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