X-Message-Number: 26571 From: "David Pizer" <> Subject: Mike Perry's idea Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:26:04 -0700 MIKE SAID: To return now to the possibility of a low-cost alternative to cryonics: I have looked into it, and consulted with a mortician in my area. It appears that a brain could be chemopreserved using formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, or a combination of the two, in a protocol that morticians could apply fairly easily and inexpensively. (And they are flexible about the protocols that would be used, within reasonable limits.) Brains preserved this way could then be stored, again inexpensively, for long periods at 40 degrees F, at an underground storage center. The cost overall (for 100 years' storage) would be in the range of burial and cremation, and far cheaper than cryonic suspension. (Another possibility might be a permafrost or cold-climate burial, say when enough brains had accumulated, which would then be maintenance-free.) In my view that would be much better than nothing, though certainly not up to cryonics standards. I would be very interested in contributing to such an effort. Yet I have to say I would not be too surprised if you didn't have too many takers. It would be seen as too long a shot, like cryonics itself, only worse. Still, I think it would be worth a try, and a few might opt for it who would otherwise be buried or cremated. DAVID; How would the morticians proceed from a business stand point? Are they set up to do one now? How much would it cost? How would the patient get his brain to them? Where is the underground facility the brains would be stored in? How much would that cost? Who would store the brains? How do you want to contribute to this effort? Money? Time? Set up the company that does this? Run the company that does this? Why do you think there would not be many takers for this much-less costly option? Content-Type: text/html; [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26571