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