X-Message-Number: 26355
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:19:24 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Comments on msgs Skrecky & Have(?)

To Doug Skrecky:

Thanks for your explanation. "Antioxidant" is a very general term and I
would not be surprised if we found variations in the levels of particular
antioxidants in different animals, and the complete failure of some
antioxidants to prolong lifespan. (In the Appendix of the GUIDE I
actually give a list of antioxidants which have become popular for
antiaging but haven't gotten any test in any mammal ... or sometimes
in any living thing ... at all). I'd be leery of forming a total
conclusion on the basis of one or two papers.

But remember that I said myself that even if antioxidants prevented 
or slowed some features of aging, oxidation could not be a complete
explanation. H2O2 is hardly the only oxidant our bodies make; and
it's a general feature of enzyme systems that they can act quite
specifically.

Still, you've come up with some interesting papers which I will
read when I'm next at the local university.

For Ron Have(?):

Mark Plus has come up with a variety of statements about our future
poverty. As you probably have noticed yourself, $60 per barrel
oil actually looks likely, and I'd say it's among his milder 
declarations. He seems to be motivated not so much by arguments
against cryonics but by arguments that any cryonicist outside the
US should quickly move to the US.

In that sense I wouldn't be so sure that he's arguing against
cryonics itself, not that his arguments convince me to immediately
return to the US. 

As for oil, it should be very clear to anyone who looks at the
present situation that oil wells will relatively soon all run
dry. This means that we'll have to use a substitute, and there's
lots of thinking going on right now about what we can use as a 
substitute for oil or gasoline. 

             Best wishes and long long life to all,

                 Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26355