四川 | 原创| 国内| 国际| 娱乐| 体育| 女性| 图片| 太阳鸟时评| 市州联播| 财经| 汽车| 房产| 旅游| 居家| 教育| 法制| 健康| 食品| 天府新区| 慢耍四川
您当前的位置:四川新闻  >  本网原创


2019年11月17日 10:23:00

龙岩男科精子检查哪个医院好The EU prohibits many harmful ingredients America allows. But multinational corporations are looking to change that.欧盟禁止了许多在美国允许使用的添加剂。但是跨国公司们正在寻求改变这一现状。A speaker at an event I recently attended asked why U.S. food companies put butylated hydroxyltoluene, a food preservative and endocrine disruptor, in cereal sold stateside, while in Europe the same companies formulate the same product without BHT. 我最近参加的一场活动的发言人提出质疑,为什么美国的食品企业将丁基羟基甲苯(BHT)-一种会干扰内分泌的食品添加剂-加入在美国本土销售的麦片里面,与此同时这一公司在欧洲销售的同种产品中没有添加BHT。There are three answers to that question:对于这一质疑有以下三种解释:1.The European Union prohibits numerous harmful ingredients U.S. regulatory agencies allow.1. 欧盟禁止添加许多美国管制机构允许添加的有害添加剂。2.Well-informed European citizens have organized and pushed for those regulations.2.见多识广的欧洲居民们组织并奋力争取了这些(禁止添加有害添加剂的)条款的实施。3.U.S. citizens have not yet pushed for such regulations in sufficient numbers.3.尚未有足够数量的美国居民努力争取过这一类条款的实施。The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management which places the burden of proof to demonstrate a product or ingredient#39;s safety on the corporations that produces the product— prior to releasing it to the public. Over the last few decades, the U.S. has become lax with this approach while Europe proceeds with a greater amount of caution. But that contrast may not survive efforts by the U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and multinational corporations, which are currently negotiating super trade treaties behind closed doors.预防原则是一种企业必须进行的明某种产品或添加剂安全性的的原则-在企业将某种产品或添加剂推出市场之前。在过去的几十年里,当美国在食品安全方面更加松懈的时候,欧洲在这一方面则越发谨慎。然而这种差别在美国贸易代表Michael Froman及跨国公司们闭门协商超级贸易协定的努力下可能化为泡影。Such treaties are enacted by Congress through what#39;s known as ;fast-track; legislation, meaning that the President negotiates trade agreements and Congress can only approve or disapprove, but cannot amend or filibuster the legislation.这些协定被利用;快速通道;法案在国会获得通过,意思就是总统协商贸易条款,国会仅能对这些条款进行通过或不通过的批复,而不能对条款进行修改或阻挠立法。According to sources at the negotiations of these treaties, the provisions in them may well eradicate the EU#39;s higher standards. Instead of getting the BHT and other questionable additives out of American products, the negotiated language will likely ;harmonize barriers to trade,; meaning corporations can put all the bad stuff in European products that they can#39;t now.据参加协商的消息来源称,贸易协定中的条款很有可能废除欧洲更高的(食品安全)标准。而不是将BHT和其他有问题的添加剂从美国制造的产品中移除,协商后的条款表述将类似于;和谐贸易障碍;,这意味(食品)企业将被允许在欧洲的产品中添加现在不允许添加的有害物质。Many Europeans vehemently oppose such trade deals because the mainstream media is extensively covering them. Here in the U.S., however, there#39;s pretty much a coverage blackout except for MSN#39;s The Ed Show.由于主流媒体的极力掩盖,许多欧洲人激烈反对这类交易条款。然而在美国这里,除了MSN的The Ed Show之外,(这类消息)全都被墙了。Despite leaks, side conversations and Wikileaks revelations that have given experts the opportunity to assess the deals, the American media and public don#39;t seem too concerned about the outcome. But important questions remain. Let#39;s begin with the obvious: Why are these deals secret? And why should ordinary citizens go along and trust that the secret handshake devised by corporations will serve the greater public good?尽管维基解密等渠道给了专家们评估这些条款的机会,美国媒体和大众们却并不关心评估结果。然而问题依然存在。让我们从最明显的开始:为什么这些条款是保密的?而且,为什么普通市民应该持并信任这些(跨国食品)公司们的秘密协议将务于广大群众的利益?To borrow a phrase from the GMO labeling movement, we need to safeguard the public#39;s right to know. It doesn#39;t matter whether we#39;re talking about secret trade deals or the contents of food, shampoo, building products, industrial emissions, knowledge protects us.借用;转基因标示运动;中的一句话,我们需要保卫大众的知情权。无论我们是否正在讨论这些秘密协定或者食品,洗发水,建筑材料,工业排放物的成分,知识保护我们。Is Knowledge a Barrier to Trade?