CryoNet #22631 - #22635

CryoNet - Sat 4 Oct 2003

    #22631: CryoNet #22626 - #22630 [Thomas Donaldson]
    #22632: Re: Alcor [D. den Otter]
    #22633: LJ goes to Hell! [D. den Otter]
    #22634: Re: Alcor [Scott Badger]
    #22635: Re: CryoNet #22628 Greenhouse effect from fossil fuels [Steve 
Harris]

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22631
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:50:09 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <73647.1215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: CryoNet #22626 - #22630

To Basie (whoever you are):

Whatever problems with cryonic suspension which may arise from the
Larry Johnson treason will not be affected at all by the method
used for suspension. Those problems would be legal, not technical,
and for such problems technical issues have very little bearing ---
unfortunately. 

I do think that with some justification we can feel confident that
such problems will be overcome in this case.

To Doug Skrecky:

I'm actually a subscriber to SCIENCE, but the September 26 issue hasn't
yet arrived here in Australia. I will read it with interest when it
arrives. Though brains can be compared to computers, it's not clear
at all they work at all in the same way (Sejnowski may disagree!).
Computers are a nice metaphor for brains, but metaphors don't 
constitute full understanding. (The major problem with identifying
brains with computers comes from our brain's production of new
neurons in at least 2 regions and possibly throughout our cortex. I
haven't noticed computers growing new circuits. A secondary problem
is that all computers so far have been designed as tools for human
beings, for which an independent will and feelings would be an 
impediment ... so they lack large areas of our brains devoted to
just such activities).

As most who read Cryonet already know, I spend lots of time and 
attention on such issues in PERIASTRON.

               Best wishes and long long life for all,

                    Thomas Donaldson

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22632
References: <20031003090003.55265.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:50:02 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Alcor
From: "D. den Otter" <otter2@xxxxxxxxx>

> Message #22630
> From: "Basie" <coetzeebasie@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>  "Sadly, I may need a contingency plan if the Larry
> Johnson fiasco continues to mushroom."
>
> Where will you go? If Alcor is closed there will no more suspensions
> anywhere. It is probable time to look at chemical suspensions. If nanobots
> can fix damage due to freezing they should have no problems with cross
> linking.

Indeed. As always: http://www.transtopia.org/plastination.html There are
various chemical, freeze drying & mixed options, some of which could be
relatively cheap and easy to implement. In all cases handling, storage,
and (emergency) transportation would be a piece of cake compared to
cryonics. Without the LN2 component, it should be much easier to move
underground if so required, become a secret immortalist society of sorts
(yes, a "cult". So what?). Theoretically at least, anyone with a regular
freezer (and even this is optional) and some guts could maintain
chemically preserved brains. Hell, you could even hide the airtight,
urn-like containers in graves or crypts, or bury them in permafrost
somewhere. Chemical preservation offers superior flexibility, that's for
sure, and pricing could be as low as $1,000 per brain. No matter how the
current crisis turns out, isn't it about time to start diverting some
resources towards backup / low budget options?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22633
References: <20031003090003.55265.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:49:26 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: LJ goes to Hell!
From: "D. den Otter" <otter2@xxxxxxxxx>

From: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-information.html

Level 9 - Cocytus

This is the deepest level of hell, where the fallen angel Satan himself
resides. His wings flap eternally, producing chilling cold winds that
freeze the thick ice found in Cocytus. The three faces of Satan, black,
red, and yellow, can be seen with mouths gushing bloody foam and eyes
forever weeping, as they chew on the three traitors, Judas, Brutus, and
Cassius. This place is furthest removed from the source of all light and
warmth. Sinners here are frozen deep in the ice, faces out, eyes and
mouths frozen shut. Traitors against God, country, family, benefactors
[and employers, especially Alcor!] lament their sins in this frigid pit of
despair.
---

Ah, the "frigid pit of despair"...the perfect punishment for crimes
against cryonics. LJ, B*bby-Jo W*lliams F*rrell, R*ymond C*rillio; Hell's
gaping maw awaits ye!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22634
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Badger <w_scott_badger@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Alcor

From: "Basie" <coetzeebasie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:10:53 -0400

I wrote:
 "Sadly, I may need a contingency plan if the Larry
Johnson fiasco continues to mushroom."

Basie replied:
"Where will you go? If Alcor is closed there will no
more suspensions anywhere. It is probable time to look
at chemical suspensions. If nanobots
can fix damage due to freezing they should have no
problems with cross linking."

My response:
First let me say that I do not anticipate recent
events will result in the demise of ALCOR, but
contingency plans are always a good idea. Second, I'm
not sure why you assume that the demise of ALCOR would
mean the demise of cryonics. And I'm not familiar
enough with chemical suspensions to comment on your
final remark.

