HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: Freezing Damage
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:11:07 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:17:54 CST
> From: Brian Wowk <wowk@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS: freezing damage

        It is good to see a discussion of freezing damage underway on 
the net, and that this discussion is frank.  Mike Darwin's brutal 
account of the damage done by current cryopreservation techniques serves 
as a strong argument for developing better ones.  However Jeffrey 
Soreff's recent question about the possible superiority of chemical 
preservation over cryopreservation suggests that undue pessimism has 
been generated.
 
        According to a presentation made by Greg Fahy at the Alcor 
Anniversary Dinner earlier this year, the breaks produced by growing ice 
crystals are "clean" on an ultrastructural level.  In other words, the 
broken edges are smooth, not frayed, when viewed on (freeze-substituted) 
electron micrographs.  Additionally the broken bits are moved only 
microns, not off to parts unknown.  Yes a frozen brain is a jigsaw 
puzzle; one with many disconnected pieces lying very close to where they 
ought to be, not one with badly jumbled or missing pieces.  I, for one, 
am far from convinced that neural connectivity information is 
irreversibly lost in brains frozen with current (or even past) methods.
 
        It is important to keep information, both positive and negative, 
in perspective.  On the positive side, it must be remembered that 
cryoprotected freezing is the only current means of maintaining the 
*functional viability* of individual brain cells indefinitely.  It must 
also be remembered that freezing tends to *move things around*, not 
outright obliterate them (which is what chemical preservation does to 
 all but the grossest level of neural anatomy).  Freezing is not so bad 
 that we need to look at entirely new modalities.  As Mike says, what we 
 need to do is make freezing even better by following promising leads on 
 ways to reduce and eliminate ice formation.
 
                                                 --- Brian Wowk
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: YOU POISONOUS LITTLE ICE DWARFS, YOU!
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:01:36 GMT

Just on the off chance that you're still here despite bidding us a
dramatic adieu:

In article <1992Dec15.125933.42625@urz.unibas.ch>,
spissinger@urz.unibas.ch writes:
> 
> OK, all of you want me to die.

Not exactly.  Most of us simply don't care whether you die or not; if,
as your earlier remarks suggest, you've chosen to die, most of us aren't
inclined to interfere in your decision.

See the difference?

> You even doubt my intelligence.

GASP!

> I have to doubt yours.

Double GASP!

> But why are you so angry?
> Did I insult your irrational belief system between pseudoscience and
> pseudoreligion?

I believe you may have mistaken irritation for anger.  The issues you
raised, however argumentative the presentation may have seemed, are
important ones...but they've all been discussed at great length before. 
That's why newsgroups have FAQ lists, and the irritation you have
detected frankly has more to do with your not having familiarized
yourself with the FAQ than with your daring to disagree with anything. 
The expectation that newcomers should brief themselves on the basic
background material before charging in is not unique to sci.cryonics.

It's not so much a matter of your having "insulted" anyone as it is a
matter of your having wasted everyone's time (however inadvertently) by
revisiting old issues without contributing any new insights.

> I hope I won't have to meet you in hell.

This, from somebody who just looked down his nose at "pseudoscience and
pseudoreligion?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not a "poisonous little ice
dwarf:" I'm not currently frozen, and I'm pretty big for a human.  I
don't recall ever having had my toxicity measured, however, so you may
have a point about that (although "allergenic little ice dwarf" would
probably have been more precise).

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: spissinger@urz.unibas.ch
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Why not die???
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:12:40 MET
Organization: University of Basel, Switzerland


What's so bad about dying?
Isn't more intelligent to accept the inevitable than to start all these
senseless efforts of cryonics?
Why should future generations on an overcrowded planet be interested in waking
up the frozen dead?

--Don't freeze me: cremate me!--

Thomas

Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject:  Longevity in humans and fruit flies
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:42:21 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

----- Forwarded With Permission From the Extropians Mailing List -----
      (To get on the Extropians mailing list, send email to:
               extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu)

> From: lubkin@apollo.hp.com (David Lubkin)
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:29:59 EST
> Message-Subject: Longevity in humans and fruit flies

Check out the 16 Oct 92 and 15 Nov 91 issues of Science.  There are research 
papers and an article accompanying them reporting new studies of longevity.

