Questões de Inglês

Tsunami science: advances since the 2004 indian ocean tragedy

The Indian Ocean tsunami was one of the worst

natural disasters in history. Enormous waves struck

countries in South Asia and East Africa with little to

no warning, killing 243,000 people. The destruction

played out on television screens around the world,

fed by shaky home videos. The outpouring of aid in

response to the devastation in Indonesia, Sri Lanka,

Thailand and elsewhere was unprecedented.

The disaster raised awareness of tsunamis and

prompted nations to pump money into research

and warning systems. Today (Dec. 26), on the 10th

anniversary of the deadly tsunami, greatly expanded

networks of seismic monitors and ocean buoys are on

alert for the next killer wave in the Indian Ocean, the

Pacific and the Caribbean. In fact, tsunami experts

can now forecast how tsunamis will flood distant

coastlines hours before the waves arrive. But hurdles

remain in saving lives for everyone under the threat of

tsunamis. No amount of warning will help those who

need to seek immediate shelter away from beaches,

disaster experts said.

Since 2004, geologists have uncovered evidence

of several massive tsunamis in buried sand layers

preserved in Sumatran caves. It turns out that the

deadly waves aren’t as rare in the Indian Ocean as

once thought. “We had five fatal tsunamis off the

coast of Sumatra prior to 2004,” said Paula Dunbar,

a scientist at NOAA’s National Geophysical Data

Center. Over the past 300 years, 69 tsunamis were

seen in the Indian Ocean, she said. Despite the risk,

there was no oceanwide tsunami warning system in

the region. Now, a $450 million early-alert network is

fully operational, though it is plagued with equipment

problems. Essentially built from scratch, the $450

million Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System

includes more than 140 seismometers, about 100

sea-level gauges and several buoys that detect

tsunamis. More buoys were installed, but they have

been vandalized or accidentally destroyed. The

buoys and gauges help detect whether an earthquake

triggered a tsunami.

Getting the warnings down to people living in

remote coastal areas is one of the biggest hurdles

for the new system. Not all warnings reach the local

level. And not every tsunami earthquake is strong

enough to scare people away from shorelines. In

Sumatra’s Mentawai Islands, a 2010 tsunami killed

more than 400 people because residents failed to

evacuate in the short time between the earthquake

and the tsunami’s arrival. The shaking was simply not

strong enough to trigger people’s fear of tsunamis,

even though islanders had self-evacuated after a

2007 earthquake, according to an investigation by the

University of Southern California’s Tsunami Research

Center. There was also no clear-cut warning from the

regional tsunami alert system.

Another hurdle is learning how to accurately

forecast reflected tsunami waves. The 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami ricocheted off island chains, and some

of the worst flooding arrived unexpectedly late in

places like Sri Lanka and Western Australia. “I found

a boat on the middle of the road, and at that point

knew it was a tsunami,” recalls Charitha Pattiaratchi,

a University of Western Australia tsunami expert who

was driving on a coastal Sri Lankan road on Dec. 26,

2004. “I came to the conclusion that I was safe. Well,

I was wrong. Twenty minutes later there was seven

meters of water where I had been standing, and two

hours later there were still more waves coming.”

A tsunami warning can go out just five minutes

after a submarine earthquake raises or lowers the

seafloor, thus launching a tsunami. For more detailed

predictions of the wave’s impact, such as the extent

of flooding, scientists rely on data collected by

seismometers, GPS stations, tide gauges and buoy

systems, which is relayed by satellite to warning

centers. Computer models then convert the data into

detailed tsunami simulations, which are based on

more than 2,000 real-life examples.

After an earthquake, scientists with NOAA’s

tsunami warning centers now spend about an hour

working out the details of a tsunami forecast, said

Vasily Titov, director of NOAA’s Center for Tsunami

Research. The results project when the wave will

arrive at shorelines and harbors, estimate tsunamiinduced

currents and gauge the height of the waves.