知识是交易的阻碍么?While the most visible proponents of labeling are groups, like the Organic Consumers Organization, Food Democracy Now!, and Just Label It! which call for mandatory labeling of GMO-containing foods, GMOs are not the only food ingredients some people would like to see labeled in food. A small sample of others include:正当主要的标示运动持者结成团体-例如有机产品消费者组织,食物皿煮现在行动!,以及标示起来!-并且呼吁强制标示含转基因成分食品之时,转基因成分并不是一些人们寻求标示出的唯一的食品添加成分。其他被呼吁标出的成分中的一小部分如下:Allergenic ingredients (like wheat or egg)致敏成分(例如小麦或鸡蛋)Pro-inflammatory ingredients (like MSG or food colorings)导致发炎的成分(例如味精或食品染色剂)Obesogenic substances (like high fructose corn syrup aka HCFS)致胖成分(例如果葡糖浆-又称HCFS)Other stuff that has not been well studied (or studied at all) like certain ;flavors; or ;fragrances;其他未被充分研究(或根本未被研究)的物质,例如某些;调味剂;或;芳香剂;It doesn#39;t end with food. Women purchasing cosmetics or face creams want to know whether they contain methyl parabens which studies find concentrated in cancerous tumors. Parents buying their children#39;s car seats or nursing pillows want assurances that these products don#39;t contain toxic flame retardants. Homeowners and office dwellers want to know if their building materials and furnishings contain toxins like phthalates, which are associated with damage to the liver, thyroid and reproductive system. 并不仅仅是食物。女性购买化妆品或面霜时希望了解这些商品是否含有基苯甲酸甲酯-一种曾在癌症肿瘤中找到的物质。父母为他们的子女购买车用儿童座椅和哺乳枕的时候希望这些产品中不含有有毒阻燃剂。自有房屋者和上班族希望知道他们生活和上班的地方的建筑材料里面是否含有钛酸盐-一种与肝、甲状腺和生殖系统损伤有关的物质。And let#39;s not forget the chemicals used in fracking, emissions from manufacturing plants and gas pipeline infrastructures, methane and carbon dioxide releases contributing to climate change, and nuclear waste. Whether it#39;s consumer goods, building materials, or the energy industries, toxic outputs need to be monitored for health and environmental impacts. That#39;s impossible to do without the right to know what they contain, emit or produce. The only way to track them is through product labeling.并且不要忘记水压压裂中用到的化学物质,加工厂和燃气管道建造过程中的排放物,导致气候变化的甲烷和二氧化碳排放以及核废料。为了健康和环境影响,无论是日用品,建筑材料还是能源工业的有毒排放物都需要被监测。如果不知道他们(上述行为和排放物)包含什么,释放什么或者制造出来的是什么,这些监测行动根本无从谈起。追踪这些的唯一办法就是通过产品标示。Banning the Precautionary Principle取消;预防原则;From the perspective of corporations, the less the public knows about what their products contain or emit, the better. When knowledge deters people from a product or process, the industry considers that knowledge a barrier to trade. And the new uber-trade deals, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are poised to be fast-tracked through Congress with a quick up or down vote, even before the treaties#39; contents are made known to Congress or the public.从公司的视角来看,大众对于他们生产什么或者排放什么知道的越少越好。当知识阻止人们(购买)产品或(从事)行为时,工业(所有者)就会将知识看成贸易的阻碍。并且新的超级贸易条款,跨太平洋伙伴协议(TPP)以及跨大西洋贸易及投资伙伴协议(TTIP)整时刻准备着通过快速通道在国会中进行迅速直接表决,甚至在协议条款并未被国会或公众知晓之前。;Big chemical companies, pesticide manufacturers, the manufacturers of products which are associated with cancer, autism, learning disabilities in children, and a host of other serious illnesses are attempting to use these trade regulations to stop government regulations of dangerous chemicals all around the globe,; says William Waren, senior trade analyst with Friends of the Earth.;大型化工企业,杀虫剂制造商,这些制造可能导致癌症,自闭症,儿童学习障碍以及大量其他严重疾病的产品的公司正试图利用这些贸易条款在全球范围内废止政府限制危险化学品的政策。;Friends of the Earth 的高级交易分析员William Waren说。;When we can#39;t adequately quantify risk, the burden of proof is on the party that would introduce a potentially risky product to show that the risk is low enough to avoid harm public health and the environment,; he continues.;当我们无法充分量化风险时,举责任就落到了那些愿意介绍一种具有潜在风险的产品来展示其中的风险足够低,且并不会对公众健康或环境造成负面影响的一方头上;他继续说道。When the precautionary principle is dismantled, as it is in U.S. policy, companies make it the public#39;s responsibility to show harm. Unless people go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate a safety problem, corporations have no responsibility to guarantee safety.