MAIS UM DO HANS ROSLING

Em mais uma deliciosa apresentação, Hans Rosling apresenta dados e estatísticas sobre o HIV. Mais uma vez ele combate a ignorância de se achar a África homogênea.

NATURE PODCAST 2010-06-17

Geoff Brumfiel: Coming up, the incredible story of a woman from Baltimore and her immortal cells.

Rebecca Skloot: If you could have saved all the cells that grew from that one little tiny sample by today they would weigh more than 50 million metric tons.

Kerri Smith: And how your science is judged.

Richard Van Noorden: Measuring scientific quality is a bit like trying to measure intelligence. It's quite fuzzy to define what you're looking for.

Kerri Smith: This is the Nature Podcast, I am Kerri Smith.

Geoff Brumfiel: And I'm Geoff Brumfiel. First up this week, a meeting of two rather different academic tribes. Kerri, you went last week to a conference organized by the Institute of Philosophy which is part of the University of London.

Kerri Smith: That's right, Yeah, I don't do a great deal of thinking about philosophy but I went along last week to a conference called Humans and other Animals and there are talks by philosophers and scientists on things like the boundaries of humanity and whether any features from animals can be considered overlapping in humans. And topics ranged from whether animals display, empathy and morality to how we might deal in future with human-animal hybrids or what philosopher John Harris called Hum-animals.

Geoff Brumfiel: Did he copyright that?

Kerri Smith: I don't know whether he has and he certainly hasn't copyrighted any of the hybrids he was talking about because he is not a cell biologist. Several talks touched on whether humans are in any way special or exceptional that kind of thing.

Geoff Brumfiel: So Hum-animals aside and if he doesn't copyright it, I might, were there any highlights for you.

Kerri Smith: Well there was a nicely illustrated talk by Frans De Waal who is a primatologist and psychologist from Emory University in Atlanta and he was talking about his long time research on empathy and morality in chimps and monkeys. And he had loads of really funny videos of monkeys sort of learning to bargain and handing chips back to the experimenter and getting a grape and returning, getting cross if the fellow monkey got a grape and they only got some cucumber or something and I caught up with Frans after his talk and I asked him whether he ever encountered problems talking about empathy in animals.

Frans De Waal: Fifteen years ago, I think people laughed about it, but you know thirty years ago people laughed even about empathy in humans. So the pioneers of empathy studies in humans they have to fight for the topic as a serious topic because people classified it with telepathy and astrology. They thought it was a very fishy topic and now of course, it's a very respected topic in human neuroscience and it's becoming in animals; there are mouse studies, there are primate studies, there are bird studies. It's beginning now on animals to be a serious topic of how one individual is affected by the emotional status of some other individual.

Kerri Smith: Is it difficult not to attribute human-like emotions to your subjects?

Frans De Waal: Yeah, so sometimes it happens, of course the people say why you cannot talk about empathy in chimpanzees because that's an anthropomorphic term and my attitude is always that if two animals are very closely related like chimps and humans, it's very unlikely that they can produce similar behaviour without similar psychology. And so if chimpanzees kiss and embrace after a fight and we call that reconciliation that's because we assume that the process must be very similar to what we see in humans. So, the default assumption is actually I think is a Darwinian assumption. The default assumption is that animals who are closely related must have a very closely related psychology at the same time.

Kerri Smith: But biologists weren't the only attendees at this conference; there were philosophers and social scientists there too. I asked Barry Smith, Director of the Institute of Philosophy whether he thought scientists and philosophers made good bedfellows.

Barry Smith: You cannot now study any subjects like animal minds or infant development or language, we don't know even what the science of that area is telling you. So, I think most people who are interested in a given topic have to know about it and they have to know what other disciplines are saying about it. So better crossing the divide, being sensitive to the very different methodology, different levels of description, different ways of asking questions, but would better at talking.

Kerri Smith: But there are nonetheless still quite a few differences between the way philosophers and biologists think about humans and human uniqueness.

