I found this article on Zombie Dogs while looking for something completely different (ain't the Internet wonderful?) and thought that it might amuse and entertain. Then I thought that I should post it in the Religion forum, to get up a Christian's butt, then I thought of you guys.

What do you think?

A) is it real?
B) do you really think it will have the useful medical applications they say?
C) Just because it's possible does that make it a good idea?

Personally I think the likelihood of this procedure being a useful one to save the lives of people with huge blood loss is a bit far-fetched. It's probably easier to just transfuse blood.

Here is the institutes home page.


Ill resist the desire to clown around on this one and treat it with the solemity of a science thread.

But





It would not really help in terms of blood loss, but for other traumas, it could prevent brain damage and other sources of medical death by suspending body function and damage. The feasability of leading to deep space suspended animation is intreaging but decades away.
I dont know if it is real though and bugger me if Im voulenteering.




Sone US undergrad is gonna get his tuition fees paid to get his veins filled.

A variant of this is already being used for some brain and heart surgeries, so it is not only just a mild extension of existing science, it is a necessity if we are to do some types of surgeries not now possible. Rather than just a saline solution, I suspect that some of the blood substitutes from the halogen fields may prove even more useful in such a situation, as the body would have instant oxygen and glucose at the time of revival as opposed to the delay that would be experienced as blood was reintroduced. And yes, supercooling could be used on the battlefield, but it seems unlikely to be possible in many such conditions. Artificial blood with universal compatibility seems a much more likely battlefield aid, at least until we can make cryogenic units small enough for easy transportation and handling in the field.

Interesting, very interesting.

I saw an article a few months back on how hydrogen sulfide (rotten-egg gas), IIRC, has been used to reduce the metabolisms of mice for several hours at a time. Resps down to one or two a minute and heartbeat in the teens, IIRC. Chasing down the mechanisms behind this one I think is far more likely to offer us a shot at long-term suspended animation as well as medical applications.


Unless we can solve the problem of ice crystals dicing our cells, the drain-and-chill technique has an absolute upper limit of a few hours on the length of time it can be done for. To all intents and purposes this is simply the "shelf life" of donor organs writ large.

Furthermore, if there is a hole large enough to let out all the blood, keeping the cold water in is going to be a problem in the field. Even with an intact hide, we're lookng at fairly invasive surgery just to make the plumbing connections. Now multiply that by two, three, or more times to ensure that the entire body is suitably chilled. Best/worst case scenario is installing a carotid shunt in order to put the most vital organ (the brain) on ice. And doing it within no more than five minutes of cardiac arrest.

It may have applications in a hospital setting. In the field? Too many problems.

Here is a local television report given by a physican on a news program.

CLICK HERE

Very interesting subject matter. I wonder what Khan (Star Trek) and his "Super Men" are doing this season..?

Paramadman

There are already several animals known to enter a state of suspended animation--even a few who literally freeze solid. They are able to do this due to high levels of glucose in their bloodstreams acting as a kind of anti-freeze which prevents the water content of their blood/cells from forming ices shards, and it is these crystalline shards forming that causes cell death from freezing.

I suspect that a simple pump system could be devised for field treatment of this nature and could be used to circulate the salt solution throughout the body and maintenance of hypothermia for the fairly short length of time it would take to transport them to definitive care for surgical repair, and reinfusion of warmed whole blood.


As a volunteer paramedic I'm not so sure about the practical problems here, particularly if the majority of the bulk of the necessary equipment can be kept within the body of an ambulance. Basically, it is mostly a problem of circulation and we already have models (heart/lung machines) to work from. If the medics are trained (as am I) in starting central lines for the substantial venus access needed to move large volumes of fluids through the circulatory system, the problem will (I think) prove to be practically addressable.

