Sentence alignment for gv-eng-20110315-207428.xml (html) - gv-por-20110318-18644.xml (html)

#engpor
1USA: Science Bloggers Explain FukushimaEUA: Blogs de Ciência Explicam Fukushima
2This post is part of our special coverage Japan Earthquake 2011.Este artigo é parte da nossa cobertura especial do Terremoto no Japão em 2011.
3UPDATE (March 17): Josef Oehmen's original post (linked below) has been removed by Jason Morgan, apparently at the author's request.
4The post has been edited significantly and republished at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Blog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
5Dr. Oehmen's original post reflected the situation at the time - when only one of the Fukushima reactors was experiencing problems. His comments about the potential release of radioactivity have been removed in the revised post.O horror do terremoto e consequente tsunami de sexta-feira, 11 de março, próximos à costa leste de Honshu, no Japão, rapidamente abriu espaço para o pânico generalizado à medida em que explosões abalaram a usina nuclear de Fukushima.
6Jason Morgan's original post now conveys a message from Dr. Oehmen directing readers to the MIT blog:
7The version on mitnse.com is the most accurate, and as you can tell in many parts different to the version that appeared here on Jason's blog.
8This post is not keeping track of or explaining events after Mar 12. Events kept developing, and many people keep sharing their discovery with me that one is always smarter after the fact.
9Science bloggers at nature.com's The Great Beyond continue to monitor the situation very closely, including Geoff Brumfiel, who has provided periodic updates on radiation levels both near the damaged reactor and at various distances from it.
10His March 17 post includes the following: NHK also reports elevated radiation levels around Fukushima prefecture.Contudo uma comunidade da blogosfera parece responder mais moderadamente aos eventos se desenrolando em Fukushima: blogs de ciência.
11At Fukushima City, 65 km northwest of the plant and well outside the evacuation zone, authorities reported levels as high as 13.9 μSv/hr (0.0139 mSv/hr), according to the broadcaster.
12That is well above the background, and equivalent to 120 mSv/yr in rough terms, but it will only pose a threat to human health if it continues for a long period of time (see this post for more about the numbers).
13There has unquestionably been a high demand for quick and accurate information - both about specific radiation levels and how to put those levels in their appropriate context.Barry Brooks, do bravenewclimate (ou, “Admirável Novo Clima”) republicou um longo artigo [en] escrito por Josef Oehmen, um pesquisador do Instituto de Tecnologia de Massachusetts (MIT), e originalmente publicado por Jason Morgan [en].
14On March 16, Brumfiel tried to assess what the levels of radiation meant for the public: NHK television was reporting .08 mSv/hr at 25 kilometres west-northwest of the site today.Brooks e Morgan são apoiadores da energia nuclear e acreditam que a cobertura do “vazamento parcial” da usina nuclear pela mídia esteja exagerada e cheia de erros.
15A back-of-the-envelope calculations makes that 700 mSv per year (simply: .08 mSv x 24 hours x 365 days).Oehmen compartilha seus pensamentos baseado apenas no que ele têm lido na mídia, mas imediatamente tenta acalmar as pessoas:
16That is a serious dose, but not as bad as it initially sounds.Não houve e não haverá liberação significativa de radioatividade.
17For one thing, the radiation coming from Fukushima seems to be sporadic, so it won't stay at .08 mSv/hr for a long time.
18Additionally, you would only see the effects of that radiation if you were standing outside for a whole year. More realistically, people will take cover to the greatest degree possible, reducing their exposure considerably.Por “signifivativa” quero dizer um nível de radiação maior do que aquele que você receberia num vôo de longa distância - por exemplo -, ou bebendo um copo de cerveja que vem de certas áreas com altos níveis naturais de radiação de fundo.
19On top of that, iodine tablets and simple precautions for those outside (such as covering up, and removing clothing when moving indoors) will help a great deal.
20In this context .08 mSv/hr probably isn't much to worry about, though it may become an issue for rescue workers outside for long periods.
21As I mentioned, in Tokyo, Japan's science ministry reported average rates of .000144 mSv/hr yesterday afternoon.Já foram feitas comparações entre Fukushima e Chernobyl, apesar de blogueiros de ciência terem pedido cautela.
