Alfalfa is real water guzzler in California. Alfalfa, hay and pasturage account for about half of all Californian water consumption. The real water savings are to be found in reducing consumer demand for animal products - nothing else will impact this water efficiency bottleneck.
There are lots and lots of ways to lower the water usage of both the general population and water intensive applications such as farming.
Absolutely - although agricultural consumption is the efficiency bottleneck in CA. Drip irrigation is not required and most farms use insanely inefficient sprinkler systems. However, some crops really can be cut back significantly - if the will is there - in order to generate water savings.
I'm talking about alfalfa, hay and pasturage, together accounting for about half of all Californian water consumption. Animal agriculture dwarfs every other user of water - even almonds are irrelevant in comparison - and unlike almond orchards, these crops can be reduced rapidly to reflect decreased consumer demand for animal products.
I'll say it again: reduced consumer demand for animal products is the only thing that is likely to ease water stress in California and elsewhere over the long term.
What they should do (should have done long since) is put in a series of desalination plants
You mean like the half dozen existing plants and 15+ proposed for construction across the state?
You are also apparently unaware that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Desalination from seawater costs about 8.5 kWH / m^2. That is a lot of power. Even ignoring the environmental impact, desalination is extremely energetically expensive.
Not the millionnaire Hollywood crowd decrying the 1% while filling there private pools with tyhosaunds of gallons of water per year. Oh the vinyarder's who sell there $100 a bottle wine to the Hollywood crowd.
Sorry, but if you look at actual quantitative data on water use, it is animal agriculture which is by far the largest source of water consumption and water waste in California. Almonds, Hollywood pools and wine are all as nothing compared to the water used for alfalfa. Alfalfa, hay and pasturage account for about half of the states entire consumption.
Unfortunately, you can't just put the blame on 1%ers. You too will have to drastically reduce your water footprint - by cutting back on meat.
About half of California's water is used for alfalfa, hay and pasturage. Next to that, every other Californian water use is almost irrelevant - even almonds.
When you look atthenumbers, it's clear water stress can only be managed by reducing consumption of animal products and restricting animal agriculture.
Head tracking may work well, depending on ability to control head/neck. There are several methods (mostly originating in the flight sim community).
1. Face tracking (very easy to try, FaceTrackNoIR or Opentrack)
2. Head tracking with IR clip (bit more reliable than face, many DIY guides out there)
3. Head tracking with Aruco marker (available in Opentrack)
Are there any existing models of electron transport in biological systems?
Good question! The answer is yes, although they are not even mentioned in this unreviewed manuscript (which seems like hokum to me). Electron transfer in proteins is particularly well understood in the context of Marcus theory. The wiki article isn't great, but it has some good information and further references. A key insight is the "inverted driving force effect," an experimentally validated prediction of Marcus theory that electron transfer rates actually start to decrease if the transfer reaction is too exergonic (energetically favored).
Without going into a ton of detail, quantum effects are actually quite important for electron transfer, and some enzymes even encourage tunneling, mostly of electrons, as part of catalysis. Considering that the de Broglie wavelength of a 10 kJ electron is about 18 angstroms (biologically relevant scales), it's not really that surprising. Frequently, there are favored tunneling pathways through enzymes which electrons tend to follow.
Enzymes also sometimes utilize nuclear tunneling (i.e. tunneling proton/hydrogen/hydride), which is really, really cool. I am a fan of this paper which shows how tunneling is is encouraged through dynamic gating motions in a enzyme on the chlorophyll production pathway.
As a current biochemist, I do wonder why the paper doesn't even mention Marcus theory or other previous work in enzymatic charge transfers. There really are some sweet quantum effects in biology, like enzyme-catalyzed proton tunneling, but I think the unreviewed manuscript under discussion here is hokum.
Tunneling (mostly of electrons) is actually widespread in proteins, and its not hard to see why that is when you consider that the de Broglie wavelength of a 10 kJ electron is around 18 angstroms (these are relevant energy/distance scales in enzymes). Search "Marcus theory" for more information...
