X-Message-Number: 2298 From: Ben Best <> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: CRYONICS:more on openness I posted a message to solicit help for Charles Platt on how much openness and honesty he should use in writing about cryonics. I was hoping to compensate for having redirected the question toward CRYONICS magazine at the Memorial Weekend Cryonics Conference. Ironically, the only response is from Charles, asking about CRYONICS magazine. Perhaps others intend comments, but I already want to qualify my previous message. Yes, I do want more honesty and openness in CRYONICS magazine. In saying this, I want to stress that I am not making and don't want to make a personal attack on Ralph and Alcor staff. I am just saying that I don't like seeing problems glossed-over. Similarly, I'm sure that during the Boston Suspension, Mike Darwin did not really want to drive Stanley out of cryonics activism by chewing him out over not shaving. I'm sure that what Mike wanted was more professionalism among Alcor volunteers during a suspension. Also, I am not claiming that either Mike Darwin or I am flawlessly honest and open. Deciding what to express and what not to express is a tough judgement call. I am aware of my own advocacy. In discussing freeze-damage I (and perhaps even Mike Darwin) have (has) a hard time avoiding a double-standard. To non-cryonicists, my tendency is to emphasize that damage does not necessarily mean destruction, and that future technology will be capable of molecular-level repair. To cryonicists I emphasize that freezing-damage is far too great in the context of our current ignorance of the anatomical basis of mind. There is so much research to be done and there are so many improvements that can be made, my advocacy here is toward getting cryonicists to help fund more research. I think it is human nature, and not unreasonable, that the greatest honesty and openness is saved for personal, one-on-one communication. More candor is to be expected on CryoNet and at a Cryonics Conference than in CRYONICS magazine or a book about cryonics. But even from an advocacy standpoint, problems cannot be ignored. Chances are very great that non-cryonicists will know about "cutting off heads", the thawed bodies of Chatsworth, freezing-damage and the Dora Kent case. These *must* be addressed and explained or the reader will not be persuaded. On the other hand, non-cryonicists are unlikely to know that someone absconded $100,000 of Alcor money during the Dora Kent case. The temptation to resist mentioning this is very great. Similarly, the "political" and personal conflicts within the cryonics community can have a devestating effect on the perceived workability of cryonics -- and discussing these issues seems like a can-of-worms I'd rather not open. One person in Toronto has told me that he terminated his sign-up process with Alcor after reading "Time for a Change". To answer Charles, yes, my trust in the truthfulness of the material in CRYONICS magazine has been eroding. Image-manipulation is a dangerous business and the short-term gains from a pleasant fabrication can easily be devestated by a single exposure. -- Ben Best (ben.best%) P.S. I believe Brian Wowk is wrong to claim that cryoprotectants act through dehydration. Dehydration occurs *without* cryoprotectant. The migration of water to the extracellular space during slow freezing is the reason that Audrey Smith was able to recover hamsters frozen to the point where 60% of brain water was ice. But too much cell dehydration results in denatured intracellular protein. The basis of cryoprotectant action is the vitrification of intracellular fluids, since intracellular ice is the worst source of freezing damage. My main concern about the use of glycerol is that it may not be perfusing into the cells adequately to vitrify and -- worse -- simply (osmotically) squeezing more water out of cell tissue rather than vitrifying. -- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2298