X-Message-Number: 10718 Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:17:55 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #10693 - #10699 To Mr. Mazanec: To me it is first of all important just what kind of nanotechnology you are referring to. If you've read only a little biochemistry you will realize that it deserves the name nanotechnology (well, it's working with nanosized objects, yes? And it is a technology, yes?); in that sense, what you say is a tautology. The religious approach comes with millenial expectations, not a worship of anything. The millenial expectations run something like this: we'll soon get to a level in nanotechnology when we can solve all problems with it. ("SOON" is an operative word here). And unfortunately I've read people writing as if that were so, and heard them talking that way too. To me, this is almost an automatic turnoff. So tell me more about the variety of nanotechnology you had in mind. And if you had no particular variety in mind, I think than any cryonicist concerned with animating those who are now in suspension would agree. Vitrification may provide a means to suspend people without a need for lots of nanotechnology (though it will certainly use some, if you include biotechnology). The time in which our survival under suspension is in question may not last more than 10 more years ---- I and probably others hope. To Brian Delaney: I got the paper you referred to, and others with it. First of all, it was commentary rather than experiment. And the paper on which Weindruch was commenting looked much more as if it was using calorie restriction as a tool to study something else rather than seeking to find just how and why calorie restriction works on its own. Incidentally, Pierpaoli's popular book does have an offputting title. But he prints some actual papers in an Appendix, and gives his reasons for suggesting that CR works because of its effect on melatonin levels. He got even better results when he removed the pineals of old mice and replaced them with pineal glands taken from young mice. It seems to me not that Pierpaoli has presented an ironclad case, but rather that he's come up with a valid hypothesis that deserves more experimental work. He did a much earlier experiment, too (EXPERIENTIA 33(1977) 1612- 1613) which suggests that EARLY CR with normal calorie intake in adulthood might change the setpoint permanently and thus allow longer lifespans. As for finding maximal lifespans of a particular strain, Storer will tell you that they clearly differ among mouse strains. If I have experiments with a drug which clearly increases the maximal lifespan of a fixed strain, then to argue that it does not work as well as CR WITHOUT providing any further experiments with other strains, etc, is hardly arguing fairly. Harris provided an experiment with CoQ10 which did not show an increase in maximal lifespans, and so far what he says bears only on that experiment. It seems to me that the ASSUMPTION that no drug can increase maximal lifespan guarantees that we'll find it very difficult, if not impossible, to understand how CR itself works. Part of that understanding, after all, would consist of means to alter the metabolism of a NON-CR mouse or rat and get the same effect as CR. And how might we do that? By using one or more drugs. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10718