X-Message-Number: 4197
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 13:47:18
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Cryonics and reality
To Cryonet and sci.cryonics
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
April 13, 1995
In reply to: #4194: Cryoprotective Proteins + stuff [Jim0123]
From: (Jim0123)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Date: 11 Apr 1995 20:17:57 -0400
>I hate to interrupt the stream of metaphysical thought here (which
>suggests a lack of any actual progress on the *reality* side of the
>cyronics issue), but has anyone seen any credible research into
>the utility of these cyroprotective proteins and polysaccarides
>found in arctic fish and small animals which are more-or-less
>frozen during hibernation ?
Jim, plenty of other people around here will supply you with more
technical answers than I can; but I want to discuss some incorrect
assumptions you have made.
First, the words are "cryonics" and "cryoprotective." Normally I
would think that was a typo, but you used the inverted "cyro-" prefix
exclusively in the post.
Next, it is a common problem with people who spend a lot of time on
the Net to think that the Net is the World. Sci.Cryonics and CryoNet are
*conversation areas.* They are not *cryonics* itself. There are dozens
of people out there having technical conversations and performing
technical research in the areas you are interested in. At various times
those conversations wash over onto the Net. You just managed to jump in
during some philosophical discussions on the nature of human beings. I,
too, find these arguments pretty impractical at the level of detail they
have "achieved;" but these questions are important considerations for us.
Why save human minds if we cannot know what a human mind IS?
Stick around, the technical discussions will swing in again, perhaps
in part because of your questions.
>From what I have read, it seems that the freeze-damage issue is one
>which cannot be ignored (except perhaps by cyronics salespersons).
I don't know anyone who ignores the issue of freezing damage. There
just haven't been any new developments the past few weeks, so you're not
seeing it discussed much. When I discuss cryonics with people in person,
I have actually been accused of spending TOO much time discussing freezing
problems, to the exclusion of other necessary-to-understand areas.
>The degree of membrane damage is very high once actual freezing
>is done - so high that freezing until some disease is cured is no
>longer the issue, but instead freezing until some miracle in bio
>ultrastructure repair is availible ... which is surely a lot further
>away than mere cures for cancers or HIV or most anything else.
Let me combine this with a later question of yours which seems to fit
here:
>As an aside ... what research has been done relative to hard-freezing
>at temperatures above that of LN2 ... say the -100...-150f range ?
>Obviously there will be more problems with slow chemistry of
>reactive sugars and oxygen radicals, but not all that *much* more
>than at LN2 temps ... perhaps still managable.
You seem to imply that chemical damage proceeds at some significant
rate at LN2 temperature (-320 F; -196 C). Frozen tissue is not the same
thing as a free-floating solution of molecules. In fact, at that
temperature, the tissue has solidified so much that chemistry is almost
nil -- the molecules cannot move around to interact. However, a LOT of
chemistry takes place at -110 F or -78 C (dry ice temperature), where a
significant amount of liquid remains in the tissue. Frozen sperm has been
kept undamaged in liquid nitrogen for over 50 years; but tissue typically
cannot be kept at dry ice temperature undamaged for more than three or
four years (if memory serves). The difference is indeed "*much* more."
>Storage at LN temperatures is *very* expensive and the longer the
>term, the more likely that bankrupsies, accidents, earthquakes
>and such will damage the stored bodies.
Liquid Nitrogen storage is not much more expensive than dry ice
storage, especially in the long run. Our cost per patient will decrease
for each patient we add for the next several hundred patients. Even then,
I would not classify it as hugely expensive. With only 10 whole body
patients at Alcor and moderate economies of scale, our cost per patient is
about $2,500 per year. Annual expenses for Neuropatients (head-only) are
in the neighborhood of $700.00. We figure that these numbers could be cut
by at least two-thirds with a large patient base. The trick in these
earlier days is for patients to provide enough capital up front for the
cryonics company to invest in order to make enough income to pay the
ongoing expenses. That is how most cryonics companies operate, and it
seems to be working fairly well.
