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