X-Message-Number: 1379 From: Subject: CRYONICS Reply to C. Platt Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 21:33:40 PST Charles Platt in msg 1358 seems to think my postings are "a formidable exercise in denial" and "intended to reassure people that Everything Is Absolutely Okay." While I disagree with much to which I respond (why respond if I did agree?) I was *far* from sanguine about the prospects for cryonics or Alcor. These are some on my list of serious concerns. 1) In gaining the zoning conditional use permit from the City of Riverside (which we must have to store patients) we have lost the use of animals for research or training. At this point it seems Alcor will not be able to do pet suspensions, and it may cause a considerable degradation in our level of transport and suspension training unless we take costly and time consuming steps to get the conditions modified or go elsewhere to get around the requirement. 2) Earthquakes. One of these days Southern California is going to "rock and roll." Short of moving to a larger building, there seems to be no reasonable engineering approach to securing the whole body dewars. For moderate movement, this is unlikely to cause a problem. For large motion (ten feet or more) we may see serious damage to the dewars and surrounding structures. (We have *long* had plans to supply LN2 from Phoenix or Northern California, because it is assumed that the LN2 plants will be out for weeks to months.) 3) Patient protection. There are several problems which I would like to see rectified. They all cost a lot of money, are of limited effectiveness, and would be wasted if we move soon. Should we do them anyway? 4) LN2 losses. We lose a lot of LN2 in the delivery containers and transfers. It is a significant problem with no inexpensive solutions in sight. 5) Cooldown labor reduction. This project is now at a halt since the person who was working on the software is no longer available. 5) Moving. This has its own long list of problems, starting with "where?" Re quoting original postings at length, I do so only in the interest of *not* quoting out of context. If Charles had not taken the 60% passage out of context, he would not have made the error which prompted his apology. BTW, Charles, most of what I have written in the last six to eight months *is* for the record, directed to "some demented cryo-historian." Keith Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1379