X-Message-Number: 15133
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Urban or Rural
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:52:09 -0000

> Where is the safest place for patients to be stored for the next 100 to
200
> years, until we can reanimate most of them (if it becomes possible)?

Given that both CI and Alcor have moved to substantial facilities now, the
ides of periodically moving to avoid "dangers" may in itself produce
dangers. What may prove to be safe now may not be in say 20 years, and so on
for the next 20. If we are really writing about 200 years (which we could
be) then moving every 20 years means 10 moves.

Are the risks (legal, physical and financial) and expenses of moving any
safer than remaining in one place with varying degrees of local risk?

It seems reminiscent of the arguments as to whether to use oil, coal, gas or
electric heating. The costs of all 4 varied. At any one time one or the
other was the best. But if you changed your boiler every time so as to be
using the cheapest, then the costs of changing outweighed the savings. (In
the case of electric storage heating, all the radiators had to be changed as
well.)

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?

> Message #15130
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:12:01 -0500
> From: david pizer <>
> Subject: Urban or Rural
>
> Where is the safest place for patients to be stored for the next 100 to
200
> years, until we can reanimate most of them (if it becomes possible)?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15133