Surviving World War III

[jordansparks]

There's a real chance that Russia could take us down the path to WWIII. The issue I will address here is survivability, especially of cryonics patients. First of all, most people would initially survive in even the worst case scenario of a full nuclear exchange. Just google images for US nuclear targets or look at a simulation. Fallout would kill some more, and then a 1-4 yr nuclear winter would cause mass starvation, but could still be survivable. But I'm not sure that WWIII would necessarily lead to a full nuclear exchange. There are lots of less dramatic scenarios that are still terrible, but that involve many more survivors. I think all scenarios are survivable if you are smart about it and have some luck.

Now, how about those cryonics patients? In the case of a nuclear war, cryonics facilities in major cities might get destroyed or might collapse. In many scenarios, there would be no liquid nitrogen for some time. Based on these scenarios, these are some ways to mitigate the risk and increase the chance of patient survival:
1. Include aldehyde in the preservation so that a thaw is survivable.
2. Use a facility that's not in a major urban area.
3. Use a facility that is stronger so it won't collapse.

#2 and 3 are just for nuclear war, and they are not currently available. But #1 is practical and is easily available. I think civilization will rebound in any case. You will need to be able to survive until then, whether as a living human or as an aldehyde preserved brain. I also think #3 is worth pursuing.

[BRuss]

Out of curiosity, if a brain is preserved in aldehyde in a jar and the jar is left completely undisturbed, how long will that brain remain preserved for before degrading? Could a brain in a jar of aldehyde remain intact in the state it was first preserved in for centuries? How long before the aldehyde evaporates entirely?

[jordansparks]

There are existing brains in jars that have been intact for well over 100 years, I believe. It's not ideal, but it might preserve some memories. I was thinking more like a few weeks or months. It's a topic for research.

[BRuss]

Do you take cash?

[dennis]

4. A facility that is underground.

Recollecting some of Mike Darwin's posts, I believe that there are abandoned underground facilities ( bunkers, rocket launch/test sites etc.) available for cheap.

[jordansparks]

>Do you take cash?
I'm not sure what you are asking. Everyone takes cash.

[jordansparks]

An underground facility is probably overkill for cryonics patients. There were many reinforced concrete multistory buildings that survived the nuclear bombs of WWII just fine, even though they were very close to ground zero. The people inside were killed because of the hot air that came in through the windows. Because nuclear bombs are detonated in the air, very little is usually within the fireball radius. They only detonate at ground level when they're trying to bust a bunker. So even close to ground zero, most reinforced concrete will remain intact. I think CI is concrete and Alcor just looks like concrete? Any windows and non-concrete roofs might be a problem. So I'm thinking that a fairly simple reinforced concrete vault within the building will work fine. The government tested this back in the 50s. Inside an ordinary wood frame house, if the bathroom is built with concrete, then it remains intact after a nuclear blast even as the rest of the house gets shredded. This is one reason why there would be a lot of initial survivors, because many people would be able to find shelter with just a few minutes of notice. The radius of complete destruction just isn't very big. For example, I live 10 miles from the center of Salem. If a typical ICBM of 5 Mt was dropped on Salem, I would be in the zone for 3rd degree burns, but only 3 psi, which is about 100 mph winds. Some of my windows might break. I'm not sure if the heat might cause my house to catch on fire, but it would not be knocked down.

I think maybe the reason for an underground facility would be for the caretakers to survive. The obvious problem with this worst case scenario is that nobody is going to care about the patients when their own survival is severely threatened. But like I said, there are a many scenarios that are less extreme, and planning for the worst helps to cover those.

[BRuss]

What about lead shielding? Cheaper than a full vault and protective against radiation. Surround your patients with a few lead shields and they ought to be alright.

This again is why I prefer the brain in a jar method: if you're frozen, there needs to be a steady supply of liquid nitrogen and electricity. Any number of disasters can occur. If you're just a brain in a jar of aldehyde, you don't need to be actively cared for. All you need is to be safely deposited, and for your caretaker perhaps to leave some kind of marker letting others know of your location. Perhaps the aldehyde evaporates slowly and needs replenishment, but this should be vey seldom.

[jordansparks]

Many brains in jars have only been preserved with formaldehyde rather than glutaraldehyde. I don't think this distinction has been discussed very much. I've been noticing a significant difference in brains that get thoroughly preserved with glutaraldehyde. They shrink a little bit. They get tough and hard, like rubber. It's very different from a formaldehyde preserved brain which feels fragile like gelatin. In a typical formaldehyde brain, lipids will gradually leach out and form a skim layer on top of the liquid. Since formaldehyde bonds are reversible, it's well known that the tissue will degrade. But glutaraldehyde bonds are irreversible. This is a common way of turning cow skin into leather, which I think we could all agree does not particularly degrade over time. So I've generally been against the brain in a jar model because I was imagining the typical formaldehyde brains. But if we instead use glutaraldehyde, then it's plausible that the preservation over time could be every bit as good as with liquid nitrogen. This is speculation. We will need to show evidence for this, but I think it's very much worth exploring. Liquid nitrogen does still have some advantages: It's guaranteed to lock all molecules in place, not just proteins and whatever random molecules get trapped in the protein matrix. So even if preservation quality over time seems similar, it could always be reasonably argued that liquid nitrogen is better. Also, glutaraldehyde might not be able to quickly reach an area, whereas nothing can escape cooling. So cryopreservation is always going to remain the gold standard in cases where perfusion and immediate cooling is possible. But I'm no longer as opposed to claims that glutaraldehyde alone could be a close second. And we use plastic containers which are extremely durable compared to glass. Evaporation is not an issue.

[BRuss]

Something else to think about, and you might find the concept silly but it merits consideration, is the possibility of a Dr. Frankenstein scenario, where you're stormed by angry mobs in the event of societal upheaval. Salem's in Eastern Oregon, which as I understand it (not to get political) is fairly liberal, but anyone might take what you do for witchcraft, especially if some way to restore your patients is discovered in the future. Personally, the most comfortable scenario for me is as a brain in a jar in a cave somewhere, but of course that's probably not possible, and you run the risk of being forgotten about. I do think having a (not easily accessible) basement beneath your facility would be ideal.

There are so many things that can go wrong after the process and it's frightening.

[jordansparks]

Head transplants are coming, so I think we'll be fine by comparison.

[BRuss]

Another point of concern. You're just outside the drought zone, though it is expanding slowly - but Alcor isn't.

[jordansparks]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of a drought map. That shows changes compared to normal. But if you instead look at a rainfall map, you will see that Salem gets at least 10 times as much rain as Phoenix, and the surrounding hills get at least 20 times as much. I say "at least" because it's probably a lot more than that, since Phoenix gets essentially no rain. It would be completely unlivable if not for the canals that bring water from many hundreds of miles away. Water is not a problem in Oregon.