Paramadman

Edited to add:

Btw, I wonder if anyone has considered that the brain is (by far) the most vulnerable organ to hypoxia that we have. It dies in minutes--everything else dies in times measured in tens of minutes to hours, and in the field, a person who had become unresponsive, without heart action, might be treated by circulation of the chilled saline fluid through their brains only. Since our bodies already react in times of severe distress with an automatic shunting of blood away from our periphery, thereby reserving oxygen for our brain/heart (the heart can go without oxygen much longer than the brain can). This could be facilitated by insertion of a catheter carrying the chilled solution into the carotid arteries and another inserted into the jugular vein to act as a "return". This could also (again in theory) circulate a small volume of artificial blood in a closed loop to keep a brain alive...

I know this is extreme--but if someone has exsanguinated in the field, they are already dead clinically. They thus cannot be hurt by this treatment, and it just might save some of them from what is currently a certain ticket to oblivion…

Do any of you who are physicians see anything in this suggestion that renders it beyond the pale?

Me no physician, but me thinkum, better brain with no body than body with no brain. Now, having insulted all the local native Americans, let me proceed. When we get beyond people like paramadman, I believe that it will take something like a robot surgeon to do this. The large majority of field personnel just are not going to be able to manage it. However, I do expect to see robot surgeons in category 3 ambulances(or whatever the latest term is) within 20 years, and maybe sooner. They are being tried out in Iraq as we speak. For any of this to be effective, the larger holes are going to have to be isolated or patched right now. Clotting mechanisms, no matter how effective, cannot help where there is a dissection of a major vessel. Certainly something like the carotid-jugular shunt is possible, since it already has been done for certain types of cryosurgery. Maybe, we can come up with a nanotechnology that will, after being injected upstream of the injury, reconstruct the vessel wall, either permanently or termporarily, but I don't see that coming soon. The larger, unrolling, solid stents are proving to have major problems, but offer some ability to cover a major vessel break, but we are going to need fast, robot surgeons with some form of artificial vessels and blood replacements to handle the major traumas of the battlefield.

Suspended Animation Wikipedia




A) No! They are not Zombies. They have been placed in suspended animation.

B) It sounds as if the intended application is feasible. What "I think", is unimportant for the accomplishment of that goal.

C) There is not such thing as "god or evil" in the science section. Just beneficial or detrimental, or useful or useless, or repeatable or non-repeatable.

For anybody who has worked in the "oil patch" or around it and for others where this gas is common, hydrogen sulfide gas is a poison that can kill at very low concentrations. Of course, most anaesthetics are also poisons, so this does not disqualify it's use. Unless someone is attempting cryo-experimentation, one needs to evacuate immediately upon smelling rotten eggs, if there are none around. Maybe we should make an exception for rotten eggheads.

And, Nobody, quit polluting the threads with your monstrous quotes. Pointers should be sufficient. Nobody needed to know that much about "zombies" who could not look it up for themselves or use pointers you provide to do so. One or two definitions or small quotes from definitions would be plenty for the forum.

Paradaman: Can a central line move enough fluid to achieve the required degree of cooling (a drop of some 30 C) in the available timeframe (minutes)? Even for just the brain? Which would allow time to deal with running repairs and the remainder of the bod.


It's not enough to have antifreeze blood, the fluid contents of cells also has to contain anti-freeze. Furthemore how do we deal with the problem of Hyperglycemic shock? Animals the hibernate/freeze have evolved molecular mechanism for this, humans don't got them.


The equipment should not be a problem. We're not talking a heart/lung machine or even a dialysis machine, just a pump, refrigherator and water tank. The problem I think (as I have already mentioned) will be making a sufficiently high volume connection to the circulatory system.

No!



Your pointer point is pointless.

Nobdy,

My request has nothing to do with argument, but simple respect for others time and bandwidth. Your point was unnecessary, as the definition of "zombie" was not in question. Also, most of us know what "suspended animation" means, and I saw no one ask after a definition for either. Even at the relatively high resolution at which I view, your quotes alone took up almost three monitor pages, with your comments only being a few lines. That is both lazy and inconsiderate on your part, regardless of your foolish defiance.

Something screwwy here. Is this the longest DPM ever?