What's really cool is that some enzymes actually boost tunneling probabilities (e.g. through particular short-timescale motions) as an essential component of catalysis. In some cases, tunneling even occurs for larger particles like protons/hydrogens/hydrides. I really like this paper, for example, which shows how proton tunneling is essential in a light-activated enzyme involved in an early stage of chlorophyll synthesis in some plants.
Unfortunately, the unreviewed manuscript from TFA seems like nonsense to this biochemist. It doesn't seem to line up with, or even reference, any of the five decades of existing science in the area.
How about skepticism of claims made in unreviewed manuscripts which flout five decades of theoretical and empirical investigations of charge transfer and quantum effects in biochemical systems?
biological systems, even at the single protein level, are doing things with electron conductance that can't be done in non-biological systems.
There really are some very cool quantum effects in biomolecules, for example enzymes which take catalyze electron tunneling and even proton tunneling. Electron transfer in proteins in particular is actually pretty well understood via Marcus theory. There is extensive theoretical and experimental work going back five decades in this area - all of which is totally ignored by the unreviewed manuscript under discussion.
biomolecules belong to an entirely new class of conductor that is not bound by the ordinary rules of electron transport
Unfortunately, your post and TFA alike do not appropriately distinguish between wildly different classes of "biomolecules."
There are some pretty cool examples of quantum effects in biomolecules (e.g. this paper about enzyme catalyzed proton tunneling, and Marcus theory for electron transfer), but this paper doesn't seem either to reference any of that past work at all, or make sense given that context.
It's not a matter of not keeping up with the field. This unreviewed manuscript just doesn't jive with what's already known about electron transfer in biomolecules, an area with five decades of empirical work completely ignored in the manuscript.
I'm just a layman, but to my untrained eye this looks like word salad.
I'm a biochemist specializing in molecular biophysics, and I agree.
It's not always true, but as a general rule of thumb that some throwing "quantum" into a biology discussion is usually talking crap.
Definitely not always - there are actually enzymes which take advantage of electron tunneling, and even proton tunneling, for catalysis. Here's a particularly cool paper (no paywall) about a light-activated oxidoreductase which encourages a proton to tunnel.
There is no reference to existing models of electron transport in biological systems
I was struck by the same observation. It also seems like the authors are unaware of the newish linear-time DFT codes.
In case anyone has some knowledge of quantum mechanics and biology, and is interested in electron transfer in biomolecules, Wikipedia has an article on Marcus theory that is an OK place to start. Not the best article, but it discusses the inverted driving force effect and has references to follow up.
any religion can simply claim it was created that way or the supernatural will of some supernatural being and you have absolutely no way to factually test or refute that.
In principle, religions can make only nonfalsifiable claims, yes. However, all extant religions in fact make significant falsifiable claims.
I have never heard a Christian claim they believe only that their God created an inflationary spacetime and nothing else.
You are confusing money - liquid institutional financial liabilities - with real resources. The United States can never run out of US dollars. It can run out of real resources. You have to make the case that the US is in danger of running out of food, metal or human capital, since it can never run out of a financial asset of which it is sole issuer.
There are plenty of doctors who spew anti-vaccine nonsense. Both the cause of ulcers and the value of vaccines were established by scientists, not doctors.
are going to be seriously affected by climate change and overpopulation.
Define overpopulation. If you mean an actual insufficiency of key physical resources (i.e. food)...then we're nowhere close to the Earth's limit, and we wont be when population stabilizes around 10 billion mid-century, either. It doesn't count if there's not enough food only because some people wont stop eating meat or turning food into fuel.
PS - we shouldn't conflate environmental effects with "choice" (conscious or otherwise). The AC parent comment had a grain of truth to it, but committed this fundamental error.
Slashdot Mirror
You only have to water alfalfa
Alfalfa is real water guzzler in California. Alfalfa, hay and pasturage account for about half of all Californian water consumption. The real water savings are to be found in reducing consumer demand for animal products - nothing else will impact this water efficiency bottleneck.