The agency’s goal is to dramatically reduce that hourlong

delay. “We’re now at the point where we want to

do it in five minutes,” Titov said. That means building

out the seismic network, getting a faster response

from the sea-level sensors and speeding up the

computer forecasts. “When these three components

come together, then we can save everybody,” Titov

said.

By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer. Adapted from http://www. livescience.com/49262-indian-ocean-tsunami-anniversary. html. December 26, 2014.

Tsunami science: advances since the 2004 indian ocean tragedy

The Indian Ocean tsunami was one of the worst

natural disasters in history. Enormous waves struck

countries in South Asia and East Africa with little to

no warning, killing 243,000 people. The destruction

played out on television screens around the world,

fed by shaky home videos. The outpouring of aid in

response to the devastation in Indonesia, Sri Lanka,

Thailand and elsewhere was unprecedented.

The disaster raised awareness of tsunamis and

prompted nations to pump money into research

and warning systems. Today (Dec. 26), on the 10th

anniversary of the deadly tsunami, greatly expanded

networks of seismic monitors and ocean buoys are on

alert for the next killer wave in the Indian Ocean, the

Pacific and the Caribbean. In fact, tsunami experts

can now forecast how tsunamis will flood distant

coastlines hours before the waves arrive. But hurdles

remain in saving lives for everyone under the threat of

tsunamis. No amount of warning will help those who

need to seek immediate shelter away from beaches,

disaster experts said.

Since 2004, geologists have uncovered evidence

of several massive tsunamis in buried sand layers

preserved in Sumatran caves. It turns out that the

deadly waves aren’t as rare in the Indian Ocean as

once thought. “We had five fatal tsunamis off the

coast of Sumatra prior to 2004,” said Paula Dunbar,

a scientist at NOAA’s National Geophysical Data

Center. Over the past 300 years, 69 tsunamis were

seen in the Indian Ocean, she said. Despite the risk,

there was no oceanwide tsunami warning system in

the region. Now, a $450 million early-alert network is

fully operational, though it is plagued with equipment

problems. Essentially built from scratch, the $450

million Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System

includes more than 140 seismometers, about 100

sea-level gauges and several buoys that detect

tsunamis. More buoys were installed, but they have

been vandalized or accidentally destroyed. The

buoys and gauges help detect whether an earthquake

triggered a tsunami.

Getting the warnings down to people living in

remote coastal areas is one of the biggest hurdles

for the new system. Not all warnings reach the local

level. And not every tsunami earthquake is strong

enough to scare people away from shorelines. In

Sumatra’s Mentawai Islands, a 2010 tsunami killed

more than 400 people because residents failed to

evacuate in the short time between the earthquake

and the tsunami’s arrival. The shaking was simply not

strong enough to trigger people’s fear of tsunamis,

even though islanders had self-evacuated after a

2007 earthquake, according to an investigation by the

University of Southern California’s Tsunami Research

Center. There was also no clear-cut warning from the

regional tsunami alert system.

Another hurdle is learning how to accurately

forecast reflected tsunami waves. The 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami ricocheted off island chains, and some

of the worst flooding arrived unexpectedly late in

places like Sri Lanka and Western Australia. “I found

a boat on the middle of the road, and at that point

knew it was a tsunami,” recalls Charitha Pattiaratchi,

a University of Western Australia tsunami expert who

was driving on a coastal Sri Lankan road on Dec. 26,

2004. “I came to the conclusion that I was safe. Well,

I was wrong. Twenty minutes later there was seven

meters of water where I had been standing, and two

hours later there were still more waves coming.”

A tsunami warning can go out just five minutes

after a submarine earthquake raises or lowers the

seafloor, thus launching a tsunami. For more detailed

predictions of the wave’s impact, such as the extent

of flooding, scientists rely on data collected by

seismometers, GPS stations, tide gauges and buoy

systems, which is relayed by satellite to warning

centers. Computer models then convert the data into

detailed tsunami simulations, which are based on

more than 2,000 real-life examples.

