X-Message-Number: 3975
From: Ralph Merkle <>
Subject: Reversal of freezing injury
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 17:27:22 PST

Thomas Donaldson said:
>1. If we take a broad definition of nanotechnology so that it includes 

>   biotechnology too, then our revival will certainly happen by nanotechnology.
>   But many here seem to take a much narrower view, and I agree that such a
>   narrower view may exclude the technology most likely to revive us soonest.
>   As it stands now, we can actually remodel viruses to do things for us, and
>   no other nanotechnological device has gone that far.


If we include in "biotechnology" any system that uses diffusional transport in 
water,

then it seems unlikely that biotechnology will be sufficient to reverse 
suspension
using current methods.  Such systems are unable to deal with frozen tissue
directly, but would have to warm the tissue up first.  But current suspension
methods cause sufficient damage (fracturing and the like) that warming up the

tissue looks like a very bad idea.  Once rewarmed, the tissue (which has now 
suffered

both the damage from freezing *and* the damage from thawing) would be subject to
further deterioration.

Yuch.


A more plausible approach is one that can intervene while the tissue remains 
frozen.
This would include, for example, the molecular mechanical systems considered in
Nanosystems.  These systems do not require liquid water, and should function

quite well at arbitrarily low temperatures.  If anything, the reduction in 
thermal
noise at lower temperatures will improve their function.


Even if suspension technology is improved dramatically, it's likely that many 
people

will still be suspended under less than ideal conditions.  Reversing the level 
of

damage that can plausibly occur under such suboptimal conditions is likely to 
require
a mature nanotechnology.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3975