如预防原则被废止,就如美国现在的政策这样,公司就将发现损害的责任转移到了公众头上。除非人们用足够长(的时间)来明其确实存在安全隐患,否则公司将不再有保(产品)安全的责任。Current federal regulations are riddled with loopholes due to four decades of industry lobbying and legal opposition to proper safeguards. Efforts by major coalitions like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have been stalled.现存联邦法规由于四十年的工业游说和对适当保护措施的合法反对,已经千疮百孔。像;更安全的化工产品;,;健康家庭;这样主要组织的努力已陷入停滞。In the void left by our nation#39;s failure to regulate, some states, such as California, have taken it upon themselves to regulate toxic chemicals. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that ;no projects which would cause significant environmental effects should be approved as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen those effects,; and ;environmental impact reports shall be used to provide full public disclosure of the environmental impacts of a proposed project.;在我们的国家规定失效留下的空白中,一些州,例如加利福尼亚,自行制定了规范有毒化学品的法规。加州环境质量法案要求;没有任何可能造成严重环境影响的工程可以获得通过-如存在可替代或减缓措施以减少这些影响的话;并且;必须提交(拟议计划的)环境影响报告以公开披露拟议计划的环境影响。;;It#39;s incremental but it#39;s real important, given the incapacity of the EPA to act,; notes Waren.;这增加了成本,但确实非常重要,考虑到环保局的无能为力;,Waren表示。Waren says that the ;Technical Barriers to Trade; chapters in treaties would also enact stringent limits on all governments, rolling back product safety regulations in Europe and elsewhere and freeze in place the current ineffective U.S. federal regulations. In addition, state regulations would be rolled back or nullified.Waren还说协议中;贸易的技术障碍;一章还会对严格要求(协议相关的)所有政府,在欧洲和其他国家按照现行美国联邦法案来修改其产品安全法规,同时冻结现行美国联邦法规。此外,州法案也将被降低至原来水平或取消。Europeans would have to eat their BHT and like it. No longer able to study health or environmental impacts, under threat of lawsuits by international trade tribunals, Californians would not be empowered to prevent fracking companies from dumping fracking waste into water aquifers—as recently occurred in Central Valley, California.欧洲人将被迫使用BHT并且喜欢上它。不再能够了解健康或环境影响,在被国际贸易法庭起诉的风险下,加州将不允许再对页岩气生产企业向地下含水层注入有害化工原料进行限制-正如最近在加州中央山谷发生的。;This is one of the leading negotiating points for the U.S. and they are making a lot of headway,; says Waren. ;The whole question of rolling back state and local safeguards on food and the environment is a very, very important one because a lot of states have aly acted in various ways, like New York which banned fracking.;;这是美国政府的主要谈判点之一,并且他们取得了很大进步;Waren说,;将州与地方食品安全与环境保护法案降至原来水平这一整个问题非常非常重要,因为许多州已经在用不同方法采取了行动,例如纽约州就禁止使用水力压裂法(采取页岩气)。;Waren says fast-track trade legislation is a ;fundamental attack on democracy. It#39;s frightening.;Waren将快速通过贸易法案形容为;对皿煮的根本攻击。令人恐惧;。 /201503/362010晋安博爱中医院客服中心福州博爱医院治不孕

龙岩哪间医院治输卵管积水龙岩男性生育检查费用Over 60 years have passed since Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made history as the first successful summiteers of Mount Everest, yet the desire to climb the mountain hasn#39;t waned over the decades. We hear countless stories of the triumphant—or, more recently, tragic—attempts to reach the top. But many interesting facts about the mountain aren#39;t common knowledge.距离埃德蒙·希拉里爵士(Sir Edmund Hillary)和丹增·诺尔盖(Tenzing Norgay)首次登顶珠穆朗玛峰已有60余年,但人们的登峰却并未在这漫长的时间长河中消失殆尽。我们经常听到有人成功登顶,以及一些不幸失败的故事(尤其是最近)。但关于珠穆朗玛峰的趣实却远不止这些。10. Mountain Spiders10. 峰上蜘蛛Even high in the sky, with barely enough air to breathe, we still can#39;t hide from spiders. Euophrys omnisuperstes (;standing above everything;), better known as Himalayan jumping spiders, hide in nooks and crevices on the slopes of Everest, making them one of the Earth#39;s highest permanent residents. Climbers have spotted them as high as 6,700 meters (22,000 ft). The tiny spiders manage to feed on whatever stray insects the severe winds blow up the mountain. They#39;re virtually the only animals permanently based at such a high altitude, aside from a few species of bird. In addition, several previously unnamed grasshopper species were collected during the famously ill-fated 1924 British Everest expedition and are now on display in the British Natural History Museum.