After an earthquake, scientists with NOAA’s

tsunami warning centers now spend about an hour

working out the details of a tsunami forecast, said

Vasily Titov, director of NOAA’s Center for Tsunami

Research. The results project when the wave will

arrive at shorelines and harbors, estimate tsunamiinduced

currents and gauge the height of the waves.

The agency’s goal is to dramatically reduce that hourlong

delay. “We’re now at the point where we want to

do it in five minutes,” Titov said. That means building

out the seismic network, getting a faster response

from the sea-level sensors and speeding up the

computer forecasts. “When these three components

come together, then we can save everybody,” Titov

said.

By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer. Adapted from http://www. livescience.com/49262-indian-ocean-tsunami-anniversary. html. December 26, 2014.

Tsunami science: advances since the 2004 indian ocean tragedy

The Indian Ocean tsunami was one of the worst

natural disasters in history. Enormous waves struck

countries in South Asia and East Africa with little to

no warning, killing 243,000 people. The destruction

played out on television screens around the world,

fed by shaky home videos. The outpouring of aid in

response to the devastation in Indonesia, Sri Lanka,

Thailand and elsewhere was unprecedented.

The disaster raised awareness of tsunamis and

prompted nations to pump money into research

and warning systems. Today (Dec. 26), on the 10th

anniversary of the deadly tsunami, greatly expanded

networks of seismic monitors and ocean buoys are on

alert for the next killer wave in the Indian Ocean, the

Pacific and the Caribbean. In fact, tsunami experts

can now forecast how tsunamis will flood distant

coastlines hours before the waves arrive. But hurdles

remain in saving lives for everyone under the threat of

tsunamis. No amount of warning will help those who

need to seek immediate shelter away from beaches,

disaster experts said.

Since 2004, geologists have uncovered evidence

of several massive tsunamis in buried sand layers

preserved in Sumatran caves. It turns out that the

deadly waves aren’t as rare in the Indian Ocean as

once thought. “We had five fatal tsunamis off the

coast of Sumatra prior to 2004,” said Paula Dunbar,

a scientist at NOAA’s National Geophysical Data

Center. Over the past 300 years, 69 tsunamis were

seen in the Indian Ocean, she said. Despite the risk,

there was no oceanwide tsunami warning system in

the region. Now, a $450 million early-alert network is

fully operational, though it is plagued with equipment

problems. Essentially built from scratch, the $450

million Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System

includes more than 140 seismometers, about 100

sea-level gauges and several buoys that detect

tsunamis. More buoys were installed, but they have

been vandalized or accidentally destroyed. The

buoys and gauges help detect whether an earthquake

triggered a tsunami.

Getting the warnings down to people living in

remote coastal areas is one of the biggest hurdles

for the new system. Not all warnings reach the local

level. And not every tsunami earthquake is strong

enough to scare people away from shorelines. In

Sumatra’s Mentawai Islands, a 2010 tsunami killed

more than 400 people because residents failed to

evacuate in the short time between the earthquake

and the tsunami’s arrival. The shaking was simply not

strong enough to trigger people’s fear of tsunamis,

even though islanders had self-evacuated after a

2007 earthquake, according to an investigation by the

University of Southern California’s Tsunami Research

Center. There was also no clear-cut warning from the

regional tsunami alert system.

Another hurdle is learning how to accurately

forecast reflected tsunami waves. The 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami ricocheted off island chains, and some

of the worst flooding arrived unexpectedly late in

places like Sri Lanka and Western Australia. “I found

a boat on the middle of the road, and at that point

knew it was a tsunami,” recalls Charitha Pattiaratchi,

a University of Western Australia tsunami expert who

was driving on a coastal Sri Lankan road on Dec. 26,

2004. “I came to the conclusion that I was safe. Well,

I was wrong. Twenty minutes later there was seven

meters of water where I had been standing, and two

hours later there were still more waves coming.”

A tsunami warning can go out just five minutes

after a submarine earthquake raises or lowers the

seafloor, thus launching a tsunami. For more detailed

predictions of the wave’s impact, such as the extent

of flooding, scientists rely on data collected by

seismometers, GPS stations, tide gauges and buoy

systems, which is relayed by satellite to warning

centers. Computer models then convert the data into

detailed tsunami simulations, which are based on

more than 2,000 real-life examples.

