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

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
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