 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / December 2005Is Cryonics Safe???
The Ted Williams case in the last few years, along with a push for longer, healthier lives in America, has sparked the idea that has been around for years which is starting to gain more and more attention: Cryonics. Cryonics is the "freezing" of the human body after death to preserve it for the future, when cures for the causes of death can be reversed and cured. In reality what sounds like a fairy tail has many unanswered questions and criticism from many people in the United States. During the cryonic stage, most of the blood in the body is drained and replaced with an anti-freeze like solution. The body is then lowered in temperature to the point where no chemical reactions can occur to prevent decomposition. The body is then hung, and stored in a metal cylinder, waiting until cancer, Alzheimer's, mental disabilities and other illnesses can be reversed. However, the future of cryonics is uncertain. Who knows if a cure for cancer will ever be found, and if it is, how certain are the doctors that they can bring the person out of the frozen state, and back to life. No such cases in which the patient who has been frozen have successfully been brought back. Also, a majority of the human body is water. When water freezes it expands, so when the body is frozen, what damage will be caused? With Cryonics there are too many uncertainties to be deemed safe. I am in no way saying that Cryonics is a lost hope. I believe that more research should be made before it is put into practice. With more research not only will the procedure be safer and more certain, but also it will be more affordable to the average person. Right now, only the upper-class can afford the procedure and the storage fees. Therefore I believe that government funding should be put into place to research cryonics. It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you think? > The Ted Williams case in the last few years, along with a push for > longer, healthier lives in America, has sparked the idea that has been [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you > think? Research had going along quite well until recently when the major cryonics lab reported an unexpected glitch. Apparently people keep coming back as beagles. This is how science works. Today's wupses are tomorrows Nobel prizes. >It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic >could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until >research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you >think? I think being dead and frozen is highly unsafe. > >It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic > >could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until > >research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you > >think? > > I think being dead and frozen is highly unsafe. Depends upon who's being frozen. And "dead and frozen" is a superior option to "alive and frozen," but I hate the cold.  Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > >It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic > >could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until > >research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you > >think? > > I think being dead and frozen is highly unsafe. Cite? >>It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic >>could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until >>research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you >>think? > > I think being dead and frozen is highly unsafe. I think it smells less though. Steve Signature{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial;}} {\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove "nospam" to reply\par } It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic >could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until >research is done, this can not be determined as safe. What do you >think? As long as you are talking about waiting until someone is dead anyway, safety is not an issue. If you are dead and cryogenics works and you are brought back, then you are certainly ahead (sorry Ted) of the game. If you are dead and cryogenics doesn't work, you are hardly any worse off. ---------------------------------- This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects. > It would be excellent in the future if a paraplegic > >could be frozen and then be brought back to walk again, but until [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the game. If you are dead and cryogenics doesn't work, you are > hardly any worse off. Cryonics is not the same thing as cryogenics. And as to whether you are "hardly any worse off"... I think your wallet will be. They want payment up front not after the fact. Then too, your relatives may react the way Willims' did. You can say it's your body and your right to do as you choose. But as someone commented here recently (appropos discussion of hard aerobic exercise and dying of same a la Jim Fixx) that you probably want to cause the least amount of pain for those you leave behind. (paraphrasing). But relatives get upset about organ donation and no-recusitation wishes too, and when you slide off Nuptse, or die in the recliner watching television. I don't want to make my end of life choices based on what comforts someone else. I haven't observed many being too comforted by anything when someone they love dies. So I come down on the side of it being an individual's right to do this if they want to. But lit's not just another way to dispose of your body when you die. You are being used as a research subject. Should you have to pay so dearly for this? > ---------------------------------- > This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and > grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to > be considered flaws or defects. > Cryonics is not the same thing as cryogenics. > > And as to whether you are "hardly any worse off"... I think your > wallet will be. They want payment up front not after the fact. CONMENT: Funding is usually via life insurance, and if you think ahead far enough, is cheap (costs way less than a smoking habit). The longer you wait and