Aqui você encontra: Cultura, Educação, Artigos Científicos e sugestões para o seu estudo. O que irá diferenciar está revista eletrônica, ter, em um futuro breve, seus artigos em áudio, lidos pelos autores e/ou por programas e projetos de extensão como: 'Biblioteca Falada' - A UNESP/ FAAC, faz adaptação de textos e vídeos para áudios. Permitindo assim que DISLÉXICOS e DEFICIENTES VISUAIS tenham acesso ao conhecimento proposto. http://www.acessibilidadeinclusao.com.br/
José Robson de Almeida.
The Seeker desires suggestions for novel methods of converting carbonic acid (H2CO3) to carbonate anion (CO32-). Development of such a method is applicable to capturing anthropogenic CO2.
This is an Ideation Challenge with a guaranteed award for at least one submitted solution.
Source: InnoCentive Challenge ID: 9932756
Challenge Overview
The Seeker desires suggestions for novel methods of converting carbonic acid (H2CO3) to carbonate anion (CO32-). Development of such a method is applicable to capturing anthropogenic CO2.
This is an Ideation Challenge, which has the following unique features:
There is a guaranteed award. The awards will be paid to the best submission(s) as solely determined by the Seeker. The total payout will be $10,000, with at least one award being no smaller than $5,000 and no award being smaller than $1,000.
The Solvers are not required to transfer exclusive intellectual property rights to the Seeker. Rather, by submitting a proposal, the Solvers grants to the Seeker a royalty-free, perpetual, and non-exclusive license to use any information included in this proposal.
After the Challenge deadline, the Seeker will complete the review process and make a decision with regards to the Winning Solution(s).All Solvers that submitted a proposal will be notified on the status of their submissions; however, no detailed evaluation of individual submissions will be provided.
This article was originally published in the journal Nature
It's easy to give in to procrastination — but Hugh Kearns and Maria Gardiner offer some tips for getting your drive back.
“I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by.”— Douglas Adams
If you were trying to set up ideal conditions for procrastination, conducting a research project would provide them. Such projects tend to be large and time-consuming: completing a doctoral research project, for example, often takes three years or more. Deadlines and endpoints are often fuzzy and ill-defined. Then there's the reward structure: you can put in a lot of effort with little to no positive feedback along the way, and the rewards, if there are any, take a long time to come. Add to this the fact that scientists are often perfectionists with demanding, if not idealistic, expectations, and it is little wonder that procrastination is the most discussed topic in our graduate-student and researcher workshops. Many researchers simply take for granted that they are at the mercy of the forces of procrastination, doomed to increased stress levels and stretched deadlines. But there are simple strategies for pushing yourself to get engaged. The first is to recognize the patterns that you're falling into.
Advanced displacement
Some procrastination activities are pretty obvious. There's the morning coffee break that creeps into lunchtime. Or watching videos on YouTube and sending them to all your friends. Or updating your Facebook status when you should be updating your lab book.
L. LATULIPPE/CORBIS
But most procrastination is far more subtle, and can even be mistaken for productive work. For example, you might try to track down that elusive reference, even though you've already got more than you will ever have time to read. Or you could start a new experiment instead of analysing the old one. Or take stock of the glassware in the lab. Or check your e-mail. These activities make it seem as though you're doing something useful, and you may well be, but it's not the thing you should be doing right now.
So why is housekeeping, for example, so much fun when you're supposed to be working on your dissertation or a paper? It's a displacement activity, used to dispel the self-reproach or discomfort that we feel for not doing something else. Reading a novel or taking a nap causes too much guilt. But have you ever, say, reorganized your folders to make it easier to find the files? It would speed up your writing, after all. Or perhaps you've diligently labelled all the cupboards in the lab to make it easier to find things.
Although these activities or excuses seem acceptable, their fatal flaw is that once they're over, you still haven't finished that article, started that experiment or written your dissertation. You probably have an increased sense of guilt because you're not making progress on your goal. And although you've found and read that reference, you still don't feel motivated to write. Sadly, while you were answering e-mails or counting the glassware, the motivation fairy didn't stop by and make that difficult task look any more appealing. That's just not how motivation works.
Most people have a fundamental misunderstanding: we like to think that motivation leads to action, or, more simply, that when you feel like doing something, you'll do it. This model might work for things you enjoy doing, such as watching a film or going for a walk. But it's not particularly good for huge tasks with fuzzy deadlines. The problem is that you may never feel motivated to revise and resubmit that paper — at least not until a hard-and-fast deadline appears. You need a different model.
Motivation mojo
Some psychology research shows that action leads to motivation, which in turn leads to more action. You have to start before you feel ready; then you'll feel more motivated, and then you'll take more action. You've probably had this experience yourself. You put off running an analysis for ages; eventually, you decide to do it, and once you start, you say to yourself, “This isn't as bad as I thought. Why not keep going while I'm at it?”
Of course, starting before you feel motivated is difficult. But certain strategies can directly tackle the conditions that lead to procrastination in the first place.