22That's double the background rate, but should residents of the capital be worried?Imagem por Osakabe Yasuo, copyright Demotix (04/06/2009).
23No. [original post begins below.]Sério, mas exagerado
24The horror of Friday 11 March's earthquake and resulting tsunami near the east coast of Honshu, Japan, soon gave way to widespread panic as explosions rocked the Fukushima nuclear power plant.Ecoando a preocupação do Dr. Oehmen de que a situação em Fukushima seja séria, mas ainda exagerada, David Ropeik escreve um post no Scientific American Guest Blog [en] (Blog de Convidados da revista Scientific American).
25However, one community in the blogosphere seemed to be more measured in response to events unfolding at Fukushima - science bloggers.
26Barry Brooks of bravenewclimate republished a lengthy post written by Josef Oehmen, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and originally published by Jason Morgan.
27Brooks and Morgan are supporters of nuclear power, and consider the mainstream coverage of the nuclear power plant “partial meltdown” to be overblown and full of errors.
28Oehmen gives his thoughts based only on what he has read in the media, but immediately seeks to put people at ease: There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.Ele nota que a situação na usina nuclear de Fukushima tem sido comparada, pela mídia, não só a Chernobyl (na Ucrânia), mas também às explosões nucleares de Hiroshima e Nagasaki, no Japão, durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial:
29By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation. Comparisons have been drawn between Fukushima and Chernobyl already, although science bloggers have advised restraint.Estudando os sobreviventes desses bombardeios, que foram banhados por doses horríveis de altos níveis de radiação - muito piores que qualquer coisa que pudesse vir da usina Daiichi (ou que tenha vindo de Chernobyl) -, nós podemos saber que a radiação ionizada da energia nuclear é um fator cancerígeno, mas um fator relativamente fraco.
30Image by Osakabe Yasuo, copyright Demotix (04/06/2009). Serious, but overhypedRopeik lists nuclear power interests among his clients, and disclosed this fact in the post.
31Echoing Dr. Oehmen's concerns that the situation at Fukushima is serious but still overhyped, David Ropeik writes a post at the Scientific American Guest Blog.Também no Scientific American Guest Blog, Rita King dá uma visão valiosa [en] do que é um vazamento nuclear realmente é, e explica algumas das diferenças entre este incidente e Chernobyl.
32He notes that the situation at the nuclear plant in Fukushima has been compared in the media not only to Chernobyl (in the Ukraine), but also the World War Two atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan:
33We know from studying the survivors of those bombings, who were bathed in horrific doses of high level radiation - far worse than anything that could come from the Daiichi plant (or that came out of Chernobyl) - that ionizing radiation from nuclear energy is a carcinogen, but a relatively weak one.
34Ropeik lists nuclear power interests among his clients, and disclosed this fact in the post.Ela também chama atenção para as visões dos apoiadores da energia nuclear e de seus críticos, visões frequentemente intratáveis:
35Also at the Scientific American Guest Blog, Rita King provides a valuable primer on what a “nuclear meltdown” really is and explains some of the differences between this incident and Chernobyl. She also notes the often intractable views between nuclear power's supporters and its critics:As opiniões sobre a energia nuclear tendem a ser binárias, com proponentes da indústria agindo como se nada pudesse dar errado, enquanto críticos, aterrorizados por um apocalípse nuclear, permanecem convencidos de que usinas nucleares antigas são bombas-relógio.
36Opinions around nuclear energy tend to be binary, with industry proponents acting as if nothing could possibly go wrong while critics, terrified of nuclear apocalypse, remain convinced that old nuclear plants are time bombs.
37Sharon Astyk of ScienceBlogs.com's Causabon's Book notes this attitude and suggests that this incident should have been foreseen and that contingency planning must play a greater role in our decisions:Sharon Astyk do blog Causabon's Book [en], do site ScienceBlogs.com, percebeu esses comportamentos e sugeriu que esse incidente deveria ter sido previsto e que planos de contigência devem ter um papel maior em nossas decisões:
38I keep thinking about the word “inconceivable” in relationship to the terrible events in Japan - the earthquake, now upgraded to a 9, the subsequent tsunami and the nuclear events.Não paro de pensar na palavra “inconcebível” em relação aos terríveis eventos no Japão - o terremoto, agora elevado para uma magnitude de 9, o subsequente tsunami e os eventos nucleares.
