If bitcoins price continues to rise, miners will be greatly incentivized to further decrease power costs. I hope this leads to innovation in clean power tech, especially in developing nations.
so upwards of ~36% of Bitcoin mining is coal powered. yes, that fits all the estimates that Bitcoin mining is almost a supermajority using renewable energy at some plants and and curbing pollution as a sustainability solution at other plants.
1/ Bitcoin itself might be 100% on renewables. But it's still causing a need for non renewables to be used, to compensate for the fact that you're mining a useless coin. I'd rather have us use this energy in a useful way.
2/ Bitcoin is causing _more_ energy consumption. It's not curbing pollution, in any way. It's just grafting itself where the energy is cheap. Noone's building wind farms for bitcoin.
3/ If I cut off 36% (which is a low bound, other countries are not clean either) of your salary, go ahead and tell me it's okay because you still have the supermajority of it.
2/ at flare gas plants bitcoin is curbing pollution, and this helps the plants and the state meet their climate goals. yes their pursuit of cheap power is what takes them where they are, an economic incentive for sustainability solutions that 50 years of idealists never were able to consider and are now fighting to ignore because this solution doesnt decrease energy use.
3/ I’m not sure what you are saying here? Is this supposed to be an analogy to something? What happens if you get rid of that energy use? The bitcoin network will adapt to a lower difficulty rate... not sure what you think you’re saying here.
>If bitcoins price continues to rise, miners will be greatly
incentivized to further decrease power costs.
That's not how bitcoin works. The price of bitcoin is the budget you can spend on mining a single coin. If the price is higher, you can afford to run more miners. If the cost of electricity goes down, you can afford to run more miners. If the efficiency goes up, you can afford to run more miners. Running more miners increases the mining difficulty and you are back where you started.
If Bitcoin is worth $50k people will destroy $50k of energy to acquire Bitcoin.
If bitcoin is worth $50k, people will destroy MORE than $50k of energy to acquire bitcoin, using resources that are subsidized either intentionally or unintentionally.
Miners are motivated by profit, if your cost of electricity is lower, your profit is higher. I’m not sure why you are trying to obfuscate that simple fact.
Miners are motivated by simple profit calculation, not R&D into energy generation. R&D has an unbounded capital risk, while bitcoin is a (relatively simple) statistical calculation of energy-cost which is a bounded cost (at any given time, within a range). Not a single bitcoin MINER is "greatly incentivized to further decrease power cost".
There are industries in much better positions to revolutionize energy production than bitcoin miners. In fact, there basically a single industry that doesn't have this incentive.
The amount of money for a given amount of energy spent mining you get is effectively Bitcoin price / difficulty.
If Bitcoin price goes up, then the return on energy gets greater. Therefore, it's worth it to spend more energy mining. Then difficulty rises and takes this incentive away, reaching a new equilibrium with more energy spent.
Couldn't you treat the blood within the body? Find a high flow, easily accessibly blood vessel and inject a thin fiber optic cable connected to a uv laser?
If you blast a bright enough light it has the potential to penetrate extremely deeply. It would be a balancing act of maximizing luminosity while minimizing human tissue damage.
Aye, I've dealt with Ford and Mazda dealerships that were utterly abysmal. Others were better. Hit or miss quality of dealerships and service centers is not a surprise and not a flaw of the brand per se.
"But Tesla is a luxury model that competes with Porsche and should make me feel fancy and be super nice etc etc" ...eh kinda, but not really, IMO. The S model does but future models are aimed at a more down-market segment and are going mainstream.
Fiber is indigestible, provides no nutritional value. It just passes through. The only thing its good for is being the scaffolding to make a nice turd.
As mentioned, plenty (maybe even most!) vegetables are not very high in digestible carbs - certainly not the ones that are high in fiber and nutrients (you can probably skip the potatoes unless you're on a mono-diet). But this is where I think you really need to reconsider where you're getting you're data from...
> High intake of saturated fat is associated with heart disease.
First off, associations, especially in nutritional epidemiology, is trash:
Archer, Edward, Carl J. Lavie, and James O. Hill. “The Failure to Measure Dietary Intake Engendered a Fictional Discourse on Diet-Disease Relations.” Frontiers in Nutrition 5 (November 13, 2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105.
Archer, Edward, Michael L. Marlow, and Carl J. Lavie. “Controversy and Debate: Memory-Based Methods Paper 1: The Fatal Flaws of Food Frequency Questionnaires and Other Memory-Based Dietary Assessment Methods.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 104 (December 2018): 113–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.08.003.
I don't think people realize just how bad the quality of data is in these sort of survey studies. IMO anything w/ an HR/OR of <2 should probably be outright ignored, if not taken with a big salt block before using as a hypothesis for an interventional trial.
But more interestingly, is how nutritional myths can sustain after it's been overturned. It turns out that on meta-analysis (n=347747), again keeping in mind how we should treat observational studies, the HR between eating the highest and lowest saturated fat consumption is... exactly 1.0.
Siri-Tarino, Patty W, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss. “Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies Evaluating the Association of Saturated Fat with Cardiovascular Disease.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91, no. 3 (March 1, 2010): 535–46. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725.