Barry Smith: In this conference in particular I think there is a great deal of caution, I see that people are very polite and careful with one another to suggest that what we are finding out from primatology shows that animals are much more sophisticated than we thought of many more characteristics in common with us and indeed have a early signs of the kind of higher attributes like morality and reasoning that we have. But I feel that people haven't been willing to sort of take home the really tough point about, you know, where the boundaries lie. We are creatures who have minds and know we have minds and that makes us very different from the others. We have language and the basis for our having language is still highly controversial but we do seem to have a large biological endowment that makes us very different from animals. Other people are trying to talk about how close we are to animals and there's a big fear still of saying how distinct we are from other animals because it's science as though that makes us entitled to treat others all that creatures that we may want or because as science as though where the creatures have got, either of those are true but we should insist on our difference.

Kerri Smith: I was interested after hearing that what Barry Smith thought the role of philosophers was, did he feel himself turning into a scientist?

Barry Smith: No I think it's no good for philosophers pertaining to be amateur scientists; we are not good at that, we don't do that work. What we have to do is contribute the overall understanding of the mind in such a way as to make a difference to the neuroscientist and actually try to maybe make sure they're not confusing two things for one. Sometime trying to find models or fundamental ways of thinking or both the notions that they are using and then ask them whether or not they can test or workout which of the two models is the right one or which is more consistent with the results they have. We should never pretend to be amateur scientists; we will be berated Actually, I think this is a kind of new and enlightenment phase at the moment, namely that is a sort of project understanding the mind, it's dependence on the brain and the body and it's interactions with its environment. It doesn't matter whether you're are a psychologist or a neuroscientist or a philosopher, if you can help on that project , a single project that's bringing all the people who are going to actually have something to say and who help figure things out.

Kerri Smith: Barry Smith and before him Frans De Waal.

Geoff Brumfiel: Coming up shortly the woman whose cells changed the face of medical science but before that here are the headlines.

Kerri Smith: Two different research teams have hit upon a new way that brain cells change their activity in response to experience. Neurons communicate via electrical signals but they are rigid in their communication, how they're activated, in which other cells they talk to is determined during development and as a result of experience. Scientists at Kings College London and Kyoto University have been studying the part of a neuron that generates its electrical signal and find that it can shift where it sits on a cell as a result of what input it receives. This can make a cell more or less excitable, knowing how this signal generating portion of a neuron gets positioned could help uncover new targets for treating conditions like epilepsy. Nature advance online publication 13 June 2010; Nature advance online publication 13 June 2010

Geoff Brumfiel: A rare mutation that affects how our immune system attacks could tell us how susceptible we are to autoimmune disorders. The mutations in an enzyme called SIAE that helps regulate immune cells that produce antibiotics. When mice lack this enzyme their immune cells begin to attack their own tissue. A Harvard team sequenced the gene from nearly a thousand patients for autoimmune disease and compared them with healthy individuals. Mutations in the gene were more common in patients with the disorder. The results of the first example of a link between rare mutations and complex but common diseases like type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. Nature advance online publication 16 June 2010

Geoff Brumfiel: In just a moment a glimpse into the contents of the kuiper belt. First though a new book tells a story of a woman whose cells revolutionized biology.

Kerri Smith: In 1951, a woman from Baltimore, Henrietta Lacks died of an aggressive form of cervical cancer. Henrietta's cells were special. Unlike other cells they didn't die when they were removed from her body, consequently they were the first human cells to be grown in a lab. They've helped scientists find a vaccine for polio, learn about gene mapping and even test the effects of zero gravity on biology. There is still a mainstay of cell culture in labs today, but Henrietta knew none of these. The doctor who diagnosed her never told her he had taken some cells and she never found out that George Gey a scientist working on tissue culture have been able to grow those cells in his lab. A new book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, tells the story. Author Rebecca Skloot told me what happened after the cells arrived in Gey's lab.

