home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnewsl!kqb
- From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
- Subject: Re: Ice crystal damage (fwd)
- Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:37:36 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Jul21.233736.14593@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
- References: <1992Jul16.132605.10591@hellgate.utah.edu> <1992Jul17.133023.21241@shearson.com>
- Lines: 28
-
- >Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 19:36:54 PDT
- >From: danielg@autodesk.com (Daniel Green)
- >Message-Subject: Re: Ice crystal damage
-
- For Cryonet. Editing/cross-posting ok.
-
- I've been reading the cryonics mail list for some weeks now.
- I have a question that I've been watching for some mention of
- but it seems that no one else is concerned. This makes me suspect
- that it is a dumb question but I can't see why. It is simply this:
- Why the assumption that freezing is the best way to preserve the
- person/information? What's wrong with formaldehyde or some other
- such substance/technique? If I were to have myself preserved,
- it would be with the hope of preserving my information and not my
- body (for future scanning) so I'd not be concerned with poisoning
- my tissues. It seems that such a solution would be far safer and
- cheaper than freezing which takes constant care.
-
- - Daniel Green
- danielg@autodesk.com
-
- [ Daniel, If I recall correctly, one of the early issues of Periastron
- concerned a proposal by Ben Best to combine chemical fixation with
- permafrost interment as an alternative to liquid nitrogen preservation.
- Unfortunately, a lot more research needs to be done to show that this
- approach has any promise. (Long-term stability of low-level structure
- is a major issue.) You may also want to see Hugh Hixon's article
- "How Cold Is Cold Enough?" (message #0015). - KQB ]
-