即使在几乎没有空气可供呼吸的珠穆朗玛峰,我们也有可能与蜘蛛不期而遇。在珠穆朗玛峰斜坡上的凹缝和裂隙之中,就可以见到被称为“喜马拉雅跳蛛”的Euophrysomnisuperstes(意为“万物之上”)蜘蛛,这些蜘蛛是世界上居住海拔最高的永久居民之一。登山者在海拔6700米(22000英尺)的地方发现了它们。这种小蜘蛛以被强风吹上山的迷途昆虫为食。除了一些品种独特的鸟之外,这些跳蛛可以说是生活在如此高海拔地区的唯一动物。并且,在1924年的那次以失败告终的英国珠峰探险之中,探险者就采集到了跳蛛样本,这些样本现在被陈列在英国自然历史物馆(British Natural History Museum)之中。9. Two Men Climbed It 21 Times9. 两个攀登珠峰21次的人Two Sherpas, Apa Sherpa and Phurba Tashi, hold the joint record for most Everest ascents. The pair have each managed to reach the summit an impressive 21 times. Phurba reached the top of the world three times in 2007 alone, and Apa has successfully summited the mountain almost every year between 1990 and 2011. Apa says that he has seen clear changes on Everest caused by global warming over the years. He has spoken of his concerns over melting snow and glaciers, which expose the rock and make it increasingly tough to climb. He also worries for the well-being of Sherpas, after losing his own home in a flood caused by the melted glaciers. Apa has dedicated several Everest ascents to raising awareness of climate change. 8The World#39;s Highest Brawl03两个夏尔巴人——阿帕·夏尔巴(Apa Sherpa)和普巴·塔西(Phurba Tashi)——共同保持着登顶珠峰次数最多的纪录。令人敬佩的是,他们两人各自成功登顶珠峰21次。普巴在2007年独自一人三次登顶珠穆朗玛峰这座“世界之巅”,而阿帕则是在1990年到2011年这段时间里,几乎每年都会成功登顶珠峰。阿帕说道,受全球变暖的影响,珠穆朗玛峰在这些年里发生了明显变化。他担心积雪和冰川的融化会使岩石裸露,这样的话,登顶珠峰将会变得愈加困难。他也对夏尔巴人幸福康乐的生活表示忧虑,因为他自己的家就毁于一次冰川融化造成的洪水泛滥之中。阿帕的好几次登峰探险都致力于提高人们对气候变化的意识。8. The World#39;s Highest Brawl8. 史上海拔最高的“珠峰纷争”Everest climbs aren#39;t always the harmonious triumphs you might imagine. In 2013, climbers Ueli Steck, Simone Moro, and Jonathan Griffith found themselves in a violent brawl with Sherpas after allegedly ignoring orders to halt their climb. The Sherpas accused the climbers of getting in their way and causing an avalanche that hit other Sherpas laying ropes downhill. The climbers denied the accusations, and the confrontation turned violent. The Sherpas kicked, punched, and beat the men with rocks, and Moro says one angry Sherpa even threatened to kill him. The fight might have ended considerably worse, but American climber Melissa Arnot warned the trio to flee to the basecamp before the rest formed a mob and stoned them to death. After the incident, a Nepal army official stood witness as both sides signed a peace agreement to settle the dispute. 7A 450-Million-Year History04登顶珠穆朗玛峰的探险,并不如你所想的那样,总是洋溢着和谐的欢欣气氛。2013年,三个登山爱好者乌里·斯特克(Ueli Steck)、西蒙尼·尔(Simone Moro)和乔纳森·格里菲斯(Jonathan Griffith)罔顾夏尔巴人暂作歇息的命令而继续攀爬的行为,触怒了当地夏尔巴人,从而引发了一场激烈纷争。夏尔巴人指责这三个登山者妨碍了他们安装绳索,并且他们不顾命令继续攀爬的行为致使山上冰块坍塌,将正在山上安装绳子的其他几个夏尔巴人砸下了山。但这几个登山者却否认夏尔巴人的控诉,由此冲突愈演愈烈。夏尔巴人向这三个登山者投掷石子,拳脚相向,尔还透露说,一个愤怒的夏尔巴人甚至威胁要杀掉他。尽管双方最后还是结束了这次纷争,但美国登山者梅利莎·阿诺特(Melissa Arnot)还是警告这三个人趁着夏尔巴人未开始新一轮的暴乱,将他们用石头投掷致死之前,逃回他们的宿营基地。在这次纷争之后,双方在一位尼泊尔军官的见下签署了一份和平协议。7. A 450-Million-Year History7. 珠峰有着4.5亿年的历史Although the Himalayan Mountains formed 60 million years ago, Everest#39;s history actually goes back a lot further. The limestone and sandstone rock at the summit of the mountain was once part of sedimentary layers below sea level 450 million years ago. Over time, ocean floor rocks were forced together and pushed upward at a speed of up to 11 centimeters (4.5 in) per year, eventually reaching the current position. The upper formations of Everest now contain marine fossils of sea creatures and shells that once occupied the earlier ocean. Explorer Noel Odell first discovered the fossils embedded within Everest#39;s rocks in 1924, proving that the mountain had once been below sea level. The first rock specimens from Everest were brought back by Swiss climbers in 1956 and by an American climbing team in 1963.6Height Dispute05尽管喜马拉雅山脉是在6000万年前形成,但实际上珠穆朗玛峰却远在这之前就已形成。