關於 compiled with中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#旅遊泡泡 #帛琉旅遊 #旅遊學英文 非常感謝粉絲朋友熱情的支持，我們的podcast 在熱門首頁喔😍😍😍
超級開心的，明天繼續帶給大家的節目內容是👇

🌸4/14（三）13：30-14：00
旅遊泡泡成泡沫｜跟著官心妮去帛琉水母湖冒險「官心妮的英語力Sydney Kuan」

趕快拿起你的手機下載Mixer box 關注「官品心劇情聊天室」❤️

明天內容文字稿參考如下，可以先收藏起來喔～晚點會補上單字補充，明天節目過後會有中文翻譯喔🙋‍♀️

🌸4/14 Let’s party in Jellyfish Lake!

Of all the marine lakes in Palau, Jellyfish Lake serves as the most extraordinary natural wonder which attracts tourists from all over the world to witness this spectacle every year. With a short walk through the hiking trail and snorkeling gears in hand , both adults and children can have the ultimate swimming experience with millions of golden jellyfish.

Jellyfish Lake used to be connected to the ocean through tunnels and fissures；However, it gradually become isolated from the open sea owing to tectonic plate movement. Being separated from the sea, the lack of natural predators makes the jellyfish evolve into non-venomous creatures.

As most species of jellyfish in the sea can inject lethal toxins into their prey by using tentacles with lots of stinging cells and jeopardize the life of swimmers, it's self-explanatory that jellyfish lake tour can gain such great popularity among travelers.

Compiled by Sydney Kuan

福島核電廠驚見新汙染物 原能管制委員會警告 :「可能再次爆炸」！（03/10/2021 Newtalk 新頭殼）

（黃奕慈 綜合報導）今（10日）日本原子能管制委員會發布報告表示，東京電力公司在福島第一核電站內部發現了新的污染場所，且嚴重程度遠超乎預期，因此原本廢爐拆除計劃可能需要重新考慮。令人驚訝的是，福島第一核電廠的1號和3號機組核反應堆壓力容器排出的部分氣體發生了倒流，「有可能再次引發爆炸。」

根據《日本放送協會》今日報導指出，原子能管制委員會發布了一份「有關福島核事故的調查報告」，內容顯示出約7萬萬億貝克勒爾的輻射性物質可能附著在第一核電廠的2號和3號機組核反應堆的安全頂蓋上。

日本原子能管制委員會表示，由於污染程度遠超預期，工作人員將無法按原計劃拆除安全頂蓋，需要和東京電力公司一起重新考慮廢爐拆除計劃。這份報告還指出，福島第一核電廠的1、3號機組的核反應堆壓力容器排出的部分氣體倒流，由於其中含有氫氣，「可能會再次引發爆炸，還會讓汙染範圍擴大。」

此外，有一項最新的實驗顯示，如果福島第一核電廠的3號機組發生氫氣爆炸，還有可能會引燃核電廠內部的其他可燃氣體，導致連環爆炸。所以為了確保廢墟拆除工作的安全進行，東京電力公司表示將對設備進行更加詳細的檢測。

在2011年3月11日，東日本大地震引發的大海嘯，襲擊了位在海邊的福島第一核電站，該核電廠的發電設備被水淹，導致冷卻系統失靈。在6個反應堆中的3個發生了熔毀。在接下來的幾天裡，1號和3號反應堆多次發生氫氣爆炸，並在環境中外洩了大量放射性物質。

PS. 編按：日本NHK官網上 03/10 所刊載的相關報導全文如下：

福島 NEWS WEB
福島放送局 トップ

原子力規制委が事故調査の報告書

原子力規制委員会は、おととし再開した東京電力・福島第一原子力発電所の事故調査の報告書をまとめ、原子炉建屋の上部で激しい汚染が見つかるなどしたことから、今後の廃炉作業について東京電力と検討を進めるとしています。

原子力規制委員会は、放射線量が下がった場所を中心に２年前から事故調査を再開し、その結果を１０日、報告書にまとめました。

それによりますと、核燃料が溶け落ちるメルトダウンを起こした１号機から３号機の３基の原子炉にあった放射性物質のおよそ１割にあたるあわせて７京ベクレルが、２号機と３号機の建屋上部にあるシールドプラグと呼ばれるコンクリートの蓋に付着している可能性があることが新たにわかったということです。

規制委員会は汚染が予想以上に激しく、仮に廃炉に向けて蓋を取り外す場合、人が近寄って安全に作業することが極めて困難になるとして、被ばく対策を含めて今後の廃炉作業の方法について東京電力と検討を進めるとしています。

このほか、原子炉がある格納容器を守るため中の気体を外に放出する「ベント」という操作を試みた１号機と３号機では、気体の一部が配管を通じて建屋に逆流していたこともわかり、これにより建屋内の汚染を広げた可能性があると指摘しています。

また、逆流した気体には水素も含まれていて、水素爆発につながったおそれもあるとして、今後、設備の検証などを進める必要があるとしています。

水素爆発については映像を分析するなど初めて詳細な検証が行われ、３号機では最初の爆発に続き、水素とは別の可燃性ガスも混ざった爆発的な燃焼が連続して起きていた可能性が高いとしました。

規制委員会は今後も調査を継続するとしています。

NHK完整報導內容請見：
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/lnews/fukushima/20210310/6050013761.html

英文翻譯如下：
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has compiled a report on the accident investigation of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, which has been reopened, and found severe pollution at the top of the reactor building. We are going to proceed with the examination.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has resumed accident investigations two years ago, mainly in areas where radiation levels have dropped, and summarized the results in a report on the 10th.

