X-Message-Number: 12501
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 15:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Skrecky <>
Subject: comments Darwin

In Message #12475  wrote:

>Again, he berates us for failing to recognize the magnitude of the
>recent advances, or to act on that recognition. Yet again I note that
>much information is still not available to us,
>
  I don't usually like to go out of my way to agree with Mike myself, but
in this case I think he does have a point. For example much information on
the superiority of ethylene glycol over glycerol, particularly for organ
preservation is available on the net. Just go to Pubmed at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed and do a combined search on ethylene glycol
and cryopreservation.
  The main reason for the superiority of ethylene glycol is its much
greater or faster penetration into tissue. Glycerol simply isn't in the
same league, and for this reason is greatly inferior for cryopreservation
purposes, at least when used as a single agent.
  A significant advance for cryonics was made a long time ago by
cryobiologists, and their work is available in abstract form on Pubmed.
The full research reports unfortunately are available only in medical
journals, but these are an enlightening read as well.
  One significant disadvantage of ethylene glycol is that it is toxic
to the person(s) doing work with it. However with respect to the
patient the metabolic toxicity of ethylene glycol can be blocked, and this
information is also available on Pubmed.
  It is interesting that a mixture of ethylene glycol and glycerol
has proved to be less toxic than either ethylene glycol or glycerol alone.
This seems to be a general phenomina, that combinations of cryoprotectants
are better than single agents alone.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12501