Black Betty,

Did you mean "hypoglycemic" rather than "hyperglycemic". I believe that paramadman's post indicated that glucose was necessary as both an antifreeze and a mechanism of cellular uptake. Just antifreeze probably would result in hypoglycemic shock. High levels of glucose might just result in the opposite.

I think that your point is well made on the volume necessary. Also, in all cryonic surgery, the termperature is lowered gradually to prevent shock and damage. Trying to reduce the termperature rapidly would have two possible effects. One, it might trigger diving reflex, where circulation out of the core and the brain are reduced. That would be a good thing. On the other hand, reducing temperature solely in the brain, might suppress diving reflex.

In any case, to cool the brain or any other part sufficiently rapidly for the purposes contemplated in emergency medicine would require fluid temperatures far lower than normal cryonics, making me think that damage would be much more likely. So, time would probably be our worst enemy. That is why I believe that field surgery along with blood substitutes are more likely to be useful in battle or in other emergency situations. Circulating those as cooled liquids would not necessarily be a bad idea if the trip is going to be long, or maybe even if it isn't, making the hospital's job easier and safer.

There is another technology out there that interests me and that I think might be useful in such situations. Warm blooded mammals have been enabled to breath with a hyperoxygenated fluid in their lungs. This could also be cooled, and would be the fastest way into the core that I can think of. The combination of the two would allow the individual to be put into a coolant bag, lowering whole body temperature quite rapidly. This, in addition to the shunt might be effective. Of course, one could also do this differently. If one had a miniaturized heart lung machine, capable of maintaining the brain separately, the rest of the body could be rapidly refrigerated while maintaining the circulation and viability of the brain.

I just had another interesting thought. Since there is a new technology about that may give us hand scanners "a la StarTrek", maybe the substitute blood could be tagged or would be sufficiently different to be easily spotted on scan, making it far easier to find, and possibly image, the points of hemorrhage. In an emergency circulatory system, a probe could then extract internal blood and fluid before it could coagulate, possibly allowing it to be used later to help the patient. In addition, such a probe could relieve pressure from leaking fluids, making keeping the patient alive a bit easier.

Forgive me if I am just a bit FREAKED OUT about this being used on humans in any other manner than as a surgical technique. There are things that are wrong, not because of any rational reason, but because of self imposed morality. I contend that incest, bestiality, and polygamy are wrong because they creep me out, as well as most other people in my community. I have no concrete scientific data that shows that consensual (or in the case of bestiality 'humane") instances of the three aforementioned behaviors cause any harmful effects on those involved.

I still maintain that they are wrong.

In the same vein (har har), I find the concept of zombifying oneself to survive an aeon spanning interstellar flight to be contrary to my morality. There is life extension, and then there is holding life in abeyance. Humans, like all living creatures, are meant to live. To live is to be born, grow up, grow old, and die, in a contiguous length of time. "Pausing the clock" awakens in my latent agnostic soul feelings of blasphemy.

I find such an act to be personally immoral, and I will say so, but I will not stop those that wish to do such an act on themselves or others without my qualms. After all, personal morality is personal.

archimedes

No shit!

Your statements generally never have anything to do with "argument". They typically only revolve around vituperations towards another poster's person.


Since the reporter of the opening post article got it wrong I figured others would too, and have!
The opening poster seemed concerned about the connection, a result of probably getting it wrong too.
Furthermore, because the reporter provided erroneous claims, ("Zombies"), it is the only reason for this thread. If the reporter had half a brain, he/she would have reported the news correctly. Your point is still pointless. The small comment I have was sufficient for the opening post. The following correction is quite likely needed because you interfered with my point.


Please sit back and strive to learn how a good teacher uses the solid bases of definition to correct a poster that "walked" down the wrong path because of some stupid reporters attempt to sensationalize the subject of cooling a body to slow the onset of death.

ttogreh

Relax. They are not "zombifying " anyone or anything. Read the definitions provided in my earlier post carefully. Read the article very carefully.