Rebecca Skloot: Her cells just took off within a couple of days of leave, when she left the hospital her cancer cells were doubling their numbers every 24 hours and normal cells died immediately and her cancer cells just didn't ever stop, they grow with this, the same intensity now and for a little while George Gey was sceptical and saying well maybe they're going to die, you know we shouldn't give our hopes up but it became clear pretty quickly, these things were never going to die. So he began sending them to anyone who wanted to use them for research, because there were so many scientists who wanted to have cells. You know, today scientists go online and order cells and they arrive in the mail and it's just this very standard procedure, but at that time you couldn't do that. So, he or his wife or his assistant would take, you know, tubes of tumour cells and go to the airport and find a flight attendant or a pilot who was going to the city where the cells needed to go and he would say, you know, would you stick this in your pocket and fly this to, you know, Minneapolis or you know India or wherever and on the other end would be a scientist waiting and they would grab the cells run back to their lab and grow them and then they give it to their friends and the cells spread all over the world very quickly like that.

Kerri Smith: Is there any estimate how many cells there are?

Rebecca Skloot: Yeah, there have been a few, and they are all sort of mind boggling, the size of the sample that they took from her tumour was about the size of a dime and if you could have saved all of the cells that grew from that one little tiny sample by today they would weigh more than 50 million metric tons which is more than 150 Empire State Buildings, so this is inconceivable number especially given that cells totally nothing. Eventually a factory was setup at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama where they mass produced her cells to the tune of about 6 trillions cells a week and sent those out to laboratories around the world. You know and the science done with these cells was amazing, right after that, they were used to develop polio vaccine, you know went up in the space mission to see what would happen to human cells in zero gravity. Her cells were the first ever cloned. Her genes are some of the first ever mapped. I mean, it's just the list of science done using them, it goes on and on and they allowed cell culture in a lot of ways to begin as a field. So, at that time, scientists didn't know really just the basics, you know, how do you freeze and thaw a cell without damaging it. What you feed it in culture to keep it alive, what kind of glass is the best kind to use, all of those things which are so basic now and almost taken for granted they figured out using HeLa cells.

Kerri Smith: So what it was an auspicious start by anyone's judgment to sort of field of cell culture, but there have been problems with HeLa cells, haven't there?

Rebecca Skloot: Absolutely, yeah, it's a fascinating part of the story, so after HeLa cells were first grown, scientists began using the techniques that George Gey had used to grow HeLa to create a library of human tissues. So they'd hoped that they would be able to have, you know, prostate cells and breast cells and all this different samples growing, so they can use them to study different diseases and millions and millions of dollars was devoted just to growing cancer cells in culture. And at one point in the late 60s, one young scientist was, he was looking at a prostate cancer cell lining and noticed that it had two X chromosomes and prostate comes from men which have an X and a Y. So, you can't have a prostate cancer cell with two X chromosomes. These cells also had this very rare genetic marker that was really only found in black people. So he started looking at a lot of these other samples and you know including samples that were supposed to be from white patients and they all seem to be from a black woman. So at some point, he realized that HeLa cells had actually contaminated all of the other cells that were being used in research and that for decades scientists had essentially been growing and re-growing HeLa thinking they were growing lots of other things, the contamination was so widespread that it had essentially cost millions of dollars in damage.

Kerri Smith: So this is where her family comes back into the story and this is actually, you know, I am a geek about cells, of course, I am a science journalist but this is one of the most compelling, you know, aspects of the story and really enjoying and fascinating. Their DNA was key to HeLa's future use, after this contamination issue, wasn't it?

Rebecca Skloot: Yeah, it was and it was, so the thinking behind it was essentially, if we could get DNA from her children, we could treat this like a crime scene and you can identify what was HeLa and what wasn't by comparing the DNA in her children's cells to the other cells out there and if they matched they were obviously HeLa and so one scientist came up with the idea of tracking down her children and he sent a postdoc of his to just essentially call them one day and ask for samples.