First, big projects need to be broken down into steps. Not just small steps, but tiny steps. Instead of saying you'll make the revisions to the paper — which probably seems overwhelming — the tiny step could be that you'll read the reviewer's comments or you'll make the first two changes. Second, you need to set a time or deadline by which to perform that tiny step. Saying you'll do it later or tomorrow isn't enough — the deadline needs to have an 'o'clock' attached to it. Third, you need to build in an immediate reward. If you finish reading the comments by your deadline at 10:00 a.m., you can allow yourself to have a coffee, a brief chat or a quick e-mail exchange. It's highly likely that once you start the task, your motivation will kick in and you'll find yourself wanting to spend longer at it.
So if the motivation fairy hasn't been stopping off at your lab or desk very frequently, perhaps you should give her a hand. The next time you catch yourself engaging in displacement activities, remember that there's a way to recover that elusive drive. Follow our three rules and watch your motivation grow.
Hugh Kearns and Maria Gardiner lecture and conduct research in psychology at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, and run workshops for graduate students and advisers (seehttp://ithinkwell.com.au).
Excessive nutrient loading of water bodies is a leading cause of water pollution worldwide1, 2, and controlling nutrient levels in watersheds is a primary objective of most environmental policy3. Over the past two decades, much research has shown that ecosystems with more species are more efficient at removing nutrients from soil and water than are ecosystems with fewer species4, 5, 6, 7. This has led some to suggest that conservation of biodiversity might be a useful tool for managing nutrient uptake and storage7,8, 9, 10, but this suggestion has been controversial, in part because the specific biological mechanisms by which species diversity influences nutrient uptake have not been identified10, 11, 12. Here I use a model system of stream biofilms to show that niche partitioning among species of algae can increase the uptake and storage of nitrate, a nutrient pollutant of global concern. I manipulated the number of species of algae growing in the biofilms of 150 stream mesocosms that had been set up to mimic the variety of flow habitats and disturbance regimes that are typical of natural streams. Nitrogen uptake rates, as measured by using 15N-labelled nitrate, increased linearly with species richness and were driven by niche differences among species. As different forms of algae came to dominate each unique habitat in a stream, the more diverse communities achieved a higher biomass and greater 15N uptake. When these niche opportunities were experimentally removed by making all of the habitats in a stream uniform, diversity did not influence nitrogen uptake, and biofilms collapsed to a single dominant species. These results provide direct evidence that communities with more species take greater advantage of the niche opportunities in an environment, and this allows diverse systems to capture a greater proportion of biologically available resources such as nitrogen. One implication is that biodiversity may help to buffer natural ecosystems against the ecological impacts of nutrient pollution.
The Chernobyl disaster still has much to tell us about the long-term risks of low-level radiation exposure. But only if the necessary follow-up studies are supported.
As the battle to make safe the Fukushima nuclear reactors continues, the political fallout is spreading across Japan and around the world. Despite reassuring early reports, it is clear that significant amounts of radioisotopes have been released from the plant, and some workers there face severe radiation exposure as they try to cool the overheated nuclear fuel. In response, several governments are reviewing the safety and future of their own nuclear programmes. Fukushima has undoubtedly strengthened the hand of those who oppose nuclear power.
The global reach of the disaster brought an echo from history last week when iodine-131 from Fukushima was detected in Ukraine — home to the Chernobyl power plant, site of the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster. A quarter of a century ago, a flawed safety test at Chernobyl triggered a massive explosion and fire that spread tonnes of radioactive material across Europe, and shredded public confidence in atomic energy.
Like Fukushima, the consequences of Chernobyl were wide ranging. In the satellite countries, resentment of Soviet handling of the disaster contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. Thousands of children developed thyroid cancer after drinking contaminated milk. Billions of crucial dollars from the economies of Ukraine and Belarus were redirected to remediation, health care and compensation. Every day, some 3,500 workers still labour at the plant to prevent further releases, while decommissioning of the site's four reactors has barely begun. Recovering from a nuclear disaster is the task of generations: it will be another 50 years before Chernobyl is just a memory.
As we report on page 562, the pace of recovery at Chernobyl has been slowed by the reluctance of other countries to pay for it. The shattered reactor 4 still lies beneath a haphazard concrete sarcophagus, erected in the frantic months after the accident. Maintenance work keeps it secure — for now — but the walls are streaked with rust and its roof is in a poor state of repair. Engineers want to build a safe confinement arch to allow them to dismantle the reactor, at an estimated cost of US$1.4 billion.
“Recovering from a nuclear disaster is the task of generations.”
The Chernobyl Shelter Fund, managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, has so far amassed more than$800 million of that sum, from 30 donors. But funding shortfalls have delayed the project by years and the 2015 target for completion will be difficult to achieve without more money from the international community.
One immediate consequence of the Fukushima disaster should be to encourage this money to flow. Nuclear accidents have global repercussions, and public mistrust of nuclear power demands that its problems not be left to fester. It is in the world's interest to push forward with safe nuclear power — but also to deal properly with its damaging legacy when things go wrong, as they will.
Today, new nuclear power stations are being constructed in more than a dozen countries. China alone is working on almost half of the 65 reactors currently being built, and there is growing interest in the technology from developing countries. Supporters of the spread of civil nuclear power must acknowledge that some of these countries would be unable to cope alone if faced with a nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl.
