From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.med Subject: Re: digitalised self Date: 27 Nov 1998 23:09:06 GMT Somebody wrote: >>Water expands when frozen, and will destroy your cells from the >>inside,.... NO! This counts as one of the great scientific myths. Cells are distensible, and 10% increase in volume doesn't harm them at all. If you can get cells in thin layers, you can actually flash freeze them (both inside and in the interstitial volume outside) without "killing" them (ie, they can be revived). Freezing large hunks of tissue damages cells in several ways. One is ice crystals forming between cells (where they form first when cooling is slow, due to proteins that act as ice inhibitors inside cells). These crystals, because they are pure H2O, osmotically concentrate the remaining liquid and cause cell dehydration by osmosis, and possibly direct damage from very high local ion concentrations. They also do mechanical damage, when large. The high concentration of salts inside cells from this osmotic process allows vitrification of cell interiors, which is good. Intracellular freezing when it is slow, is harmful for reasons pooorly understood. And if all this is not enough, low temperatures cause cell membranes to undergo a transition to a different lipid configuration called "hexagonal phase", which is completely open, and not the nice lamellar barrier that normal cells have. This is not good. Finally, in large pieces of tissue (organs) differing parts of tissue have different thermal expansion characteristics, which on solidification leaves no room for relief of the stress due to the differential expansion (a little like in plate tectonics). The result is large scale cracking, which again is very bad for tissues, as it shears capillaries and blood supply. >More importantly, water freezes when frozen. The crystal is pure water >so all the other stuff (mostly NaCl) is concentrated in the unfrozen >channels. The expansion has little to no effect on your *cells* >although it may be important in the destruction of larger structures. Yep. > >>Perhaps a sort of a anti-freeze virus could be created,.. >>(a mix of the gene witch allows sertain frogs to survive freezing, and a >>non harmfull virus,...) > >Those frogs only survive freezing if the temperature stays above >~-6'C. Short term storage only. In Rana Sylvatica, the enzyme just >turns glycogen into glucose when ice starts growing inside the body. >All other amphibian and reptillian systems are similar. The solute >(glucose in this case) simply acts colligatively to reduce the salt >concentration during freezing. > >If you want to see the future, it may be easier to build a very fast >spaceship than to cryopreserve a human. At present, the technical >problems associated with both approaches are significant. > > >Ken Muldrew >kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca Not as significant as you'd think. One branch of my company (21st Century Medicine) is well on the way to vitrification of organs (vitrification = no freezing, no phase change, just stiffening up, like glass solidification). Applying this to whole animals is tough, but a biomedical problem likely to be FAR more easy than building a starship, or even a space station. The problem is that government funding for it has been nil, and so has standard business investment. Nobody is really interested in suspended animation for humans. As for organs, the advantages exist but are small, and the NIH hasn't been very interested either. The Red Cross recently shut down their solid organ vitrification program, and that was the major one in the country. The Red Cross team has now gone to work for us, funded mainly by donations from a couple of "ecentric" patrons, and the startup has eaten a lot of research time. And, of course, funding is still bad. Investors want to see a business plan for suspended animation of people. ROFL. As well have the Wright brothers write up one for flying machines (the closest parallel I can think of right now or this kind of research). Steve Harris, M.D. From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.med Subject: Re: digitalised self Date: 2 Dec 1998 03:28:04 GMT In <741r02$okm@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca (Ken Muldrew) writes: > >sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote: > >>>If you want to see the future, it may be easier to build a very fast >>>spaceship than to cryopreserve a human. At present, the technical >>>problems associated with both approaches are significant. >>> >>> >>>Ken Muldrew >>>kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca > > >> Not as significant as you'd think. One branch of my company (21st >>Century Medicine) is well on the way to vitrification of organs >>(vitrification = no freezing, no phase change, just stiffening up, like >>glass solidification). Applying this to whole animals is tough, but a >>biomedical problem likely to be FAR more easy than building a starship, > >Maybe yes maybe no. Since we still don't have a good understanding of >how cells in suspension are killed during freezing and thawing (my >claim) then I'd argue that there is some basic science that will have >to be done (as opposed to engineering). Even with lots of money it's >hard to predict how easy this is going to be (I *hope* it turns out to >be a lot easier than building starships). > >I'll wait until I see functioning