峰顶上的石灰岩和砂岩曾是4.5亿年前的海底沉积岩的一部分。随着时间的推移,海底岩石因受挤压而聚拢在一起,并且以每年11厘米(4.5英寸)的速度上升,最终形成了现在的高度。我们如今仍能在珠穆朗玛峰的上面部分见到几亿年前的海生物和贝壳化石。探险家诺埃尔·奥德尔(Noel Odell)在1924年第一次发现了嵌入珠穆朗玛峰岩石中的海洋化石,明了珠峰所在地区原是一片海洋。1956年的瑞士登山队和1963年的美国登山队首次带回了珠穆朗玛峰的岩石样本。6. Height Dispute6. 关于珠峰的海拔高度之争Exactly how tall is Mount Everest? That depends on what side of the border you#39;re on. China has said the peak is at 8,844 meters (29,016 ft), while Nepal says 8,848 meters (29,029 ft). That#39;s because China argues that the mountain should purely be measured by rock height, excluding the meters of snow at the very top. Whether or not that#39;s the better measure, the international community regularly includes snow when describing the heights of peaks around the world. The two countries came to an agreement in 2010, settling the official height as 8,848 meters. 5It#39;s Growing06珠穆朗玛峰究竟有多高?这可就得取决于你持哪一国的言论了。中国认为珠穆朗玛峰的高度为8844米(29016英尺),而尼泊尔却坚持认为珠峰的海拔高度为8848米(29029英尺)。这是因为中方认为对珠穆朗玛峰海拔的测量应该仅仅只以岩石高度为基准,而不能将峰顶积雪计算在内。不管那是否是更加合理的测量方法,国际社会公认的珠峰高度是将峰顶积雪计算在内的覆雪高度。两国在2010年就珠穆朗玛峰海拔问题达成一致,正式将珠穆朗玛峰的高度确定为8848米。5. It#39;s Growing5. 不断增长的高度Both Chinese and Nepalese ideas of the mountain#39;s height may be wrong, according to more recent measurements.A research team discovered in 1994 that Everest continues to grow approximately 4 millimeters (0.16 in) every year. The Indian subcontinent was originally an independent landmass that collided with Asia, forming the Himalayas, and the continental plates are still moving, pushing the mountains ever higher.Researchers from the American Millennium Expedition in 1999 placed a global positioning satellite device below the summit to measure growth. Their more accurate findings from the modern technology led to the official height of Everest being changed to 8,850 meters (29,035 ft). Meanwhile, other tectonic activity actually costs the mountain height, but the overall movement seems to be upward. 4Multiple Names07最新的测量结果显示,中国与尼泊尔关于珠穆朗玛峰高度的说法可能都不准确。1994年的一个研究小组发现,珠穆朗玛峰以每年4毫米(0.16英寸)左右的速度继续上升。印度次大陆原本是一个相当独立的地理单元,后来在漂移的过程中与欧亚大陆发生碰撞,形成了喜马拉雅山脉,然后印度板块推动着欧亚板块一起漂移,使喜马拉雅山脉逐年升高。1999年美国“千禧年珠峰测量计划”的研究人员在峰顶上安置了全球卫星定位系统,以此来测量珠峰高度。这种依靠现代科技测量出来的海拔高度更为精确,由此美国将珠穆朗玛峰的海拔高度正式更改为8850米(29035英尺)。同时,其他的一些地壳运动实际上会使珠穆朗玛峰的高度有所削减,但珠峰的整体运动似乎还是趋向于上升的。4. Multiple Names4. 多样的名称Although we know the mountain as ;Everest,; Tibetan natives have called the mountain by the ancient name ;;Chomolungma; (also spelled ;Qomolangma;) for centuries. The Tibetan name means ;Goddess Mother of Mountains.; But that isn#39;t the only other name it goes by. The Nepalese people know it as ;Sagarmatha,; meaning ;Forehead in the Sky,; so the mountain is now a part of the Nepalese ;Sagarmatha National Park.;The mountain was only named ;Everest; when British surveyor Andrew Waugh failed to find a commonly used local name. After studying maps of the surrounding areas and still being unable to make a decision, he named the mountain after Indian Surveyor General George Everest, head of the British team that first surveyed the Himalayas. Colonel Everest objected to the honor, but the British officially changed their name for the mountain from ;Peak XV; to ;Mount Everest; in 1865.3A Human Traffic Jam08尽管我们通常称此山为“埃佛勒斯峰(Everest)”,但藏族人民在几个世纪里对它的传统称谓却是“珠穆朗玛峰(Chomolungma或Qomolangma)”。将它的藏语名称简译出来就是“神女峰”(Goddess Mother of Mountains)。但这并不是这座山峰唯一的名字。尼泊尔人民将它称为“萨迦玛塔(Sagarmatha)”,其意是“高达天庭的山峰”(Forehead in the Sky),因此这座山峰如今属于“萨迦玛塔国家公园”(Sagarmatha National Park)的一部分。英国测量员安德鲁·华夫(Andrew Waugh)在测量此山时首次将其命名为 “埃佛勒斯峰”(Everest),因为他是在印度平原遥测的,并未进入西藏和尼泊尔,所以对这座山峰的其他当地名称一概不知。当他在地图上对周边地区巡视了一番之后,仍不能确定它的名称,于是他以印度测量局前任局长,即此次英国测量队的领头人乔治·埃佛勒斯(George Everest )的名字命名此山。尽管埃佛勒斯上校本人反对这个称谓,但英国还是在1865年正式将此山的名字由“第15峰(Peak XV)”更改为“埃佛勒斯山”。3. A Human Traffic Jam3. 