gave a clearer picture of the many ways that ocean debris is bothersome.

雖然貽貝吃垃圾可能沒有什么問題，但分析還是明確指出海洋垃圾令人煩惱的許多方面。

第8段

Within the studies they looked at, most of the proven threats came from plastic debris, rather than other materials like metal or wood. Most of the dangers also involved large pieces of debris – animals getting entangled in trash, for example, or eating it and severely injuring themselves.

在他們檢驗(yàn)的研究中，大多數(shù)被證實(shí)的威脅來自塑料廢棄物，而不是諸如金屬或者木頭等其他材料。大部分危險(xiǎn)同時(shí)也包括大件垃圾 – 例如，動(dòng)物可能被垃圾纏住，或者誤食之后給自己造成嚴(yán)重傷害。

第9段

But a lot of ocean debris is ‘microplastic’, or pieces smaller than five millimeters. These may be ingredients used in cosmetics and toiletries, fibers shed by synthetic clothing in the wash, or eroded remnants of larger debris. Compared to the number of studies investigating large-scale debris, Rochman’s group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits. ‘There are a lot of open questions still for microplastic,’ Rochman says, though she notes that more papers on the subject have been published since 2013, the cutoff point for the group’s analysis.

但許多海洋垃圾都是微型塑料，或者小于5厘米的碎片。這些可能是化妝品或者洗漱用品的原料，合成衣物洗滌過程中脫落的纖維，或者更大一些垃圾文章來自老烤鴨雅思被腐蝕之后的殘留。Rochaman的團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，與調(diào)查大規(guī)模垃圾的研究數(shù)量相比，對(duì)這些微小垃圾影響的研究很少?！搬槍?duì)微小塑料，仍然有許多等待解答的問題”，Rochman說，盡管她注意到從2013年開始（其團(tuán)隊(duì)分析的截止點(diǎn)），有更多關(guān)于該主題的論文被發(fā)表出來。

第10段

There are also, she adds, a lot of open questions about the ways that ocean debris can lead to sea-creature death. Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal, or that animal’s tissues or cells, rather than whole populations. And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what’s really in the ocean. None of that tells us how many birds or fish or sea turtles could die from plastic pollution – or how deaths in one species could affect that animal’s predators, or the rest of the ecosystem.

她補(bǔ)充到，在海洋垃圾如何導(dǎo)致海洋生物死亡方面也有許多等待回答的問題。許多研究關(guān)注塑料如何影響個(gè)體動(dòng)物，或者該動(dòng)物的組織或細(xì)胞，而不是整個(gè)群體。實(shí)驗(yàn)室中，科學(xué)家經(jīng)常使用比海洋真實(shí)情況聚集程度更高的塑料。所有這些都不能告訴我們有多少鳥類、魚類或者海龜死于塑料污染 – 或者某一物種的死亡如何影響該動(dòng)物的捕食者，或者生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中的其他物種。

第11段

‘We need to be asking more ecologically relevant questions,’ Rochman says. Usually, scientists don’t know exactly how disasters such as a tanker accidentally spilling its whole cargo of oil and polluting huge areas of the ocean will affect the environment until after they’ve happened. ‘We don’t ask the right questions early enough,’ she says. But if ecologists can understand how the slow-moving effect of ocean trash is damaging ecosystems, they might be able to prevent things from getting worse.

“我們需要提出更多與生態(tài)學(xué)相關(guān)的問題”，Rochman說。對(duì)于油輪意外泄露整船石油并污染大面積海洋這種災(zāi)難來說，科學(xué)家直到發(fā)生之后才能確切的知道它們對(duì)環(huán)境的影響。“我們沒能及早提出正確的問題”，她說。但如果生態(tài)學(xué)家能夠理解海洋垃圾的影響如何正在緩慢地破壞生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，他們可能能夠阻止事情變得更壞。

第12段

Asking the right questions can help policy makers, and the public, figure out where to focus their attention. The problems that look or sound most dramatic may not be the best places to start. For example, the name of the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ – a collection of marine debris in the northern Pacific Ocean – might conjure up a vast, floating trash island. In reality though, much of the debris is tiny or below the surface; a person could sail through the area without seeing any trash at all. A Dutch group called ‘The Ocean Cleanup’ is currently working on plans to put mechanical devices in the Pacific Garbage Patch and similar areas to suck up plastic. But a recent paper used simulations to show that strategically positioning the cleanup devices closer to shore would more effectively reduce pollution over the long term.

提出正確的問題可以幫助政策制定者和公眾弄清楚應(yīng)該將自己的注意力放在哪里?？雌饋砘蛘呗犉饋碜顕?yán)重的問題可能并不是最佳的著手指出。例如，“太平洋大垃圾帶”這樣的名字 – 太平洋北部的一批垃圾 – 可能讓人想起巨大的、漂浮著的垃圾島嶼。但實(shí)際上，這些垃圾中的大部分都很微小或者位于海洋表面之下。一個(gè)人可以乘船穿過該區(qū)域而看不到任何垃圾。一個(gè)叫做“海洋清理”的荷蘭團(tuán)體目前正在制定計(jì)劃。他們打算在太平洋垃圾帶和類似的區(qū)域中放置機(jī)械裝置以吸附塑料。但近期的一篇論文通過模擬表明，長期來看，有策略地將清潔裝置放在靠近海岸的地方可以更加有效的減少污染。

第13段

‘I think clearing up some of these misperceptions is really important,’ Rochman says. Among scientists as well as in the media, she says, ‘A lot of the images about strandings and entanglement and all of that cause the perception that plastic debris is killing everything in the ocean.’ Interrogating the existing scientific literature can help ecologists figure out which problems really need addressing, and which ones they’d be better off – like the mussels – absorbing and ignoring.

“我認(rèn)為清理這些錯(cuò)誤的認(rèn)知十分重要”，Rochman說。在科學(xué)家和媒體之中，她說，“大量關(guān)于擱淺和被困的圖片造成塑料垃圾正在殺死海洋中一些生物的看法”。審視現(xiàn)存的科學(xué)文獻(xiàn)能夠幫助生態(tài)學(xué)家搞明白哪些問題真的需要解決，而哪些問題（比如貽貝）他們最好了解和忽略。

>> 雅思 托福 免費(fèi)測試、量身規(guī)劃、讓英語學(xué)習(xí)不再困難<<