Lets see what some other teams say. This analysis uses the GRADE approach for evidence analysis:
"Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations."
Souza, Russell J. de, Andrew Mente, Adriana Maroleanu, Adrian I. Cozma, Vanessa Ha, Teruko Kishibe, Elizabeth Uleryk, et al. “Intake of Saturated and Trans Unsaturated Fatty Acids and Risk of All Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease, and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.” BMJ 351 (August 12, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3978.
There have still been plenty of studies so lets focus on adequately controlled RCTs, the highest evidence we might have:
"When pooling results from only the adequately controlled trials there was no effect for major CHD events (RR = 1.06, CI = 0.86–1.31), total CHD events (RR = 1.02, CI = 0.84–1.23), CHD mortality (RR = 1.13, CI = 0.91–1.40) and total mortality (RR = 1.07, CI = 0.90–1.26). Whereas, the pooled results from all trials, including the inadequately controlled trials, suggested that replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA would significantly reduce the risk of total CHD events (RR = 0.80, CI = 0.65–0.98, P = 0.03), but not major CHD events (RR = 0.87, CI = 0.70–1.07), CHD mortality (RR = 0.90, CI = 0.70–1.17) and total mortality (RR = 1.00, CI = 0.90–1.10).
Conclusion
Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations."
Hamley, Steven. “The Effect of Replacing Saturated Fat with Mostly N-6 Polyunsaturated Fat on Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.” Nutrition Journal 16 (May 19, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5.
This isn't the only RCT meta-analysis confirming this. Here's one w/ n=62421 from another team:
"The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD
mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. RCT evidence currently available does not support the
current dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines."
Harcombe, Zoë, Julien S. Baker, James J. DiNicolantonio, Fergal Grace, and Bruce Davies. “Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials Does Not Support Current Dietary Fat Guidelines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Open Heart 3, no. 2 (August 1, 2016): e000409. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409.
So how did this come to be in the first place? Harcombe et al have done a ton of interesting research on this topic, which I'll include for those wanting to dive into the history of the topic (I'm personally a bit bored by the whole lipid heart stuff; turns out that MetS is a 10X greater risk factor, and also if you get a CAC scan every 5 years and keep a 0 score, you're CHD risk is basically nil) :
Harcombe, Zoë, Julien S. Baker, Stephen Mark Cooper, Bruce Davies, Nicholas Sculthorpe, James J. DiNicolantonio, and Fergal Grace. “Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials Did Not Support the Introduction of Dietary Fat Guidelines in 1977 and 1983: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Open Heart 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): e000196. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196.
Harcombe, Zoë, Julien S. Baker, and Bruce Davies. “Evidence from Prospective Cohort Studies Did Not Support the Introduction of Dietary Fat Guidelines in 1977 and 1983: A Systematic Review.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 51, no. 24 (December 2017): 1737–42. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096409.
Harcombe, Zoë. “Dietary Fat Guidelines Have No Evidence Base: Where next for Public Health Nutritional Advice?” Br J Sports Med 51, no. 10 (May 1, 2017): 769–74. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096734.
Harcombe, Zoe. “US Dietary Guidelines: Is Saturated Fat a Nutrient of Concern?” British Journal of Sports Medicine 53, no. 22 (November 1, 2019): 1393–96. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099420.
Oh, just in case anyone wants to dive into the best risk factors I found (and I've done a lot of digging on risk factors) for avoiding heart disease:
Reverse prediabetes (HR: 0.44):
Vistisen, Dorte, Mika Kivimäki, Leigh Perreault, Adam Hulman, Daniel R. Witte, Eric J. Brunner, Adam Tabák, Marit E. Jørgensen, and Kristine Færch. “Reversion from Prediabetes to Normoglycaemia and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: The Whitehall II Cohort Study.” Diabetologia, May 23, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-4895-0.
Maintain a CAC=0 (HR: 0.41):
Blaha Michael J., Cainzos-Achirica Miguel, Greenland Philip, McEvoy John W., Blankstein Ron, Budoff Matthew J., Dardari Zeina, et al. “Role of Coronary Artery Calcium Score of Zero and Other Negative Risk Markers for Cardiovascular Disease.” Circulation 133, no. 9 (March 1, 2016): 849–58. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018524.
And a few interesting final thoughts on etiology (and circling back to the original topic of inflammation):
Malhotra, Aseem, Rita F. Redberg, and Pascal Meier. “Saturated Fat Does Not Clog the Arteries: Coronary Heart Disease Is a Chronic Inflammatory Condition, the Risk of Which Can Be Effectively Reduced from Healthy Lifestyle Interventions.” Br J Sports Med 51, no. 15 (August 1, 2017): 1111–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097285.
Tsoupras, Alexandros, Ronan Lordan, and Ioannis Zabetakis. “Inflammation, Not Cholesterol, Is a Cause of Chronic Disease.” Nutrients 10, no. 5 (May 12, 2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10050604.
(Cholesterol is a whole different can of worms than saturated fat (I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader), but cholesterol is also a terrible marker. "Most major heart attacks occur in people with normal cholesterol": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170412105837.h...)