organs that have been vitrified and >thawed before getting overly excited about the possibility. > >Ken Muldrew >kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca > Rat intestine has already been successfully vitrified in liquid nitrogen and re-implanted, to function normally. This is possible because of surface-area and structure in the intestine which make very fast cooling possible, with low thermal stress. It's enough to demonstrate the principle. Now-- for your equivalent in the case of the starship? From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med Subject: Closet Cryonicists Re: Is Cryonics Safe??? Date: 13 Oct 2005 16:33:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1129246386.464767.222450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> fresh~horses wrote: > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. COMMENT: A cryonicist who also regularly publishes articles on cryobiology in the journal Cryobiology. No "period" is warrented. Look up cryobiology if you need a definition. Take a look at the Cryobiology journal site if you want to see how it is regarded by those in the field. (Hint-- it's THE journal). In fact (this may frost you), Dr. Wowk and I have published 2 joint papers in that journal. Wowk, B., Darwin, M., Harris, S.B., Russell, S.R., and Rasch, C.M. Effects of Solute Methoxylation on Glass Forming Ability and Stability of Vitrification Solutions, Cryobiology 39: 215-227, 1999. Wowk, B., Leitl, E., Rasch, C.M., Mesbah-Karimi, N., Harris, S.B., and Fahy, G.M. Vitrification enhancement by synthetic ice blocking agents. Cryobiology 40: 228-236, 2000. FYI, when cryobiologists first heard about cryonics in the 1960's, they were intrigued. Not least because they thought it might be a huge source of private resource money. When THAT didn't materialize, they spent the next 30 years in a witchhunt. Eventually that has died down, and cryonics (in the eyes of cryobiologists) has passed from dangerous cult to (presently) a pleasantly jokable alternative philosophical view. Not least because of the work of a few leading cryobiologists (no, I'm not one-- I just help out now and then) who also happen to be cryonicists. In any case, think of Scientology in Hollywood and you have somewhat the idea. Or homosexuality in Hollywood, about the time of Rock Hudson's announcement of his illness. But stay tuned. If "openly cryonicist" cryobiologists manage to cryopreseserve the first major organ for transplant (a major goal and Holy Grail in cryobiology for years), the relevant social model will be more like Judaicism in Hollywood. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med Subject: Re: Is Cryonics Safe??? Date: 14 Oct 2005 12:49:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1129319342.210601.189600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> fresh~horses wrote: > If we're looking at cryonics as a way to dispose of remains; someone is > still paying way more than any comparable way done today in North > America. Not really true. You can be burried in a Cadillac in North America, if you like. You can have your own mausoleum on an island like the Princess of Wales, if you want to pay for it. So? >And if it's insurance you don't really, you a LIBERTARIAN, > think that's fair do you? All those other people paying for your whims? COMMENT: You get the insurance you pay for. This is no skin off the nose of anybody else who is insurred. You have a poor understanding of both insurance and libertarians (who have no problem with insurance, so long as it's honest, nor parimutual betting or gambling, with the same caveat). The house always takes its cut. So long as everybody's clear about what that cut is, nobody cares who bets on what. > I've always regarded life insurance as a despicable scam. Your problem. Most people disagree with you. > But if I > *had* any, I think I'd want it to go to my beneficiary, wouldn't I? I don't know. If you think it's despicable scam, I don't know that you'd even be considering the issue. But perhaps it's sort of like me disagreeing with homicide, whilst still contemplating the people I'd like to throttle. Frustration If I had a shiny gun, I could have a world of fun Speeding bullets through the brains Of the folk who give me pains; Or had I some poison gas, I could make the moments pass Bumping off a number of People whom I do not love. But I have no lethal weapon- Thus does Fate our pleasure step on! So they still are quick and well Who should be, by rights, in hell. -- Dorothy Parker > Which brings up something else. A majority of people will not have more > than a modest life insurance or bond, or some such, and would want > their beneficiary to have that. They can always buy more, which is what's recommended. As noted, the cost is less than smoking habit, if you think about it while still healthy. > So this method of taking care of one's > remains is pretty much limited to a well-heeled segment of the > population. By no means. > > Whether you can get cryonics "after the fact" (ie, after you're > > clinically dead) depends on how long your relatives drag your heels > > <<LOL>> did you mean this????? COMMENT: Typo, but I let it stand. > > So do up your living will. Which is essentially what Williams did. But > > be aware that you can't please everyone in such things, so you've got > > to please yourself. > > I have been told physicians have a right to override. Now I don't know > if that's my province, Canada....? COMMENT: I don't know, either. But not in the U.S. > I don't know all particulars in the William's case, I don't think. But > yes I agree with ANYONE having a right to do as they choose. {I always > have. It's just that I've never heard it called Libertarian. To me, it > was always called "Who the hell do you think you are?"