According to this, about 10% of the radioactive materials in the three reactors of Units 1 to 3, which caused the meltdown of the nuclear fuel, totaling 7K Becquerel, were placed in the upper part of the buildings of Units 2 and 3. It is newly discovered that it may be attached to a concrete lid called a shield plug.

The Regulatory Commission said that the pollution was more severe than expected, and if the lid was removed for decommissioning, it would be extremely difficult for people to approach and work safely. Will be discussed with TEPCO.

In addition, at Units 1 and 3, which attempted an operation called "venting" to release the gas inside to protect the containment vessel where the reactor is located, part of the gas flowed back into the building through piping. It turns out that this may have spread the pollution inside the building.

In addition, the backflow gas also contains hydrogen, which may have led to a hydrogen explosion, and it is necessary to proceed with verification of equipment in the future.

Detailed verification of the hydrogen explosion was carried out for the first time, such as by analyzing the video, and it is possible that at Unit 3, following the first explosion, explosive combustion mixed with flammable gas other than hydrogen occurred continuously. Was high.

The Regulatory Commission says it will continue to investigate.

中文翻譯如下：

核監管委員會已經對福島第一核電站的事故調查進行了彙編，該報告已經重新開放，並在反應堆頂部發現了嚴重污染，我們將繼續進行檢查。

核監管委員會兩年前已恢復事故調查，主要是在輻射水平下降的地區，並在10日的報告中總結了結果。

據此，導致1號至3號機組的三個反應堆中導致核燃料融化的約10％的放射性物質（總計7K Becquerel）被放置在2號和3號機組的建築物的上部。是新發現的，它可能會附在一個稱為屏蔽塞的混凝土蓋上。

監管委員會說，污染比預期的還要嚴重，如果卸下蓋子進行退役，人們接近和安全工作將極為困難，將與東京電力公司進行討論。

另外，在1號和3號機組中，嘗試進行“排氣（venting)”作業以釋放內部氣體以保護反應堆所在的安全殼，部分氣體通過管道回流到建築物中。可能已將污染散佈在建築物內部。

此外，回流氣體中還包含氫氣，這可能導致氫氣爆炸，因此有必要在將來進行設備驗證。

首次對氫氣爆炸進行了詳細的驗證，例如通過分析視頻，並且在第一次爆炸後的3號機組中，可能會連續發生爆炸混合了除氫氣以外的易燃氣體的爆炸燃燒。

監管委員會表示將繼續調查。

Newtalk新頭殼報導的完整內容請見：
https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2021-03-10/547169

♡

各位，生成器也許已沒有用了。選管會一天就收到4500封電郵。看來，大家炸他電郵還是有點用的。

以下乃沈大師言為「內部AO提供範本」。的確是官話文章，請先仔細閱讀，才選擇是否發出電郵吧。

你還有5小時。

请广传，好人一生平安。

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

好想出國玩，前陣子好不容易開放的帛琉旅遊旅遊泡泡，立刻變成泡沫，無法真的出國的我們，就來聽聽海島達人官心妮的潛水遊記吧!讓你邊玩邊學英文~讓心妮告訴你更多帛琉探險的故事，這次帶大家線上冒險水母湖~兩天的live podcast 大成功，謝謝一起參與的粉絲朋友們!4/14節目英文內容的如下，可以搭配官式姊妹的音檔一起看喔~

✨4/14 Let’s party in Jellyfish Lake!
Of all the marine lakes in Palau, Jellyfish Lake serves as the most extraordinary natural wonder which attracts tourists from all over the world to witness this spectacle every year. With a short walk through the hiking trail and snorkeling gears in hand , both adults and children can have the ultimate swimming experience with millions of golden jellyfish.

Jellyfish Lake used to be connected to the ocean through tunnels and fissures；However, it gradually become isolated from the open sea owing to tectonic plate movement. Being separated from the sea, the lack of natural predators makes the jellyfish evolve into non-venomous creatures.

As most species of jellyfish in the sea can inject lethal toxins into their prey by using tentacles with lots of stinging cells and jeopardize the life of swimmers, it's self-explanatory that jellyfish lake tour can gain such great popularity among travelers.

Compiled by Sydney Kuan

✨中文翻譯及單字補充

歡迎到官品心Facebook查看更多
https://www.facebook.com/pinhsinkuan/​​​

如果你喜歡我們的節目，歡迎留下五星評價，並留言給我們鼓勵喔~
關於人生你有任何想說的想發洩的想分享的，
都歡迎來信讓我們為你解憂~clairelin219@gmail.com

🎇【官品心劇情聊天室 Podcast 收聽資訊】

Apple：https://apple.co/3aamd8T​​​
Mixer Box：https://www.mixerbox.com/podcast/1255979
SoundOn：https://sndn.link/pinhsinkuan​​​
Spotify：https://spoti.fi/3o39xFy​​​
MyMusic：https://pse.is/3ctaqp​
Google：https://pse.is/3bcgs5​
KKBOX：https://bit.ly/2YhTaL3​​​

🎇了解更多品心私下的生活

官品心IG https://www.instagram.com/pinhsinkuan
官品心 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pinhsinkuan/​​​​
合作邀約：clairelin219@gmail.ocm