High-Temperature Storage of Vitrified Neuros

Recent introduction of vitrification technology raises the question of high-temperature storage: Is it desirable, affordable, and how soon can it be made available? The essence of debate is: Can we avoid cracking damage (caused by low-temperature liquid nitrogen storage) without introducing other unacceptable risks. The purpose of this paper is twofold: a) To raise awareness of the issues involved, and to stimulate thorough analysis of pros and cons; b) To propose a practical, low-cost implementation of fracture-free (high-temperature) storage, that could be offered to Alcor members almost immediately.

Based on technology developed by 21st Century Medicine, Alcor has recently started offering the option of neuro vitrification in addition to traditional whole-body freezing. Vitrification eliminates much (if not most) of the freezing damage associated with normal freezing. While opinions differ on the degree of practical benefit this reduction of damage offers for eventual revival, there is almost unanimous agreement that vitrification is a substantial technological advance.

Obviously, many Cryonicists would prefer whole-body vitrification. However this option is not addressed here, as it involves a rather lengthy and costly development cycle. It is, in any case, already subject to intensive investigation and debate by Alcor and other parties.

Many of us are very exited by the availability of vitrification. In fact, several of us see the advantages great enough to switch from full-body to neuro suspension; ie. give up whatever perceived benefits whole-body storage may offer.

However, what is of concern, is that current vitrification still involves storage at liquid nitrogen temperature. This means that these patients suffer similar cracking damage as non-vitrified neuros. To avoid such fracturing, patients need to be kept at a higher temperature: somewhere around -130degC. While Alcor intends to develop and offer high-temperature storage at some time in the future, we feel that this matter deserved most urgent analysis - and possible implementation.

My preliminary investigation has persuaded me personally that it would be tragic if even one more neuro-vitrification was done without offering the patient the option of high-temperature storage. On the other hand, there are those who feel that nanotechnology will in any case be needed to revive (currently) vitrified patients, and that the additional fracturing will be a relatively trivial problem to solve. Opinions also differ on how much additional risk high-temperature storage entails.

+ It will (in most cases) eliminate cracking - thus possibly not requiring nanotechnology for revival: advanced biotech may suffice. This could eliminate decades of cryonic storage, and its attendant risks. [Contra - Toxic (and/or other) damage associated with current (neuro) vitrification technology may in any case require advanced nanotech to repair.]

+ It buys us time to work out better long-term storage technology, while in the meantime preventing serious damage.

+ It's responsive to Alcor member's desires: An initial poll of 18 members shows overwhelming demand for this option. [Contra - Poll may be meaningless: small sample size, and members were not fully informed of the disadvantages.]

+ It will provide extra funding to Alcor to develop high-temperature storage technology - something they are committed to doing anyway. [Contra - This funding will only be available if and when members with this option are suspended.]

+ It makes cryonics in general, and Alcor in particular, more attractive. (I know that several people have been holding back on making cryonics arrangements pending the availability of fracture-free vitrification - something they consider a minimum requirement for having a reasonable chance of being revived.)

- On the downside, there is some extra risk of equipment failure: High-temperature storage is more complex, and there is less experience operating it. [Contra - This is mitigated by having conventional liquid nitrogen storage as a the ultimate fall-back position. This 'last resort' solution would be unlikely to leave one worse off.]

- Subject to further research, there may be some risk of ice formation when the high-temperature storage is accessed (to add or remove neuros). [Contra - This risk may be negligible in the short-term (say, 3 years) because the freezers would not be utilized anywhere near capacity.]

- There will be increased molecular and structural 'drift' (tissue deterioration) at higher temperature. [Contra - This is totally negligible in the medium term (say, 30 to 100 years), and is also mitigated by possible earlier re-animation.]

- As high-temperature storage is very likely to be more costly, it may require additional funding. [Contra - Whole-body members (and many others) are already over-funded for neuro suspension. Again, my brief poll has indicated overwhelming willingness to increase funding. (Though it must be noted that cryonicists are notoriously slow in actually doing their paperwork and arranging their funding.)]

- Addressing this issue now will put extra strain on Alcor's limited resources. [Contra - It is hard (for me) to see what other projects - other than good suspension readiness - should have higher priority. Also, it is very likely that specific contributions (of time and/ or money) will be made by members to make this happen ]

- This option may put Alcor in a difficult position of having to withhold high-temperature storage from members with insufficient funding - ie. this could create another tier. [Contra - Alcor already has to deal with members who want whole-body suspension, but are only funded for neuro. In any case, all three options will probably be offered in the long run, anyway].

