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