The rule of thumb that's bandied around (the Gompertz law) is that 
mortality rates increase exponentially with age.  It seems to be true for
most of adulthood, but none of the studies until now looked at the very
old, e.g., humans over 85.  Now they're starting to, and finding that the
curve doesn't fit.  Death rates level off or even drop (for fruit flies,
the death rate drops way down after a certain age).

Excerpt:  "The simplest version of the biological theories, popularized by
gerontologist James Fries, is the notion that the body naturally wears out
at 85 or so, like an old car whose major systems are all failing at once.
But that explanation doesn't fit the fruit fly data, nor Vaupel's human
data.  Vaupel proposes instead that death rates are not driven by an 
absolute limit to lifespan, but rather that they reflect a collection of
causes of death, to which some individuals are more susceptible than others.
Like fruit flies, he says, 'people are different from each other in terms of
their vulnerability to mortality.'"

The overview article and fruit fly studies are in the 16 Oct 92 issue; a
Scandinavian census analysis is in the 15 Nov 91 issue.

-- David Lubkin.

========================= lubkin@apollo.hp.com =========================
The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live 
at the expense of everyone else.  -- Frederic Bastiat
========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Skull removal during suspension
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:09:10 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 16:47 PST
> From: keithl@klic.klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom)
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS - Skull removal during suspension


A lot of "why won't this work?" questions are being answered gently and
well, so I thought I would ask one of my own:

Why are we preserving skulls with the brains?

I can imagine a suspension team ( probably with more surgical skill than
we are currently blessed with) removing most of the skull, leaving the
ridge above the eyes and bone around the ears to act as structural support
(saving all the pieces, of course) and opening the exposed dura mater, then
plunging the whole thing into an appropriate perfusion bath.  Why?  Well,
it may be easier to reach parts of the brain with perfusant through the
folds in the brain than through the circulatory system, or perhaps easier
through both approaches in parallel.  I imagine the bath would have to
be pressurized at the arterial pressure of the pump driving the perfusant
through the circulatory system.

Since partial skull removal is something we *already* can deal with
medically, the major downside risk I can see is accidental damage to
the exposed brain, through mishandling, or too-vigorous washing of the
exposed surfaces.  Possibly the perfusant injected into the circulatory
system would leak out rather than get where it belonged if the skull was
open.  Or perhaps the ambient arterial pressure would tend to close up
the veinous ends of the brain capillaries.  Or perhaps things would 
shift around too much when the pressure of the skull was removed.

Or perhaps the upside benefits are insignificant. 

Personally, I would rather keep a few more memories than an intact skull;
I am already signed up neuro so they won't compromise my brain suspension
trying to save my body.  My uncle survived 25 years with a steel plate
(installed at Corregidor) in his head.  I suspect skull removal in surgery
has got to be more benign than skull removal via Japanese bullet...  

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom         keithl@klic.rain.com       Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Power ICs
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: Skull removal during suspension
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:15:49 GMT

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS Re: Skull removal
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 00:48:13 PST

Keith Lofstrom asked about removing the skull during perfusion.

The relative access to the brain from the surface as compared to the 
circulation system is very unfavorable, ratios of hundreds or 
thousands to one would be my guess.  But besides that, a reasonably 
intact circulatory system is critical to good perfusion.  If you read 
the recent accounts of suspensions, you might note that we have quit 
opening the dura.  The reason is that we get too much leakage from the 
tiny blood vessels we cut in the process.  If we took off the whole 
top of the skull, and cut through the dura all around, the leakage 
problem would get entirely out of hand. 

>Why are we preserving skulls with the brains?

Mostly for mechanical reasons.  The skull does a good job of keeping 
the brain from being bashed.

However, we *have* considered taking off the top of the skull (not 
cutting the dura) in some cases where there is considerable ischemic 
injury.  The reason is that swelling of the brain inside the skull 
terminates the glycerol perfusion too early in these patients, and if 
we could let the brain swell, we could get more in.

New ideas are always welcome, thanks to Keith L.

Short comments on two other items, first, Levy's comments on Charles 
Platt.  Considering how hard it is to find cryonics members in the 
population at all, I don't think there is any point in trying to go 
after groups which are *less* likely to join up than the general 
population. 

Second, Thomas Donaldson on Splitting Alcor.  I think Thomas has an 
excellent feel for the problems.  I recommend reading it carefully. 
And while it hit right in the middle of a mess of other postings, it 
is strongly related to them. 