Kerri Smith: And to find out what happened when Henrietta's family takes the stage, you have to listen to the full length interview with Rebecca Skloot on our podcast extra arriving on http://nature.com/ and on your podfeed shortly.

Jingle

Kerri Smith: Now, Geoff you have news of the far out kind.

Geoff Brumfiel: That's right, at the edge of the solar system lies an army of objects quietly orbiting mass, it's called the Kuiper belt and it's made up of balls of rock and ice, there can be hundreds of kilometres across. But because they are far away there is not much to see, so it's been hard to work out what the Kuiper belt is made of. A team led by Jim Elliot from MIT has studied these objects in much the same way we spot extra solar planet by watching them pass in front of other stars. I spoke to him this week to ask just how hard it is to track a tiny rock at the edge of the solar system. Nature 465, 897–900 (17 June 2010)

Jim Elliot: Well, it's a matter of hard work and some good luck, because you have to work on determining the orbit as accurately as possible of a Kuiper belt object, and measuring the position of the stars accurately as you can. We do all that the area maybe around 500 kilometres and the Kuiper belt object are actually smaller than that, so when the area is bigger than the radius you can't say for sure where you should put your telescope, so our solution to that was to have lot of telescopes. I think we had almost 30 of them and we had those placed across the projected path and so we figured that at least a couple of these telescopes will observe this occupation.

Geoff Brumfiel: And I mean what can you actually tell? I mean, this is presumably a star that itself is very far away and then the object is very small and it sort of blinks out for a second, what can you actually ...

Jim Elliot: Yeah at one point it blinks out 8 seconds and another point it blinks out 11 seconds and despite not knowing the orbit that accurately in position, we do know the velocity, the speed of Kuiper belt object very accurately. So from the time that it blinked out you can say what the distance, how fixed the body is at that spot.

Geoff Brumfiel: And this thing was pretty big I guess, the end of the day, it says it had a radius of 150 kilometres although less than that.

Jim Elliot: That's true. I mean that's big according to our scales of distances between cities or so, but it's small compared to astronomical objects. In fact, it turned out to be a lot smaller than we people figured it was before this.

Geoff Brumfiel: So what does that mean then?

Jim Elliot: Well, that means we know how bright it is by measuring the intensity of the reflected sunlight. So, what it means is that it reflects a lot of the light and in fact it reflects about 80% of the light that hits it and that's unusual, people who have measured the spectra and found fresh water ice in the infrared spectra, so we think that the surface is composed mostly of ordinary ice that we know here on earth.

Geoff Brumfiel: Okay, last question here is just Pluto, is it a Kuiper belt object.

Jim Elliot: Yeah, Pluto is a very much of a mystery before the Kuiper belt was discovered, because it was so small and it was, sort of a funny orbit that crossed inside of Neptune. So, the discovery of the Kuiper belt and large objects coupled of which are probably larger than Pluto prompted the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a class called dwarf planet. So, clearly Pluto is a member of the Kuiper belt.

Geoff Brumfiel: MIT's Jim Elliot. Now it's time for the news chat and this week we are going to be talking about something that any of you who have worked in a lab and at one point or another applied for a grant or tried to get tenure know all about, metrics. And Richard Van Noorden is joining me here in the studio to talk about metrics. We have a big special in this week's Nature and we've seen some of the things that people think about metrics. There is a survey, is that right? Nature 465, 870–872 (17 June 2010)

Richard Van Noorden: Nature has done this package this week on scientists' worries about metrics and first of all we wanted to know, do metrics actually matter to researchers? So we did a survey of 150 researchers and 63% of them said they were unhappy about how some of these metrics, these numerical ways of assessing how good you are as a scientist are used by administrators and provosts and those making decisions on hiring and tenure information.

Geoff Brumfiel: So what were the scientists worried about?

