strainer

I didn't reply to a point that was at all limited to regulated forestry in British Columbia.

The google search was relevant to illustrate that concerned organisations have been campaigning against clearfelling for decades.

Tasmanian rain forest is still be destroyed in the same manner today.

https://www.wilderness.org.au/news-events/end-rainforest-log...

I tried a bit of treeplanting work myself in 90's Scotland, but couldn't stick the physical workload to be honest. Forestry there and in the rest of the UK is in the main still quite ecologically insensitive and also massively under-developed with national parks kept quite barren through generations of strange policy decisions and over-subsidised sheep farming. Policies seem to be on the verge of improving though.

I take your advice about industrys adaptation in Canada - but I think its adapted to external regulation and environmental oversight. Horrific, internationally contracted and equipped logging business continues around the world. I can appreciate how investors and wage seekers become insensitive to it, and in other industries to combustion, pollution, waste.. so examination, regulation, forcing industry to adapt at home and abroad is the only hope.

It has been characteristically eco-destructive and defended its business to be so, even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat.

It simply has to be transformed, its legacy of habitat devastation must be outlawed and could even though unlikely -justly be retrospectively prosecuted.

Cutting it in that manner is definitely not good because it doesn't regenerate when done so, for complicating ecological reasons. It is the regeneration stage of forestation which is remarkably good at capturing CO2.

Logging could be done in an ecological manner enabling and even stimulating natural regeneration but the industry culture has been powerfully opposed to ecological concern and campaigns that have struggled against its practices for many decades past[1]

Despite potentially offering insightful, fit and adventurous outdoor employment opportunities for humanity, global logging industry has politically lobbied to maintain a brutal strategy of maximum impact and immediate return towards its resource.

These practices are developed and carried out wherever profitable, by well established Western logging companies and professionals. Wildlife is poisoned and culled before work begins to simplify operations - the nature of the whole area is eliminated by design :

" Clearfelling, as the name suggests, first involves the complete felling of a forest by chainsaws and skidders. Then, the whole area is torched, the firing started by helicopters dropping incendiary devices made of jellied petroleum, commonly known as napalm. The resultant fire is of such ferocity it produces mushroom clouds visible from considerable distances. In consequence, every autumn, the island's otherwise most beautiful season, china-blue skies are frequently nicotine-scummed, an inescapable reminder that clearfelling means the total destruction of ancient and unique forests."[2]

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=eg+greenpeace+logging&tbs=cd...

[2] https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007/may/1348543148/rich...

The Pi4 does not need a fan. There is a grand total of 10 watts of heat to dissipate, 15 watts max supply but that includes power sent to peripherals and wifi. A matchbox sized heatspreader which just touches each of the warm components will work assuming a bit of ventilation is arranged to let 40-50C air float away. The heatspreader shouldn't even benefit significantly from being a top conductive alloy - a bit of tin lid will do the job.

Experiences with shifting 200 watts for cpu cooling has people thinking dedicated alloy sinks and fins and fans are appropriate, but this is just 10 watts - it's child's play ;/

Those bits and pieces are bodge-able. Have extra kudos for making do. Make a case out of recycled packaging materials or wood or mesh or whatever. Take a heatsink and little fan off an obsolete graphics card - cut it down to fit if necessary, tie it on with thread and use some old grease as thermal compound if necessary :)

A £5 USB audio adapter[1] 33 Reviewers, no reports of problems.

[1] https://thepihut.com/products/usb-audio-adapter

Me too, thanks for regarding. On second look, it's a better article than I deserved to hit on - just quickly plucked from WSU since i've been impressed there before :)

Here is a recent overview from Washington State University "Soil biology and soil organic matter; What do recent discoveries mean for soil management?"[1] I copy one quarter of its provided references below here, just to illustrate the situation that there is really no paucity of peer reviewed work from this field.