Other comments:
Let me take this opportunity to also offer
congratulations and best wishes to Ben Best as the new
Prez of CI.

I also am very impressed with Rick Potvin's letter of
apology to Charles Platt. Such humility is rare. I
believe Charles should graciously and publicly accept
the apology. And then I think a big virtual hug is
called for.

Best regards,

=====
Scott Badger, Ph.D.
Member: ALCOR, Extropy Insitute, Life Extension Foundation
Assistant Research Professor
University of Idaho
Two Original CD's "Phenom" and "Burdens" 
available at: www.mp3.com/scottbadger

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22635
From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20031003090003.55265.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22628 Greenhouse effect from fossil fuels
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:14:54 -0700

> Message #22628
> From: "Mark Plus" <markplus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: CNN: World oil and gas 'running out'
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:52:24 -0700
>
>
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warmin
g/
>
> World oil and gas 'running out'
> By CNN's Graham Jones
> Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 1245 GMT ( 8:45 PM HKT)
>>
> Global oil supplies will peak soon after 2010, Swedish
scientists say.
>
>
> LONDON, England -- Global warming will never bring a
"doomsday scenario" a
> team of scientists says -- because oil and gas are running
out much faster
> than thought.



COMMENT:

The ignorance of this conclusion by the Uppsalla people, is
breathtaking. If we burn even the lower number for carbon
reserves, we're still in big trouble.


> According to the Uppsala team, nightmare predictions of
melting ice caps and
> searing temperatures will never come to pass because the
reserves of oil and
> gas just are not big enough to create that much carbon
dioxide (CO2).

COMMENT

Arrgh. We'll do a little high school math below to see if
that's true.





> The Uppsala team say the amount of oil and gas left is the
equivalent of
> around 3,500 billion barrels of oil -- the IPCC say
between 5,000 and 18,000
> billion barrels.



COMMENT

Okay, here we go. Let's pretend the Uppsala team is right
about the lower amount of fossil fuel reserves. A billion
barrels (gigabarrel = GB) of oil contains 0.115 gigaton of
carbon, as one barrel of oil has 115 kg carbon in it. A
gigaton of carbon (GtC) is 10^9 metric tons = 10^12 kg of
carbon. Thus, the Upsala people are talking about the
release of "only" 3500 GB, which is 400 GtC into the air.
For scale, consider that right now the entire atmosphere
only contains 750 GtC. Thus, we are talking about CO2 levels
increasing by 400/750 = about 53%. That's a disaster.



Some people have tried to suggest that the oceans (which
contain 40,000 GtC) will buffer the CO2 increase, but
history says it won't happen. We have the record of CO2
levels since the industrial/petroleum revolution, which has
happened roughly since 1860 (99% of all fossil fuel has been
burned since then). with a doubling time of roughly 30
years. Mankind's entire carbon contribution to the
atmosphere since 1860 is about 250 GtC.  How much of that
has stayed in the air?  What has that 250 GtC from the last
140 years of industry done to us?  In 1860 CO2 levels were
about 280 ppm (by volume) for a total of 570 GtC. CO2 levels
are now 367 ppm, an increase of about 30% over the last 140
years. So we've added 250 GtC of fossil fuel carbon, and 178
GtC (or more than 70%) of the carbon we've added has stayed
in the atmosphere, with less than 30% going into the ocean
(trees and soil don't contribute since with deforestation,
carbon is going the other way, there).



Right now the world is putting out about 6 GtC per year, so
the next 400 GtC we add to our atmosphere will be over 400/6
= 66 years at present rates. So we won't get 140 years to
buffer this, but 66 years or less (depending on whether or
not we can bring our present production rates under control
and begin to decrease them). A good guess is that 85% of it
will stay in the atmosphere, so instead of 53%, CO2 levels,
due to buffering, will go up at least 45%, if history serves
to predict. Therefore, we can expect CO2 levels to increase
by roughly 170 ppm (up a total of 45% from present numbers)
if we burn the equivalent of 3500 GB of fossil fuel. And if
Upsalla is wrong and previous predictions are correct,
double that number.



Even a 30% increase is doing bad things to the world's
climate. A piece of the antarctic ice shelf the size of
Rhode Island broke off a few years ago. All glaciers are
melting.  It's now possible to sail to the North Pole in ice
free water at some times of the year, something never
historically possible. The Northern hemisphere's climate
over the last 5 years has been drier than at any time in
recorded history. And even at the Upsalla total release
estimate, the amount of CO2 increase in the air will be
twice as large as that, and corresponding effect twice as
great.



Summary: we've seen what an increase of 87 ppm did. We can't
really take another 170 ppm (twice that) without real
problems. And that number comes from the Upsalla
"optimistic" view. If they are *wrong*, quadruple our
present warming, or even more.



Time for wind power and pebble bed fission reactors, folks.



SBH

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************