A zombie is a person/being brought back to life following death by super natural methods. The scientists have not brought anything back from the dead. They have merely slowed life function and the onset of death. In this case, the dog is unconscious and reading nothing on scientific monitors for several hours, they then reestablish the dog's normal temperatures and heart rate. Normal life is then continued. The dog was never "dead". Super natural forces were never used or mentioned, just scientific methods. There have never been any proven cases of zombies, or the alleged horrible outcomes as a result of defying god that " zombifying " is feared to produce. They are merely using the tools god has given them in a new medical procedure. They are not summoning up demons to raise the dead. It is only a mechanical process.

The scientific method that was used is new and an advancement of already known processes. The new procedure showed that they could replace the dogs blood with cold salt water (Saline solution) during the procedure. The new process allows for a faster response and a better survivability for the animal than the older process of immersing the animal in ice water to do the same effect. The new process is not much different than putting a heart patients blood through a heart lung machine during open heart surgery.

The desire to use it on humans will be during medical processes where they've already learned it works using the old methods. It then may be advanced to cases where it may keep people alive in injuries or sicknesses where they would have ordinarily have died.

You were unfortunately guided down the sensational path the authors of the article intended. Your confusion is understood and I was concerned that people would fall into that trap, so, made the point in my post that "they weren't creating zombies", along with the definitions. They were merely suspending animation. Doctors do that to a highly limited state now whenever they give a general anesthesia. They induce an unconscious state and bring people back. The newer procedure just allows them to do it for longer without brain damage. The proper term is suspended animation. However the procedure is just a limited version of it, not much more suspended than an anesthesia, but a significant improvement.

Unfortunately arch. got his dick in the way of intellectual learning and you may have missed my concern.

Please understand there is nothing morally wrong with offering a cure for the sick. The zombie ploy, is a stupid reporter's attempt at selling something that is far more interesting than zombies.

They even pictured a frozen wolf or coyote with a hideous expression to scare even the most stable of scientific minds.

Reporter
archimedes
Zombie

Definitions and science

Hope that helps.

And, if Nobody were equipped with a sense of humor, he would have noted that the reference to "zombies" was more than a bit tongue in cheek to start with. The point was the research, and it involved nothing that even faintly resembled "zombies". The basis of "zombies" in Caribbean societies has long been known, so that's no mystery either. Now, since Nobody has discovered the "actual" definition and has missed the irony of the post, then we all need three monitor pages of definition which could just as easily have been shortened with URL's for those of us so ignorant as to need further information.

What Nobody hasn't noted is that there is a discussion about science and health going on here with contributions from several people. Wouldn't it be nice if he actually contributed something interesting and useful other than to tell us how ignorant and stupid and wrong we all are.

I understood that those who undergo this process would not be killed, then reanimated. I maintain that despite the lack of ressurection inherent in this technique, I still find it immoral when used in the concept of interstellar voyages. I cannot explain my reasoning past a visceral distaste of UNliving for thousands of years.

It seems unnatural.

ttogreh

You still are jumping to conclusions. They are not anywhere near using that technique to do any interstellar travels. Not even in the same ballpark. There is nothing immoral about what they are doing. Your association with doing something immoral to travel in space has nothing to do with the opening posters article. The process of cooling a body is not the same as suspending animation for decades. It only buys a few hours at best.

I do not understand what you find immoral about interstellar travel or the processes that really could take us there because there are no processes currently capable of doing so. So you find fictional processes to be immoral without understanding how they could possibly be real. They aren't real. fictional processes are neither moral nor immoral. They are nonexistent

Arch
The problem is you seem to bring up the negative personal comments from the beginning rather than just state what is wrong with my post. I don't think many find definitions rude. However, they do find the label nihilistic rude. Please grow up.


Nobody reads links to URL's!


You said it!


There is also one about morality, an erroneous one.

From the op:

Does the op mean "useful" or "good verses evil". There was tongue and cheek mention of the religious' butt!


Cold saline solution is far more easily obtainable than whole blood of the correct type. The process could buy time to get to a whole blood supply.

It is a new medical procedure. New procedures are often used for things completely different from those it was designed for. It would be good if it is used for good, or bad if used badly.

