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
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

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