X-Message-Number: 2186 Subject: Re: cryonics: #2174-#2180 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:09:00 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <> > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 14:39:33 CDT > From: Brian Wowk <> > Message-Subject: CRYONICS Patient Placement > > Perry Metzger: > > > I admit to being less than knowledgeable on this subject, so I'd like > > to hear what Brian has to say to directly address this question, that > > is, which is better for the patients (we know that vertical storage is > > better from the logistical point of view -- but then again, to be > > crude, so is burial). Perhaps an experiment or two would be in order? > > Perhaps Mike Darwin could comment on apparent vertical storage > > stresses, if any, in the patients he neuroconverted and then > > autopsied? I'd be especially interested to know how their spinal > > columns and other long structures held up after prolonged vertical > > storage. > > LN2-stored patients are not relevant because, as Clarissa > Wells points out, they are supported by buoyant force. In other > words, they float almost weightless like a swimmer underwater. > > Air-stored patients will not be supported by their spine, or > any skeletal structures. They will be supported by their soft tissue, > which at -130'C will be solid ice. What is the strength and stability > of ice at -130'C ? Well, in the outer solar system there are moons > that have ice mountains millions of years old. These mountains also tend to have slopes not significantly different from the angle of repose, which does not describe patients well, and from what I know, most of the ice moons display large scale cracking and the like. > Indeed, at -130'C ice qualifies as ROCK. Furthermore, rock is a lot more uniform than patients, and thus is less likely to experience the sorts of damage I'm thinking of. I'd feel a whole lot better if someone did experiments on this rather than guessing. I imagine that during the dog-chilling experiments some of the failures could be used as test subjects for answering this sort of question. I know that it SEEMS like it won't be a problem, but as I've said, these are patients we are talking about. Since we likely can get at least some data, we should check this out more thoroughly. > You have to also remember that although we may soon be able to > preserve brains well, we are a long way from being able to freeze > whole bodies without massive damage. Orthopedic disorders resulting > from your frozen spine holding you up for 200 years will be pretty > insignificant by comparison. I am worrying more about things like stressing on the spine causing stresses to spread to things like your skull and your brain (which are not connected by soft connective tissue at -130 but are instead connected by very hard and strong vitrified structures) but really -- why should we accept any damage that we can easily avoid? Its one thing to say that neurosuspension is orders of magnitude more efficient -- its another thing to accept gratuitous damage to the patient. Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2186