Indeed- when faced with massive blood loss (exanguination) you have 2 problems
1 Blood pressure drops horrifically

2 Oxygen carrying capacity diminishes.

A rapid infusion of fluid will bring up blood pressure- which is why you may see medics banging in a litre or two of saline in A+E to prevent someone crashing out.

Whole bloody cross matched and typed can be fed in more slowly later.

ttogreh,

Since your objections are not specific, it is hard to discuss them.

Now, as for your objections to incest, bestiality, and polygamy, there are well established reasons to object to the first two, and practical arguments against the latter.

Incest, which normally happens between an adult and a minor falls under that same prohibition, the minor being unable to consent. With birth control, the genetic argument against incest largely ceases, but I believe that we have an instinctive/genetic prohibition largely built into us because lack of birth control has been the rule. Also, there is the issue of trust and consent in familial situations, regardless of age. Incest is still reproductively dangerous, so basic laws against it are unlikely to go away, and since the prohibition is so basic, it has built on it a social taboo, also unlikely to recede any time soon. With better genetic understanding and the needs of off-Earth colonies, consanguinity may merit and receive a different treatment of necessity, as in island societies here on earth. Royalty at all levels has often had genetic problems because of inbreeding. In the Hawaiian Islands, it was normal for brother and sister of royal families to marry, though rare outside of the royalty. Sexual experimentation was less carefully guarded. Since the gene pool in island societies is often much smaller than in continental societies, they are much more prepared to deal with the defects so rampant in such breedings. To be blunt, they instantly destroyed the obviously defective. Hopefully, in the future, will be able to predict or at least early detect such problems and not allow them close to full term.

Bestiality is an interesting case. The greatest objection I can see is the high probability of cross species infections. Since it is very difficult to prevent infections from transmitting during intercourse in humans, the same vulnerability is going to exist transpecies. Various species have a wider group of other species with which they will at least attempt to breed. Many of those efforts result in nothing because the are relatively sterile. Other attempts result in sterile offspring or non-functional offspring or completely non-viable offspring. Sometimes, we get functional hybrids where we might not expect them. Since we can't tell the sheep to "just say no", maybe somebody had better have condoms and know how to use them.

Now, polygamy is a rich man's game. In this society, polyandry would be more practical. I have no objection to any combination of men and women being considered a marriage as long as all are consenting adults and the children are protected when the grouping divorces. I'm glad I don't have to be a lawyer or a judge in such a case, but all these Biblical types as well as Muslims(also Biblical types, but nobody seems to know it) and many other religions support polygamy...or their scriptures do. It's amazing that we are so stuck on marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman. That's found nowhere in scripture, though Mahomet warned that having mulitple wives should be avoided. The LDS'ers had to go underground with it and then finally decided to drop it entirely...at least most of them.

There is very little that is unnatural in the technical sense of the word. We may find that something is undesireable from a societal point of view, at least for our particular society, but unnatural, no.

Edited for clarity.

General operating guideline regarding quoting large blocks of text: Don't.

Instead, hyper-link the desired text.

I only quote large blocks of text when I think I need to be comprehensive.

However, when I abreviate a quote people complain that I'm not broad enough. When I put in full text they say I'm rude!

Go figure Nobody never win's!

A constructive guideline is that a quote might be a bit much when the damned thing takes three full screens to view.

When in doubt, use hyper-links.

archimedes











hellhound



I'm not in doubt.

Look you two. When you call me names and tell me what not to do. All I want to do is, do what I want to do. If you tell me not to do things, or call me "monstrous", All I want to do is slug you in the mouth. You may as well ask me politely to slug you in the mouth. It means the same thing to me. I won't however, slug you in the mouth either way. I figure people so stupid as to order people around or insult them are probably too stupid to know what they really want, let alone "need". Sometimes they need a slug in the mouth.

My anticipation of you someday asking me politely to edit my post, has spurred me to reduce the definitions comprehensiveness I have done so now.

Next time, just ask me politely if I could please remove some of the length.
I will do so gladly, and you will be able to use the words, "thank you" for once.