39As Nicole Foss's work has made clear, the Fukushima nuclear disaster is not a black swan - it follows on the heels of long warnings about the danger of building plants in such seismically sensitive places, and also after safety concerns within the plant itself.Como o trabalho de Nicole Foss deixou claro, o desastre nuclear de Fukushima não é excepcional - ele se encaixa no padrão dos largos avisos do perigo de se construir usinas em áreas tão sensíveis sismicamente, e mesmo depois de preocupações com a segurança da própria usina.
40We know that the plant was not designed to handle such a major earthquake.Nós sabemos que a usina não fora projetada para suportar um terremoto tão grande.
41Nuanced conversationNuances na conversa
42Science bloggers continue to have a nuanced conversation about the merits of nuclear power.Blogs de ciência continuam a manter uma conversa cheia de nuances sobre os méritos da energia nuclear.
43Leading the discussion are Scienceblogs.com's Mike the Mad Biologist and James Hrynyshyn.Liderando a discussão Mike, “the Mad Biologist” (ou, “o Biólogo Louco”), do Scienceblogs.com's e James Hrynyshyn.
44Both bloggers step away from the hyperbole in the current coverage and try to compare the benefits of nuclear power to other steps societies could take to increase energy supply and decrease demand.Os dois blogueiros fogem da hipérbole na atual cobertura da mídia e tentam comparar os benefícios da energia nuclear a outras medidas que as sociedades poderiam tomar para elevar a oferta de energia e diminuir a demanda.
45Mike the Mad Biologist suggests the nuclear industry move to develop an alternative form of nuclear power that uses thorium instead of uranium -while thorium creates several scientific challenges, it leaves less nuclear waste and is more abundant.Mike, o Biólogo Louco, [en] sugere que a indústria nuclear caminhe para desenvolver uma forma alternativa de energia nuclear que use tório ao invés de urânio - enquanto o tório cria diversos desafios científicos, ele gera menos resíduos nucleares e é mais abundante.
46He also notes that people in the United States need to make some radical changes in the way they live their lives to make large-scale energy conservation possible:Ele também aponta que as pessoas nos Estados Unidos precisam fazer mudanças radicais no jeito com que vivem suas vidas para possibilitar a conservação de energia em larga escala:
47One of the best ways to reduce the amount of stuff we have to light on fire is to move from single detached housing in areas with no efficient mass transit to apartments with access to mass transit (keep in mind that residential use and transporation account for about two-thirds of total energy consumption).Um dos melhores jeitos de reduzir a quantidade de coisas em que temos que atear fogo é mudarmos de áreas residenciais com casas separadas e sem transporte de massa eficiente para apartamentos com acesso a transporte de massa (tenha em mente que o uso residencial e o transporte são responsáveis por dois terços do consumo de energia total). Ou seja, nós temos que nos ‘desurbanizar' massivamente e simultaneamente ‘reurbanizar'.
48In other words, we have to massively ‘desuburbanize' and simultaneously ‘reurbanize.'Como este cenário parece pouquíssimo provável, Mike, o Biólogo Louco, chama a energia nuclear de “segunda melhor opção”.
49Since this scenario seems highly unlikely, Mike the Mad Biologist calls nuclear power “a second best option.”Since this scenario seems highly unlikely, Mike the Mad Biologist calls nuclear power “a second best option.”
50Hrynyshyn suggests it's more appropriate to compare nuclear power with other “alternative” power options:Hrynyshyn [en] sugere que seria mais apropriado comparar a energia nuclear a outras opções “alternativas de energia:
51I'd rather we compared nuclear's risk and benefits against those of clean renewables.Eu preferia que comparássemos o risco nuclear e os benefícios aos benefícios e risco de renováveis limpos.
52What's the worst-case scenario for a thermal solar power plant?Qual é o pior cenário para uma usina térmica solar?
53Even a wind farm engineer's most terrifying nightmare seems like a powder compared with nuclear technology.Até mesmo o pesadelo mais aterrorizante de um engenheiro de usinas eólicas parece poeira se comparado à energia nuclear.