X-Message-Number: 554 Subject: Cryonics Debate From: spectrx! (Edgar W. Swank) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 16:20:15 PST Cryonet: I've been having an informal debate/discussion with one Keith Rosenberg (anyone know him?) I met on a local BBS through my posting of the ACS dinner schedule. He is a determined sceptic. I've answered some of of his questions/ arguments, but I'm getting out of my depth. Here is a section of our latest exchange. The first part is about cumulative radiation damage which he claims would damage frozen patients from normal background radiation over an extended period. Edgar: I have every hope that nanotech could repair 200 REMs (200 years) of radiation damage which would be occuring while the brain was frozen. Keith: Radiation damages the DNA/RNA of the cells. A nanotech might be developed that would repair the structure of a cell, but a nanotech could not be made small enough to repair the DNA/RNA of the cell. What causes the cell to die from radiation is the damage to its DNA/RNA. [The next excerpt is about freezing damage (with current technology)]. Edgar: My understanding is the opposite. I've heard, [but can't cite an exact source], that brains frozen and thawed and examined under a microscope exhibit a lot of damage, but that original attachments of the neurons is obvious. Keith: That is probably true in a local sense - that is where the microscope was looking at that moment. But ice crystal formation would cause lethal and unrepairable disruption of brain tissue. Huge sections would be separated from each other and you could not tell which neuron went where. [First my thanks for the "Cryonics" reference posted previously by Thomas Donaldson. I intend to order that issue, if available, and my apologies if the above question is already answered there.] [Any of you cryonetters out there have any good data/arguments I could use??] -- spectrx.saigon.com!edgar (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=554