What you two are perceiving as arrogance and rudeness, is an enthusiasm for learning, teaching and exploring. An enthusiasm for knowledge. Please do not discourage anyone's enthusiasm.

I am really very very sorry you two had to push page down three times and that you two are so highly self-proclaimed intellects that you didn't learn anything from the definitions.

Here is off topic feedback correcting the " discussion about science and health " that arc. is sure is going on.
Black Betty


paramadman


Black Betty


Antarctic Fish

The fish have a specialized protein, not glucose.

Paramadman, The correct term for the antifreeze is "protein" (Pronounced, pro-tee-inn. ;wink ) not "glucose". The best I can determine is that glucose isn't a protein. Are there other fish that you as speaking of? I do not know if the fish actually get frozen solid or not?

Black Betty, you are correct, there would be concern for Hyperglycemic problems if a extremely high sugar level were put into the bloodstream or vessels. Those problems could include dehydration that would result from the osmotic pressure pushing fluid out of all the cells. Furthermore, humans can withstand, for short periods, higher glucose levels without extreme problems, such as in type II diabetics. However, those points are now moot, seeing that the fish use a protein rather than glucose.

One other way of preventing ice crystals from rupturing the cell membranes is to freeze the cells very quickly. That procedure is commonly done with sperm and ovum cells by immersing in liquid nitrogen. I don't think the opening post's article would help enough to allow that process to be used on whole bodies.

Arc, do you even know the difference between "hypoglycemic" and "hyperglycemic". Para's comment suggested hyperglycemic conditions rather than hypoglycemic conditions. Hey, not to pick on your enthusiasm for learning. Hyper "high". Hypo "low". Simple.

Nobody,

Actually, I suggested that somebody examine the difference between hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic because I needed you to explain the difference, in the same way that I needed three monitor pages on the definitions of "zombies" and suspended animation. Now, had you cited some interesting research on suspended animation, we all could have benefitted. It appears that you have finally gotten around to at least discussing some science, and that is appreciated. However, fish are not the only creatures that estivate or can be frozen and revive, and paramadman did not confine his remarks to fish. That was your assumption.

In addition, washing cells completely out with a saline or other non-energy bearing anti-freeze would result in a hypoglycemic state, possibly fatal, while extreme hyperglycemic states can cause cell damage, also. I haven't the answer on these, but both are issues in the research. So far, quick freezing hasn't been possible above the cellular level, just because of volume to surface area limitations. Possibly, a body could be lowered close to freezing or even slightly below freezing with some adjustments to blood chemistry, and then flash frozen, but so far, it has not been done that I know of. If you know of, please contribute.

By the way, glucose produced from within the body, like almost every other bodily process is a result of protein processing, even if it is not itself a protein. Also, proteins and glucose form complexes that, while common, are not particularly healthful. Here is an interesting article on protein glycation.

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site....&item_id=198308

Nobody:

1. I didn't call you any names.

2. I, as a moderator, clarified the general conventions at this board regarding the use of large blocks of quoted text.

3. This is a private, moderated board. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here is absolutely free to do whatever they want to do here.

4. You are a guest here, Nobody, albeit a rude, verbose, obtuse and generally an ungrateful guest.

5. Feel free to deal with your obvious personal issues through the off-line use of medications and therapy. The denizens of this board are not your personal psychic punching bags.

Now, back on topic.

Thanks

archimedes

The article was title "Zombie Dogs". I saw no reason to discuss the off topic Suspended animation subject. However, did open the door for the possibility by properly, in opposition to the article, defining what the scientists were doing. I was literally horrified by the way the article was written and how the opening post catered to that horrible comparison. It was and still is poor reporting and discussion of a serious life saving topic.

I over zealously posted more definition than needed. Obviously. But my intent was to squelch the subject of Zombies, in hopes we wouldn't have any posters confusing the issue such as ttogreh's.

All I needed in feedback was. "Could you reduce that post length some, now? We got it." and/or "You are correct, "the dogs aren't zombies. Would you like to add more about suspended animation or medical cooling procedures?"