> associations, especially in nutritional epidemiology, is trash:
> I think you really need to reconsider where you're getting you're data from...
I'm going to go with established medical science on this one.
> Most medical, scientific, heart-health, governmental, and professional authorities agree that saturated fat is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including the World Health Organization,[1] the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Medicine,[2] the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[3] the Dietitians of Canada,[3] the Association of UK Dietitians,[4] the American Heart Association,[5] the British Heart Foundation,[6] the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada,[7] the World Heart Federation,[8] the British National Health Service,[9] the United States Food and Drug Administration,[10] and the European Food Safety Authority.[11] All of these organizations recommend restricting consumption of saturated fats to reduce that risk.
Actually, I think it's an important distinction that your citation aren't on "established medical science", but rather nutritional guidelines, which are consensus statements at best (but since their first introduction in 1980 have as much political as scientific policy).
They have bent to scientific evidence, but very slowly. The 2015 US Dietary guideline revision quietly removed both dietary cholesterol and total fat consumption [1]:
"In the new DGAC report, one widely noticed revision was the dropping of dietary cholesterol as a “nutrient of concern.” This surprised the public, but is concordant with scientific evidence demonstrating no appreciable relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol1 or clinical cardiovascular events in general populations.2 The DGAC should be commended for this evidence-based change.
A far less noticed, but more momentous, change was the new absence of any limitation on total fat consumption. The DGAC neither listed total fat as a nutrient of concern, nor proposed any limitation on its consumption. Rather, they concluded, “Reducing total fat (replacing total fat with overall carbohydrates) does not lower CVD risk Dietary advice should put the emphasis on optimizing types of dietary fat and not reducing total fat.”"
Even at their best, guidelines will trail what the scientific evidence shows by years. I don't see how what you've posted reflects "established medical science" at all, unless you have recent evidence that shows saturated fat intake as being harmful. Here's a recent direct critique on btw on why the WHO guidelines are wrong for saturated fat limits specifically:
Astrup, Arne, Hanne CS Bertram, Jean-Philippe Bonjour, Lisette CP de Groot, Marcia C. de Oliveira Otto, Emma L. Feeney, Manohar L. Garg, et al. “WHO Draft Guidelines on Dietary Saturated and Trans Fatty Acids: Time for a New Approach?” BMJ 366 (July 3, 2019): l4137. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4137.
And here are some more peer-reviewed critiques on how nutrition guidelines should be improved:
Bero, Lisa A., Susan L. Norris, and Mark A. Lawrence. “Making Nutrition Guidelines Fit for Purpose.” BMJ 365 (April 16, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1579.
Johnston, Bradley C., Pablo Alonso-Coello, Malgorzata M. Bala, Dena Zeraatkar, Montserrat Rabassa, Claudia Valli, Catherine Marshall, et al. “Methods for Trustworthy Nutritional Recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and Accessible Evidence Summaries Composed of Systematic Reviews): A Protocol.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 18, no. 1 (December 5, 2018): 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0621-8.
Magni, Paolo, Dennis M Bier, Sergio Pecorelli, Carlo Agostoni, Arne Astrup, Furio Brighenti, Robert Cook, et al. “Perspective: Improving Nutritional Guidelines for Sustainable Health Policies: Current Status and Perspectives.” Advances in Nutrition 8, no. 4 (July 6, 2017): 532–45. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.014738.
Fogelholm, Mikael. “Nutrition Recommendations and Science: Next Parallel Steps.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96, no. 4 (March 15, 2016): 1059–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7479.
Teicholz, Nina. “The Scientific Report Guiding the US Dietary Guidelines: Is It Scientific?” BMJ 351 (September 23, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4962.
Archer, Edward, Gregory Pavela, and Carl J Lavie. “The Inadmissibility of ‘What We Eat In America’ (WWEIA) and NHANES Dietary Data in Nutrition & Obesity Research and the Scientific Formulation of National Dietary Guidelines.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 90, no. 7 (July 2015): 911–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.04.009.
[1] Mozaffarian, Dariush, and David S. Ludwig. “The 2015 US Dietary Guidelines – Ending the 35% Limit on Total Dietary Fat.” JAMA 313, no. 24 (June 23, 2015): 2421–22. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.5941.
The only fat that is really problematic is trans fats, and those are pretty much banned most places now. Fats, from particularly protein sources, contain more bioavailable micronutrients than fruits and vegetables.
That's a misunderstanding of the article, it says that the issue is due to the leaky blood brain barrier. The chemicals for inflammation in the body aren't inherently bad, they're just not designed to be in the brain. Decreasing the source of that inflammation could help but it's not the issue being discussed here.
I was told I couldn't use the 110 volt plug in my parking spot in my condo building. I live in a city with hydro electric that is very environmentally conscious. I emailed the property manager that the local newspaper would probably be interested in the story of them blocking the adoption of clean cars, they quickly changed their tune and now I plug my Tesla in and pay the strata council $30 / month. You might be able to try something similar, or find a government elected official in your area who is pro environment to go to bat for you.
