X-Message-Number: 29812
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:23:56 -0400
From: Francois <>
Subject: Re: microbe longevity in permafrost

In his reply to John de Rivaz, Jeff Davis said:

>Yes John, exactly right.  The LN2 suspension temperatures are
>substantially lower than the permafrost.  Then the rate of reaction
>(ie chemical degradation), dependent on the temp and defined by the
>Arhennius equation, is vastly slower.  Indeed that degradation should
>take billions -- no typo that "b" -- of years.  Effectively, as you
>say, indefinite.

I have pointed out before, although without evoking much reaction, that 
chemical degradation is not the only form of degradation we must worry 
about. Cosmic rays and the faint omnipresent background radioactivity are 
not affected by low temperatures and will slowly "cook" any organic material 
preserved for long periods of time. I would even venture the hypothesis that 
this type of degradation is the main reason for the limited survival of the 
Antarctic microbes. However, considering the long time it takes before those 
microbes really start to die, I would say that slow radiation damage should 
not significantly add to the damage already sustained by cryonics patients, 
at least for time periods of the order of a few millenia, and it can be 
safely ignored. That's good to know.

Francois
Good health is merely the slowest
possible rate at which one can die.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29812