} COMMENT: That's the basic Libertarian thought. And the answer in Canada is "Why, we're the government, and we're here to help!" But all countries have problems. I told you about the Chinese scientist here who'd lived and worked in Communist China, then Belgium, then Canada, then California. He said Belgium was the most socialist, followed by Canada, then China, then the US. But even so, I have to explain to my own Chinese chemist why the Land of the Free has such a heavy-handed institution as the FDA. He's aghast. When somebody makes the pill you'd like to take illegal or controlled (except for antibiotics, which will polute the environment), the proper response is "Who the hell do you think you are?" Why don't you try repeating it 10 times? Be good for you. > > > But lit's not just another way to dispose of your body when you die. > > > > > > Actually, that's exactly what it is. So is donating yourself to a > > medical school. > > vida supra Vide is the spelling, I keep telling you. And again, vide supra yourself. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med Subject: Re: Is Cryonics Safe??? Date: 14 Oct 2005 20:34:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1129347285.305618.322740@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Jim Chinnis wrote: > Certainly the buyers are the suckers to end all suckers. Rather than > checking out on schedule and being recycled, they are choosing to have a > truly tiny chance of an extended life at some probably far future date. I > can imagine being "awakened" in 2090 in a government lab and discovering > that I am a brain in a jar with scientists running pain experiments. My kids > and grandkids are all dead and gone. COMMENT: The usual fears. Nobody you know will be there. Your mileau is gone. They'll be running pain-tolerance experiments on your naked brain. Did you ever stop to think that if society gets to the point that nobody cares about running those types of experiments, that humanity won't survive the weapons we're developing, anyway? If you wake up at all, it will be in a place where people have learned a few things about empathy. On the other hand, tonight you could stroke out and wake up in an ICU "locked-in" to your own body, fully conscious but unable to move a muscle, including blink. And if you hurt, or get cramps, tough. Cause there's no way to tell anybody about it. Might as well shoot yourself, now. It's safer. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med Subject: Re: Closet Cryonicists Re: Is Cryonics Safe??? Date: 14 Oct 2005 12:09:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1129316946.018104.325700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> fresh~horses wrote: > Steve Harris wrote: > > fresh~horses wrote: > > > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. > > > > COMMENT: > > > > A cryonicist who also regularly publishes articles on cryobiology in > > the journal Cryobiology. No "period" is warrented. Look up cryobiology > > if you need a definition. Take a look at the Cryobiology journal site > > if you want to see how it is regarded by those in the field. (Hint-- > > it's THE journal). > > And he's employed by whom, where, to do what? COMMENT: Since he's a friend and I'm not about to go looking on the net to see what's public and what isn't, I'll be glad to let you do that task. > > In fact (this may frost you), Dr. Wowk and I have published 2 joint > > papers in that journal. > > I know. ; ) > > And you're not a cryobiologist either. COMMENT: So? You can find many an article in Lancet or The New England Journal of Medicine in which one of the authors is not a medical doctor. But generally at least one author is. In this case, the cryobiologists include Wowk. > Yes yes yes. And he's good Ukrainian boy from the north end of Wpg. but > now lives and works in the demimonde. COMMENT: Yesssssssss! The twilit world of crepuscular creatures with vespersian diversions! When I said that that a lot of smart people come out of Canada, and the smarter they are, the faster they come out, Wowk was one of the people I had in mind. > > FYI, when cryobiologists first heard about cryonics in the 1960's, they > > were intrigued. Not least because they thought it might be a huge > > source of private resource money. When THAT didn't materialize, they > > spent the next 30 years in a witchhunt. Eventually that has died down, > > and cryonics (in the eyes of cryobiologists) has passed from dangerous > > cult to (presently) a pleasantly jokable alternative philosophical > > view. > > > Hoo Haw! You haven't been reading what I've been readin'! COMMENT: Perhaps not. But who says what you're reading is correct? My take on the general subject, having met many an insider in both cryonics and cryobiology, and knowing far more the history than you ever will, is the correct one. Yes, a few bigotted cryobiologists remain. One Canadian one who works on frozen beetles comes to mind. But narrowmindedness knows no borders. You can choose to believe me or not. SBH |
|