X-Message-Number: 31612
References: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: 2Arcturus <>
Subject: How can we help those who cannot afford cryonics?

--0-1440508902-1239808194=:31040

From: "Jordan Sparks" <>
References: <>
Subject: How can we help those who cannot afford cryonics?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:57:49 -0700

The way we do it is chemical preservation with the option to convert to
cryopreservation.  This is the direction I have been moving very steadily in
for years.  A hospital pathologist can remove the brain and submerge it in
fixative.  It would be shipped after 1 week in fixative.  Permanent storage
could be in fixative for the truly indigent.  But a better option for those
who could afford it would be to convert to cryopreservation.  

>>>The cost might
start at about $20,000, but could get down to about $12,000 after the first
few due to economies of scale. 


I think it has been suggested it must be competitive with the price of a 
conventional funeral (?$10,000) , and without assuming economies of scale. (I am
not sure even funeral homes and cemeteries think in terms of economies of 
scale, and we should continue to assume life extension will be a very rare 
option.)

>>>1. Can accept patients immediately without pre-signed contract.
>>>8. We can safely provide a totally free option for someone who's indigent.


I don't see how anything can be done totally free, and without a contract, one 
would have to consider there might be no payment.

And unless a next of kin is pushing this through, this could only happen if 
something like an anatomical donation was set up in advance or a specification 
in a will at the very least.

>>>5. No time pressure other than the initial fixation at the hospital.


Another option is sending the body to a private pathologist. There might be 
expenses in the thousands of dollars for either, although the hospital fixation 
might be free.

>>>9. Funeral industry regulators much less likely to get involved if it's just
a brain.

Maybe it's time to mend bridges with the funeral industry and join them.

>>>Disadvantages:
1. In some cases, might be slower to lock molecules in place than cooling.
Very complex topic.  The paper on fixing the whale brains largely convinces
me that it is fast enough.


It remains to be seen whether a conventional pathologist could be talked into 
implementing an optimal fixation protocol.

>>>2. Pathologists are not known for being gentle.
3. Damage will result from handling the brain.  Examples include compression
and tearing.  I don't feel that there is much loss of information with this
kind of damage.


Removing the brain from the skull is like trying to shell a walnut without 
damaging the walnut. Very difficult, to say the least. And saw damage to the 
outer surface of the brain affects the neocortex, so it is not a good thing. 

>>>4. Pathologist might not be on duty when patient dies.


Even when they are on duty, living patients may get priority over autopsies, 
which could lead to a certain delay. If it were less than a day, this might not 
entail identity-critical information loss, but edema would make optimal 
perfusion fixation more difficult.

>>>6. If they don't transition to cryopreservation, damage will be ongoing for
decades.


An additional problem is that fixation seems to worsen cryopreservation for some
reason - although it is possible this does not lead to identity-critical 
information loss. Another alternative would be fixation followed by polymer 
embedding or plastination (polymer impregnation).

>>>I also fully realize
that nobody but me has been strongly advocating this option.  


Several people, including myself, have strongly advocated low-cost alternatives 
to cryonics, including chemopreservation, for years.



--0-1440508902-1239808194=:31040

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31612