It is true that long term storage is more vulnerable to disaster than
short-term storage. However, the versions of high temperature, short-term
storage that you propose and others I have seen proposed have the fatal
flaw of not leaving any brain structure left to repair when the repair is
needed.
>IF this is viable, even
>if only in the 50-100 year range, then why not set up a repository
>in the colder areas of antartica where stable temperatures in that
>range can be found just under the ice ? The ecological impact
>would be about nil, and the maintenence costs equally low.
Why would you think that setting up a storage organization in
Antarctica would be inexpensive? Perhaps the maintenance would be low
once you got the patient under the ice; but the expense of setting up the
facility would be immense. Transportation costs would be no easy matter
either. It's not exactly right next door, and SouthWest Airlines doesn't
run two-for-one specials to Antarctica. Besides, that ice MOVES and
Antarctica has earthquakes. Keeping your patients from being crushed and
even *finding* them again later are not small problems.
>Cheap storage means *volume business* rather than just catering to
>the wealthy eccentrics. Also, having dear aunt Judy or cousin
>Frank on ice means more people interested in finding better ways
>to prepare, store and revive said loved ones.
Not necessarily true. Most current cryonics society members are far
from wealthy eccentrics. The last survey we did showed that the average
Alcor member earned about $40,000 per year. Most cryonicists pay for
their suspensions with standard *life insurance*, which can be
inexpensive, especially for younger people. For example, I have a
$100,000 life insurance policy for which I pay $60.00 per month. That is
not a significant amount of money for most Americans. You may spend that
much per month on your Net activities.
Besides, if "affordable" equaled "popular", then why don't we have
several thousand "wealthy eccentrics" as members already? (Alcor currently
has in the neighborhood of 360 members.) Frankly, I don't think the
price and the popularity are much related. (If you want to see my
thoughts on this in greater detail, my column in the 4th Quarter, 1994
issue of *CRYONICS* Magazine was on this subject. We would be happy to
send you a free copy and other free information if you will privately send
me your regular mail address.)
>Since no breakthrough in the cell-damage area seems imminent,
>perhaps more effort should be spent on near-freezing 'hibernation'
>techniques. With proper use of cyroprotectants and inhibitors for
>the more reactive bodily compounds, perhaps a 1-5 year 'cold sleep'
>could be realized. This is not to be laughed at - those in need of
>organ transplants or those suffering from nearly-curable illnesses
>could really benifit from short-term stasis.
No one is laughing, Jim. Hibernation is a fine thing to explore for
those who are basically young and healthy, with one discrete problem which
needs fixing. Unfortunately, most people who die have disseminated cancer
with damage in many areas, have aging in most cells of their body, have
atherosclerosis in many areas, or have combinations of several problems.
1-5 years isn't going to do it. They need a few decades.
Also, under current law, we can't take people who are "legally alive"
and place then into a condition which becomes labeled "legally dead."
That would result in the cryonics technicians becoming "legally
incarcerated."
Meanwhile, two million Americans per year are dying. Cryonics is for
them. Please feel free to fund and perform all of the hibernation
research you want. It may have wonderful, short-term, medical benefits.
But people will still *die.* We don't want to be dead, so we are pursuing
the longer-range goal.
>There
>seems to be this ideal of being able to store someone 10,000
>years - but this just is not realistic at this time and seems
>a waste of money to dabble in.
Of course this is not realistic. It would be immensely difficult to
create an institution to survive at all for 100 centuries, much less care
for a group of frozen patients that long. Most of us think that a scale
of 100 years is more realistic. The beginnings of practical
nanotechnology should be in the next few decades, and cryonics technology
will be improving at the same time.
And we're not just dabbling. We're trying to save our own lives.
More information is available from Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a
non-profit organization. Send general requests to or you
may write to me directly at
Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Phone (602) 922-9013 FAX (602) 922-9027
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4197