X-Message-Number: 20814 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:35:24 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #20811 - #20813 For Yvan: Forgetting any issues of nanotechnology, research papers have told of thawing various tissues from very low temperatures already. Yes, with lots of damage, but that's not the point here. Instead of producing gobbledegook, perhaps you might do some study of cryobiology instead. And if you want a list of such papers, I can provide one privately (I assume that you haven't bothered to consult any of the cryobiologists who are known to be cryonicists too). For Steve Ritger: Will nanotechnology save us? Yes and no. The only current example talking about how nanotechnology could reverse the damage of freezing (not that we should not work on vitrification instead!) badly misunderstands what happens on freezing and quite wrongly assumes that we can revive people by simply knowing the location of their atoms ... when their freezing has disarranged those locations by at least 100 times the nanoscale. The author of this "study" is Dr. Ralph Merkle. But as for the yes, our repair devices will probably be built of nanoscale parts, even if they don't act on a nanoscale. We'll probably need very powerful computers, and small ones, more powerful that the big IBM machines but easily able to fit on a desktop and very inexpensive. And don't say they would be smaller than a desktop: I'm saying that they would be built with the best of nanotechnology and fitting that power into anything smaller would violate physical laws. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20814