一、

　　There is nothing like the suggestion of a cancer risk to scare a parent, especially one of the over-educated, eco-conscious type.

　　沒有什么事情比有得癌癥的跡象更讓父母感到害怕的了，尤其對于受到過度教育、對生態(tài)環(huán)境敏感的那種人來說。

　　So you can imagine the reaction when a recent USA Today investigation of air quality around the nations schools singled out those in the smugly(自鳴得意的)green village of Berkeley, Calif., as being among the worst in the country.

　　所以當《今日美國》在近期公布的一份全國范圍內(nèi)的學(xué)校周邊空氣質(zhì)量調(diào)查中，把加州伯克利的綠色環(huán)保小鎮(zhèn)列為全國最差時，你可以想象到那些自鳴得意的人的反應(yīng)。

　　The citys public high school, as well as a number of daycare centers, preschools, elementary and middle schools, fell in the lowest 10%. Industrial pollution in our town had supposedly turned students into living science experiments breathing in a laboratorys worth of heavy metals like manganese, chromium and nickel each day.

　　該市的公立高中以及為數(shù)眾多的日間看護中心、學(xué)前教育機構(gòu)、小學(xué)和中學(xué)都在最差的10%之列。我們鎮(zhèn)上的工業(yè)污染大概把學(xué)生置于活體科學(xué)實驗之中，學(xué)生們以等值于實驗室的劑量每天吸入錳、鎘和鎳等重金屬。

　　This in a city that requires school cafeterias to serve organic meals. Great, I thought, organic lunch, toxic campus.

　　這發(fā)生在一個要求學(xué)校的餐廳提供有機飯菜的城市中。太偉大了，我想，有機午餐，有毒校園。

　　Since December, when the report came out, the mayor, neighborhood activists(活躍分子)and various parent-teacher associations have engaged in a fierce battle over its validity: over the guilt of the steel-casting factory on the western edge of town, over union jobs versus childrens health and over what, if anything, ought to be done.

　　自12月份報告公布以來，市長，社區(qū)活躍分子和各種家長---教師聯(lián)合會都參與到一場關(guān)于報告的可信度的激烈斗爭中：關(guān)于位于小鎮(zhèn)西北角上的鋼鐵鑄造廠的罪責(zé)、有關(guān)孩子們的健康VS工會職責(zé)，以及應(yīng)該去做的事，如果還有事能做的話。

　　With all sides presenting their own experts armed with conflicting scientific studies, whom should parents believe?

　　每一方都有代表他們的專家，手頭上的科學(xué)研究結(jié)果相互矛盾，父母究竟應(yīng)該相信誰?

　　Is there truly a threat here, we asked one another as we dropped off our kids, and if so, how great is it?

　　我們在讓孩子下車時會相互詢問，這兒是不是真的存在危險?如果真有危險的話，有多大?

　　And how does it compare with the other, seemingly perpetual health scares we confront, like panic over lead in synthetic athletic fields?

　　和其他危險相比怎么樣?比如像綜合運動場上鉛含量這樣我們似乎要面臨的永久性的健康恐慌。

　　Rather than just another weird episode in the town that brought you protesting environmentalists, this latest drama is a trial for how todays parents perceive risk, how we try to keep our kids safewhether its possible to keep them safein what feels like an increasingly threatening world. It raises the question of what, in our time, safe could even mean.

　　這不僅僅是發(fā)生在城鎮(zhèn)中的又一個奇特事件 ，引來一群游行抗議的環(huán)保主義者，這場最新的鬧劇是對現(xiàn)在的父母如何看待風(fēng)險的試金石，我們?nèi)绾卧谝粋€看起來日益危機四起的世界里盡量保證我們孩子的安全----無論能否保證他們的安全。這引起的問題是，在我們的時代安全究竟意味著什么。

　　Theres no way around the uncertainty, says Kimberly Thompson, president of Kid Risk, a nonprofit group that studies childrens health. That means your choices can matter, but it also means you arent going to know if they do.

　　沒有辦法解決不確定的問題，金伯利湯普森說，她是一個研究兒童健康問題的非盈利性組織孩子的危險的主席。這意味著你的選擇很重要，但這也意味著如果你的選擇真的很重要的話，你也沒有辦法知道。

　　A 2004 report in the journal Pediatrics explained that nervous parents have more to fear from fire, car accidents and drowning than from toxic chemical exposure.

　　一份2004年發(fā)表在學(xué)術(shù)期刊《兒科》上的報告解釋了不安的父母們對火災(zāi)、車禍和溺水的恐慌要更甚于接觸有毒化學(xué)物質(zhì)。

　　To which I say: Well, obviously. But such concrete hazards are beside the point.

　　對此我認為：嗯，很明顯。但是這些具體的危險并非重點。

　　Its the dangers parents cantand may neverquantify that occur all of sudden. Thats why Ive rid my cupboard of microwave food packed in bags coated with a potential cancer-causing substance, but although Ive lived blocks from a major fault line for more than 12 years, I still havent bolted our bookcases to the living room wall.

　　正式父母們不能----可能永遠也不能-----量化危險會突然發(fā)生。這正是我已經(jīng)把所有包裝袋上涂有可能致癌物質(zhì)的微波食品全部扔掉的原因，但是盡管我住在一個距離大地質(zhì)斷層幾街區(qū)遠的地方已經(jīng)12年了，我仍然沒把我們的書架固定在客廳的墻上。

　　一、

　　There is nothing like the suggestion of a cancer risk to scare a parent, especially one of the over-educated, eco-conscious type.

