{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034255599472990776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01844532279314888, 'mean_word_length': 4.910505836575876, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comments to Angulo et al. 2016 on "Sea-level fluctuations and coastal evolution in the state of Rio de Janeiro, southeastern - Brazil" by Castro et al. 2014.

Interpretation of sea-level indicators is essential when studying paleo sea-level fluctuations during the Holocene. Sea-level indicators may have different origins, such as geological (beachrocks) and biological (vermetids and barnacles). In order to reconstruct paleo sea-level, it is necessary to attribute an indicative meaning to each sea-level indicator. This paper aims to discuss issues raised by Angulo et al. (2016) regarding to the sea-level fluctuations curve proposed by Castro et al. (2014) to the Rio de Janeiro State coast, Brazilian southeast. The key issue that deserves posing is that local or regional curves cannot be built based on large scale (global) RSL geophysical models even in places of steady crust like Brazil. Here, we put into question the relative sea-level fluctuation curve model proposed by Angulo et al. (2006, 2016) to the coast of Rio de Janeiro State and Pernambuco State. It is strengthened the proposal of using different origins indicators on RSL vertical variation, georeferenced by high precision altitude GPS, adjusted by Brazilian Geodetic System benchmarks, maintained by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics - IBGE. All issues regarding the curve drawn by Castro et al. (2014) are answered based on field data, laboratory analytical techniques, radiocarbon dating as well as relevant literature.