X-Message-Number: 15133 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: Urban or Rural Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:52:09 -0000 > 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)? Given that both CI and Alcor have moved to substantial facilities now, the ides of periodically moving to avoid "dangers" may in itself produce dangers. What may prove to be safe now may not be in say 20 years, and so on for the next 20. If we are really writing about 200 years (which we could be) then moving every 20 years means 10 moves. Are the risks (legal, physical and financial) and expenses of moving any safer than remaining in one place with varying degrees of local risk? It seems reminiscent of the arguments as to whether to use oil, coal, gas or electric heating. The costs of all 4 varied. At any one time one or the other was the best. But if you changed your boiler every time so as to be using the cheapest, then the costs of changing outweighed the savings. (In the case of electric storage heating, all the radiators had to be changed as well.) -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy? > Message #15130 > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:12:01 -0500 > From: david pizer <> > Subject: Urban or Rural > > 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)? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15133