X-Message-Number: 4371 Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 22:09:42 +0700 (TST) From: Robert Horley <> Subject: Re: A Quiet Time On The List On Saturday, 6 May 1995, Charles Platt wrote: > I'm a little puzzled. During the past three or four months, this group has > strayed ever farther from its supposed subject matter, to the point where > I estimate that eighty percent of the posts have little or nothing to do > with cryonics. Does this mean that all the most important issues have now > been discussed? To some extent I think this is a possibility. Every time > someone occasionally brings up a topic, it's almost always possible for > someone else to refer the person back to some messages that appeared here > a while ago, dealing with the topic in depth. I don't think this situation > is necessarily good or bad; I just wonder if there is much more to say > about cryonics. We should not forget that this list serves two purposes: 1. To share innovations and ideas between people actively working in the field. 2. To be a podium for airing ideas of a philisophical and political nature that impinge on cryonics, in order to better present our case and win more support from the public at large. This second purpose is especially relevent considering that the number of people who read cryonic's magazines is far smaller than the number of people who read the mailing list and the cryonic's news on usenet. However, it is true that we seem to have reached an impasse when it comes to the technical side of things. This has partly been fostered by the idea currently held by many that successful freezing and revival isn't possible with present technology, and we'll have to wait for nanotechnology. Rather than seeking breakthroughs to solve problems, the energy of discussion often just seems to go into making the present approaches more efficient and economical. Laudable tasks in themselves but they shouldn't be the main thrust, as we are not there yet. I know some people want to save any kind of detailed groundbreaking information for the publications of their organizations, which are important money spinners. But perhaps articles from back issues, and or summaries of articles coming up could be posted or stored on the listserver. I would like to see more of Greg Fahey's experimental work published on this list. I would also like to see more updates from the major cryonics organizations about their latest experiments. There have also been postings from Ettinger about Russian work on slow freezing that could have given more detail, and suggestions about where they might lead. There have also been postings that should have been followed up with more proposed experiments i.e. Bozzenetti has sent in 2 suggestions that are worth following up on: 1. Slow freezing should be 50x the natural fastest freezing rate if we are to avoid cracking. Anybody following up with small mammals to check this out? 2. I don't know enough cell biology to know if he is correct or not, but his comments on the collapse of tubelins in the cell membranes of complex mammalian cells seemed worthy of checking on. Especially since he gives a hint about using curarae as a possible solution. Is anybody doing the experiments? Ben Best's enquiries into high pressure cryonics leave themselves open to some immediate experemental testing. Especially his suggestions about pressurizing up to 1,000 atm and suddenly decompressing to 500. Is anybody doing the experiments? We sometimes hear suggestions of combining fixing with freezing. Is anybody trying to find reversible fixing agents, or ways to reverse the damage caused by present fixing agents? What about developments in thawing equipment. Why don't we post follow-ups on what is happening now? How about reanimation and repair of individual organs? Anybody working on this? Are experiments being done with mammals? If groups and individuals post details such as this and listen with an open mind, then they might be very surprised how much we can actually do now. Robert Horley Phanat Nikhom, Thailand. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4371