After an earthquake, scientists with NOAA’s

tsunami warning centers now spend about an hour

working out the details of a tsunami forecast, said

Vasily Titov, director of NOAA’s Center for Tsunami

Research. The results project when the wave will

arrive at shorelines and harbors, estimate tsunamiinduced

currents and gauge the height of the waves.

The agency’s goal is to dramatically reduce that hourlong

delay. “We’re now at the point where we want to

do it in five minutes,” Titov said. That means building

out the seismic network, getting a faster response

from the sea-level sensors and speeding up the

computer forecasts. “When these three components

come together, then we can save everybody,” Titov

said.

By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer. Adapted from http://www. livescience.com/49262-indian-ocean-tsunami-anniversary. html. December 26, 2014.

When did the central aim of parenting become

preparing children for success? This reigning

paradigm, which dictates that every act of nurturing

be judged on the basis of whether it will usher a child

toward a life of accomplishment or failure, embodies

the fundamental insecurity of global capitalist culture,

with its unbending fixation on prosperity and the

future. When each nurturing act is administered

with the distant future in mind, what becomes of the

present? A child who soaks in the ambient anxiety that

surrounds each trivial choice or activity is an anxious

child, formed in the hand-wringing, future-focused

image of her anxious parents.

“How to Raise an Adult: Break Free of the

Overparenting Trap and Prepare Your Kid for

Success” seems to lie at the precise crossroads of this

inherently conflicted approach. Like so many others,

Julie Lythcott-Haims has identified overparenting as a

trap. But once you escape the trap, the goal remains

the same: to mold your offspring into thriving adults.

Whether a child is learning to ride a bike or doing his

own laundry, he is still viewed through the limited

binary lens of either triumphant or fumbling adulthood.

The looming question is not “Is my child happy?” but

“Is my child a future president poised to save the

environment, or a future stoner poised to watch his

fifth episode of ‘House of Cards’ in a row?”

Lythcott-Haims, who brings some authority to

the subject as Stanford’s former dean of freshmen

and undergraduate advising, has seen varieties of

extreme parental interference suggesting not just

a lack of common sense, but a lack of wisdom and

healthy boundaries (if not personal dignity) as well.

Instead of allowing kids to experiment and learn

from their mistakes, parents hover where they’re

not wanted or welcome, accompanying children on

school trips or shadowing them on campus. Caught

up in what the author calls the “college admissions

arms race,” parents treat securing their children a

spot at one of 20 top schools (as decreed by U.S.

News and World Report’s popular but somewhat

dubious rankings) as an all-or-nothing proposition.

Concerned about the effects of a flawed high school

transcript, parents do their children’s homework, write

or heavily edit their papers, fire questions at teachers,

dispute grades and hire expensive subject tutors,

SAT coaches and “private admissions consultants”

(26 percent of college applicants reported hiring these

in 2013). Even after kids graduate, the madness

continues. Lythcott-Haims offers anecdotes of parents

touring graduate schools, serving as mouthpieces for

their shy, passive children, and submitting résumés

to potential employers, sometimes without their

children’s knowledge. These behaviors do more

than mold kids into dependent beings, she argues;

they corral and constrict their possibilities and their

imaginations. “We speak of dreams as boundless,

limitless realms,” Lythcott-Haims writes. “But in reality

often we create parameters, conditions and limits

within which our kids are permitted to dream — with

a checklisted childhood as the path to achievement.”

Lythcott-Haims takes pains to demonstrate that

overparenting doesn’t merely threaten a child’s future

income; it also does enormous psychological harm.

She cites a 2011 study by sociologists at the University

of Tennessee at Chattanooga that found a correlation,

in college-student questionnaires, between helicopter

parenting and medication for anxiety or depression.

