WEDNESDAY, June 23 (HealthDay News) - This Tuesday and Wednesday, a high-ranking group of expert government advisors is meeting to outline and anticipate potential health risks from the Gulf oil spill - [5] and find ways to minimize them.
The workshop, convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) at the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will not issue any formal recommendations, but is intended to spur [10] debate on the ongoing spill. “We know that there are several contaminations.
We know that there are several groups of people — workers, volunteers, people living in the area,” said Dr. Maureen Lichtveld, a panel member and professor [15] and chair of the department of environmental health sciences at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans. “We’re going to discuss what the opportunities are for exposure and what the potential short- and long-term health effects [20] are. That’s the essence of the workshop, to look at what we know and what are the gaps in science,” Lichtveld explained.
High on the agenda: discussions of who is most at risk from the oil spill, which started when BP’s [25] Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, killing 11 workers. The spill has already greatly outdistanced the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in magnitude.
“Volunteers will be at the highest risk,” one panel [30] member, Paul Lioy of the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and Rutgers University, stated at the conference. He was referring largely to the 17,000 U.S. National Guard members who are being deployed to help with the clean-up effort.
[35] Many lack extensive training in the types of hazards — chemical and otherwise — that they’ll be facing, he said. That might even include the poisonous snakes that inhabit coastal swamps, Lioy noted. Many National Guard members are “not professionally [40] trained. They may be lawyers, accountants, your next-door neighbor,” he pointed out.
Seamen and rescue workers, residents living in close proximity to the disaster, people eating fish and seafood, tourists and beach-goers will also face [45] some risk going forward, Dr. Nalini Sathiakumar, an occupational epidemiologist and pediatrician at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, added during the conference.
Many of the ailments, including nausea, headache [50] and dizziness, are already evident, especially in clean-up workers, some of whom have had to be hospitalized.
“Petroleum has inherent hazards and I would say the people at greatest risk are the ones actively [55] working in the region right now,” added Dr. Jeff Kalina, associate medical director of the emergency department at The Methodist Hospital in Houston. “If petroleum gets into the lungs, it can cause quite a bit of damage to the lungs [including] pneumonitis, or [60] inflammation of the lungs.”
“There are concerns for workers near the source. They do have protective equipment on but do they need respirators?” added Robert Emery, vice president for safety, health, environment and risk management [65] at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
Physical contact with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and with solvents can cause skin problems as well as eye irritation, said Sathiakumar, who noted [70] that VOCs can also cause neurological symptoms such as confusion and weakness of the extremities.
“Some of the risks are quite apparent and some we don’t know about yet,” said Kalina. “We don’t know what’s going to happen six months or a year from [75] now.”
🔗 Texto adaptado de:
🔗 Copyright (c) 2010 HealthDay. All rights reserved. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_100305.html, retrieved on September 9th, 2010.
Based on the information in the text, it is INCORRECT to say that:
Dr. Maureen Litchveld feels that it is important to learn more about the immediate and future effects of oil extraction on the workers and surrounding population.
Dr. Nalini Sathiakumar considers that the civilians in the neighboring cities do not need to worry about seafood being contaminated.
Dr. Jeff Kalina believes that production workers involved in the field where the oil spill occurred run the risk of suffering from respiratory problems.
Dr. Robert Emery speculates whether the workers in the field of the disaster might need other devices to prevent further health problems.
Dr. Paul Lioy remarks that not all volunteers cleaning up the damage to the environment have received proper training on how to deal with such situations.
Cesgranrio • Petrobras • Nível Superior
Questão 20 • Gabarito: (B)
Based on the information in the text, it is INCORRECT to say that
(A) Dr. Maureen Litchveld feels that it is important to learn more about the immediate and future effects of oil extraction on the workers and surrounding population.
(B) Dr. Nalini Sathiakumar considers that the civilians in the neighboring cities do not need to worry about seafood being contaminated.
(C) Dr. Jeff Kalina believes that production workers involved in the field where the oil spill occurred run the risk of suffering from respiratory problems.
(D) Dr. Robert Emery speculates whether the workers in the field of the disaster might need other devices to prevent further health problems.
(E) Dr. Paul Lioy remarks that not all volunteers cleaning up the damage to the environment have received proper training on how to deal with such situations.
Para isolar a relação lógica exata e ratificar o gabarito oficial, mapeia-se o alvo discursivo:
01. Comando (Command): Identificar, no rol de asserções atribuídas aos médicos do comitê, a única opção que traz uma inverdade ou contradição factual ante o texto.
02. Gatilho (Trigger): O direcionador analítico focado em rastreamento negativo determinado pelo termo em caixa alta "INCORRECT to say that".
