X-Message-Number: 4291
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From:  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: The "Future Technology" Panacea
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 03:01:34 GMT
Message-ID: <>

References: <> 
<> <> 
<>

In article <>,
H Keith Henson <> wrote:
>Brad Templeton,  wrote:
>Actually, this should lead off in another direction.  If you were
>freezing patients at such high temperatures, would you want to 
>perfuse them at all?  It might be better to use chemical methods
>and hope that the freezing locked up water.  There are a lot of
>tradeoffs.  LN2 looks like the best bet for the present.  

Just what sort of decay happens at high temperatures like these?
Assuming your method worked and was stable, perhaps we could keep
everything at 250K or below indefinitely.   How stable would things
be?

The reason is that if decay is very slow (ie. safe for perhaps 200
years but wouldn't want to risk 1000) then it might make sense to
perform cryonics at such temperatures, with a switch to LN at around
100 years.

Of course, you pay the price of 100 years of decay at the high temperature
(let's assume it's also a sterile, sealed, pure nitrogen atmosphere)
but if revival becomes possible within 100 years of your death, you get
a non-cracked brain to revive.

Indeed, if *any* better storage technology develops within that 100 years
you get to convert over to that technology, uncracked.   It seems that
nano could fix cracks but nano that can fix cracks might also do just
fine at the decay of 100 years at 200 or 250 kelvins.

We can only assume that cryopreservation will improve during the period
after our deaths (deanimation if you prefer).  So if you *assume* you will
be moved from the current method to a new superior method some time
within 50 to 100 years of your death, which would you rather be moved
from:

	a) LN2, preserved almost exactly as the day you were immersed,
		but with all the damage of going to LN2 temperature, or

	b) "high" temperature, without that LN2 damage, but with the
		decay of your high temperature.


There is another advantage to this antarctic method.  If your agent is
still around at the time to move you to LN2, then they can clearly do
that, and even cheaply if there are lots of heads to move.

If they are not around, then you stay in the antarctic, and may decay
over centuries.  But if they are not around, and you were in their
dewar, you end up a pile of mush.


So what is the decay of being stored at 250K?  200K?  150K?  What are
the risks of an environment where the temperature is not as constant?
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.	| www.clari.net
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper (circulation 90,000)		|


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4291