X-Message-Number: 2635
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From:   (Stephen Bogner)
Subject: Re: BPI Tech Briefs
Message-ID: <>
References:  <>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 20:39:45 GMT

In article <> Mike Darwin 
<> writes:
>> Message-Subject: SCI.CRYONICS - BPI Tech Briefs
>We would be very interested in any feedback about BPI Tech Briefs. Are we
>boring you?  Is the information useful?  Should we continue?  What other
>topics would you like to see covered?  Would tutorials and reviews such
>as Tech Brief #4 on other subjects (such as mechanisms of cryoinjury) be
>of interest?

As a newcomer to sci.cryonics, having subscribed after reading an article by 
Ralph Merkel on "Frozen Man" in sci.nanotech,  I appreciate the BPI Tech 
Briefs (I have read #3, #4) on two levels:

  1.  On the Intellectual level, as credible information on an interesting 
       topic outside my area of expertise.  I like the technical detail since 
       it opens the brief to challenge, rather than requiring me to accept the 
       analysis "on faith".  I think that this is particularly valuable since 
       the subject matter is perceived as being somewhat controversial.

  2.  On the Emotional level, I am reassured by the evident technical 
       competence of the briefs.  I suspect that I am like many others who are 
       encountering cyronics for the first time - there is a vague feeling of 
       unease about the intellectual foundations, and a certain suspicion that 
       our interest may be misplaced.  These Tech Briefs have helped to 
       convince me that cryonics is "for real".

There is a lot of good information in the FAQ, but I subscribe to Robert 
Heinleins advice:  " Avoid above all deception and wishful thinking.  What are 
the facts?  Who says so, and to how many decimal places?"  These Tech Briefs 
have a "factual" flavor to them...

I would certainly be in favor of more of the same, including perhaps a 
repost of Briefs #1 and #2.

I do have one question, however.  In BPI Tech Brief #4 (Ischemic Injury) 
there are several references to animal studies, but none are mentioned in BPI 
Tech Brief #3 (Burr Hole Drainage).  It seems that the issues raised in #3 
could be resolved by an animal study (as could many other cryonics issues).  
Am I correct in assuming that cryonics is sufficiently controversial that 
animal studies are not being approved or conducted for ethical reasons?

Stephen Bogner  (DRES/DTD/MES/Vehicle Concepts Group)     
(403) 544-4786  DRE Suffield; Box 4000; Medicine Hat, Alberta; Canada T1A 8K6
"Always leave your clothing and weapons where you can find them in the dark."
                                         - from the notebooks of Lazarus Long

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2635