But I got a "do not do this it is monstrous", post, but I lament. Sorry.


I will take this as a pseudo-apology, and a desire to over look the difficulties we have communicating. I appreciate the intent to push on in the search of science rather than continuing the stifle.


You are correct. I would like to know what those other animals are? Para, please could you list a couple? The only ones I could think of were Antarctic Fish.


Am I wrong to assume you mean "washing out the bloodstream" not "cells". Certainly washing cells out completely with saline would be deadly, as all the internals would be gone. However, that assumption is moot because I believe the term "saline" means "a balanced saline/glucose solution simulating blood plasma characteristics without the blood cells."


Agreed. Simple heat transfer characteristics. My point was I didn't know, but felt that pumping coolant, N2, inside as well as outside, would still probably not be fast enough. For the same thermodynamic reasons.


Lowering the body close to freezing wouldn't help much it is the heat of fusion that needs to be removed quickly. At least fast enough to stop the crystallization. It takes time to crystallize. I think flash freezing requires thin sections. I don't know. I haven't studied flash freezing. Perhaps I shall do a Internet search.

Yes very interesting article on "protein glycation". Thanks.

HellHound

I'm not here to be a pain in the rear. I'm here to learn and teach. I am not here to debate. If a person is here to "take sides" I pity them. Still, I've taken a fairly stiff beating by you and others. I don't need much poking and prodding for my self-defense mechanisms to trigger. The only suggestion I have for you is to stay out of other's fights. There was nothing technically wrong about my post but for it being a little long. I was working out the details with arch. when you butted in. Please don't do that again. Moderator or not.


If you check you will see that my rudeness is usually triggered by ludicrous treatment of logic. If you consider me a guest, please use polite comments to keep me from leaving. In other words, "Please treat me and others like guests." If you think I'm rude, being rude back won't help.

It was an appropriate comment to say "No" to a person calling me a "polluter" and provider of "monstrous" posts.

Your interference here has merely lengthened the upset. Please use your brain.


So it is OK to suddenly vituperate now. Please use your brain.

I'm just begging you to be civil.

Nobody:

I am a *moderator*. Part of the job is to provide guidance as appropriate. When an established board practice is in need of refreshment, I shall refresh. I do not need you to tell me my job 'round here. As for your directives and orders, they carry no weight with me. You want to moderate? Find a board that will actually allow you that role.

I'll say it again: when I need to reinforce a board practice or guideline, I will do so. I'm not writing this for your beneift, but for those in attendance that may be at risk of confusion regarding what it is that a moderator does around here.

I couldn't care less about your vaunted self-defensive measures. When you fire ridiculous broadsides at any and all perceived slights, you've got a problem, and people are going to react. Persons who over-react and rage on about "slugging" people who cross them merely identify themselves for what they are: bullies.

Feel free to post, but don't begrudge others, posters and moderators, their responses and rejoinders. At the very least, don't be surprised when people actually react to what you post and how you post.

Nobody,

The largest thing omitted in your posts is a sense of humor. The article pointed to a serious bit of science, if in an ironically humorous fashion. As you obviously perceived in your post, it takes no great stretch to attach the research to the larger body of suspended animation inquiry. Yours was not a corrective, but an intrusive action, merited only by your own, often misguided, sense of logic.

As for my objections, they were not couched in curse words. "Monstrous" is a legitimate description of the size of your quotes. If you choose to find other meanings in it, I cannot prevent you, only snicker. The headline should be something like this..."Thin skin goes looking for needle".

As for freezing critters:

Fish:

http://www.drtomorrow.com/lessons/lessons7/29.html

Amphibian freezers and vertebrate hibernators:

http://www.frogs.org/news/article.asp?Cate...oResourceID=518

Other points of interest:

http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/articl...9&articleID=752

Since cells cannot literally be washed out unless they are burst, most would understand that I did not mean that, but replacement of a large part of the internal fluids with saline. Now, the research said saline, which normally means Ringer's solution, not Ringer's lactate. That fluid in sufficient quantity will replace most of the fluids in the cells, and can be made to replace the normal blood by proper pumping.