There are lots and lots of ways to lower the water usage of both the general population and water intensive applications such as farming.
Absolutely - although agricultural consumption is the efficiency bottleneck in CA. Drip irrigation is not required and most farms use insanely inefficient sprinkler systems. However, some crops really can be cut back significantly - if the will is there - in order to generate water savings.
I'm talking about alfalfa, hay and pasturage, together accounting for about half of all Californian water consumption. Animal agriculture dwarfs every other user of water - even almonds are irrelevant in comparison - and unlike almond orchards, these crops can be reduced rapidly to reflect decreased consumer demand for animal products.
I'll say it again: reduced consumer demand for animal products is the only thing that is likely to ease water stress in California and elsewhere over the long term.
What they should do (should have done long since) is put in a series of desalination plants
You mean like the half dozen existing plants and 15+ proposed for construction across the state?
You are also apparently unaware that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Desalination from seawater costs about 8.5 kWH / m^2. That is a lot of power. Even ignoring the environmental impact, desalination is extremely energetically expensive.
Not the millionnaire Hollywood crowd decrying the 1% while filling there private pools with tyhosaunds of gallons of water per year. Oh the vinyarder's who sell there $100 a bottle wine to the Hollywood crowd.
Sorry, but if you look at actual quantitative data on water use, it is animal agriculture which is by far the largest source of water consumption and water waste in California. Almonds, Hollywood pools and wine are all as nothing compared to the water used for alfalfa. Alfalfa, hay and pasturage account for about half of the states entire consumption.
Unfortunately, you can't just put the blame on 1%ers. You too will have to drastically reduce your water footprint - by cutting back on meat.
About half of California's water is used for alfalfa, hay and pasturage. Next to that, every other Californian water use is almost irrelevant - even almonds.
When you look at the numbers, it's clear water stress can only be managed by reducing consumption of animal products and restricting animal agriculture.
What difference does it make if they get a free copy or pirate the software?
That's how it seems to me, too...but then why should a pirate upgrade? Pirate Windows works great (or so I'm told, I swear).
"To know another language is to have a second soul."
Head tracking may work well, depending on ability to control head/neck. There are several methods (mostly originating in the flight sim community).
1. Face tracking (very easy to try, FaceTrackNoIR or Opentrack)
2. Head tracking with IR clip (bit more reliable than face, many DIY guides out there)
3. Head tracking with Aruco marker (available in Opentrack)
Are there any existing models of electron transport in biological systems?
Good question! The answer is yes, although they are not even mentioned in this unreviewed manuscript (which seems like hokum to me). Electron transfer in proteins is particularly well understood in the context of Marcus theory. The wiki article isn't great, but it has some good information and further references. A key insight is the "inverted driving force effect," an experimentally validated prediction of Marcus theory that electron transfer rates actually start to decrease if the transfer reaction is too exergonic (energetically favored).
Without going into a ton of detail, quantum effects are actually quite important for electron transfer, and some enzymes even encourage tunneling, mostly of electrons, as part of catalysis. Considering that the de Broglie wavelength of a 10 kJ electron is about 18 angstroms (biologically relevant scales), it's not really that surprising. Frequently, there are favored tunneling pathways through enzymes which electrons tend to follow.
Enzymes also sometimes utilize nuclear tunneling (i.e. tunneling proton/hydrogen/hydride), which is really, really cool. I am a fan of this paper which shows how tunneling is is encouraged through dynamic gating motions in a enzyme on the chlorophyll production pathway.
As a current biochemist, I do wonder why the paper doesn't even mention Marcus theory or other previous work in enzymatic charge transfers. There really are some sweet quantum effects in biology, like enzyme-catalyzed proton tunneling, but I think the unreviewed manuscript under discussion here is hokum.
Tunneling (mostly of electrons) is actually widespread in proteins, and its not hard to see why that is when you consider that the de Broglie wavelength of a 10 kJ electron is around 18 angstroms (these are relevant energy/distance scales in enzymes). Search "Marcus theory" for more information...
