X-Message-Number: 6784 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: Vitrification and the Effects of Prometheus Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Hi again! 1. VITRIFICATION Bob does give a good reading of the article. And yes, the article aimed to be a summary of work on vitrification rather than a complete account; it's hardly surprising that it does not give every single fact and figure involved. My own reason for believing that it suggests that Prometheus will be successful is this: the key issue in the article is its ideas as to why vitrification (or freezing) fail to work on organs. This came down, in Fahy's experiments, to two issues: the damage caused by freezing itself, and the damage caused by "cold injury". Reading the article it was clear that "cold injury" almost certainly resulted from too high a concentration of cryoprotectant; after all, by taking an organ down to a much lower temperature, and THEN increasing the concentration, that "cold injury" seems to have been minimized (remember that chemical reactions, including any with the cryoprotectant itself, go more slowly the colder they are). Yes, it may turn out to true that other factors also play a role. The only point I can make about that is that so far such other factors have not appeared. The main problem Fahy has in preserving kidneys is that of finding a way to thaw them very rapidly. This is doable but expensive, at present, requiring some specialized equipment. It's also a physical engineering problem rather than a strictly biological one. I find that ver optimistic; we know lots more about physics than we know about the biochemistry and workings of living cells --- even now. (Not that our ignorance will be permanen. Could something still go wrong? Without trying it we will never know. However it looks to me much better than fusion, for instance (which required us to learn a heck of a lot about magntohydrothermodynamics which we did not know at its start). As with the Apollo project, we know how to build the apparatus required, we just (presently) lack the money to do so. We have cryoprotects which will vitrify, and good ideas about how to introduce them into brains with minimal damage. And I will make another point too: whatever it does, Prometheus will very much increase the sophistication of our own preservation procedures. And as we know or should know, "successful suspensions" are matters of deree; we should be able to learn how to cause significantly less damage than we do now, regardless of whether or not Prometheus becomes an "official" 2. We should not assume that Prometheus will have big effects on our acceptance among those who prestly have no interest at all in cryonic suspension for themselves or their relatives. It should affect the opinions of those who interested but still (for some reason) hold back; even to be seen to be doing active research is a very positive thing. If that research is successful, even better. Even if you aren't signed up, if you are interested in someday doing so the ability of onicists to MINIMIZE if not eliminate damage to your brain should interest you a very great deal. As for those who do hold back, the abilities of cryonics societies cannot be the only explanatiPaul Wakfer himselfsaid that until he started to live in CA he felt reluctant, simply because the facilities to suspend him if he needed it were far from where he lived. (He might, as I did, try to awaken interest among others nearby, but that is very slow work and not at all the most rewarding activity one can do with one's time!). The best justification for Prometheus, and one which should be central in everything we say about it, is its prospects for greatly increasing the security of our suspension and minimizing the damage to our brain --- maybe even to ZEnd yes, that is strong justification for anyone who ever wants to be suspended. Best and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6784