snicker and the less you think ahead, the more it costs. Pretty much like everything else in life. Whether you can get cryonics "after the fact" (ie, after you're clinically dead) depends on how long your relatives drag your heels and how much cash they can get hold of, on short notice. Most companies want a significant amount of the total "up front," because more than half the expense in a cryonic preservation happens on day #1 (at least if you do an Alcor-style preparation). Other companies will do a straight freeze for less money. You get what you pay for. > Then too, your relatives may react the way Willims' did. You can say > it's your body and your right to do as you choose. But as someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > too, and when you slide off Nuptse, or die in the recliner watching > television. COMMENT: Of course. And in those cases, there's a well-worked out protocol. If you signed a donor document, you're an organ donor, and your family is up the creek if they object (in the US). You can also sign a document in life refusing to donate, and that is honored over family wishes. If you die intestate on the issue, if you're married, your wife decides if you're an organ "donor" (actually, the term "donor" is not correct, as it's reserved for people who decide to donate themselves, not people who make organ gifts on their behalf, if they die intestate on the issue). If you have children and no wife, majority of adult children rules on the matter of gift. Some kids may be violently against, and others violently in favor. In the Williams case, one adult child was outvoted by the other two. All this is public record. However, Williams had also signed a document of organ donation, which superceeds everything-- even family wishes. Either one was sufficient. All this is again public record. > I don't want to make my end of life choices based on what comforts > someone else. 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 haven't observed many being too comforted by anything > when someone they love dies. So I come down on the side of it being an > individual's right to do this if they want to. Good for you. So you would have agreed with the Williams case in all particulars. > 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. > You are being used as a research subject. Should you have to pay so > dearly for this? COMMENT: Yes, if nobody else is willing to fund the research. In the case of it being paid for by life insurance, it's being paid by a third party, same as if your research (say) cancer treatment was being paid for by your insurance company or HMO. Such things have been a terrible historical problem, resulting in only 2 to 3% of cancer patients ever getting into research trials (which can often pay for the drug, but not all medical expenses). But with 3rd party payors coming on board more and more to help with the expense of trials, that is slowly changing. http://www.moffitt.usf.edu/pubs/ccj/v4n5/department3.html COMMENT: If you don't want to use the medical model, cryonics then is essentially a death bequest, where you donate to research (same as if you donated part of your estate to, say, breast cancer research). Except in the case of cryonics, the research *might* have a chance of helping you personally. I see no reason why that's more objectionable than donating part of your estate to some other sort of research that won't help either you OR your family-beneficiaries. Your kids won't be pleased if you donate your estate to a cat shelter, either. So? The most common story in the world is that the grandkids' "inheritance" gets spent on some "bimbo" third or fourth or fifth wife, not cryonics. Do you think that qualifies as "research"? :) SBH > > Cryonics is not the same thing as cryogenics. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wait and snicker and the less you think ahead, the more it costs. > Pretty much like everything else in life. 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. 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? I've always regarded life insurance as a despicable scam. But if I *had* any, I think I'd want it to go to my beneficiary, wouldn't I? 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. So this method of taking care of one's remains is pretty much limited to a well-heeled segment of the population. A modest burial costs much less. Willing your remains to a medical school costs nothing. For the latter you're free to donate (they carefully mention in the literature) but it's not required. But cryonics is not just a way of disposing of your remains. There's a belief connected to it (and a rather gossamer one at that, hmmm? ). So most people are not going to spend...what is it now around $60,000...unless they share this belief. > 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????? You're good Harris where do I sign? and > how much cash they can get hold of, on short notice. Most companies > want a significant amount of the total "up front," because more than [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > everything-- even family wishes. Either one was sufficient. All this is > again public record. True, and sobering. And a good lesson on what could happen to any of us vis a vis our families, for any of the issues you mentioned not just cryonics. > > I don't want to make my end of life choices based on what comforts > > someone else. > > 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....? > > I haven't observed many being too comforted by anything > > when someone they love dies. So I come down on the side of it being an > > individual's right to do this if they want to. > > Good for you. So you would have agreed with the Williams case in all > particulars. 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?"} > > 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 > > You are being used as a research subject. Should you have to pay so > > dearly for this? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.moffitt.usf.edu/pubs/ccj/v4n5/department3.html So it's different in Canada, with universal medicine. I'm sure it is but I haven't enquired. > COMMENT: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > gets spent on some "bimbo" third or fourth or fifth wife, not cryonics. > Do you think that qualifies as "research"? :) I dunno. How tall will he be? > SBH > 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 Parker didn't need a gun. > Frustration > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -- Dorothy Parker 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. I note which country he chose to appeal to when he wanted to build his career. Did the Canadian taxpayer subsidize his education and living expenses, and make it possible for him to have the sterling creds that got him into Ca? And you're exhalted circle? > SBH > I told you about the Chinese scientist here who'd lived and > > worked in Communist China, then Belgium, then Canada, then California. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > expenses, and make it possible for him to have the sterling creds that > got him into Ca? And you're exhalted circle? COMMENT: We're talking about two different people. My guy is actualy from Taiwan, which is or is not China, depending on who you ask. The other guy's a doctor from the mainland. I don't think the doc got much education in Canada. He did pass through many slave labor research assistant positions in Europe and Canada (he was a surgeon in China, but of course cannot work as a surgeon in the West, except on animals for research). But that's better than being a human surgeon in China. I suppose China lost out on the surgeon's medical education. Too bad-- they should pay doctors more. My own chemist came from Taiwan directly to the US and got college and grad studies in the US, so as taxpayer in the amazingly good state education system of California, I paid for some of that. Which is fine with me. I don't object to either socialized food or education, as I think the one is a lifeboat sitation, and the other is a basic economic one which you pay even more for later, if you neglect. I don't object to taxpayor funded "basic" medical care, as that's yet another lifeboat issue. But we'd disagree on what should count as "basic". Also, I think taxpayer preventive care of certain types is the same as education-- pay now, or pay much more in a lifeboat situation, later. I'm not much of a pure libertarian, I'm afraid. Still, even with all of the above down, that leaves far more than half of my taxes being wasted to build public sports stadiums or funding artists that nobody likes. Or dropping fancy JDAM bombs from invisible airplanes on some poor low-tech sods on the other side of the world, for no particularly good reason. SBH > > I told you about the Chinese scientist here who'd lived and > > > worked in Communist China, then Belgium, then Canada, then California. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Taiwan, which is or is not China, depending on who you ask. The other > guy's a doctor from the mainland. No I was thinking of the mainland guy. I know a bit about China. I'm a sinophile. I taught ESL to Chinese, the literature I read most is Asian in English, and a good friend is a business prof who was sent from our university to start the business school at Beijing university. I've helped some visiting scholars with conversational English. Fun. I don't think the doc got much education in Canada. He did pass through > many slave labor research assistant positions in Europe and Canada (he > was a surgeon in China, but of course cannot work as a surgeon in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > think the one is a lifeboat sitation, and the other is a basic economic > one which you pay even more for later, if you neglect. I'm surprised. Haven't heard you indicate anything like this before. I don't object > to taxpayor funded "basic" medical care, as that's yet another lifeboat > issue. But we'd disagree on what should count as "basic". Really? Tell me what should be basic. I'll compare to what is, here. And what I think it should be. Just a sketch. Go... Also, I > think taxpayer preventive care of certain types is the same as > education-- pay now, or pay much more in a lifeboat situation, later. I don't know what you're referring to here. > I'm not much of a pure libertarian, I'm afraid. Can you show me where I can read more about that? Still, even with all > of the above down, that leaves far more than half of my taxes being > wasted to build public sports stadiums or funding artists that nobody [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > SBH Well we agree on that for sure. I may have an arts degree but I'm not for subsidizing them (or sports) over health and education. If we can only have so much (and we can only have so much) those are my picks. There's a dialogue going on now (pre election doncha know) about free post secondary education, like Norway, and (I think) New Zealand and/or Australia. When you graduate with a MSc and have $40,000 debt, and so does your spouse, it's gone too far. These people may never pay the loans off, and most probably will never afford their own homes, running at $200,000 for a starter in any Canadian city (no matter what the real estate boards say). >Funding is usually via life insurance, and if you think ahead far >enough, is cheap (costs way less than a smoking habit). The longer you >wait and snicker and the less you think ahead, the more it costs. >Pretty much like everything else in life. But then if they reanimate you wouldn't you have to pay the insurance back..probably with interest? ---------------------------------- This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects. > >Funding is usually via life insurance, and if you think ahead far > >enough, is cheap (costs way less than a smoking habit). The longer you > >wait and snicker and the less you think ahead, the more it costs. > >Pretty much like everything else in life. > But then if they reanimate you wouldn't you have to pay the > insurance back..probably with interest? Your comment really underscores the absurdity of this notion; this is such pie-in-the-sky science. (If indeed it's science). While I'm willing to allow people have a right to do as they choose, no-one gettng hurt etc, etc; (and I'm not sure no-one is getting hurt more