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