珠峰上的“交通拥堵”Despite Everest costing thousands of dollars to climb, more people than ever are trying to summit it. In 2012, German mountaineer Ralf Dujmovits captured a shocking image showing hundreds of climbers lining up to reach the summit. Ralf had made the decision to turn back at the South Col of the mountain due to poor weather conditions when he spotted the painfully long queue. On May 19, 2012, climbers crowding one landmark near the summit faced a two-hour wait. In the course of just half a day, 234 people managed to reach the peak—but four people died, raising major concerns over the climbing process. Nepal specialists that year added a new fixed rope to ease congestion, and there have even been talks of installing permanent ladders.2The World#39;s Dirtiest Mountain09尽管登顶珠峰所需花费高达上万,但仍有越来越多的人尝试登顶珠峰。2012年,德国登山家拉尔夫·杜伊莫维茨(Ralf Dujmovits)拍摄了一张令人震撼的照片,照片拍摄的是一群攀登珠峰的登山者排队登顶的情景。拉尔夫在抵达珠峰南坳时,由于遇到恶劣的天气状况,他决定就此返回,但就在下山途中,他看到了这样一费力攀爬的登山长队。2012年5月19日,涌向这座“世界之巅”的大批登山者被堵在了峰顶附近,并在此滞留了两个多小时。仅在这半天里,就有234人成功登顶珠峰——但有四人在下山时丧生,这提高了人们在登峰过程中的安全意识。尼泊尔当局在那年还额外安装了一根新的固定绳索,以此来缓解珠峰上的交通拥堵,甚至曾经还有人提出要在珠峰上安装几架永久梯子。2. The World#39;s Dirtiest Mountain2. 世上最“脏”的山Countless photos document climbers on their way to the Everest summit, but we rarely see images of what they leave behind. Everest is littered with not just the corpses of climbers but an estimated 50 tons of waste, with more left behind each season. The slopes are strewn with disregarded oxygen bottles, climbing equipment, and plenty of human feces. The Eco Everest Expedition has hit the mountain each year since 2008 to tackle the problem, and they#39;ve collected over 13 tons of waste so far. The Nepalese government have enforced a new rule starting in 2014 that climbers must each bring down 8 kilograms (18 lb) of waste on their descent, else lose their ,000 deposit. Artists working on the “Everest 8848 Art Project” have turned 8 tons of the rubbish, including broken tents and beer cans, into 75 pieces of art. Sixty-five porters worked over two spring expeditions to carry down the trash, and the artists turned it into sculptures to highlight the issue of mess on the mountain. 1It#39;s Not The Tallest Mountain10有数不尽的照片记录着登山者攀登珠穆朗玛峰的过程,但我们却极少看到记录这些登山者遗留物的照片。珠穆朗玛峰上除了遇难登山者的尸体之外,还约有50余吨的废弃物,而且每个季节都会产生新的垃圾。被废弃的氧气罐、登山装备和人类排泄物在珠峰上随处可见。自2008年以来,珠峰生态探险队(Eco Everest Expedition)每年都会登上珠穆朗玛峰来处理垃圾污染问题,截至目前,他们已经拾捡了13余吨垃圾。尼泊尔政府就此还出台了一项新规定,从2014年开始,每位登山者必须携带8公斤(18磅)垃圾下山,否则他们的4000美元保金将被扣押。“珠峰8848艺术项目”(Everest 8848 Art Project)的艺术家们把8吨珠峰垃圾(包括破旧的帐篷和啤酒罐)变为75件艺术展品。65人在春季登顶珠峰两次,才将这些垃圾从珠峰上带了下来,艺术家们的这次“变废为宝”的展览是为了引起人们对珠峰环境问题的重视。1. It#39;s Not The Tallest Mountain 1. 珠穆朗玛峰并非世界最高峰Although Mount Everest is the highest point on Earth from sea level, Mauna Kea, an inactive Hawaiian volcano, holds the record as the world#39;s tallest mountain. Everest#39;s peak is at a higher altitude, but that doesn#39;t make it taller. Mauna Kea may only reach a height of 4,205 meters (13,796 ft) above sea level, but the volcano extends an incredible 6,000 meters (20,000 ft) below the water#39;s surface. Measured from its base on the ocean floor, its full height stands at 10,200 meters (33,465 ft) making it almost a mile taller that Everest. In fact, depending on how you measure it, Everest is neither the tallest mountain nor the highest peak. Chimborazo, in Ecuador, only reaches 6,267 meters (20,661 ft) above sea level, but it#39;s the highest point from the exact center of the Earth. This is because Chimborazo lies just one degree south of the equator. The Earth bulges at its midsection, so Ecuador#39;s sea level sits farther from the planet#39;s center than Nepal#39;s.虽然珠穆朗玛峰是地球上距海平面最高的山峰,但世界最高峰却是夏威夷的一座死火山——莫纳克亚山(Mauna Kea)。尽管珠穆朗玛峰峰顶处于高海拔,但那并不能额外延伸珠峰高度。而莫纳克亚山在海平面以上的高度虽然只有4205米(13796英尺),但不可思议的是,这座山却在海平面之下延伸了6000米(20000英尺)。如果从海底开始测量,那它的总高度将达到10200米(33465英尺),差不多比珠穆朗玛峰高了整整一英里。实际上,不论你采取何种测量方式,珠穆朗玛峰既不是海拔最高,也不是总高度最高的山峰。厄瓜多尔的钦拉索山(Chimborazo)虽然在海平面以上的高度只有6267米(20661英尺),但它却是离地心最远的地方。因为钦拉索山位于赤道以南一度左右的地方。