X-Message-Number: 17644 From: Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 04:09:56 EDT Subject: Well, good for a laugh, I guess... CryoNet: I read author Michael Shermer's article in the hardcopy of the September 2001 issue of "Scientific American"--Special Issue. (The website for the magazine is www.sciam.com, I do not know if the article is located there.) In the "bi-line" area at the end of the article, the following text appears: "Michael Shermer is publisher of 'Skeptic' magazine (www.skeptic. com) and author of 'How We Believe' and 'The Borderlands of Science.' " I am currently unable to get to any websites due to an odd recurring software glitch on this computer--while I can send and receive email fine. I will reload the operating system before long. I mention this because if I could I would check out his website to see what he is about. If he is into comedy, like being skeptical of gravity too, I would feel bad about the following critiquing of his article. However, from just reading it in the magazine, there is no good indication that he is other than serious except for the gin on his face as appears on the accompanying photograph of him on the page. Maybe he is a regular and regular readers of the magazine know his style and that he is not to be taken too seriously. With that caveat, here is the first part of the article, an article of which as another poster previously noted, may not be outstandingly good or competent journalism. I have interjected my thoughts [in brackets]: QUOTE: "Nano Nonsense and Cryonics--True believers seek redemption from the sin of death" "Cryonicists believe that people can be frozen immediately after death and reanimated later when the cure for what ailed them is found. To see the flaw in this system, thaw out a can of frozen strawberries. During freezing, the water within each cell expands, crystallizes, and ruptures the cell membranes. When defrosted, all the intracellular goo oozes out, turning your strawberries into runny mush. This is your brain on cryonics. [The "This is your brain on cryonics" is a cute catchy line--I will give credit for that. However, I hope the story was not formed around it, but I am suspicious that it was. I think this guy can be thankful (and also think that he was heavily dependent on the fact) that in some journalistic circles it is considered improper for a writer to allow his text/copy to be reviewed prior to publication by knowledgeable individuals in the area of which he is writing. The idea I believe is to preserve "journalistic integrity." For example, newspapers are chock full of inaccuracies that normally only the individuals interviewed for the story are in the best position to catch. However, occasional misconceptions and mistakes on the part these writers are considered to be an acceptable tradeoff for potentially avoiding improper or undue influence from particularly interested parties towards influencing/edit the writer's best work. Regardless, the specific concern in this case is that the frozen strawberries analogy is no good and any cryonics researcher could have made an understandable explanation to any neophyte who might buy such inaccuracies. For one, strawberries are plants which means that they have cell walls which are very rigid--they very likely can and do break. Animial/human cell's have membranes only which do not typically rupture--the expansion of volume is less than 10 percent even if all the water in the cell turns to ice. To whatever extent that they could possibly be over stretched they are elastic and reformable--poke a hole in a cell membrane, it will close up. Internal cell membranes for cellular organelles regularly disintegrate during cellular division; change the cell's chemical environment after division (as naturally occurs), they reform. However, even with plant cells there would be little "intracellular goo oozing out" if it were not for two factors that don't apply to cryonics: 1) the storage temperature being so high for standard kitchen freezers, and 2) the constantly changing temperature in the refrigeration unit due to the on and off cycling of the compressor which is based on a cheap, wide-range thermostat--which stimulates the breakdown, reformation and growth of ice crystals. I have a hunch that the author is likely aware of these issues and did not mind being scientifically questionable/wrong, even in a science publication, if a catchy story can be the result. Again, maybe I misunderstand the intent and therefore misjudge.] QUOTE: "Cryonicists recognize this detriment and turn to nanotechnology for a solution. Microscopic machines will be injected into the defrosting "patient" to repair the body molecule by molecule until the trillions of cells are restored and the person can be resuscitated. Every religion needs its gods, and this scientistic vision has a trinity in Robert C. W. Ettinger ("The Prospect of Immortality"), K. Eric Drexler ("Engines of Creation") and Ralph C. Merkle ("The Molecular Repair of the Brain"), who preach that nanocryonics will wash away the sin of death. These works are built on the premise that if you are cremated or buried, you have zero probability of being resurrected--cryonics is better than everlasting nothingness. Is it? That depends on how much time, effort and money ($120, 000 for a full-body freeze or $50,000 for just the head) you are willing to invest for odds of success only slightly higher than zero..." UNQUOTE [As someone recently pointed out, he cites CI's Robert Ettinger, but then apparently does not cite its lower fee structure. No doubt at least a marginal journalistic compromise for the sake of pushing a questionable point that the procedure is too expensive.] The rest of the article may or may not be considered less wrong to some people, but is of little interest to me and others in that his premise is so faulty--ironically, the same observation he erroneously attributes to cryonics. I would recommending buying this issue of "Scientific American" as it is centered on Nanotechnology. (I very recently subscribed to it but bought this issue at a store as I will not start actually receiving them for a while.) There is a good (while short) article by Eric Drexler and there is another short article by Richard E. Smalley (1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry), an apparent detractor/doubter of nanotechnology. One or more articles outline the magnitude of the challenge of realizing the technology--which is not to be underestimated. I was considering a post before long on some thoughts on the various possible processes for cryopreservation and the potential relative irrelevance for the differences between them--methods ranging from a "straight freeze" (i.e., no cryoprotective agents introduced at all) to vitrification. To do a decent job wth the argument would take quite a few words and it still would not be nearly as convincing as quoting Eric from his recent SI article: QUOTE: "Another surprising medical application would be the eventual ability to repair and revive those few pioneers now in suspended animation (currently regarded as legally deceased), even those who have been preserved using the crude cryogenic storage technology available since the 1960s. Today's vitrification techniques--which prevent the formation of damaging ice crystals--should make repair easier, but even the original process appears to preserve brain structure well enough to enable restoration." UNQUOTE Regards, David C. Johnson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17644