CryoNet #32116 - #32120

CryoNet - Sun 1 Nov 2009

    #32116: Re: Radiation [RAMole]
    #32117: once more, with feeling [Ettinger]
    #32118: Re: self interest [Keith Henson]
    #32119: Re: CryoNet #32114 - #32115 [Eisab]
    #32120: Re: Self-sacrifice - good or bad? [John de Rivaz]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32116%2D32120

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32116
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:45:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Radiation

Dr. Bernard Cohen of the U. of Chicago (now Pittsburg) has spent decades  
studying the effect of varying levels of background radiation on health and  
lifespan. The bottom line, to the dismay of the anti-nukes, is that 
radiation is  good. The hypothesis is that hormiosis (sp?), the stimulation of the 
immune  system by small amounts of toxins or other insults, makes it better 
able to  fight off real challenges.
 
See _http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article50.html_ 
(http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article50.html)    or just Google  Bernard cohen radiation.
 
Note there are two theories of radiation damage. One says if 1000 rems  
kills everyone then 1 rem will kill one in a thousand and .1 rem one in 10,000. 
 This is the linear theory. The other is the old "The dose makes the 
poison", and  says if drinking 10 liters of water at a sitting kills you (and it 
probably  does) then drinking one liter -- is good for you and keeps you from 
dying of  thirst. And there is probably no damage at all from .1 rem of 
radiation. This is  the threshold theory -- below a certain amount there is no 
harm and maybe a  benefit.
 
The truth has never been proved. Twenty or thirty years ago there was an  
experiment with thousands of mice at low levels of radiation, and trying to  
autopsy jillions of them for tumors, but it was a debacle and never  
completed.  All we know is Cohen's work that consistently shows people  exposed to 
more background radiation live longer and have less cancer. E.g. we  in the 
Rocky Mountain States, being a mile closer to the Sun and cosmic  radiation 
(i.e. a mile less thick atmosphere to absorb radiation) and near many  
deposits of uranium etc., get more (twice?) the radiation of those at sea level,  
and we live longer and have less cancer. I don't recall the exact numbers;  
haven't looked at it in years.
 
Alan Mole
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 10/31/2009 3:01:21 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

Message  #32115
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References:  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: chronic  radiation 
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:39:33 -0000

If the data is  easily available, it might be worth looking at average 
lifespans for those  living in areas affected by natural radiation from mineral 
sources such as  granite or gravel soils as opposed to those areas with less 
natural  radiation.  If generally available data produces some sort of 
result this  may be sufficient to get funding for a more precise one.

However to be  really effective such a study would need to be limited to 
long term residents  -- most people "relocate" ie move house very frequently 
these days. Also, of  course, other causes of death such as accident need to 
be removed.

--  
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites  including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan,  Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz  genealogy,  Nomad .. 
and
more
----- Original Message -----  
From: CryoNet 
To: [email protected] 
Sent:  Friday, October 30, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: CryoNet #32112 -  #32113




 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32116

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32117
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:42:44 EDT
Subject: once more, with feeling

DSS seems to purport to refute my claim that all conscious motivation is  
self centered, in part by saying that self sacrifice is common and in part by 
 noting that we have and cherish social connections.
 
 
This is just confusion. What I say is not "amateur social science" but  
rigorous philosophy and logic. 
 
 
There is never any conscious self sacrifice, only the sacrifice of one want 
 in favor of another. You may sacrifice your life for someone or something 
you  hold dear, but if the choice is a conscious one that simply means that, 
at that  time and place, you calculate more pain or less satisfaction in 
making the  superficially "selfish" choice.
 
 
Incidentally, if DSS is as devoted to "evidence" in the literature or the  
weight of expert opinion as he appears to be, how can he be favorable to  
cryonics? After all, the "experts" are heavily biased against  it.
 
 
Robert Ettinger


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32117

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32118
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:52:22 -0700
Subject: Re: self interest
From: Keith Henson <[email protected]>

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:00 AM: David Stodolsky <[email protected]> wrote
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #32103
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:25:11 +0100
> References: <[email protected]>
>
> On 28 Oct 2009, at 10:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>
>>  In YOUNIVERSE I have demonstrated, at least to my own satisfaction,
>> that self interest (properly understood) is not only the only
>> conscious
>> motivation of everyone, but the only possible motivation, no
>> exceptions.

I almost agree with you.  The real party of (self) interest is genes,
and they can only induce behavior that is statistically likely to
further their interest.  If you want to understand odd human behavior
such as suicide bombings then this is where you need to start.  Re
conscious motivation, I think the current accepted view is that for
the most part humans are not aware of the source of their motivations.

> Self-sacrifice is observable in most organisms, at least from worms to
> humans, evolutionarily speaking. There is good evidence for multi-
> level evolution, which means there is also a group "survival
> instinct". This is characterized as hardiness, a psychological
> variable (see Maddi, et al.):

The problem with group selection logically is that the the selection
feedback.  Sticking with gene selection gives the same result with a
much stronger tie to biology.

But it is interesting how much of a bias humans have toward this view.
 Of course the reason we have the bias can be understood in
evolutionary terms.  :-)

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32118

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32119
From: "Eisab" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32114 - #32115
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:59:19 -0500

Why not look at the lifes of career miners in the miles deep gold and 
uranium mines in South Africa. These miners spend a big chunk of their adult 
lifes underground.

Basie 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32119

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32120
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Self-sacrifice - good or bad?
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:26:57 -0000

There is no doubt that self-sacrifice is observable in humans. 

The perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity, and suicide bombers in general are examples. But is it a beneficial trait in evolutionary terms between species? I suspect that it may well not. If people were not prone to do it, or be easily persuaded to do it, could wars be possible? The risk of total annihilation of the human species through weapons of mass destruction may have reduced, but it is by no means zero even without the USSR.

Maybe Dr Stodolsky is correct from one point of view -- a practitioner of self sacrifice is not going to be drawn to the cryonics movement. Therefore no one with this personality trait is going to be found within it.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: CryoNet 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:00 AM
  Subject: CryoNet #32114 - #32115


  From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
  <del>.

  Self-sacrifice is observable in most organisms, at least from worms to  
  humans, evolutionarily speaking. There is good evidence for multi- 
  level evolution, which means there is also a group "survival  
  instinct".

  <del>

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32120

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************