With your attitude, not many will regard you as qualified to teach them. Informing is a possibility in any case, if your citations are of reasonable quality and you do not overly stretch your inferences. At the moment, few would miss you if you chose to leave, not because of your rudeness(all too common hereabouts), but because of your thin skin and your lack of recognition of humor when offered. I would hesitate to count the number of times that you have whined on about my and other's "vituperation" of you.



And you complain of vituperation. I have never used such verbiage towards you, though I must admit to chastising you roundly from time to time. Somehow, I manage to avoid cursewords and such crudities. Any who actually read will note that the vast majority of the territory in my posts is devoted to argument on the subject at hand or at least some scientific subject. The point here is that you consistently spend huge amounts of forum space attacking perceived "vituperation" and telling us that we are too stupid to even understand the subject, seldom offering anything but your greatly respected "logic" in the process. In fact, you are way too proud of your own logic. Hyperbole seems to be your normal mode of expression, and that wears on all, as after a while, it just comes across as intellectual dishonesty. You have noted that I commonly use phrases such as "I believe", or "the evidence suggests" rather than "I know" or "this is the only logical conclusion", and when I do use such affirmative phrases, I back them with loads of evidence and/or logic, and I do not regard pages of dictionary definitions as meaningful or useful evidence except in the simplest of situations.

And, you were working out nothing with me, only braying on about just what you would do and when as you chose. I suspect that continued performance in that vein may cause you and your posts to be excized, and that would be a pity.

archimedes

The replacement of fluid in cells is directly related to the osmotic process, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a cell biochemist. I know insulin is necessary for the uptake of sugar by the cells.

Osmotic process moves fluid from lower concentrations to the side with a higher concentration. So technically if the blood stream has a low concentration of salts the fluid will move into the cells causing them to swell. To the point of bursting if sufficient difference.

I would also assume that the water would also move into the cells if the concentration of sugar were low in the blood stream and high in the cell.

I assume that the "saline" solution would be balanced. I think, don't know, that "lactated ringers" are a high (Relatively) concentration of sugar, such that the attempt would be to feed the patient.

My overall point is that if there were a problem with pumping solution into the bloodstream of dogs such that the improper level, of whatever nutrient you choose, would kill the dog, they have made adjustments for that. Or they have found a large tolerance range for such fluids. The goal is not purging the system, it is to cool the body mass. They may have found it takes very little total amount of "washing to accomplish that."

Also, the article was written as a news report not a research paper, so it is hard to tell if they are being generic or specific with the term saline. No I didn't do the research to see what they actually used.

Thanks for the list of other animals that freeze. And the links.


I'll accept what I can get!


Don't think of it as whining. Think of it as information. Information pointing out how others are adding useless unprofessional words pointed at a person's character rather than a logical flaw.


Perhaps, but how do you really consider it beneficial to claim I have a problem at all? Certainly if I have a thin skin, telling me so, won't help.


Example: " but because of your thin skin and your lack of recognition of humor when offered "
Calling me "thin skinned" is vituperation. Name calling. Attack of character. I'm not the only one that sees it as such. Just the verbal one.


You need not use specific banned "curse words" to be vial, contemptuous and. vituperous.

Curse words aren't bad words, always. And "good" words aren't always non-vituperous.

Example: The word "black". The government finances were in the black. or

" but because of your thin black skin and your lack of recognition of humor when offered "

Example: "Bastard"
Use the "bastard" file to remove that burr.
Don't talk to that "bastard". (Humors aside; Anyone that talks to a file must be strange! )

I hope that helps you.

Note: I have completely written this post without claiming you are anything at all. The closest to any vituperation at all was, "I hope this helps you." potentially (Not intended.) read as "I hope this clears up your problem." I don't write this to change you. I don't think you have a problem, however, you style can hurt others feelings (Big deal.) I merely am reflecting what you do from another point of view. We need people with different points of view. Even mine I am pointing out it is quite possible to discuss a point of view without labeling a person or describing a person or their "problems", to do so is attack of character.


Too bad.