X-Message-Number: 12852
From: 
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:53:05 EST
Subject: cremation vs. freezing

Aber (#12440) gives us a quotation likening freezing damage to cremation 
damage:

>Applying current cryonics techniques is like taking a micro-blowtorch to the 
brain at >a million different points.

One would not bother to respond to stuff like this, except that there are 
always new readers lurking around who might take it seriously. It's tiresome, 
but we'll touch a couple of bases.

First, on the level of actual results, there have been many biological 
specimens revived after freezing and storage in liquid nitrogen. These 
include whole insects, a few small mammalian organs, most types of human 
tissue, and human embryos. Rabbit brain pieces have shown coordinated 
electrical activity in networks of neurons. As far as I know, after burning 
(or after grinding to hamburger) there have been no such successes.

Second, on the level of analogy, the one given is nonsense. In cremation, 
most of the specimen is dissipated into the air, with the organic molecules 
gone mostly to carbon dioxide and water--pretty discouraging. In freezing, 
everything remains, and a great deal of it remains in place, and chemical 
changes are relatively tame. In general we do NOT get turbulent flow; the 
dislocations are relatively small and orderly.

A more reasonable analogy would be the three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, with 
molecules or atoms as pieces. Freezing shakes them up, but they are all 
there, and to varying degree even still very near their proper neighbors.

Third, on the level of "authority"--If that is your shtick, then follow your 
guru, talk his talk and walk his walk. You can find "experts" on both sides 
of any issue (otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.) But if you want detailed 
quotations, extended discussions,  and extensive citations, please see our 
web site.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12852