About the potential for reversing the long term trend in soil degradation through microbially 'un-interested' and herbicide assisted no-till methods - wouldn't be appropriate to provide university replicated peer reviewed research which substantiates they have the situation covered ?

[1] http://csanr.wsu.edu/soil-biology-and-soil-organic-matter/

1/4 References:

Jackson, R.B., K. Lajtha, S.E. Crow, G. Hugelius, M.G. Kramer, et al. 2017. The Ecology of Soil Carbon: Pools, Vulnerabilities, and Biotic and Abiotic Controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48(1): 419–445. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234.

Janzen, H.H. 2006. The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38(3): 419–424. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.10.008.

Kallenbach, C.M., S.D. Frey, and A.S. Grandy. 2016. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nature Communications 7: 13630. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13630.

Kästner, M., and A. Miltner. 2018. SOM and Microbes—What Is Left From Microbial Life. In: Garcia, C., Nannipieri, P., and Hernandez, T., editors, The Future of Soil Carbon. Academic Press. p. 125–163

Woolf, D., and J. Lehmann. 2019. Microbial models with minimal mineral protection can explain long-term soil organic carbon persistence. Scientific Reports 9(1): 6522. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43026-8.

General anesthesia on infants has been indicated to cause "reduced gray matter density in certain brain regions" that results in a 5-6 point lower IQ on average in adults who had undergone surgery involving general anesthesia before the age of 4.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/294966.php

Aforestation is another big opportunity to absorb carbon and can be combined to increase habitat for animals and biophillic settings and work for people, as well as produce sustainable building and manufacturing materials - and even some fuel.

The IPCCs primary goal is to reduce carbon output, not figure out a way to enable it to continue. We have renewable and sustainable power technologies ready to reduce carbon output rapidly as soon as the political will to proceed is won.

This potentially huge mining scheme involves releasing what is in simple terms very large amounts of a pollutant into the Ocean. Its anticipated that the effects of this particular pollution will be beneficial, but we have no natural history to show for its ecological effects. Forests are already a great part of our worlds natural history.

I think it is a worthwhile scheme to begin implementing and observing the effects on Ocean ecology and also on the global mining industry which it has potential to stimulate. But the 100% target is an oversell in my view.

Succinctly put, thanks.

I watched the explanation of the chart and it is still ambiguous both what it is, and its purpose. That narrator explains: "Rejected energy is the portion of energy that goes into a process and comes out generally as waste heat" - waste heat is not just as you wrote: "part" of it, it is explained to be "generally" (all of) it. Really neither of us should need to clarify the difference between "part of" and "generally all"

So then "rejected energy/waste heat" can not be used or as we are saying here -"accepted" by better battery storage, which was the opinion that you brought this ambiguous chart and presentation to explain. This chart is irrelevant to battery storage.

Also, most of the energy in the chart is thermo-electric derived from fossil fuel and nuclear plant. Wind turbines and solar "reject" heat energy in completely different manner and lesser degree than thermo-electric plants - it is truly nonsensical to mix the two together under the vague heading of "rejected". It makes so little sense, I do wonder about the credentials or motivation of this LLNL to educate on energy issues.

Rejection is an action - whatever it means in that graphic its not a thermodynamic factor. My bet is the figures shown relate to capacity factor, they have no connection to what they have been presented as - a potentially reclaimable amount. Of course the proof should lie in the article which the graphic comes from - its a very messy idea to link and debate graphics which have no clear sense without their article.

> There is inherent waste to ..

What has inherent waste to do with your reference to "Rejected Energy" ? What do you now understand of that graphic ? Transmission losses are generally in the range 5-10% for modern grids. Your interpretation of that ambiguous reference wrongly indicated 66% losses. Thats not reasonable and doesn't support your advice on energy storage. I suggest gaining more familiarity with the general subject before judging it.

> But I wouldn't say it is a good thing we reject more than half the energy we create.

The meaning of "Rejected Energy" in that graphic is obscure but it certainly doesn't relate to energy which has been created and rejected. It may relate to excess capacity of fossil fuel plants (how much more they could produce if ordered to burn more fuel).

