X-Message-Number: 284 Date: Fri 1 Mar 91 00:35:21-EST From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Re: cryonics #283 - Re: Scientific Basis Of Cryonics To: In-Reply-To: Message from "" of Thu 28 Feb 91 22:56:02-EST Message-ID: <> Basically I would agree with Kevin. You may of course want to read the evidence for yourself. That means you'll have to be prepared to read some specialist scientific papers written for other specialist scientists. I personally make a practice of citing my sources in everything I have written about cryonics and you may be interested in several articles I've written, which contain inter alia comments on cryobiology and what we currently know about memory. A long article of this sort was just published in CRYONICS [Jan. & Feb. 1991] about memory, what we know about it, and what we don't. I'd also like to add a bit to Kevin's comments. It's by no means true that our brains deteriorate after 5 minutes with no oxygen or blood even at room temperature. P. Safar and N. Bircher CARDIOPULMONARY CEREBRAL RESUSCITATION 3rd edition cite cases of revival after as long as 10 minutes. Considerable research goes on right now to extend this limit and just as with freezing significant evidence exists that revivability is possible at least as long as 1 hour and possibly longer. With all the rush about nanotechnology this work seems to have fallen out of some people's attention. Personally, with cryonics I've always felt there was an essential paradox which every cryonicist should understand: if they knew how to bring you back right now, you wouldn't have been frozen in the first place. So it's wrong to ask about DIRECT evidence of success. (Someday we may be revived, but after all that's only because we suffered from such trivial trivial problems. Now the cases we're freezing RIGHT NOW in 2190, there's just NO POSSIBILITY of success with them!). Best & Long life Thomas Donaldson ------- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=284