Alcor have responded to the request for high-temperature storage with a proposal that requires $200k of grant money up front - before any work can be carried out. After that, Alcor estimate a 3 to 4 month implementation delay. Their proposal includes two CryoStar freezers - one as a standby back-up to the other. Additionally, each CryoStar will be fitted with a liquid nitrogen back-up system to cater for power failures. The budget also includes installation, testing, training, fund-raising, 3 year administration, and 5 year operating costs.

Based on information provided by Alcor, I believe that viable high-temperature storage could be made available virtually immediately - and could be almost completely self-funding.

Alcor already has one operational CryoStar. Less than $5k would be needed to provide this freezer with a fully functioning liquid nitrogen back-up. I have offered help with the administrative burden of answering members questions regarding high-temperature storage, and with paperwork.

It is assumed that members desiring this option would make a minimum of $55k of extra funding available. (For those signed up for whole body this would usually equal the savings in changing to neuro; others would need to provide this additional amount.) These funds could be applied as follows:

First high-temperature patient: $20k for second CryoStar, $7k for estimated additional capital required to perpetually cover higher operating costs, $8k for implementing operating new procedures, and $20k for two years worth of operating costs (these figures are based on Alcor's proposal). (Note: Each additional $10k of funding would ensure a further year of this temporary storage - even if not a single additional neuro helped to reduce costs.)

Second patient: $20k for third CryoStar, $7k into capital fund (as above), $8k for additional implementation costs, and $20k to cover an additional two years' operation.

Additional patients: Apart from $7k required for the capital fund, the remainder would be available to fund improved, long-term (dewar-based) storage options.

The CryoStar does not belong to Alcor, but to Bio Transport. [Contra - It seems unlikely that investors in Bio Transport would have any objections to making the CryoStar available for this purpose.]

Alcor personnel do not have the skills to operate the CryoStar, or to deal with high-temperature storage. [Contra - Alcor staff is highly experienced, and already regularly deal with new or unplanned situations.]

Alcor personnel does not have the time to investigate or implement this option. [Contra - What is more important?]

Alcor cannot afford liability exposure in case high-temperature storage fails. [Contra - This liability is no different from any other issue. Alcor never promises any results, anyway.]

It is unfair to expect the first few patients to fund high-temperature storage. [Contra - It would their own choice. It seems unfair not to offer it to those who want it and are willing to pay for it.]

It seems that the majority of Alcor members judge high-temperature storage to be highly desirable. Immediate availability of this option would virtually eliminate the risk of fracture damage to those unfortunate enough to require suspension in the near term. Many of us do not want to take this unnecessary risk, and are willing to make additional funding available.

Naturally, there are limitations to such a rushed, just-in-time, low-budget implementation: It is likely that back-up equipment and procedures, as well as training, will initially be at a sub-optimal level. Any additional funding (from whatever sources) would reduce these limitations.

I hope that this analysis (and proposal) will lend impetus to resolving this issue, and help to obtain the most 'conservative' safety net as soon as possible.

Given current vitrification technology, I believe that elimination of cracking damage will most probably also eliminate the need for advanced nanotechnology to achieve re-animation. Advances in biotech would likely permit revival many years (centuries) sooner than having to wait for nano-repair. This minimize social and organizational risks associated with long-term storage, and will also ease social integration for the cryonaut (less future shock).

In the next few months (certainly within 12-18 months) we will both understand the technical implication of current vitrification better, and probably have developed reliable temperature storage in any case (in addition to Alcor's efforts, Saul Kent is highly committed to having it developed). It seems unconscionable to me to expose myself to the risk of unnecessary fracture damage in this interim period. This damage is not reversible without full-blown nanotech.

Personally I'm quite willing to make additional funds available to have this extra protection right now. Should it turn out that I was the first to actually utilize this option, I would have no problem in my funds helping to pay for others to have this technology.

Because liquid nitrogen storage would still be available as a fall-back position, I deem the additional risks of CryoStar storage negligible. I also feel confident that Alcor personnel would be able to maintain the CryoStar at the right temperature, and make good decisions in this regard.

I feel strongly enough about the overall advantages of (immediate) high-temperature storage that I have offered to help make it happen.

I believe that this project will not only avoid unnecessary damage and offer superior suspension, but will also add improve the technology that Alcor offers, increase its income, and provide positive customer and external PR.

I'm sure that together with the help and support of its members, Alcor will be able to handle this project with minimal disruption of existing operations, and without jeopardizing any higher priorities.