later)... I can't put aside the knowledge that while we indulge ourselves doing whatever we choose most of the rest of the world considers living to 30 or 40 to be indulgence. Not to mention, potable drinking water and 700 calories a day of poor food. But back to no-one getting hurt: certainly the researchers aren't getting hurt. But what about the people who are being sold this pie-in-the-sky idea and rolling out their life savings on it? Aren't they just being scammed? We spend a lot of time on these sci newsgroups de-quacking. Will someone explain to me how this isn't just the duck to end all ducks? > ---------------------------------- > This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and > grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to > be considered flaws or defects. "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part: >But back to no-one getting hurt: certainly the researchers aren't >getting hurt. But what about the people who are being sold this >pie-in-the-sky idea and rolling out their life savings on it? Aren't >they just being scammed? We spend a lot of time on these sci newsgroups >de-quacking. Will someone explain to me how this isn't just the duck to >end all ducks? 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. Suckers to end all suckers. For every buyer there is a seller. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that I am a brain in a jar with scientists running pain experiments. My kids > and grandkids are all dead and gone. Well and your wife too. : ) > Suckers to end all suckers. For every buyer there is a seller. > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > 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 > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > SBH I don't share Jim's concerns. I'd find the experience of being in the future so exciting. It would be a total rush, and just what I love: being completely out of my element and not knowing what anything is around me. Not knowing what's coming up around the corner. Everything unfamiliar and an adventure. Everything I hear or see new and unknown and strange. I'd be high. I'm just not convinced this is the way to get there. > I don't share Jim's concerns. I'd find the experience of being in the > future so exciting. It would be a total rush, and just what I love: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm just not convinced this is the way to get there. COMMENT: Good luck any other way. Until somebody comes up with an antimatter rocket, we all travel to the future at the same speed: one second per second. It's a long, long road and at normal temperatures, undue spoilage tends to occur. -- Clarence Birdseye > > I don't share Jim's concerns. I'd find the experience of being in the > > future so exciting. It would be a total rush, and just what I love: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -- Clarence Birdseye You forgot permafrost. Nyayayayah! Canucks Rule! > > COMMENT: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You forgot permafrost. Nyayayayah! Canucks Rule! COMMENT: Which gives you pretty good-looking mummies, but they're still mummies. Brains not in the best of shape. Nor does standard embalming technique do much for the brain (it's meant for short term cosmesis, and that's all it's good for). Really good brain formalin/glutaraldehyde/osmium fixation followed by permafrost burial in something water-tight, has actually been suggested as a poor-man's solution. It certainly beats conventional alternatives. Canucks don't have a permafrost monopoly, though. There's a cemetary in Fairbanks, AK, reachable by anywhere in the US by standard commercial jet (bodies are interstate shipped all the time), followed by a train ride. SBH > > > COMMENT: > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > do much for the brain (it's meant for short term cosmesis, and that's > all it's good for). No embalming. > Really good brain formalin/glutaraldehyde/osmium fixation followed by > permafrost burial in something water-tight, has actually been suggested > as a poor-man's solution. It certainly beats conventional alternatives. > > Canucks don't have a permafrost monopoly, though. Much of ours is less disturbed by mining, gas and oil incursions. There's a cemetary in > Fairbanks, AK, reachable by anywhere in the US by standard commercial > jet (bodies are interstate shipped all the time), followed by a train > ride. > > SBH Don't sweat the plane ride. I've got contacts. "No embalming." ~ SBH "Shot my wod For the day. No AD[Hi!]D meds. Mind all gone, numbness Reigns, grounds, No, buries, mind, my light, Pains my aching Head, shrieks ragged itch Of Hell. Not swell. Nice lines, however, I can see, if not know. Just arose, Time again to nap." ~ Twittering > > Canucks don't have a permafrost monopoly, though. > > Much of ours is less disturbed by mining, gas and oil incursions. COMMENT: How do you figure?. Divide permafrost area by barrels produced, and Alaska and Canada come out about the same (Alaska has a quarter your permafrost area, and 28% of your oil production-- ain't goggle wonderful). Alaska's basically pristine, including Fairbanks. The present exceptions on land/permafrost are a little patch up north by Prudhoe, a long and very artistic pipeline which goes *above* the permafrost in most places, without disturbing it, and finally an oil terminal down in Valdez. All a tiny, tiny fraction of Alaska. The major environmental accident so far happened at Valdez, and while a shore disaster, bothered the permafrost not at all. Other permafrost drilling is planned in both Alaska and Canada. If tar sands ever become economical (which I have no doubt will eventually happen), there are far more in Canada than in the US, and that's a MAJOR permafrost impact. So don't get too holier-than-thou. SBH > > > Canucks don't have a permafrost monopoly, though. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > permafrost area, and 28% of your oil production-- ain't goggle > wonderful). So why do you think Alaska has more barrels produced. C'mom.... Give it to us.... {In your answer consider where Alaska gets most of it's oil. Extra points will be awarded for getting Floyd from Barrow to agree with you.