We've been through this already
http://www.alcorunit...hread.php?t=422And although I have a basic grasp of vitrification, and am a cryonics advocate, I too would like to hear from a professional exactly why, in their opinion, vitrification offers better chances considering the whole nature of the process and the advances necessary to revive someone?
Why vitrification is preferable to freezing is illustrated in simple terms here
http://www.alcor.org...rification.htmlThe generally beneficial effects of using cryoprotectants (compared to straight freezing) is illustrated at the bottom of this page
http://www.alcor.org...nics/index.htmlPerhaps the most persuasive online documentation of the excellent brain preservation achievable with cryoprotectants is here
http://www.alcor.org...servation1.htmlEven if one has reservations about the greater dehydration produced by current vitrification protocols, why anyone would prefer straight freezing to freezing with high molarity glycerol is incomprehensible to me.
Dr. Sheleg, whose experience in cryobiology is limited to his one year at Alcor, has made it clear that he doesn't like the tradeoff that cryonics has made in exchanging structural damage for cryoprotectant toxicity. He believes he can prevent both structural damage and toxicity by treating tissue with dissolved high pressure xenon gas. The idea is that when cooled, water would still crystallize, but crystallize both inside and outside cells in a way that preserves both structure and viability. Why Dr. Sheleg believes that high concentrations of hyperbaric hydrophobic xenon gas would be non-toxic, or that the manner in which it reorganizes water at low temperature would be non-toxic, is not clear to me. Suffice it to say that this is an approach outside of current cryobiology, and Dr. Sheleg is pursing it independently. It is neither freezing nor vitrification.
Edited by bgwowk, 14 February 2007 - 05:21 PM.