地球刚好在它的中部区域凸出来,因此,厄瓜多尔的海平面离地心的距离较尼泊尔更远。注:文章转载自前十网,译者:李念 /201504/369937福州哪里有做包皮手术好It is said that there is a correlation between the number of storks’ nests found on Danish houses and the number of children born in those houses. Could the old story about babies being delivered by storks really be true? No. Correlation is not causation. Storks do not deliver children but larger houses have more room both for children and for storks.丹麦流传着一种说法,一户人家屋檐上的鹳巢数量与这家人所生孩子的数量存在着相关性。婴儿是鹳鸟送来的古老传说是真的吗?当然不是。相关性跟因果关系不是一回事。鹳不会送来孩子,但大房子有更大的空间为孩子和鹳所用。This much-loved statistical anecdote seems less amusing when you consider how it was used in a US Senate committee hearing in 1965. The expert witness giving testimony was arguing that while smoking may be correlated with lung cancer, a causal relationship was unproven and implausible. Pressed on the statistical parallels between storks and cigarettes, he replied that they “seem to me the same”.这是一则人们喜闻乐见的统计趣闻,但如果你知道1965年在美国参议院一场听会上它是如何被用到的,你就不会觉得那么有趣了。那位做听发言的专家人辩称,尽管吸烟或许跟肺癌相关,但两者之间不存在已明的、令人信的因果关系。当被问及为何把鹳和孩子的关系与香烟和肺癌的关系进行类比,他回答说,两者“在我看来是一样的”。The witness’s name was Darrell Huff, a freelance journalist beloved by generations of geeks for his wonderful and hugely successful 1954 book How to Lie with Statistics. His reputation today might be rather different had the proposed sequel made it to print. How to Lie with Smoking Statistics used a variety of stork-style arguments to throw doubt on the connection between smoking and cancer, and it was supported by a grant from the Tobacco Institute. It was never published, for reasons that remain unclear. (The story of Huff’s career as a tobacco consultant was brought to the attention of statisticians in articles by Andrew Gelman in Chance in 2012 and by Alex Reinhart in Significance in 2014.)这位人的名字叫达莱尔#8226;哈夫(Darrell Huff),是一名自由记者,因其1954年出版的那本精、大为畅销的《统计数字会撒谎》(How to Lie with Statistics)而深受数代极客的爱戴。如果该书续集付印的话,他今天的名声或许会完全不同。《吸烟统计数字会撒谎》(How to Lie with Smoking Statistics)使用了各种鹳式论点来对吸烟与癌症的相关性提出质疑。该书得到了美国的烟草研究所(Tobacco Institute)资助,但不知出于什么原因一直没有出版。(2012年安德鲁#8226;格尔曼(Andrew Gelman)在《Chance》杂志上发表的文章,以及2014年亚历克斯#8226;莱因哈特(Alex Reinhart)在《Significance》杂志上发表的文章,使哈夫担任烟草业顾问的经历引起统计学家们的注意。)Indisputably, smoking causes lung cancer and various other deadly conditions. But the problematic relationship between correlation and causation in general remains an active area of debate and confusion. The “spurious correlations” compiled by Harvard law student Tyler Vigen and displayed on his website (tylervigen.com) should be a warning. Did you realise that consumption of margarine is strongly correlated with the divorce rate in Maine?毋庸置疑,吸烟会导致肺癌和其他多种致命疾病。但广泛意义上的相关性与因果之间的尚存疑问的关系,仍是当前一个极易引起争议和混淆的领域。哈佛大学(Harvard)法学院学生泰勒#8226;维根(Tyler Vige)编撰并发布在其网站(tylervigen.com)上的“伪相关”应算是一种警告。你知道缅因州人造奶油的消费量与离婚率之间存在很强的相关性吗?We cannot rely on correlation alone, then. But insisting on absolute proof of causation is too exacting a standard (arguably, an impossible one). Between those two extremes, where does the right balance lie between trusting correlations and looking for evidence of causation?所以,我们不能仅仅依赖相关性。但是,坚持为因果关系提供绝对据就过于苛刻了(甚至是一种不可能达到的标准)。在这两个极端之间,如何在相信相关性与寻找因果据之间达到合理的平衡呢?Scientists, economists and statisticians have tended to demand causal explanations for the patterns they see. It’s not enough to know that college graduates earn more money — we want to know whether the college education boosted their earnings, or if they were smart people who would have done well anyway. Merely looking for correlations was not the stuff of rigorous science.科学家、经济学家和统计学家倾向于要求为他们看到的现象提出因果解释。知道大学毕业生能赚更多钱还不够,我们想知道,大学教育是否提高了他们的收入,或者他们本来就是聪明人、不管接受大学教育与否都能赚更多钱。仅仅寻找相关性并非严格科学的做法。