　　沒有什么事情比有得癌癥的跡象更讓父母感到害怕的了，尤其對于受到過度教育、對生態(tài)環(huán)境敏感的那種人來說。

　　So you can imagine the reaction when a recent USA Today investigation of air quality around the nations schools singled out those in the smugly(自鳴得意的)green village of Berkeley, Calif., as being among the worst in the country.

　　所以當《今日美國》在近期公布的一份全國范圍內(nèi)的學(xué)校周邊空氣質(zhì)量調(diào)查中，把加州伯克利的綠色環(huán)保小鎮(zhèn)列為全國最差時，你可以想象到那些自鳴得意的人的反應(yīng)。

　　The citys public high school, as well as a number of daycare centers, preschools, elementary and middle schools, fell in the lowest 10%. Industrial pollution in our town had supposedly turned students into living science experiments breathing in a laboratorys worth of heavy metals like manganese, chromium and nickel each day.

　　該市的公立高中以及為數(shù)眾多的日間看護中心、學(xué)前教育機構(gòu)、小學(xué)和中學(xué)都在最差的10%之列。我們鎮(zhèn)上的工業(yè)污染大概把學(xué)生置于活體科學(xué)實驗之中，學(xué)生們以等值于實驗室的劑量每天吸入錳、鎘和鎳等重金屬。

　　This in a city that requires school cafeterias to serve organic meals. Great, I thought, organic lunch, toxic campus.

　　這發(fā)生在一個要求學(xué)校的餐廳提供有機飯菜的城市中。太偉大了，我想，有機午餐，有毒校園。

　　Since December, when the report came out, the mayor, neighborhood activists(活躍分子)and various parent-teacher associations have engaged in a fierce battle over its validity: over the guilt of the steel-casting factory on the western edge of town, over union jobs versus childrens health and over what, if anything, ought to be done.

　　自12月份報告公布以來，市長，社區(qū)活躍分子和各種家長---教師聯(lián)合會都參與到一場關(guān)于報告的可信度的激烈斗爭中：關(guān)于位于小鎮(zhèn)西北角上的鋼鐵鑄造廠的罪責(zé)、有關(guān)孩子們的健康VS工會職責(zé)，以及應(yīng)該去做的事，如果還有事能做的話。

　　With all sides presenting their own experts armed with conflicting scientific studies, whom should parents believe?

　　每一方都有代表他們的專家，手頭上的科學(xué)研究結(jié)果相互矛盾，父母究竟應(yīng)該相信誰?

　　Is there truly a threat here, we asked one another as we dropped off our kids, and if so, how great is it?

　　我們在讓孩子下車時會相互詢問，這兒是不是真的存在危險?如果真有危險的話，有多大?

　　And how does it compare with the other, seemingly perpetual health scares we confront, like panic over lead in synthetic athletic fields?

　　和其他危險相比怎么樣?比如像綜合運動場上鉛含量這樣我們似乎要面臨的永久性的健康恐慌。

　　Rather than just another weird episode in the town that brought you protesting environmentalists, this latest drama is a trial for how todays parents perceive risk, how we try to keep our kids safewhether its possible to keep them safein what feels like an increasingly threatening world. It raises the question of what, in our time, safe could even mean.

　　這不僅僅是發(fā)生在城鎮(zhèn)中的又一個奇特事件 ，引來一群游行抗議的環(huán)保主義者，這場最新的鬧劇是對現(xiàn)在的父母如何看待風(fēng)險的試金石，我們?nèi)绾卧谝粋€看起來日益危機四起的世界里盡量保證我們孩子的安全----無論能否保證他們的安全。這引起的問題是，在我們的時代安全究竟意味著什么。

　　Theres no way around the uncertainty, says Kimberly Thompson, president of Kid Risk, a nonprofit group that studies childrens health. That means your choices can matter, but it also means you arent going to know if they do.

　　沒有辦法解決不確定的問題，金伯利湯普森說，她是一個研究兒童健康問題的非盈利性組織孩子的危險的主席。這意味著你的選擇很重要，但這也意味著如果你的選擇真的很重要的話，你也沒有辦法知道。

　　A 2004 report in the journal Pediatrics explained that nervous parents have more to fear from fire, car accidents and drowning than from toxic chemical exposure.

　　一份2004年發(fā)表在學(xué)術(shù)期刊《兒科》上的報告解釋了不安的父母們對火災(zāi)、車禍和溺水的恐慌要更甚于接觸有毒化學(xué)物質(zhì)。

　　To which I say: Well, obviously. But such concrete hazards are beside the point.

　　對此我認為：嗯，很明顯。但是這些具體的危險并非重點。

　　Its the dangers parents cantand may neverquantify that occur all of sudden. Thats why Ive rid my cupboard of microwave food packed in bags coated with a potential cancer-causing substance, but although Ive lived blocks from a major fault line for more than 12 years, I still havent bolted our bookcases to the living room wall.

　　正式父母們不能----可能永遠也不能-----量化危險會突然發(fā)生。這正是我已經(jīng)把所有包裝袋上涂有可能致癌物質(zhì)的微波食品全部扔掉的原因，但是盡管我住在一個距離大地質(zhì)斷層幾街區(qū)遠的地方已經(jīng)12年了，我仍然沒把我們的書架固定在客廳的墻上。