X-Message-Number: 5681 From: (Anthony Napier) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: RISKS DIGEST 17.65 Date: 29 Jan 1996 18:45:37 GMT Message-ID: <4ej4kh$> References: <> In article , (RISKS List Owner) writes: RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Monday 22 January 1996 Volume 17 : Issue 65 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator ***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, etc. ***** Contents: . . . Cryo-risks (Charles P. Schultz) . . . ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 96 09:54:11 -0600 From: Subject: Cryo-risks While skipping through the web one day, I came across a Cryonics web page. It certainly seems like its important for everything to work right while you or a loved one are being preserved, and the web page contains a number of statements to reassure the potential customer. On the other hand, for RISKS Digest readers, the statements made may not be so much reassuring, but rather showing a sense of false confidence. For example: "CryoSpan...employs multiply redundant, fail-safe computer monitoring of liquid levels in patient dewars that are situated in reinforced-concrete underground vaults." - Is "fail-safe" meant to imply "defect-free"? Are all the redundant computers sharing communication or power lines? Are these reinforced-concrete underground vaults as good as the sometimes-leaky ones used to store nuclear and other hazardous waste? "These vaults offer unprecedented protection against earthquakes, fires, floods, and vandalism." - What about power outages? Communications cables chewed through by rodents? Faults due to inadequate workmanship, such as coolant leaks? I'd be interested in knowing if there have already been anecdotes recorded about failures in cryo-preservation environments. Charles P. Schultz ------------------------------ . . . End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 17.65 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5681