But with the advent of “big data” this argument has started to shift. Large data sets can throw up intriguing correlations that may be good enough for some purposes. (Who cares why price cuts are most effective on a Tuesday? If it’s Tuesday, cut the price.) Andy Haldane, chief economist of the Bank of England, recently argued that economists might want to take mere correlations more seriously. He is not the first big-data enthusiast to say so.但随着“大数据”的到来,这场争论开始发生变化。海量数据集可以产生一些有趣的相关性,在某些用途上它们就足够好用了(谁关心为何周二降价效果最好呢?如果确是这样,那就选这一天降价。)英国央行(BoE)首席经济学家安德鲁#8226;霍尔丹(Andy Haldane)不久前表示,经济学家们或许想更认真地看待纯粹相关性(mere correlation)。他不是第一个这么说的大数据热衷者。This brings us back to smoking and cancer. When the British epidemiologist Richard Doll first began to suspect the link in the late 1940s, his analysis was based on a mere correlation. The causal mechanism was unclear, as most of the carcinogens in tobacco had not been identified; Doll himself suspected that lung cancer was caused by fumes from tarmac roads, or possibly cars themselves.我们回头来讲抽烟与癌症之间的关系。20世纪40年代末,英国流行病学家理查德#8226;多尔(Richard Doll)最早开始怀疑二者之间的联系。当时他的分析基于纯粹相关性,他不清楚因果机制,因为当时还没确定烟草中的大多数致癌物。多尔本人怀疑肺癌的致病原因是柏油公路的烟气,或者可能就是汽车本身。Doll’s early work on smoking and cancer with Austin Bradford Hill, published in 1950, was duly criticised in its day as nothing more than a correlation. The great statistician Ronald Fisher repeatedly weighed into the argument in the 1950s, pointing out that it was quite possible that cancer caused smoking — after all, precancerous growths irritated the lung. People might smoke to soothe that irritation. Fisher also observed that some genetic predisposition might cause both lung cancer and a tendency to smoke. (Another statistician, Joseph Berkson, observed that people who were tough enough to resist adverts and peer pressure were also tough enough to resist lung cancer.)多尔与奥斯汀#8226;布拉德福德#8226;希尔(Austin Bradford Hill)在1950年发表了他们关于吸烟与癌症关系的早期研究结果,由于俩人的研究基于纯粹相关性,在当时果不其然遭到了批评。伟大的统计学家罗纳德#8226;费雪(Ronald Fisher)在20世纪50年代多次加入论战,指出很可能是癌症引起吸烟,毕竟癌前期病变会对肺部造成刺激,人们可能会通过吸烟来缓解这一刺激。费雪还认为有些遗传特征可能既会引发肺癌,还会引起吸烟倾向。(另一位统计学家约瑟夫#8226;伯克森(Joseph Berkson)提出,假如一个人强悍到足以抵制广告的诱惑和同龄人的压力,那么他也强悍到足以抵抗肺癌。)Hill and Doll showed us that correlation should not be dismissed too easily. But they also showed that we shouldn’t give up on the search for causal explanations. The pair painstakingly continued their research, and evidence of a causal association soon mounted.希尔和多尔的例子告诉我们,不要轻易否定相关性,但他们也以行动明,不应放弃寻找因果解释。俩人继续勤恳研究,很快就发现了更多表明因果关系的据。Hill and Doll took a pragmatic approach in the search for causation. For example, is there a dose-response relationship? Yes: heavy smokers are more likely to suffer from lung cancer. Does the timing make sense? Again, yes: smokers develop cancer long after they begin to smoke. This contradicts Fisher’s alternative hypothesis that people self-medicate with cigarettes in the early stages of lung cancer. Do multiple sources of evidence add up to a coherent picture? Yes: when doctors heard about what Hill and Doll were finding, many of them quit smoking, and it became possible to see that the quitters were at lower risk of lung cancer. We should respect correlation but it is a clue to a deeper truth, not the end of our investigations.希尔和多尔在寻找因果关系时采取了一种务实的方法。比如,是否存在一种剂量效应?是的,烟瘾大的人更可能患肺癌。烟龄长短有关系吗?有关系,吸烟者开始吸烟很久后,癌细胞开始形成。这与费舍尔设想的人们在肺癌早期阶段用烟草进行自我医疗的假设相矛盾。多个据来源凑到一起能否得到一个逻辑连贯的描述?是:能够得到。当医生们听闻希尔和多尔的发现时,许多医生开始戒烟,现实情况也表明戒烟者患肺癌的风险要更低。我们应该尊重相关性,但相关性只是通向更深层真理的一个线索,而不是研究的终点。It’s not clear why Huff and Fisher were so fixated on the idea that the growing evidence on smoking was a mere correlation. Both of them were paid as consultants by the tobacco industry and some will believe that the consulting fees caused their scepticism. It seems just as likely that their scepticism caused the consulting fees. We may never know.目前尚不清楚为什么面对越来越多的吸烟致癌的据,赫夫和费雪却执着地认为这仅是相关性。他们二人都是烟草行业的顾问,因而有些人会认为他们的怀疑动机来源于顾问费。但也很可能正是他们的怀疑带来了顾问费。到底哪个为因,哪个为果,后人可能永远不得而知。 /201504/372173宁德去哪精液常规检查

分页 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29