X-Message-Number: 21956 From: "Ben Best" <> Subject: Alternative Preservation Methods -- Addenda Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:57:46 -0700 The links I gave in CryoMsg 21941 did not work properly because the CRYOCDN.ORG domain is really a subdomain, making direct access possible only through an IP address. The link to The Permafrost Papers should be: http://198.173.255.200/cryocdn/perma.html And specifically the link to comments about The Franklin Expedition can be found at: http://198.173.255.200/cryocdn/perma.html#mammal Also I should have stressed that I am fully aware that the best cryopreservation methods will necessarily be better than the best chemical preservation methods. This is notably true with the advent of vitrification. It is arguable that freezing damage could actually be worse than the damage done in cross-linking and chemical preservation methods. Current vitrification in cryonics does not provide for viability and we are probably still dependent on future nanotechnology to do molecular repair. If we are dependent upon molecular repair it may be that chemical preservation methods could allow for faster perfusion and diffusion than are currently available. But NO ONE is doing research in this area. And although chemical preservation techniques might allow independence from organizations for storage, an organized group of people would still be required to coordinate application of the techniques. Then the chemical preservation could be supplemented with dehydration, effective sealing against moisture and oxygen (the value of this is indicated by St. Bee's Man http://www.benbest/com/misc/stbees.html) and burial at a depth below the level of seasonal variation in temperature in a permafrost environment. This all presumes the existence of a future society in which the wealth and nanotechnology would be so advanced that it would be child's play and trivial cost to do the reanimation. Currently the only people I know of who have shown a serious interest in chemical preservation have been Mike Perry (because of the costs) and Dalibor den Otter, who is mostly interested in plastination. I personally believe that plastination is a highly destructive preservation method and Dalibor has yet to answer my doubts about this. Ultimate survival depends on both the preservation techniques and the viability of the organizations with whom the patients are entrusted. The best preservation technology is of little benefit without organizational survival -- a lesson that should be particularly poignant to those who belonged to CryoCare (fortunately the patients were not lost). I am more confident now that cryonics organizations do have a chance of surviving, but I can understand that everyone may not share this view -- including those with a strong desire to be preserved. I have been very active in cryonics and will remain active in cryonics because cryonics can only work if people are determined to MAKE it work -- including ensuring organizational survival. -- Ben Best Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21956