X-Message-Number: 21138
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 06:48:26 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #21121 - #21136

Hi Bob Ettinger:

While I would agree that damage is likely to still occur with 
vitrified patients, it does not follow at all that such damage 
would require nanotechnology to repair. I am assuming here that
there do not remain in the brain of the patient ANY areas which
froze rather than vitrified (since you get PERIASTRON, you will
know that I do think some form of nanotechnology, but not
molecular nanotechnology, would be needed to repair freezing
damage). It should not take us lots of time and research to at
least produce ways to avoid freezing even parts of a patient's
brain.

So we have chemical damage. Depending on the kind of chemical
damage, repair may be done by the cells themselves or by use of
various drugs (perhaps more advanced ones, more like viruses
than simple drugs). You may or may not wish to call such repair
repair by nanotechnology. For what it's worth, I suspect that
any chemical damage will be repairable by rather pedestrian
kinds of chemistry, or even by the cells themselves. Until we
actually get to that state, we're both speculating. If you 
believe/decide that nanotechnology would be needed for such
repair, I can hardly argue against your belief.

What's more, if the damage is chemical and nanotechnology 
IS needed, you've just come up with a use for MOLECULAR
nanotechnology. Not the one proposed by Merkle, but a molecular
nanotechnology none the less.

            Best wishes and long long life for all,

                   Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21138