CryoNet #32134 - #32136

CryoNet - Thu 5 Nov 2009

    #32134: Re: Self Sacrifice [John de Rivaz]
    #32136: Re: CryoNet #32131 - #32133 [2Arcturus]

1 message(s) removed from digest due to low reputation.

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32134%2D32136

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

To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
(Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces
the "Subject:" line in the header.  This gives a second
opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.)

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


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

Message #32134
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Self Sacrifice
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:58:08 -0000

Thanks for all those good points raised. On the one in the message below the
sig file, I would like to comment that cyropreserving everyone that wants it
free of cost wouldn't be that simple.

Everyone would not need cryopreservation within a short timespan. Access to
the spaces within the dome (or sphere?) would require space (cf corridors in
a building) and make it impracticable to fill the entire thing with liquid
nitrogen, appealing as this may be for cold retention reasons. I suspect
submersible robots (or remote handling devices) capable of working at LN2
temperatures are not off the shelf items. I suppose NASA may have considered
them for exploring places like Triton, but I would imagine that costs would
be prohibitive.

I do not know the all causes death rate per year, but the number of
cryopreservations needed would be of the order of 30% of that. In any case,
I suspect that the 30% figure could change either way once it became
commonplace. Whilst it is still relatively uncommon the proportion of those
wanting free cryopreservation would likely remain much lower for a while. So
the $0.50/month would have to be subsidised to whatever the current monthly
cost is. Whether paid privately or by taxpayers, the starting point is the
current position, which is upfront costs ranging between approx $30k and
$150k in the USA.

-- 
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 ----- 
Message #32131
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:56:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Parrish <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Self Sacrifice
<del>
Just some back-of-napkin math for reference...

I calculate that roughly 20 million fullbody patients could be fit in a dome
100 meters in radius. That would be about 2 million cubic meters. I do
imagine it would cost a few billion dollars, as it would have to be
cryogenically sound. Ongoing costs would be based on a surface area of
100,000 square meters (upwards of 60,000 wall space and 30,000 floor space).
So depending on insulation factors, if it is $100 per square meter in a
given month you'd be paying 10 million per month or 50 cents per fullbody
patient.
<del>

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32134

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

Message #32136
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:15:49 -0800 (PST)
From: 2Arcturus <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32131 - #32133

--0-613893997-1257376549=:51969



>>> More people might opt for  
cryonics (neuro option) if the rest of the body could be used for  
transplants.  This would require isolating the circulatory system of  
the head before damaging chemicals were injected.  I assume this would  
be harder, and result in a somewhat less ideal preservation, but how  
much harder and how much less?  And how many more people would go for  
it if the organs could be transplanted at the same time as the brain  
was being preserved (waste not, want not :-) )?  To what extent might  
hospitals cooperate?  Might Alcor get a little money for organs?  It  
also seems that much less of the various chemicals could be used if  
there were only a head's worth of blood to deal with instead of a  
whole body's worth.
Fire at will.

Kennita - that's actually a good suggestion to put in the suggestion box.

Many people consider neuropreservation to be superior, not inferior, to cryopreserving the entire body.
Some of the stabilizing medications are similar to those used in organ harvesting, and the two aims are often parallel.
In order to work, a separate organ transplant team would have to be present in addition to the cryopreservation team. I don't think Alcor should try to make money in this, but rather do it gratis, by consent of the patient and as part of their nonprofit charter, and also to promote cooperation between cryonicists and the health care community.



--0-613893997-1257376549=:51969

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32136

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

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