X-Message-Number: 26339 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:00:58 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Comments re Aging, for Skrecky & Basie For Doug Skrecky and Basie: To Doug Skrecky: You begin your message with a statement which directly contradicts the abstract of the paper you include in your message. What do you mean here? To Basie: I personally think that aging is more complex than the free radical theory alone. However it's very easy to get different lifespans from the free radical theory: have two species or even varieties of animal, one of which makes several orders of magnitude more antioxidant chemicals than the other. Call the first one LA (less Aging) and the second one MA (more Aging). LA animals will live longer than MA animals because their larger number of antioxidants interferes with more frequently with the action of oxidant chemicals in our body, including our mitochondria. As a matter of fact, apparently production of antioxidant chemicals has been compared across a few species. Humans apparently make more per cell than do mice or rats (I'll get you the reference if you want it). I will note that we can break down in other ways which do not involve oxidant attack. Sugars cause damage too. Over and above that, our cells and body encounter continual damage from pathogens and nonliving toxins; our ability to protect ourselves against such damage is part of what protects us from aging. When someday we understand aging much more fully, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that it involves a sequence of destructive events, most of which never happen if an earlier one kills us off beforehand. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26339