主题：【讨论】翻译讨论第二弹：回顾性风险评价

其实提供这一段的其他部分主要为了给出上下文背景（当然也欢迎指正），关键在于最后一句，我怎么整理都觉得说不顺溜。请求帮助~

老规矩，最后转化为悬赏帖~

The EPA's framework and guidelines for ecological risk assessment and the previous edition of this text distinguish retrospective from predictive risk assessment. This distinction has created some confusion, because it is nonsensical to speak of risks of events in the past. This text eliminates that distinction and focuses instead on the decision-supporting function of risk assessment. Hence, when assessing risks from spills or other past events, we are assessing risks associated with future consequences of those events. They include ongoing toxic effects, the spread of toxic levels of contaminants to other areas, loss of habitat due to failed restoration, and other sequela. Even when performing assessments to set monetary damages for past actions, we are not assessing risks of past events. For example, during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a certain number of sea otters, bald eagles, and other wildlife were killed. The natural resource damage assessment (Section 1.3.8) did not assess risks to those organisms. Rather, to the extent that the uncertainties in the damage assessment could be interpreted as risks, they should be interpreted as risks that the level of monetary damages assessed will be either insufficient or excessive with respect to the cost of restoration of the populations of those species, making good lost services of nature, and otherwise remediating ecological and economic injuries.