One researcher at a treatment center for addicts

in Los Angeles found that “rates of depression and

anxiety among affluent teens and young adults

correspond to the rates of depression and anxiety

suffered by incarcerated juveniles.” Other studies

suggest that overparented kids are “less open to new

ideas” and take “less satisfaction in life.” For Lythcott-

Haims, the message behind this research is the

same: Kids need to sally forth independently without

constant supervision. They need to try and even fail.

And when they fail and look around for a parent to

bail them out, they need to hear the words, “You must

figure this out for yourself.” 

By Heather Havrilesky, (with slight adaptations). On 6/15/2015; The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes. com/2015/06/21/books/review/how-to-raise-an-adult-by-julie- -lythcott-haims.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

When did the central aim of parenting become

preparing children for success? This reigning

paradigm, which dictates that every act of nurturing

be judged on the basis of whether it will usher a child

toward a life of accomplishment or failure, embodies

the fundamental insecurity of global capitalist culture,

with its unbending fixation on prosperity and the

future. When each nurturing act is administered

with the distant future in mind, what becomes of the

present? A child who soaks in the ambient anxiety that

surrounds each trivial choice or activity is an anxious

child, formed in the hand-wringing, future-focused

image of her anxious parents.

“How to Raise an Adult: Break Free of the

Overparenting Trap and Prepare Your Kid for

Success” seems to lie at the precise crossroads of this

inherently conflicted approach. Like so many others,

Julie Lythcott-Haims has identified overparenting as a

trap. But once you escape the trap, the goal remains

the same: to mold your offspring into thriving adults.

Whether a child is learning to ride a bike or doing his

own laundry, he is still viewed through the limited

binary lens of either triumphant or fumbling adulthood.

The looming question is not “Is my child happy?” but

“Is my child a future president poised to save the

environment, or a future stoner poised to watch his

fifth episode of ‘House of Cards’ in a row?”

Lythcott-Haims, who brings some authority to

the subject as Stanford’s former dean of freshmen

and undergraduate advising, has seen varieties of

extreme parental interference suggesting not just

a lack of common sense, but a lack of wisdom and

healthy boundaries (if not personal dignity) as well.

Instead of allowing kids to experiment and learn

from their mistakes, parents hover where they’re

not wanted or welcome, accompanying children on

school trips or shadowing them on campus. Caught

up in what the author calls the “college admissions

arms race,” parents treat securing their children a

spot at one of 20 top schools (as decreed by U.S.

News and World Report’s popular but somewhat

dubious rankings) as an all-or-nothing proposition.

Concerned about the effects of a flawed high school

transcript, parents do their children’s homework, write

or heavily edit their papers, fire questions at teachers,

dispute grades and hire expensive subject tutors,

SAT coaches and “private admissions consultants”

(26 percent of college applicants reported hiring these

in 2013). Even after kids graduate, the madness

continues. Lythcott-Haims offers anecdotes of parents

touring graduate schools, serving as mouthpieces for

their shy, passive children, and submitting résumés

to potential employers, sometimes without their

children’s knowledge. These behaviors do more

than mold kids into dependent beings, she argues;

they corral and constrict their possibilities and their

imaginations. “We speak of dreams as boundless,

limitless realms,” Lythcott-Haims writes. “But in reality

often we create parameters, conditions and limits

within which our kids are permitted to dream — with

a checklisted childhood as the path to achievement.”

Lythcott-Haims takes pains to demonstrate that

overparenting doesn’t merely threaten a child’s future

income; it also does enormous psychological harm.

She cites a 2011 study by sociologists at the University

of Tennessee at Chattanooga that found a correlation,

in college-student questionnaires, between helicopter

parenting and medication for anxiety or depression.

One researcher at a treatment center for addicts

in Los Angeles found that “rates of depression and

anxiety among affluent teens and young adults

correspond to the rates of depression and anxiety

suffered by incarcerated juveniles.” Other studies

suggest that overparented kids are “less open to new

ideas” and take “less satisfaction in life.” For Lythcott-

Haims, the message behind this research is the

same: Kids need to sally forth independently without

constant supervision. They need to try and even fail.