} > Alaska's basically pristine, including Fairbanks. The present > exceptions on land/permafrost are a little patch up north by Prudhoe, a > long and very artistic pipeline which goes *above* the permafrost in > most places, without disturbing it, That's only for transport, not how it's drilled or pumped. Ya yokel! (Tell us how this technology was developed). and finally an oil terminal down in > Valdez. All a tiny, tiny fraction of Alaska. Man you do need to get out more. Lesse; how many Alaska's can we put in Canada north of 60? Snort. Alaska is such a rube zone. The major environmental > accident so far happened at Valdez, and while a shore disaster, > bothered the permafrost not at all. > > Other permafrost drilling is <<LOL>> While you were posting, the province which dervices most of it's income from tar sands oil announced a $6 billion dollar surplus this year. (which I have no doubt will eventually > happen), there are far more in Canada than in the US, and that's a > MAJOR permafrost impact. So don't get too holier-than-thou. > > SBH Shiney little halo looks good on Zee > > > Much of ours is less disturbed by mining, gas and oil incursions. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So why do you think Alaska has more barrels produced. C'mom.... Give it > to us.... As I said, it's about a quarter. > {In your answer consider where Alaska gets most of it's oil. Extra > points will be awarded for getting Floyd from Barrow to agree with > you.} Vide infra. > > Alaska's basically pristine, including Fairbanks. The present > > exceptions on land/permafrost are a little patch up north by Prudhoe, a > > long and very artistic pipeline which goes *above* the permafrost in > > most places, without disturbing it, > > That's only for transport, not how it's drilled or pumped. Ya yokel! Prudhoe IS where it's drilled. Pumping along the pipeline is a bunch of pump stations with minimal footprint and impact. > (Tell us how this technology was developed). A lot of people contributed, including Canadians and Russians. > and finally an oil terminal down in > > Valdez. All a tiny, tiny fraction of Alaska. > > Man you do need to get out more. Lesse; how many Alaska's can we put in > Canada north of 60? Snort. Alaska is such a rube zone. Already gave you that answer: Alaska is 15% of Canada's area. Comparing permafrost (80% Alaska, 50% Canada), and you could probably get 3 or 4 Alaskas above Canada's permafrost line. So? > The major environmental > > accident so far happened at Valdez, and while a shore disaster, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's income from tar sands oil announced a $6 billion dollar surplus > this year. It's more than I'd realized, I'll give you that. 40% of Alberta's oil and 10% of Canada's! I just learned more about Athabascan oil/tar sands and Suncor than I wanted to know. But the Sierra club says the major impact of all this is on borreal forest and wetlands, so I imagine little permafrost is involved. Point to you, I suppose. You guys are destroying a different part of the environment than I thought, and the project is much more well advanced. Good for you. SBH > > > > Much of ours is less disturbed by mining, gas and oil incursions. > > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > SBH It is permafrost. Most of it covered by a layer of muskeg. Boreal (one *r* aska Taiga but not correctly so) does not recover. This is the problem with exploration and development in the north. You can find bombadier tracks that are 50 years old, after someone passed there once. And everything within destroyed. This destruction isn't my doing; by all I can manage to do to stop it. I underestimated the surplus by $2 Billion. Tis is $8 Billion. I assume it comes from the high prices charged for the oil and gas which have driven the war in Iraq. You'd like the Taiga/Boreal Steve. The forest is mesmerizing, mysterious, hypnotic and terrifying -- that element of risk that makes you know you're alive. It's where the wendigo lives. The Canadian Shield has beauty that takes your breath away; the bottomless lakes offer scuba diving that is unique. Here be dragons. > It is permafrost. Most of it covered by a layer of muskeg. Boreal (one > *r* aska Taiga but not correctly so) does not recover. This is the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Shield has beauty that takes your breath away; the bottomless lakes > offer scuba diving that is unique. I've seen all this in Alaska, driving from Ankorage to Fairbanks (a hell of a long drive through the most amazing landscapes). Same exact stuff at the same latitude on the same continent. The tundra and the taiga doesn't know it's Canadian or American. SBH > > It is permafrost. Most of it covered by a layer of muskeg. Boreal (one > > *r* aska Taiga but not correctly so) does not recover. This is the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > SBH The tundra and taiga are circumpolar. "I've seen this all in Alaska...". No I think not. The tundra and taiga are circumpolar. The Alasakan area is small in comparison to the Canadian but also differs, because of the north Pacific ocean currents. Moreover, you cannot drive most of the Canadian Shield (tundra and taiga). I couldn't begin to itemize how different that would make your journey and experience. But what I've seen of Alaska *is* beautiful, and similar. But not. I've seen from Barrow to Thule, those two from the air, and been on the land inbetween. How did this turn out Steve? http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/sports.htm > How did this turn out Steve? > > http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/sports.htm The cryonics regulation bill died as legislators learned that the issue was more complex than they thought, and that the original bill would have unwanted side effects. The press also turned against them, with Reason magazine's online edition calling the bill "one of the silliest pieces of consumer protection legislation ever devised." Several weeks ago the Representative that introduced the legislation was quoted in the Arizona Capitol Times as saying he had no intention of pursuing the matter further