X-Message-Number: 1215
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 00:21:51 CDT
From: Brian Wowk <>
Subject: CRYONICS: Terminal Sign-ups

Keith Henson:
 
> I would like to see people concentrate on cost reduction as 
> opposed to revenue increases.  Cryonics has never had a real push 
> to reduce suspension cost (as opposed to storage cost) so we 
> should get a lot of return here for relatively little effort. 
 
        To say "cryonics has never had a real push (etc.)" isn't really fair 
to the Cryonics Institute (CI).  The main reason their rates are much lower 
than Alcor's is that their suspension costs (not storage costs) are much 
lower than Alcor's.  Of course, the quality of suspension is also much lower 
than most Alcor members would consider acceptable.
 
        Several years ago Mike Darwin suggested a lower quality, reduced rate 
suspension service be offered as an option to Alcor members.  This proposal 
was rebutted in a lengthly essay by Arthur McCombs, the substance of which I 
do not recall in detail.
 
        One big problem with a low cost option is that skill levels at 
performing high quality suspensions are sure to fall.  With a large fraction 
of Alcor's suspensions being terminal sign-ups (and likely low cost options) 
fewer "high tech" suspensions will be performed.
 
        Also it seems to me that costs of transport, perfusion, and cooldown 
are not the issues here.  If I understand what Keith has been saying, the 
biggest uncompensated expense associated with terminal sign-ups is the 
standby phase.  If so, the adoption of sensible policies for remote standby 
will solve all these problems.  Indeed, do we really have a terminal sign-up 
problem, or a remote standby problem?
 
                                                --- Brian Wowk     

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1215