From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Ice crystal damage
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.182125.1855@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>This is wrong.  There are enzymes used by organisms to mitigate
>ice crystal damage.  Your "vital structures" are ONLY made up of enzymes.
>Of course, you would wish to introduce non harmful enzymes.

My vital structures are made up of protein complexes, not enzymes.
Enzymes are peptides and proteins in the body used to catalyze
reactions. They are not structural.

>>>  As I implied in another posting- the best form of cryoprotectant would be
>>>enzymes produced by ones OWN cells.
>>
>>There is no mechanism I can think of that would allow enzymes per se
>>to act as cryoprotectants. Cryoprotectants tend to be things like
>>glycerol that don't freeze well and inhibit water from freezing, too.
>
>I hate to say it, but at liquid nitrogen tempratures you are going to
>be frozen solid.  The water won't be inhibited from freezing at that
>temperature- it will be rock solid

You don't understand the difference between freezing and immobility.
Glass is NOT a frozen substance; it does not have an aligned
crystaline structure. Similarly, the goal is not to freeze patients,
but to vitrify them: to make them into glassy, rather than crystaline,
solids.

>>>That is, one would have a slight
>>>genetic engineering to produce the enzyme which would exist within you 
>>>during your whole life, and when it came time for suspension they would 
>>>maybe only have to do a few minor operations.  There would be no chemical
>>>trauma whatsoever......
>
>>What good would this do for existing patients?
>
>Say what?  The future patients may care about their own suspensions.  I 
>would rather live than die.

Non sequitur. You obviously aren't going to be genetically
re-engineered any time soon, so this isn't an existing option for you,
is it.

>>>To achieve this it would probably
>>>require some sort of microwave like device for cooling things quickly.
>
>>How could you manage that? Microwaves heat things by being absorbed by
>>them. Generally speaking, there is no way to stimulate an object to
>>spontaneously emit radiation in such a way as to make it cooler than
>>its immediate surroundings. I haven't thought of it deeply, and there
>>might be some way that one could manage to get an object to emit
>>more radiation than it absorbs using some trick, but I don't know of
>>one.
>
>There IS a common way to get an object to spontaneously emit.  It is
>known as a "laser".  There are also techniques for "capturing" molecules
>with e-m frequencies inducing the target to "behave".

Yes. Lasers, however, work by first pumping up an electron to a higher
energy state, and then getting it to spontaneously emit. You can't
cool something by making it lase; in fact, lasers heat up fairly well.
Although you can use lasers to capture and manipulate individual
molecules, the technique could not work on bulk matter, so again, this
isn't practical.

>>I suggest you read up on the
>>state of the art before suggesting something like soap or "microwave
>>cooling".
>
>I suggest you learn some basic science, before being so critical.

I seem to know mine, and you don't seem to know yours. Why tell me to
learn mine?

>In all,
>your comments are very negative and promote the inhibition of ideas.
>You sound very much like someone who has given up on innovation, when
>you say "before suggesting.. microwave cooling".  If that had been said
>of "microwave heating" the person would look like a downright fool.

Well, thats because its obvious how you get microwaves or any other
form of radiation to heat something. Microwave ovens aren't any
different in principle from the way you cook in a solar oven; you are
taking electromagnetic radiation, and focusing it on something that by
absorbing the radiation heats up. Microwaves are penetrating, which
makes them more interesting, but not especially different. However,
"microwave cooling" is not something with a precedent, and you
presented, and still present, no plausible mechanism by which it might
work. Thats a big difference right there.

>I would suggest you refrain from being overly critical.  It does not aid
>anything, it simply dampens discussion and understanding for all. 

Being very critical is important here. Cryonics sounds so fantastic
that proponents of pseudoscience flock to it and spout mock science.
It is important not to let such ideas propagate because they might get
associated with cryonics itself, which is very serious and has serious
scientific evidence for it. This is much like Drexler's comment
concerning the accumulation of foolishness in conjunction with
nanotechnology.

>Quick denial and oppression are sure ways to cut off all future
>progress.

I'm not oppressing you. I'm asking for evidence of fantastic ideas,
like "microwave cooling". If you HAVE evidence for them, you can just
present it and I'll shut up.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.