because, "I'm not a glutton for punishment." The whole thing is chronicled at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/legislation.html Perhaps the most surreal happening was when the Arizona House of Representives spent a full 45 minutes debating cryonics. Truth is stranger than fiction. Cryoguy > But what about the people who are being sold this > pie-in-the-sky idea and rolling out their life savings on it? Aren't > they just being scammed? We spend a lot of time on these sci newsgroups > de-quacking. Will someone explain to me how this isn't just the duck to > end all ducks? The science story of cryonics is told here http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm and here http://www.alcor.org/Library/index.html#scientific The main ideas are briefly reviewed in this journal article http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/annals.html Nobody is saying that people can just be frozen and revived in any simple way with current technology. The idea is more subtle. For those who look to arguments by authority, there are scores of MDs and PhDs that belong to cryonics societies. There are also a small but growing number of well-known scientists that have expressed support for contemporary cryonics (e.g. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky, nanotech experts Eric Drexler and Ralph Markle, stem cell leader Mike West, physicist Greg Benford). Off the top of my head, at least three of these people have testified before Congress on various technology matters. So they would not generally be regarded as quacks. And of course there is sci.med's own polymath Dr. Harris. Cryoguy The name is spelled Merkle. But back to your point; yes. There is a cryonics supporter posting here that I and most of the rest of the sci groups posters give salaam to. Testifying before congress....lessee, in my limited knowledge of American crime families, wasn't there one or two of those doing that recently? {What's the expression; shot yerself in the foot?} I do believe people have a right to do what they choose. They can spend their money on any number of scams. This sounds like one. And the fact that a buncha scientists who spend their days watching Star Trek reruns support it is just about proof enough for me of where it lies in the spectrum of things I should pay attention to. And please stop confusing cryonics with the real gains made by the science of cryogenics. I have read the ALCOR site (want me to post some of it? Again?) and I have read the cryonics forums, and I have read Steve's luminous essays. I'm not sure there's any connection, but I guess you can use his name to glorify what you think you're doing. Cryonics is another way to dispose of your body after death. Fine. A rather pricey way too. A way to come back when stupidity has been cured? Heh~ I'm a skeptic. Show me. I'm listening. Not because I'll ever be a candidate for this. (I'm poor). But because I have a couple deadlines I'm avoiding, mostly, and also because I'd like to see sci.med's quarterback try to get this one down the field. > Testifying before congress....lessee, in my limited knowledge of > American crime families, wasn't there one or two of those doing that > recently? {What's the expression; shot yerself in the foot?} Yeah, and Rael in his Starfleet Command uniform. :) But unlike the names I mentioned, these people were not asked to testify based on their scientific expertise. > And please stop confusing cryonics with the real gains made by the > science of cryogenics. Huh? Cryogenics is low temperature engineering, as in running a liquid air plant. Don't you mean cryobiology? Cryonics draws directly from progress made in cryobiology (as in Alcor recently switching to a solution with published success in kidney preservation), and cryobiology benefits from cryonics spin-offs. This is not like astronomy/astrology where astrologers contribute nothing to astronomy. It's more like Goddard and aviation, where something unrespectable (rocketry research with the aim of space travel) overlapped and eventually integrated with mainstream pursuits. Cryoguy > > Testifying before congress....lessee, in my limited knowledge of > > American crime families, wasn't there one or two of those doing that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Cryoguy I've never read any cryobiologist say anythign remotely like what you've said. Read lots of "cryoguys" saying it. Ho hum. > I've never read any cryobiologist say anythign remotely like what > you've said. Read lots of "cryoguys" saying it. Ho hum. There are several cryobiologists sympathetic to cryonics, some who only entered the field because of cryonics, who prefer to remain in the closet to avoid controversy. One who is fairly open about it is Brian Wowk. He's written several articles on the subject http://www.howestreet.com/story.php?ArticleId=1575 http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/medicaltimetravel.htm http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CardiopulmonarySupport.html Alcor would not be able use the technologies it does without cryobiology connections. Some technologies essential for large tissue preservation, and one particular plasma volume expander used in clinical medicine, would not exist were it not for cryonics and cryonics-motivated researchers. That's what I mean by overlaps of respectable and "unrespectable" fields. Cryoguy > > I've never read any cryobiologist say anythign remotely like what > > you've said. Read lots of "cryoguys" saying it. Ho hum. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Cryoguy Wowk is a cryonicist. > > > I've never read any cryobiologist say anythign remotely like what > > > you've said. Read lots of "cryoguys" saying it. Ho hum. