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:

     And specifically the link to comments about The 
Franklin Expedition can be found at:

      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