Keith Henson
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad)
Subject: Re: YOU POISONOUS LITTLE ICE DWARFS, YOU!
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.125933.42625@urz.unibas.ch> spissinger@urz.unibas.ch writes:
>
>OK, all of you want me to die.
>You even doubt my intelligence.
>I have to doubt yours.
>
>But why are you so angry?
>Did I insult your irrational belief system between pseudoscience and
>pseudoreligion?

Being a non-cryonic kind of guy, I still have to disagree with your
position. The point is that live and let live. To some people, living their
alloted 40 or 80 years is more than enough. Ohter peopel want to live
longer. Having the society tell people how long they are allowed to live
and what they are and aren't allowed to do to extend their life - this is
fascism. 

Why are these people angry at you? because they have a fear that people
like you will impose their views on th eBig Brother governments and will
outlaw cryonics.

You wrote a letter to the people who want to live as long as possible,
asking them: 

   What's so bad about dying?
   Isn't more intelligent to accept the inevitable than to start all these
   senseless efforts of cryonics?
   Why should future generations on an overcrowded planet be
   interested in waking up the frozen dead?

First of all, given the fact that you had posted several other articles to
this group, asking about possibilities of freezing brain only and about
Disney, one has to ask: If cryonics is so irrelevant to you, why in the
world are you so interested in it?

Second, your questions are rhetorical. What's so bad about dying? Well, if
you don't see anything bad about it, then it is not bad to you. But most
people do not like dying. It is a matter of preference. Thus, many people
responded to you by saying "if you want to die - do so, but leave us
alone". This was rude but to the point.

>I hope I won't have to meet you in hell.
>Will you melt in the purgatory, you funny frozen meat?

Again, there is a philosophical difference between you and the cryonics people.
You believe in hell and life after death, they don't. Who is right? We will
find out after we die... Or won't.

>Farewell and: don't freeze to fast!

You mean that you are stoping your regular posts to this group?

Vlad

Employer may disagree
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: walt disney's present temperature
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:23:11 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Dec20.000018.20193@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) writes:

	   What of Walt Disney?  Why is his condition not publicized
   in the sci.cryonics FAQ?  

Two answers:

1. It didn't occur to me, possibly because...

2. I don't see how Disney's temperature could possibly have anything
to do with decisions a rational being would make about cryonics. 

With that said, I should obviously add it to the faq, because I've
probably not encountered any rational beings ever, including myself.
Does anyone know where his tombstone is?  Has anyone actually seen it?
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: Freezing Damage
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:11:19 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: 12 Dec 92 00:10:55 EST
> From: Thomas Donaldson <73647.1215@CompuServe.COM>
> Message-Subject: Re: cryonics: #1422 - #1424

To J. Soreff:

Although Mike may object to this answer, that's basically the jigsaw
puzzle that repair would have to solve. Proposals for repair are
proposals to do exactly that. For myself, I'd say that there are 
an unknown number of chemical "handles" on that connectivity. If we
have small enough devices (which may, as I have argued, be based on
biomolecules but totally designed by us) the number of cells involved
need not be a problem (we repair them all at the same time, in 
parallel).

I strongly believe that the above should NOT be taken as an argument not
to try to fix this problem. It's been known for some years now, and
Mike is quite right when he says that we should get to work. Among other
points, do you really want to face suspension for conceivably hundreds
of years while they work out that problem? Or would you rather be 
suspended for only 50 years because that problem has been fixed at this
end?
				Best, and long life
					Thomas Donaldson
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: YOU POISONOUS LITTLE ICE DWARFS, YOU!
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:41:04 MST
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept

>OK, all of you want me to die.

I don't want you to die!  

>You even doubt my intelligence.

I have little to go on, except a few lines.  I won't doubt this, either.

>I have to doubt yours.

Go ahead.  I am fully aware of what I do, believe in it, and support it.
I tend to doubt most everything, and doubt that cryonics guarentees anything.
However, it is a possibility.

>But why are you so angry?

I ain't angry

>Did I insult your irrational belief system between pseudoscience and
>pseudoreligion?

I don't think it is any more irrational than if I had AIDS and took a 
costly medicine which might entirely cure me on the off chance it would.
I would do it in a second.  It is irrational not to do it.

>I hope I won't have to meet you in hell.