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > closet to avoid controversy. One who is fairly open about it is Brian > > Wowk. (deleted) > Wowk is a cryonicist. You said that you never read any cryobiologist say anything remotely like what I said. So I supplied one. The fact that Wowk is also a cryonicist proves my point that there is overlap between the two fields. That's not to say that you can't find cryobiologists who would vigorously protest connecting the fields. Most would. But since cryobiologists have been known to block publication of legitimate scientific research by cryonicists on the basis that publishing such research would be like publishing hypothermia research by Nazi war criminals, it's hard to find cryobiologists who are dispassionate about the issue. It's a very polarizing subject. Cryoguy > > > > I've never read any cryobiologist say anythign remotely like what > > > > you've said. Read lots of "cryoguys" saying it. Ho hum. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Cryoguy Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. > > You said that you never read any cryobiologist say anything remotely > > like what I said. So I supplied one. The fact that Wowk is also a > > cryonicist proves my point that there is overlap between the two > > fields. > > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. So he's not a cryobiologist? Let's see. He works for a cryobiology company, he publishes cryobiology papers, he's a member of the Society for Cryobiology. All this is just erased by the Original Sin of cryonics? It is a fact that cryonicists have made useful and even important contributions to cryobiology. Wowk is a case in point. Cryoguy > 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 > > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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? > 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. > Wowk, B., Darwin, M., Harris, S.B., Russell, S.R., and Rasch, C.M. > Effects of Solute Methoxylation on Glass Forming Ability and Stability [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fahy, G.M. Vitrification enhancement by synthetic ice blocking agents. > Cryobiology 40: 228-236, 2000. Yes yes yes. And he's good Ukrainian boy from the north end of Wpg. but now lives and works in the demimonde. > FYI, when cryobiologists first heard about cryonics in the 1960's, they > were intrigued. Not least because they thought it might be a huge [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cult to (presently) a pleasantly jokable alternative philosophical > view. Hoo Haw! You haven't been reading what I've been readin'! 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. HUH? > 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 Well there *was* a story in the news in the past week about an arm being grown. Or whatever the terminology is. I was impressed. But I don't think the person was dead. > Well there *was* a story in the news in the past week about an arm > being grown. Or whatever the terminology is. I was impressed. But I > don't think the person was dead. C'mon fresh~horses, everbody knows being declared dead is just medicine's way of saying you're not worth any more bother. Everything, even brain cells, remain in decent shape for some time afterward. Where do you think arms for arm transplants come from? http://www.marylinstransplantpage.org/double-arm00.htm Cryoguy > > Well there *was* a story in the news in the past week about an arm > > being grown. Or whatever the terminology is. I was impressed. But I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Cryoguy It wasn't an arm transplant. They grew it. If your George Cherry....goodbye. > C'mon fresh~horses, everbody knows being declared dead is just > medicine's way of saying you're not worth any more bother. Everything, > even brain cells, remain in decent shape for some time afterward. > Where do you think arms for arm transplants come from? COMMENT: >From criminals and guys you get off the street, of course. That guy Dr. Richard Kimble was always chasing in The Fugitive--- now we know why they were so mad at each other. There's a famous Gahan Wilson cartoon of the French restaurant where the diners look to see the double kitchen doors open, and out come a plethora of amputee frogs on crutches, in wheelchairs, on little wheeled carts.... SBH >> C'mon fresh~horses, everbody knows being declared dead is just >> medicine's way of saying you're not worth any more bother. Everything, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >plethora of amputee frogs on crutches, in wheelchairs, on little >wheeled carts.... There's a similar cartoon by Sam Gross (originally in the National Lampoon, I think) of diners looking out and seeing a frog on a little wheeled cart. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > > > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 > > > > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period. > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. It was a rhetorical question. > > > In fact (this may frost you), Dr. Wowk and I have published 2 joint > > > papers in that journal. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yesssssssss! The twilit world of crepuscular creatures with vespersian > diversions! Or noodley things. > 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. I don't recall you saying that. I have no quarrel with the man. He sounds and looks innocuous. And brilliant. Canada's loss, I guess. > > > FYI, when cryobiologists first heard about cryonics in the 1960's, they > > > were intrigued. Not least because they thought it might be a huge [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > SBH I'm not qualified to judge. Thanks for clarifying the Merkle and Markle thing, I get a lot of questions pertaining to nano-tech and I'm not the guy. Anyway, back to the subject, it's CRAP. If anyone believes that they can "Revitalize" frozen flesh they are idiots. There is no basis and no qualification for study in the matter. The only thing you could ever achieve is the possible discovery of new bacteria. I feel sorry for the folks who believe that the only hope for them selves to reach recognition in life is if they would return to the breathing population. Give the money to your loved ones not to a shyster calling you from their Lexus. Stop dreaming and start focusing on the things you have NOW. Ralph Markle MSEE/CS > But back to no-one getting hurt: certainly the researchers aren't > getting hurt. But what about the people who are being sold this > pie-in-the-sky idea and rolling out their life savings on it? Aren't > they