4 ms·

1. Nobody has been frozen since the 80s. The process is vitrification, which is designed to mitigate most of the damage and cracking that occurs. Vitrified anim

1. Nobody has been frozen since the 80s. The process is vitrification, which is designed to mitigate most of the damage and cracking that occurs. Vitrified animal organs (a rabbit's, iirc) have been successfully restored and implanted into an animal which stayed healthy. The main danger is in ischemia if you are not given cardiopulmonary support during the cool down process, which might cause brain damage. 2. That would be true if brains worked on all-or-nothing integrity, but they don't. The last people to be preserved will be the first to be brought back; as techniques get more advanced they will allow saving older patients. There are a few people that are likely nonviable due to extreme circumstances (one suicide and one murder victim where the body was autopsied and so left warm for a long time, as well as having the brain removed from the skull (it is normally preserved within the skill), for example) but as the brain is still intact in both cases, they are certainly still potentially recoverable with adequate medical technology. Remember when any random disease could kill someone simply because it wasn't treatable? We're at that stage with brain injury. As it is, even if something went wrong and I died and wasn't preserved, I wouldn't even know as I would be dead. 3. Go and read Alcor's site some time. It's full of useful information including very detailed reports of procedures. Alcor admit that it will likely be a long time until many patients can be recovered, but the entire company is structured in a way to ensure that money is kept in long term investment. People's life does potentially literally depend on cryonics and Alcor at least would not wish to have a patient without an understanding of the process.

teddyh 12y ago
1. You ignored my point to instead attack my word choice. I actually took that word (“frozen”) from the article title. But we could call it “mummification” for all I care – it does not alter any point I was making. 2. (I have nothing to add to this beyond my other replies in this thread.) 3. I argued that any information from a company in this business is likely to be biased, and you suggest I read the company’s information because they would like to have informed customers? What? That does not follow.

teddyh 12y ago

1. You ignored my point to instead attack my word choice. I actually took that word (“frozen”) from the article title. But we could call it “mummification” for all I care – it does not alter any point I was making. 2. (I have nothing to add to this beyond my other replies in this thread.) 3. I argued that any information from a company in this business is likely to be biased, and you suggest I read the company’s information because they would like to have informed customers? What? That does not follow.