Richard Van Noorden: Well, first of all some of these numerical measures as we will go on to discuss are quite flawed and not very exact but they are worried that the administrators see them as exact quantitative objective measurements. They're worried that too much of the concentration on these measurements will take attention away from other contributions that make for a good researcher, such as contributions to mentoring or teaching or community life or just good research that doesn't make it into a high impact publication. And they are worried that this sort of mechanical approach will affect the way they do their research; too much reliance on these metrics can drive behaviour such as salamic slicing where you publish all your research and a small number of many papers rather than waiting for them all at least a few of the whole field and publishing one really good paper.

Geoff Brumfiel: Yeah, I mean one of the real striking part of this survey I noticed was that 71% of respondents thought that other researchers were gaming the system, they were cheating.

Richard Van Noorden: There is always this worry that if you know then say citation numbers are being used to judge, you will try and bump those up by self-citations or you might for example be peer reviewing another paper, which you know notice is citing yours, and that means that your metric will improve so you approve that one and there's all this politics surrounding metrics which to some extent is inevitable. But, you know, we were picking up the worries that researchers have about these and it's worth saying that there's been really a massive boom in the use of metrics over the last decade, partly because computers allow these big databases to be made. But, also in the field of metrics itself, there's actually a whole explosion of new quite complicated algorithms that are being developed to assess scientist's quality.

Geoff Brumfiel: So, I mean the million dollar question here the one that you've been looking at is whether there is something fundamentally wrong with these metrics, right.

Richard Van Noorden: Well measuring scientific quality is a bit like trying to measure intelligence. It's quite fuzzy to define what you're looking for. I mean everyone knows we are looking for when you read a paper you're looking for the expert judgment of peers but nowadays, these measures just run through them include things like the h-index which is basically means if your h-index is 50 it means you've published 50 papers which each have at least 50 citations and this is a sort of connection there between your productivity and your impact. And citations are generally used as a way of tracking your impact, your prestige, your quality, you'll note some searching for what word might to find what they measure and that's really the problem with these metrics. They're all capturing something about impact but there you know 40-50 metrics and they're all capturing something different. So I was looking at some of the new measures such as online metrics which talk about how many times your paper is accessed online or network mapping which tries to show connections between papers and shows, you know, how central was your paper in this network. And I think the big flaw with all of these metrics especially ones that depend on citations is that different scientific fields will cite different numbers of times, biologists just tend to cite more than physicists and this is a common flaw with all citation based measures and people know this. But the problem is it is not as easy as you think to correct for that problem, suppose you say okay hundred biology citations are worth 50 physics citations well, what if you're an interdisciplinary researcher, how do you define the field and really I found that the bibliometricians, the experts in the field are still wrangling about this and it's not very clear that administrators who are just using these numbers are aware of these problems.

Geoff Brumfiel: How are the administrators using these metrics?

Richard Van Noorden: We found an interesting conflict here. The administrators said that concept of metrics were used but they didn't matter nearly as much as the researchers seem to think and they said letters from other scientists, obviously the interview, the CV, all these things were much more important when it came to tenure decisions or promotion decisions. Now, it has to be said that practices vary around the world. So, in the UK for example, there's a quite a focus on collecting statistics on researchers because of the assessment exercise which the government uses to give money out to universities. Now, in say in Asia, in Taiwan, there's much more, it seems to be much more rigid quantitative systems in use.

Geoff Brumfiel: I guess the bottom-line, metrics should we just get rid of them altogether?

Richard Van Noorden: Well, metrics have really good points, something they are transparent, they are objective and every decision about tenure will be based on some kind of criteria and it just depends on whether it is implicit or explicit and if metrics are laid out clearly and are perpetrating this old boy's network where decisions are taken on some other hard-to-evaluate measure, that's a good thing. So, the lessons that Nature thinks people should take away from this package is that it needs much more what metrics can and can't tell you in their problems, administrators should be much more transparent about what criteria they're using, otherwise it may be this kind of discontent that teaching is undervalued and administrators are applying these indiscriminately and that's the kind of conflict that we found. And there just needs to be much more communication about people in the field about what metrics are for and how they are actually used in practice.