I hope I won't meet you there either, for if I am revived I will have to
leave you and you are such pleasant company.

>Will you melt in the purgatory, you funny frozen meat?

Maybe I will melt on this sighing little planet that rolls onwards to
its fate.  Or maybe not.

>Farewell and: don't freeze to fast!

Farewell, don't let the bed bugs bite. (they will though)


Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: Freezing Damage
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:10:44 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:41:57 EST
> From: SOREFF@FSHVMFK1.VNET.IBM.COM
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS freezing damage

After reading Mike Darwin's informative and depressing posting about
freezing damage, I'd like to know if there is any possibility of
preserving neural connectivity by chemical preservation and storage
above freezing?  Obviously one totally loses any information encoded in
reactive molecules if one pickles someone in formaldehyde, but can the
cell membranes be preserved?  Fractures at 5 micron intervals are going
to leave an intimidating jigsaw puzzle.
                                             -Jeffrey Soreff

standard disclaimer: I do not speak for my employer.
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Why not die???
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:54:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz9AvE.3pM.1
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

spissinger@urz.unibas.ch writes:

   What's so bad about dying?

Okay, fine.  Die and leave us alone.  If you are reluctant to do that,
then you already know the answer to your question.

To answer directly, the problem with death is that dead people can't
do anything.  Thus if you run some reasonable chance of achieving some
goal that is worthwhile to you in the future, you won't want to die.
From the behavior of debilitated people in nursing homes, it is clear
that people have other motives for staying alive, too.

   Isn't more intelligent to accept the inevitable than to start all these
   senseless efforts of cryonics?

What's the point in asserting this without arguing that cryonics is
senseless or that death is inevitable?  To talk about "intelligence"
while you assume your conclusion is ironic.

Some but not all of the people who advocate cryonics think that death
is avoidable.  I personally expect to die in some sense eventually,
but dying because the time has run out for my body seems like a
pointless waste.

   Why should future generations on an overcrowded planet be
   interested in waking up the frozen dead?

Read the FAQ so you can at least offer a novel argument.  I'll send
you a free copy of the relevant parts.  Hint: Separate the assertion
"we shouldn't be revived because of overpopulation" from the assertion
"people won't be interested in reviving us".  The second is much more
defensible than the first, and you defeat yourself if you tie them
together.  Also, there are at least three different notions of "dead"
discussed in the FAQ; you should decide which one you are talking
about.

--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: Cryoprotectant Issues
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:17:12 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: 14 Dec 92 21:25:03 EST
> From: Garret Smyth <100030.254@CompuServe.COM>
> Message-Subject: Re: Cryoprotectant Issues

Its a while since I did chemistry, but I feel that a suspension would not
be very effective as a cryooprotective. Perhaps an emulsion might be
better, but I think a straight mixture  might be best. An ideal
cryoprotectant, as far as I am aware, has to penetrate the blood brain
barrier in order to get into the cell bodies. A cryoprotectant must be
soluable in polar as well as non polar solvents, hence able to mix into
water and lipid (membranes), so that they can cross cell membranes, and
dispalce water within. They must also have the effect of supressing the
freezing point. 

I Like the DMSO/glycerol idea, though. If DMSO is too penetrative, and
glycerol causes too much dehydration, then a mixture of the 2 might be
the answer. The aspect of mixtures is they have an additive combination
of the properties of their components, rather than any new properties.
The better vitrification combinations are mixtures. Doesn't Pierre
Boutron have a mixture that shows promise (can't off hand remember its
name, but I'll look it up.) 

I think that the term "osmotically opened", when used in reference to the
blood brain barrier means that the right chemical conditions will cause
it it to be much less selective about hte size of the molecules it lets
through.

Garret

PS Could people use fewer TLAs. They make typing marginally easier, but
make reading a lot harder.

PPS A TLA is a Three Letter Acronym.
From: spissinger@urz.unibas.ch
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: YOU POISONOUS LITTLE ICE DWARFS, YOU!
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:59:33 MET
Organization: University of Basel, Switzerland


OK, all of you want me to die.
You even doubt my intelligence.
I have to doubt yours.

But why are you so angry?
Did I insult your irrational belief system between pseudoscience and
pseudoreligion?
I hope I won't have to meet you in hell.
Will you melt in the purgatory, you funny frozen meat?

Farewell and: don't freeze to fast!