71–80 of 180 posts
>If you lower the brain temperature down to 30C (86F), it can increase the survival time from 10 to 20 minutes. If you cool the brain to 20C (68F), you can get an hour. Wow, I actually didn't know this until now. Is this method used anywhere in medical procedures to resuscitate or prolong life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is zero chance that a human pumped full of antifreeze today will ever be successfully revised. Cryonics is a total scam by hucksters preying on desperate idiots. And don't bother telling me that it's worth doing if there's even a tiny chance. The chance is exactly 0, and those resources are better spent on the living.
You can basically say that anyone living 500 years ago would say "there is zero chance" that what we take for granted today exists at all. Look at the technological achievements of even the past 50 years, most of it could hardly be predicted.
"We are likely to have life extending and resuscitation technologies in 500 years that are better than what we have today."
and
"The dead rich people in these particular vats of antifreeze have any more than a snowball's chance in hell at being successfully resuscitated."
I think the parent's analysis is correct. Your statements, while also correct, don't really refute the issues pointed out by the parent.
Tech and commercial divers breathe exotic air mixtures which are hypoxic and include helium to mitigate this.
Dive science is pretty fascinating and is still a developing field.
Having gone through a depressurisation chamber as part of my flight training, at 35,000 feet (the normal cruising altitude for most passenger aircraft), it isn't actually hard to breathe. In fact, it feels quite normal. Your body just doesn't get enough oxygen into the bloodstream because the density of O2 in the stuff you are breathing in is so low, which causes onset of hypoxia.
The very reason why we do the sessions in the chamber - so that we can detect the symptoms of hypoxia particular to our own bodies, because there is normally no way to tell that you are no longer in an O2 rich atmosphere until you notice your fingernails turning blue and flashes of lights on your retina as well as feeling slightly tipsy (my own symptoms).
At higher altitudes (50,000 feet and up), then yes, there are issues because your diaphragm cannot create enough pressure differential against the outside air pressure to make you inhale and fill your lungs. My flight instructor was a test pilot in the 50's and 60's and he said when they were at that altitude, they were literally force fed liquid oxygen through their masks. They couldn't breathe it in, so they just had to open their mouths every few seconds and LOX would be shoved in (at freezing temperatures too, which used to dry out their nose, mouth and throats according to him).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can basically say that anyone living 500 years ago would say "there is zero chance" that what we take for granted today exists at all. Look at the technological achievements of even the past 50 years, most of it could hardly be predicted.
There's a pretty big difference between the statements: "We are likely to have life extending and resuscitation technologies in 500 years that are better than what we have today." and "The dead rich people in these particular vats of antifreeze have any more than a snowball's chance in hell at being successfully resuscitated." I think the parent's analysis is correct. Your statements, while also correct, don't really…
It IS physically possible to revive cryonics patients--as in the laws of physics would permit it, even if we don't have anything near the technology required, yet. This isn't a bold claim but rather a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process, and long-term storage at cryogenic temperatures, both of which are well studied in the context of things like organ donor preservation.
So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved.
But neither you nor the grandparent actually made any specific claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah even if the unmanned drones are too hard, having spare tanks at the work site sounds like an easy way to at least supply oxygen... however without the umbilical cord he loses the heat supply. Maybe its more pleasant to pass out while your body freezes.
Getting cold probably saved his life by reducing the metabolic burden. This is done intentionally during certain surgeries, such as aortic aneurysm repairs. It also informs the ER standard: you're not dead until you're warm and dead. Also, it's staggering how much oxygen can be dissolved into your system at depth. The Navy did some experiments where they put pigs in a chamber, pressurized them to something obscene, l…
I was just saying though, if he did have more oxygen down there he would have had to be awake for that freezing experience...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this may be the basis of cryogenics? If you just cool down in specific way, you can turn off metabolism and then turn back on again at later date?
Not for cryogenics, unfortunately, but yes for hibernation. NASA has funded the study of medically induced torpor for hibernating humans for deep space exploration: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201800... If we ever do crewed interstellar travel, even if we can get the trip time down to 50 years or so, we’ll probably want something like this. But it’s useful even for Mars trips since you can f…
Wonder if that's just because it's not viewed as important?
Wow that was an interesting read! This quote got me. All because of compression & decompression. > “It is quicker to get back from the Moon than it is from the depths of the sea in some ways.”
> How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship take?
> Well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.
Main article aside, I have to take the article to task for the section where they talk about an airplane and the oxygen masks that deploy when the aircraft depressurises and the passengers find it "hard to breathe". Having gone through a depressurisation chamber as part of my flight training, at 35,000 feet (the normal cruising altitude for most passenger aircraft), it isn't actually hard to breathe. In fact, it feel…
Destin of SmarterEveryDay (with astronaut Don Pettit) recorded his experience with that training, which included a demonstration of the effects of hypoxia on his decision making ability. He doesn't notice the rapidly increasing symptoms:
>> [Destin fails child's shape toy test, saying the cross was a square] "Alright you're starting to have a little shake there, you know from your lack of oxygen. You need to start thinking about getting back on oxygen now Destin."
>> "How would you correct for that? Can you correct for hypoxia for me?" [Destin just sits looking confused] "Alright sir if you don't get on oxygen, you're going to die. Go to your regulator, get all three switches on your regulator..." [Destin looking even more confused: "I don't want to die"]
>> [they get him back on O2, fixing everything in seconds]