The US is thankfully not "rejecting" twice as much energy as it is producing as those figures of 68.5 vs 32.7 lead you to believe. Curtailment of wind and solar generation in the US is recently around 2-4%

[1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/mark-specht/renewable-energy-curtail...

Creating plants that have unprecedented attributes is begging for plant diseases to develop with unprecedented attributes. We can't even deal with our own diseases yet, its no time to be testing supercharged lifeforms on the natural environment.

We are already lucky to have trees that grow fast enough and are well suited for construction uses. We are lucky to have sun and wind strong enough replace our unsustainable power sources. We're even lucky we didn't wipe out the ozone layer a few decades ago - only a chance of chemistry gave us enough time to respond.

The global climate and ecological crisis should be a wake up call to appreciate the vulnerability and suitability of the web of life that evolved us, not a mandate for ever more bold experiments on it.

Thanks, I hadn't time to check.

Be as skeptical as you wish, but that is all very orthogonal to my requests to substantiate claims here that the biomarker examined is unreliably interpreted. They have not been substantiated. Discussion of what qualifies as "anti-aging" is another matter . Anti-aging is not a clinical term, there have been no claims made about general reversal of aging.

"That's not an argument" - is not an argument - its a summary.

My argument did follow my summary. Your link to elsewhere is not an argument here :P

I'm questioning the idea that this particular biomarker - doesn't actually mark what the report claims it marks (mitochondrial bio-genesis).

How do we often test for diabetes.. cancers.. many many clinical conditions? Biomarkers. So they are not practically unreliable in general.

What do you know about the particular biomarker employed in the study to say that it is unreliable ?

However at the same time, the gut is so confoundingly complicated that substances in concentrated tablet form are often less readily absorbed than less concentrated amounts occurring in food.

Your statement reads as though the research tested lower doses and 500mg was the lowest which "saw any effects". Is this accurate?

Is the article wrong in stating "UA stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis". Did the measurements of acylcarnitine levels not actually show this? Have any other substances been found to affect acylcarnitine levels or stimulate mitochondrial biogenesis ?

What particular anti-aging effects do you regard? Are not improvements in mitochondrial health practical indicators of anti-aging as improvements in skin elasticity or bone strength?

That seems overly dismissive of the finding on mitochondrial activity:

" The team then assessed the efficacy of UA by looking at cellular and mitochondrial health biomarkers in the participants' blood and muscle tissue. The results were compelling: UA stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis—the process by which cells increase mitochondrial mass—in the same way as regular exercise.

UA is the only known compound that re-establishes cells' ability to recycle defective mitochondria. "

It was too broad an assurance to base on quick chemical assessment. We have different kinds of plastics situated in many different environments. Regarding the sugar example and microbes primary need for water, from the article - "In 2016, researchers in Japan tested sludge from a recycling plant and uncovered a microbe that could completely break down films of PET to CO2 and H2O"

And any opening or crack which rainwater or groundwater or seawater or dust can occasionally access will carry nutrients required for microbial life.

I get they can - on rare occasion. I'm indignant about the stretch of language, presenting "can" and "sometimes" as "will" and "do", and the way this was tacked onto placenta eating to help say they "already eat parts of cows". To me this is all plain argument through exaggeration. Herbivores don't need to eat meats and do so rarely, it has hardly been noticed. Sure, some slugs and insects may be an expected nutritional boost and help the digestive system cope with more, on rare occasion. But feeding cows cows does result in prion disease similar to other mammals, like humans suffer from the vanishingly rare practice.

That's nonsense. Herbivores will not "eat any food thats more calorically..." they eat what they have specialised to eat. Some even just eat one species of plant. Where do you find cows that hunt chickens and mice or chickens and mice that willingly sacrifice themselves to cows?

And this is all a fools errand away from the idea of cannibalistic cows!