just being scammed? We spend a lot of time on these sci newsgroups > de-quacking. Will someone explain to me how this isn't just the duck to > end all ducks? I can't recall any health quackery that is being sold as merely the chance to participate in an experiment-in-progress. Cryonics is sold that way-- no guarantees except due diligence in trying to keep you from melting (or un-vitrifying or whatever the tech term is). An experiment that doesn't work is not quackery. It's just an experiment that doesn't work. Many a cancer treatment doesn't work. And as explained, there are many models in which both patients and third party payors pay for experimental therapies which may not work. That's why they call them "experimental" don't you know. If we knew they worked, they wouldn't be experiments. Sheesh. SBH > >Funding is usually via life insurance, and if you think ahead far > >enough, is cheap (costs way less than a smoking habit). The longer you > >wait and snicker and the less you think ahead, the more it costs. > >Pretty much like everything else in life. COMMENT: Interesting legal question. Insurrance companies have been asked, and their answer is laughter. I think we should get these horse-laughs on paper. Perhaps the more expansive answer is that insurance companies are running a business for profit. They don't CARE if you come back in 100 years, because the fraction of their customers who are cryonicists is very small, and none of your fellow insurees are going to object to the payout. It's rather like the multi-year proscription on payouts for suicide. If you take out a policy fully intending to kill yourself, and you can manage to wait out the exclusion period, the insurance company literally doesn't care if you suicide. The reason is that they *set* the time of exclusion period exactly long enough that your statistical chances of killing yourself after taking out the policy, are so little different from anybody killing themselves who doesn't have a policy, that the company doesn't care about absorbing the difference. Cryonics would be a similar deal. SBH > The Ted Williams case in the last few years, along with a push for > longer, healthier lives in America, has sparked the idea that has been [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > frozen, what damage will be caused? With Cryonics there are too many > uncertainties to be deemed safe. COMMENT The alternatives (being burned, or embalmed and buried) isn't exactly a Sunday picnic. Why don't you run them past the FDA? SBH > > The Ted Williams case in the last few years, along with a push for > > longer, healthier lives in America, has sparked the idea that has been [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The alternatives (being burned, or embalmed and buried) isn't exactly a > Sunday picnic. Why don't you run them past the FDA? It's not just the FDA and it's not just a personal matter. I remember seeing a crematorium threatened with closure unless they upgraded their ovens and chemical filters to stop some rather nasty chemical their chimneys were pumping out. These days the carbon tax people might get interested in this environmentally expensive way of disposing of people's remains. It takes a lot of fuel to burn up a hundredweight of meat. Fay What? Never seen the movie, "Demolition Man?" Steve Harris started out life by publishing research on being a popsicle. Apparently, he has an uncontrollable urge to end life as a popsicle. Does it have anything do with your sex life, Steve? I always new that you were a stiff. You have my condolences. > Does it have anything do with your sex life, Steve? I always new that > you were a stiff. LOL. This from Gohde, who's forgotten what it's like. >> Does it have anything do with your sex life, Steve? I always new that >> you were a stiff. > >LOL. This from Gohde, who's forgotten what it's like. You're assuming a fact not in evidence, Steve: that he ever knew. If Gohde's ever had sex, it was a cash transaction and left him considerably poorer, I have no doubt. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > What? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You have my condolences. COMMENT: And you, mine. I'm sure you're trying hard to remember what it's like. SBH > > Never seen the movie, "Demolition Man?" > > > > Does it have anything do with your sex life, Steve? I always new that > > you were a stiff. > > And you, mine. I'm sure you're trying hard to remember what it's like. Christopher Reeves comes to mind, Steve. Reeves in "Somewhere in Time" (1980) was a total stiff. Steve strikes me as a Christopher Reeves clone in the romantic department. What else would explain your preoccupation with being a Popsicle? Sorry, but cutting somebodies head off and then freezing it is a total scam, by any definition. It comes under health fraud peddled to the public by the American Health Care system when they are most vulnerable. Or, are you an Alternative Medicine Quack, Quackpot? > Sorry, but cutting somebodies head off and then freezing it is a total > scam, by any definition. But not if you freeze the whole body? How about if you vitrify the whole body in a way that many cells can still be cultured? You are aware, if course, that many cells, tissues, and even human embryos can be stored in liquid nitrogen indefinately, and reanimated later (the embryos produce normal babies). Somewhere there's a dividing line in size of tissue which separates science from science fiction from quackery. But the damn thing keeps moving year by year. Please give us your learned opinion as to where the tissue-size line is, and why it will always be there, forever. Cite your sources. Thank you. SBH > Sorry, but cutting somebodies head off and then freezing it is a total > scam, by any definition. It comes under health fraud peddled to the > public by the American Health Care system when they are most > vulnerable. Nope. Almost all "takers" pay for the service over decades while they are still healthy. Worst case it's no different than the comfort people take in life everlasting sold to them by most churches over a lifetime for about the same price. Cryoguy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.