Geoff Brumfiel: And you can learn a lot more about metrics by going tohttp://www.nature.com/nature and reading our metrics special which has just about everything you could want to know.Kerri Smith: And that's it from us, next week the function of pseudo genes and the results of the Nature Jobsalary survey. I am overworked.

Geoff Brumfiel: And I am underpaid. See you next time.

Advertisement

Maintaining NPG's standards of excellence NPG language editing helps you deliver the best possible manuscripts so your research results stand out. Upload your manuscript at http://www.languageediting.nature.com today.

End advertisement

PARA O PROGRAMA DE JUNDIAÍ

Especialmente para o Mathias estudar um pouco de napolitano enquanto se diverte com um show de interpretação do Massimo Troisi.

CIDADE ILÓGICA

Cidade Ilógica from !sso não é Normal on Vimeo.

MATERIAL SOBRE A IMIGRAÇÃO ITALIANA II

anno VI - numero 11 - novembre 2002 A Jundiai, città fondata da contadini veneti, il prologo al Meeting dei Giovani Oriundi Veneti dell’America Latina A una sessantina di chilometri da San Paolo, vastissima metropoli di 18 milioni di abitanti che dal 8 al 10 novembre ospita il Meeting dei Giovani Oriundi Veneti dell’area Latino-Americana, sorge quella che per il Brasile può essere considerata una piccola città di "sole" 293 mila anime. Anime in gran parte italiane, in quanto l’ottanta per cento sono discendenti degli emigrati che lasciarono la nostra penisola e, a partire dalla fine dell’Ottocento, vennero a insediarsi in queste terre. La lingua prevalentemente parlata dai coloni era il veneto. Contadini scappati dalla miseria delle campagne padane e prealpine e che qui, tra le colline ancor oggi ricche di vegetazione e verdissime, nonostante l’incalzante avanzata del cemento e dell’asfalto, trovarono migliori condizioni per ricominciare con dignità e soddisfazioni la faticosa vita dei campi. Proprio da Jundiai, la cui principale attività economica non è più l’agricoltura ma l’industria, è iniziata la serie di incontri della delegazione partecipante al Meeting di San Paolo, guidata dall’assessore regionale ai flussi migratori, Raffaele Zanon.  Il sindaco di Jundiai, Miguel Haddad, numerosi assessori ed esponenti dell’imprenditoria locale, hanno accolto nel grande e moderno municipio gli ospiti veneti, manifestando particolare soddisfazione per la presenza di un rappresentante della regione che diede i natali a quei pionieri che "contribuirono in modo decisivo" - è scritto in un messaggio ufficiale consegnato a Zanon – prima allo sviluppo agricolo e poi, attraverso i loro discendenti, a quello commerciale industriale e sociale della città, che attualmente si colloca al settimo posto in termini di importanza economica nello Stato paulista. Un dato significativo di questa realtà, posta anche geograficamente in una posizione privilegiata perché facilmente raggiungibile da molte grandi città brasiliane (dista, tra l’altro solo 130 chilometri da Santos, uno dei principali porti del Sudamerica), nella quale l’imprenditoria veneta gioca un ruolo di primo piano e dove opera un Circolo Italiano molto attivo, è dato dal tasso di disoccupazione, che è dell’8 per cento, contro il 18 per cento del Brasile.  "Siamo qui non solo per testimoniare il nostro affetto per la vostra comunità – ha detto Zanon – ma anche per individuare insieme a voi dei percorsi di collaborazione che ci consentano un reciproco arricchimento in termini economici e culturali". L’assessore, dopo aver illustrato le peculiarità del sistema produttivo veneto e risposto a precise domande sulla "cultura d’impresa", che ha fatto della nostra regione uno dei modelli più studiati a livello internazionale, ha suggerito di individuare dei settori di intervento specifici sui quali concentrare l’azione di avvicinamento e di dialogo tra l’ambiente produttivo veneto e quello jundiaiense. "Ma non basta incontrarsi – ha ribadito il sindaco Haddad -, dobbiamo anche essere concreti in queste ipotesi di cooperazione: per questo, sin da ora, auspichiamo l’organizzazione di un simposio per concordare ambiti precisi di interscambio in campo economico, tecnologico e culturale". E a tal fine il vice console italiano di San Paolo, Luigi Estero, ha offerto la propria disponibilità e collaborazione per promuovere in tempi brevi questo appuntamento. Il sindaco ha quindi donato a Zanon un grappolo d’uva stilizzato, simbolo scelto da Jundiai per ricordare le proprie origini: la vite, portata qui da quei contadini veneti che attraversarono l’oceano. il sindaco di Jundiai consegna a Raffaele Zanon il grappolo d'uva http://www2.regione.veneto.it/videoinf/periodic/conferenze/brasile/SP_jundiai.htm

REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS PARA O SEGUNDO COLÓQUIO

   O tema do segundo colóquio, com data a definir, será energia nuclear e reprocessamento de combustível nuclear. Nosso combustível, absynto e tiquira maranhense.


   O primeiro artigo é sobre a usina de Kashiwazaki e Kariwa , na província japonesa de Niigata, construída sobre uma falha geológica. Um tremor danificou a estrutura e lançou temores...

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_KRk5TIOSmJMjRiYWQ1MzktN2YwMS00NzJiLTljM2QtMjg0Y2M4MzgyZjc3&hl=en




O segundo artigo, que, apesar de obsoleto, vale a pena conferir, trata da dispersão atmosférica por iodo radioativo por usinas de reprocessamento de combustível nuclear.


https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_KRk5TIOSmJZjE2MGJmYTYtMWFlYi00ZGJkLWI4OTYtNGFkNDk1ZjYzMzI5&hl=en

MATRIZ ENERGÉTICA JAPONESA

Talvez o gráfico abaixo, não gentilmente cedido pela Nature, que eu achei por acaso nos meus arquivos pudesse ilustrar melhor nosso primeiro colóquio. O Japão "gerou" 1,134 PWh de energia elétrica em 2007. Nas duas últimas figuras vemos que, segundo o artigo Global Potential for Wind-Generated Electricity, postado aqui nesse blog, o Japão poderia transformar quase quatro vezes mais energia eólica em elétrica do que transformou em 2007 utilizando todas as matrizes.

Potencial eólico onshore (A) e offshore (B)

PUBLICAÇÕES SOBRE ENERGIA. SERÃO RETIRADAS DO ÉTER NA TERÇA, 15.

Os dois artigos sobre energias alternativas discutidos no primeiro colóquio estão disponibilizados em https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_KRk5TIOSmJNjJlNjU2M2UtYTk3My00NTY2LWExODEtMjc0N2Y0MWJjYmI3&hl=en
e em
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_KRk5TIOSmJMTdhNmE4MjUtNWFhMS00ZGQyLWEwZjMtZGNkODE5NzkyMjUy&hl=en

SERÃO RETIRADAS DO ÉTER NA TERÇA, 15.

O artigo sobre o potencial global de energia eólica está em
http://neuronial.blogspot.com/2010/05/global-potential-for-wind-generated.html

Como era de se esperar, o litro de Cambuci não deu nem para a metade do primeiro artigo discutido devido à ilustre presença de nosso amigo Carlini...


Para o próximo colóquio, gostaria de colocar em pauta a reciclagem de combustível nuclear, assunto que quase ninguém conhece. Para combinar, absynto checo e pinga azul maranhense, que tal?

PARATY MAMANGUÁ