X-Message-Number: 15131
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:05:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "S.J. Van Sickle" <>
Subject: Re: Urban or Rural

On 19 Dec 2000, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #15130
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:12:01 -0500
> From: david pizer <>
> Subject: Urban or Rural

Hi, Dave!

> Where is the safest place for patients to be stored for the next 100 to 200
> years, until we can reanimate most of them (if it becomes possible)?  There
> is no move planned in the works for now that I know of, but who knows what
> might happen in the next decade.  Now is a good time to discuss this.

<snip>

All excellent points you make...but I think that the answer really depends
on patient population size and what we can afford.  I think that at our
current size, being able to take advantage of the police and other
services of a large city is most important.

However, in the long term, if the patient size grows to the point where a
full time private security force can be afforded, then a remote location
makes more sense.  But not just any remote location. The most secure
facilities in the world are large military bases.  They do not achieve the
high level of security that they do by "hardening", that is, walls,
fences, guard towers, bunkers, etc.  They do it by defense in
depth...simply having a very large buffer zone around the point of
interest. 

This buffer zone is usually open land, with clear visibility, large enough
that any vehicle or person/persons on foot can be spotted and intercepted
well before they become a threat.  For instance, the famous "Area 51" is
not fenced on its outer perimeter...but it is extensively alarmed, so that
if you cross into it at any point, you are shortly met by gentlemen in a
jeep with no sense of humor.

While I suppose you could have such a facility in a populated area, it is
obvious that large tracts of land are much cheaper in remote areas.  Extra
points if you can declare the buffer area a "wildlife preserve" (like the
Kennedy Space Center), if you can acquire land under some variety of
"controlled airspace" so that it is more difficult for aircraft to
overfly, and if the buffer zone is difficult to cross by foot (in the
middle of wetlands, or an island). Points deducted for secret bases
underwater or inside volcanoes...James Bond could always get into those
<grin>.

Note also, that, in the long run and in my opinion, the siting needs of
research, suspension operations, and long term storage are pretty mutually
exclusive.  Research facilities are best in major biotech and university
areas (such as the Bay Area, San Diego, the North Carolina Triangle Area,
Washington, Boston, Madison, etc.).  Operations really need to be
conducted in close proximity to all weather transportation hubs (one of
the things that made Scottsdale/Phoenix a good choice) or even better,
distributed; and, as noted above, more remote areas for storage.

steve van sickle

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15131