What's really cool is that some enzymes actually boost tunneling probabilities (e.g. through particular short-timescale motions) as an essential component of catalysis. In some cases, tunneling even occurs for larger particles like protons/hydrogens/hydrides. I really like this paper, for example, which shows how proton tunneling is essential in a light-activated enzyme involved in an early stage of chlorophyll synthesis in some plants.
Unfortunately, the unreviewed manuscript from TFA seems like nonsense to this biochemist. It doesn't seem to line up with, or even reference, any of the five decades of existing science in the area.
arguments from personal incredulity
How about skepticism of claims made in unreviewed manuscripts which flout five decades of theoretical and empirical investigations of charge transfer and quantum effects in biochemical systems?
biological systems, even at the single protein level, are doing things with electron conductance that can't be done in non-biological systems.
There really are some very cool quantum effects in biomolecules, for example enzymes which take catalyze electron tunneling and even proton tunneling. Electron transfer in proteins in particular is actually pretty well understood via Marcus theory. There is extensive theoretical and experimental work going back five decades in this area - all of which is totally ignored by the unreviewed manuscript under discussion.
biomolecules belong to an entirely new class of conductor that is not bound by the ordinary rules of electron transport
Unfortunately, your post and TFA alike do not appropriately distinguish between wildly different classes of "biomolecules."
There are some pretty cool examples of quantum effects in biomolecules (e.g. this paper about enzyme catalyzed proton tunneling, and Marcus theory for electron transfer), but this paper doesn't seem either to reference any of that past work at all, or make sense given that context.
It's not a matter of not keeping up with the field. This unreviewed manuscript just doesn't jive with what's already known about electron transfer in biomolecules, an area with five decades of empirical work completely ignored in the manuscript.
I'm just a layman, but to my untrained eye this looks like word salad.
I'm a biochemist specializing in molecular biophysics, and I agree.
It's not always true, but as a general rule of thumb that some throwing "quantum" into a biology discussion is usually talking crap.
Definitely not always - there are actually enzymes which take advantage of electron tunneling, and even proton tunneling, for catalysis. Here's a particularly cool paper (no paywall) about a light-activated oxidoreductase which encourages a proton to tunnel.
There is no reference to existing models of electron transport in biological systems
I was struck by the same observation. It also seems like the authors are unaware of the newish linear-time DFT codes.
In case anyone has some knowledge of quantum mechanics and biology, and is interested in electron transfer in biomolecules, Wikipedia has an article on Marcus theory that is an OK place to start. Not the best article, but it discusses the inverted driving force effect and has references to follow up.
any religion can simply claim it was created that way or the supernatural will of some supernatural being and you have absolutely no way to factually test or refute that.
In principle, religions can make only nonfalsifiable claims, yes. However, all extant religions in fact make significant falsifiable claims.
I have never heard a Christian claim they believe only that their God created an inflationary spacetime and nothing else.
You are confusing money - liquid institutional financial liabilities - with real resources. The United States can never run out of US dollars. It can run out of real resources. You have to make the case that the US is in danger of running out of food, metal or human capital, since it can never run out of a financial asset of which it is sole issuer.
There is not a mountain of facts that show religios rrvelations to be false.
You're right, it's more like a galaxy.
To be fair the Abrahamic religions actually do overlap in many - perhaps the majority - of their cosmological beliefs.
There are plenty of doctors who spew anti-vaccine nonsense. Both the cause of ulcers and the value of vaccines were established by scientists, not doctors.
And we will wait for you to prove Frodo never carried the One Ring into Mordor.
are going to be seriously affected by climate change and overpopulation.
Define overpopulation. If you mean an actual insufficiency of key physical resources (i.e. food)...then we're nowhere close to the Earth's limit, and we wont be when population stabilizes around 10 billion mid-century, either. It doesn't count if there's not enough food only because some people wont stop eating meat or turning food into fuel.
PS - we shouldn't conflate environmental effects with "choice" (conscious or otherwise). The AC parent comment had a grain of truth to it, but committed this fundamental error.