Nations, particularly those pushing new nuclear build, must invest in bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ensure that new and old reactors around the world are sufficiently safe, and that they are fully prepared for the worst. And politicians and the nuclear industry must revisit their relationship with a sceptical public. Being open and transparent about the uncertain costs of new build in countries such as the United Kingdom would be a start. If a public subsidy is required to get them built, then say so. If the industry wants people to believe its assurances that nuclear power is safe, then now is not the time for obfuscation and weasel words, on any aspect of the technology (see page 549).
Governments must also work to present a clear narrative about the health implications of accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. For heroic plant workers exposed to extreme radiation doses — and for those still suffering from Chernobyl's legacy of thyroid cancer — the risks are all too clear. But it is harder to pin down more subtle health effects. There are hints that low-level exposure can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and other conditions, consistent with the idea that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure. To clarify the situation, the world needs studies of large numbers of people exposed to very low doses of radiation — and Chernobyl can provide those. Funding such research is vital for those affected by Chernobyl's radiation, but it should also answer some of the questions over the future of nuclear power.
People legitimately ask whether the low levels of radioactivity now drifting across Japan are safe. The current best answer is 'probably'. A better response would be to find out, before another 25 years pass.
This editorial was thought provoking. As a concerned citizen, it seems that nuclear power has been used and applied before it's proper use and place in society has been correctly determined. For example, in a rush to use this great power, politicians and militarist pushed for a military use. The next rush was to use it's great heat generating capacity for peaceful purposes. The nuclear gold-rush has created serious mishaps, even disasters. The rush to produce more power, for well-intentioned purposes has resulted in nuclear facilities being placed on or near fault zones, aquifers, large population centers, and other sensitive areas. Yet, the article seems oblivious to these concerns and draws attention to lack of clean-up money. In my view, money is not the sole root of this evil.
This article is a poor reflection of Nature's editorials. It says that "[i]t is in the world's interest to push forward with safe nuclear power ? but also to deal properly with its damaging legacy when things go wrong, as they will.", it then goes on to say that "there are hints that low-level exposure can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and other conditions, consistent with the idea that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure". If these hints proof correct (and even in the absence of extensive longitudinal data from the Chernobyl disaster there is already ample in vitro and in vivo evidence that ionising radiation increases the risk of genetic and cellular damage), why is it in the world's interest to push forward with nuclear power all the while knowing that things will go wrong?
The recent nuclear disaster in Japan?a technologically highly developed and wealthy country that is obviously unable to prevent and contain a major nuclear catastrophe?teaches us that it is impossible to "deal properly with its damaging legacy". Therefore, it seems more prudent to revisit the idea whether nuclear power is the path to a prosperous future or rather that it will pose a looming impediment to our prosperity and well-being.
Two facts seem to go totally unnoticed: one, the crisis in Japan were caused by the most powerful earthquake ever recorded, plus a massive tsunami and prolonged loss of electrical power; two, there are many more reactors in Japan and almost all of them are still safe.
This nuclear crisis is totally different from previous ones: it was caused by an exceptionally violent natural catastrophe, whereas Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc. were caused by bad design or incompetent operation.
If Japan is able to build reactors that can mostly survive an enormously powerful earthquake and tsunami, and even in the worst case not release dangerous quantities of radiation to the level of causing significant extra risk to members of the public (over and above typical naturallyoccurring levels of radiation), that is actually a strong argument in favour of the safety of nuclear power.
If there are magnitude 9 earthquakes all around the world, nuclear reactors will be the least of our problems.
By the way, I don't remember when the world decided that it was OK to burn coal or oil at an enormous rate, with all the environmental hazards and toxins they imply. (Burning coal releases radioactivity, for example). Why should nuclear power be held to a much higher standard of risk-lessness? No answer forthcoming.
Risk assessment requires that the alternatives are considered. The risk of coal (as measured directly either by death rates, injury and illness rates or anthropogenic contributions to radionuclides in the biosphere) are much higher than nuclear. My guess is orders of magnitude. The only baseload alternatives are fossil fuels and hydro electricity. A 9 magnitude earthquake near a major Dam on China would kill millions. This debate needs to be measured. If we are seriously proposing to shut down 30-70% of many advanced countries power generation, the alternatives must be costed ... including risks.
Nothing is free. Abandoning very safe modern nuclear technology will have immense costs that those advocating this step will sudder to bear.
Comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl is irresponsible. It was the graphite moderator burning there, ignited by uncontrolled fission. Fission was stopped at Fukushima the moment first tremors reached it. If the wave didn't destroy the backup pumps and their generators there would have been no "disaster" there. It was a mistake the cooling was not driven by gravity – this mistake will certainly not be repeated – but everything carries a risk, and comparing them is exactly what a premier scientific journal like Nature should have done. Like Science, vol 331, 25 March 2011, p.1504, perhaps?
By the way, what is "severe nuclear exposure"? 2 Sv? .
Robert Holub
This is a public forum. Please keep to our Community Guidelines. You can be controversial, but please don't get personal or offensive and do keep it brief. Remember our threads are for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers, press releases or advertisements. If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link.