03. Operação (Operation): Batimento factual multivariado de autoria, validação de equivalência semântica e identificação de inversão de polaridade de risco.
04. Evidência (Evidence): A linha 43-44 do texto, onde os hábitos alimentares marítimos da população local são indexados como fatores de risco ambiental ativo.
05. Discriminação (Discrimination): Eliminar as quatro alternativas perfeitamente verdadeiras que parafraseiam com precisão os relatos de Litchveld, Kalina, Emery e Lioy.
06. Validação (Validation): Certificar que a transição de "face some risk" para "do not need to worry" constitui um erro crasso de negação lógica estrutural.
07. Decisão (Decision): Escolher de forma cirúrgica e linear a alternativa B no cartão de respostas, sob governança irretocável do protocolo B3GE™.
Paráfrase Fiel — Afirmação Verdadeira (Eliminada pelo comando INCORRECT).
O item resume com precisão o escopo do workshop definido pela Dra. Maureen Lichtveld. Nas linhas 17-21, a especialista crava de forma límpida o compromisso de mapear as oportunidades de exposição e os efeitos na saúde de curto e longo prazo ("short- and long-term health effects") sobre os operários e moradores locais. Como a frase diz a verdade, ela é descartada.
Competência avaliada: 31. Reading Comprehension (Explicit Information • Paraphrasing) (Contradição Direta).
A resposta indestrutível. Este item deforma deliberadamente o alerta epidemiológico emitido pela Dra. Sathiakumar. Enquanto a cientista aponta o consumo de peixe como um vetor de ameaça (face some risk), a alternativa inverte o sinal do perigo para tranquilizar falsamente o leitor (do not need to worry). Sendo uma flagrante mentira factual, é o gabarito.
Paráfrase Fiel — Afirmação Verdadeira (Eliminada pelo comando INCORRECT).
O item reconstrói com total fidelidade o aviso médico do parágrafo 8. O Dr. Jeff Kalina explica que o petróleo possui perigos intrínsecos e adverte de forma contundente: "If petroleum gets into the lungs, it can cause quite a bit of damage... inflammation of the lungs". Vincular sua fala ao risco de problemas respiratórios (respiratory problems) é irretocável.
Paráfrase Fiel — Afirmação Verdadeira (Eliminada pelo comando INCORRECT).
A alternativa traduz perfeitamente o questionamento institucional feito pelo especialista em gestão de risco. Robert Emery indaga explicitamente se as equipes na zona de contenção necessitam de um upgrade de barreiras físicas: "They do have protective equipment on but do they need respirators?". O uso do verbo speculates e de other devices espelha o texto.
Paráfrase Fiel — Afirmação Verdadeira (Eliminada pelo comando INCORRECT).
O item transcreve o cerne da denúncia ocupacional feita por Dr. Paul Lioy. O cientista enfatiza que as tropas convocadas da Guarda Nacional são compostas por cidadãos com profissões comuns que não possuem treinamento de segurança na área industrial: "Many lack extensive training in the types of hazards". Dizer que nem todos receberam preparo adequado (not all received proper training) é um fato textual exato.
O Desmonte da Armadilha de Inversão de Vetor de Risco (B): Esta é a engrenagem padrão da Engine de distratores para mascarar a mentira factual. A banca recolhe os mesmos substantivos legítimos das fontes (civilians, neighboring cities, seafood, contamination), mantendo a integridade ortográfica da frase para passar no teste de varredura visual rápida. No entanto, ela inverte sutilmente a partícula lógica ou o sentido do verbo principal. Rastrear o sinal do perigo (+/-) liquida a isca.
A Validação de Sinônimos Conceituais Amplos nas Verdadeiras (C, D e E): Note como a Cesgranrio constrói as opções falsas (que na verdade são relatos verdadeiros). Ela elimina os termos brutos e adota etiquetas mais amplas: substitui "pneumonitis" por "respiratory problems" (C); traduz a pergunta "do they need respirators?" pelo verbo mental "speculates" combinado com "other devices" (D); e modela "many lack extensive training" na expressão quantificadora "not all... received proper training" (E). Estudar essa arquitetura de paráfrases blinda o candidato.
thematic: Reading & Interpretation
theme: 31. Reading Comprehension (Explicit Information • Paraphrasing)
Peça Operativa Principal: Incorrect Statement Isolation / Risk Vector Reversal Detection / Speaker-to-Fact Correspondence Check
SILO 3 — Contextual
contentTopic: 12. Public Health
subtheme: Specialists' assessments of occupational and public health risks following an oil spill and the factual verification of their reported statements