X-Message-Number: 26339
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:00:58 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Comments re Aging, for Skrecky & Basie

For Doug Skrecky and Basie:

To Doug Skrecky: 
You begin your message with a statement which directly contradicts the
abstract of the paper you include in your message. What do you mean
here?

To Basie:
I personally think that aging is more complex than the free radical
theory alone. However it's very easy to get different lifespans
from the free radical theory: have two species or even varieties
of animal, one of which makes several orders of magnitude more
antioxidant chemicals than the other. Call the first one LA (less
Aging) and the second one MA (more Aging). LA animals will live
longer than MA animals because their larger number of antioxidants
interferes with more frequently with the action of oxidant chemicals
in our body, including our mitochondria.

As a matter of fact, apparently production of antioxidant chemicals
has been compared across a few species. Humans apparently make 
more per cell than do mice or rats (I'll get you the reference
if you want it). 

I will note that we can break down in other ways which do not 
involve oxidant attack. Sugars cause damage too. Over and above
that, our cells and body encounter continual damage from pathogens
and nonliving toxins; our ability to protect ourselves against 
such damage is part of what protects us from aging. When someday
we understand aging much more fully, I wouldn't be at all surprised
to learn that it involves a sequence of destructive events, most
of which never happen if an earlier one kills us off beforehand.

            Best wishes and long long life for all,

                Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26339