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