And when they fail and look around for a parent to

bail them out, they need to hear the words, “You must

figure this out for yourself.” 

By Heather Havrilesky, (with slight adaptations). On 6/15/2015; The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes. com/2015/06/21/books/review/how-to-raise-an-adult-by-julie- -lythcott-haims.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

When did the central aim of parenting become

preparing children for success? This reigning

paradigm, which dictates that every act of nurturing

be judged on the basis of whether it will usher a child

toward a life of accomplishment or failure, embodies

the fundamental insecurity of global capitalist culture,

with its unbending fixation on prosperity and the

future. When each nurturing act is administered

with the distant future in mind, what becomes of the

present? A child who soaks in the ambient anxiety that

surrounds each trivial choice or activity is an anxious

child, formed in the hand-wringing, future-focused

image of her anxious parents.

“How to Raise an Adult: Break Free of the

Overparenting Trap and Prepare Your Kid for

Success” seems to lie at the precise crossroads of this

inherently conflicted approach. Like so many others,

Julie Lythcott-Haims has identified overparenting as a

trap. But once you escape the trap, the goal remains

the same: to mold your offspring into thriving adults.

Whether a child is learning to ride a bike or doing his

own laundry, he is still viewed through the limited

binary lens of either triumphant or fumbling adulthood.

The looming question is not “Is my child happy?” but

“Is my child a future president poised to save the

environment, or a future stoner poised to watch his

fifth episode of ‘House of Cards’ in a row?”

Lythcott-Haims, who brings some authority to

the subject as Stanford’s former dean of freshmen

and undergraduate advising, has seen varieties of

extreme parental interference suggesting not just

a lack of common sense, but a lack of wisdom and

healthy boundaries (if not personal dignity) as well.

Instead of allowing kids to experiment and learn

from their mistakes, parents hover where they’re

not wanted or welcome, accompanying children on

school trips or shadowing them on campus. Caught

up in what the author calls the “college admissions

arms race,” parents treat securing their children a

spot at one of 20 top schools (as decreed by U.S.

News and World Report’s popular but somewhat

dubious rankings) as an all-or-nothing proposition.

Concerned about the effects of a flawed high school

transcript, parents do their children’s homework, write

or heavily edit their papers, fire questions at teachers,

dispute grades and hire expensive subject tutors,

SAT coaches and “private admissions consultants”

(26 percent of college applicants reported hiring these

in 2013). Even after kids graduate, the madness

continues. Lythcott-Haims offers anecdotes of parents

touring graduate schools, serving as mouthpieces for

their shy, passive children, and submitting résumés

to potential employers, sometimes without their

children’s knowledge. These behaviors do more

than mold kids into dependent beings, she argues;

they corral and constrict their possibilities and their

imaginations. “We speak of dreams as boundless,

limitless realms,” Lythcott-Haims writes. “But in reality

often we create parameters, conditions and limits

within which our kids are permitted to dream — with

a checklisted childhood as the path to achievement.”

Lythcott-Haims takes pains to demonstrate that

overparenting doesn’t merely threaten a child’s future

income; it also does enormous psychological harm.

She cites a 2011 study by sociologists at the University

of Tennessee at Chattanooga that found a correlation,

in college-student questionnaires, between helicopter

parenting and medication for anxiety or depression.

One researcher at a treatment center for addicts

in Los Angeles found that “rates of depression and

anxiety among affluent teens and young adults

correspond to the rates of depression and anxiety

suffered by incarcerated juveniles.” Other studies

suggest that overparented kids are “less open to new

ideas” and take “less satisfaction in life.” For Lythcott-

Haims, the message behind this research is the

same: Kids need to sally forth independently without

constant supervision. They need to try and even fail.

And when they fail and look around for a parent to

bail them out, they need to hear the words, “You must

figure this out for yourself.” 

By Heather Havrilesky, (with slight adaptations). On 6/15/2015; The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes. com/2015/06/21/books/review/how-to-raise-an-adult-by-julie- -lythcott-haims.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0