Re: Facility location, liquid nitrogen and what kind of dewar?

--- In CryonicsEurope@y..., "Trygve Bauge" <trygve.bauge@c...> wrote:
> I ask the people on the cryonet for input, in the selection of a
dewar.
> So far we have 3 options:
> A 4 person big foot from Cryotech in Anaheim, (Alcor's and Trans
Times
> models.)
> A 6 person fiberglas model from Perry Fiberglass in Ohio (C.I.'s
model)
> Or having someone in Europe build a smaller 1 or 2 person dewar, as
> suggested by
> D. den Otter.

Actually, that's not quite what I suggested. I've attached (parts of)
the relevant posts below.
====
[...]

Personally, I think that electric cryogenic storage freezers would be
better than LN2 or dry ice for this type of small, low-budget setup
(lower running costs, safer and easier to handle than LN2 tanks, only
electricity needed etc.), at least initially. The Ultima II Series
Cryogenic Storage Freezers
(see http://www.revco-sci.com/catalog/ult/cryo_ultima2.htm ) look
like the best choice, as they're the only ones that go low enough to
stop decay "indefinitely" (-140*C or so). I understand that you've
requested more info about pricing etc. from this company -- could you
send me the details (quotes) regarding the above models
if/when you get them? One possible problem could be the (much?)
higher price of electric freezers.

Note that there's an option, according to the Revco
website, to buy slightly damaged (but technically
still fully functional and reliable) specimens at
discount prices. Maybe it would be worthwhile to
inquire about this as well, if you haven't done so
already? Apparently, they have a local branch here in the
Netherlands (according to the reply you posted on
Cryonet), so maybe I could go check them out in person
should you seriously consider buying one.

CI's custom-built fiberglass cryostats might be another option; their
(supposedly) rugged, easy to repair & simple construction could be a
big plus if they're to be used under relatively primitive conditions.
[...] Maybe they could be built locally according to CI's
specifications.

I've recently been investigating a completely different approach to
low-budget preservation of brains or whole bodies, by the way:
plastination. This process of chemical preservation by means of
polymer-saturation (among other things) could have some significant
advantages over cryonics, assuming, of course, that it doesn't cause
any fundamental damage to the brain's (ultra)structure. I've sent
some key technical questions to the Institute for Plastination
in Heidelberg, Germany (see http://www.plastination.com ), and will
hopefully soon know more regarding the potential usefulness of this
process. Some rudimentary plastination info, as well as some links &
ideas can be found at:
http://anzwers.org/free/chimaera/plastination.html
====

Post #2

[...]

The bigfoot dewar (which you're considering for storage)
isn't the best possible choice, especially in this
particular case. Bigfoot dewars are cumbersome,
relatively expensive (strong dollar, inherently
expensive model), fragile (one good dent and they're
practically useless), and have to be imported all the
way from the US (more added costs and delays).

I think that electric cryogenic freezers (see previous
post) or locally bought smaller dewars would be a
better idea. The relatively greater boiloff in smaller dewars
can be somewhat compensated with better insulation and
by using a closed system, where LN2 is automatically
added from the supply tank(s) to the storage unit by
means of a simple lever system. Such systems can be
either bought off-the-shelf, or could be designed by
local cryonicists. It's safer, too. Electric refrigeration with
LN2 backup would probably be better, though (incidentally,
Revco claims that electric freezers actually preserve biological
better than LN2, due to greater temperature uniformity).

Also it is important, in my opinion, to keep things as
simple (=cheap!) as possible. Just very basic
perfusion protocols or even just straight freezing.
Otherwise you could become almost as expensive as
regular cryonics organizations (certainly CI), without
having the track record, stability and other
advantages of a large(r) organization. Local storage
only makes sense if it costs *significantly* less than
storage in the US.

Storing just brains instead of whole bodies
could also be an advantage: first of all, it would
allow you to use the dewar space much more
effectively, being able to store, say, 20 instead of 4
"people", and splitting the costs and risks
accordingly (economies of scale). We won't need
those bodies anyway in the future. Brains are better
than whole heads because people will have significantly
less psychological problems with them, and you can easier
claim that you're using them for "research" (we have a
"brain bank" here in the Netherlands, for example, which
stores parts of brains for all kinds of scientific purposes).
Storing brains has something inherently scientific about it,
which could be an advantage.

Also, you could just have the brain removed in a local
mortuary, and then give the rest of the body a "decent
burial" (no doubt more acceptable to any non-cryo
relatives). The brain could then be shipped in a much
smaller, cheaper, easier to handle etc. container to
Norway, where it would be stored.

Regards,
Dalibor den Otter

-----
Received on Sun Jul 01 15:08:06 2001