X-Message-Number: 26355 Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:19:24 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Comments on msgs Skrecky & Have(?) To Doug Skrecky: Thanks for your explanation. "Antioxidant" is a very general term and I would not be surprised if we found variations in the levels of particular antioxidants in different animals, and the complete failure of some antioxidants to prolong lifespan. (In the Appendix of the GUIDE I actually give a list of antioxidants which have become popular for antiaging but haven't gotten any test in any mammal ... or sometimes in any living thing ... at all). I'd be leery of forming a total conclusion on the basis of one or two papers. But remember that I said myself that even if antioxidants prevented or slowed some features of aging, oxidation could not be a complete explanation. H2O2 is hardly the only oxidant our bodies make; and it's a general feature of enzyme systems that they can act quite specifically. Still, you've come up with some interesting papers which I will read when I'm next at the local university. For Ron Have(?): Mark Plus has come up with a variety of statements about our future poverty. As you probably have noticed yourself, $60 per barrel oil actually looks likely, and I'd say it's among his milder declarations. He seems to be motivated not so much by arguments against cryonics but by arguments that any cryonicist outside the US should quickly move to the US. In that sense I wouldn't be so sure that he's arguing against cryonics itself, not that his arguments convince me to immediately return to the US. As for oil, it should be very clear to anyone who looks at the present situation that oil wells will relatively soon all run dry. This means that we'll have to use a substitute, and there's lots of thinking going on right now about what we can use as a substitute for oil or gasoline. Best wishes and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26355