Slashdot Mirror


New Antifreeze Molecule Isolated In Alaskan Beetle

Arvisp writes with the news of a recently discovered antifreeze molecule in an Alaskan beetle that departs from most commonly identified natural antifreeze. "'The most exciting part of this discovery is that this molecule is a whole new kind of antifreeze that may work in a different location of the cell and in a different way,' said zoophysiologist Brian Barnes, director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology and one of five scientists who participated in the Alaska Upis ceramboides beetle project. Just as ice crystals form over ice cream left too long in a freezer, ice crystals in an insect or other organism can draw so much water out of the organism's cells that those cells die. Antifreeze molecules function to keep small ice crystals small or to prevent ice crystals from forming at all. They may help freeze-tolerant organisms survive by preventing freezing from penetrating into cells, a lethal condition. Other insects use these molecules to resist freezing by supercooling when they lower their body temperature below the freezing point without becoming solid."

81 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Cryogenics? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could this discovery be developed to make cryogenically preserving people work? As it is right now, the cells rupture during the freezing process -- if the cells remained intact, reviving them would become possible.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Cryogenics? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if the cells remained intact, reviving them would become possible.

      Well, no more impossible than reviving them shortly after death, without the complications and damage (subtle or extreme) caused by freezing, or decapitating and freezing, or post-mortem whatnot.

      I think the greater obstacle is the entire "reviving them after they're dead" bit.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Cryogenics? by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rapid freezing of tissue should act in a similar fashion. THe problem of course is being able to freeze tissue at the rate required to form the glass-like phase of ice. I suspect that this antifreeze molecule may work in cryogenic preservation if it shows low toxicity/immune response from the host. Something to keep in mind about frozen tissue as well is the fact that even at these extremely low temperatures, chemical reactions that degrade the sample still occur so there is a limit to how long even the most sturdy cells (like cancer cells) can be stored. If the tissue is frozen for too long of a time, revival may prove to be unlikely or even impossible.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Cryogenics? by 7Ghent · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cryonics does not freeze tissue. The current method involves vitrification, not freezing. Vitrification is an ice-free process in which more than 60% of the water inside cells is replaced with protective chemicals. This completely prevents freezing during deep cooling. Instead of freezing, molecules just move slower and slower until all chemistry stops at the glass transition temperature (approximately -124C). Unlike freezing, there is no ice formation or ice damage in vitrified tissue. Blood vessels have been reversibly vitrified, and whole kidneys have been recovered and successfully transplanted after cooling to -45C while protected with vitrification chemicals.

    4. Re:Cryogenics? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the greater obstacle is the entire "reviving them after they're dead" bit.

      It would still have practical applications, such as for long trips through space.

    5. Re:Cryogenics? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that mean we'll finally be able to travel to Tau Ceti and give the Race a taste of it's own medicine?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Cryogenics? by staalmannen · · Score: 1

      I think a cooler application would be freeze-resistant crops. The difficulty might be that the glycolipid (xylomannan) needs several enzymes to be correctly produced in other organisms than this beetle - in contrast to previous "antifreeze" proteins where freeze-resistance only involves introducing one new gene into the organism.

    7. Re:Cryogenics? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, nothing here would cause cryogenics to become economically viable. What motivation would future generations have to unthaw you? They already have your money.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Cryogenics? by maxume · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never basked in my awesomeness.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Cryogenics? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What motivation would future generations have to unthaw you? They already have your money.

      Have you looked at our Federal deficit lately? Future generations will unthaw us so they can sick their debt collectors on us ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Cryogenics? by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only after we develop the ginger bomb.

    11. Re:Cryogenics? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Meh, maybe. At the rate we're going, by the time we're at the point of being able to build a cryo-ship, we'll likely be at the 'backup your mind to a computer', 'replicate a body from a digitally stored genome and a vat of chemicals' stage.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Cryogenics? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Y3K? COBOL programmers could be very valuable.

    13. Re:Cryogenics? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not so much. We revive people "after they are dead" all the time - and they are significantly less healthy than a specimen frozen using cryogenics (theoretically, of course). The obstacles are that the cells must return to normal structure after being safely thawed. At that point, shocking the heart into action will return blood-flow to normal, along with helping the lungs to get started - thus getting oxygen circulating in the system and avoiding cells dying due to that cause. Once that's avoided, IF ALL CELLS ARE HEALTHY, the person is alive and in reasonably good shape.

    14. Re:Cryogenics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It would be fun to proclaim in a loud voice: "Welcome to the world of tomorrow!"

    15. Re:Cryogenics? by severoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is an interesting supposition, but there's no evidence that anything other than a quick revival would result in life being restored. We know that thermodynamically, the body is a veritable panic of high energy formations that are just dying to degrade (literally). We know that cryogenic freezing would suspend many of these processes...but all of the critical ones?

      We've not yet begun to imagine what those processes even are, much less say with any certainty that cold temperature will suffice to prevent them over a sufficiently long period of time.

      And then there's a whole segment of the population that will argue once the soul flies away, there's no getting it back. :-)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    16. Re:Cryogenics? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This opens up a really gray area in terms of medical ethics. Here:

      There are many documented cases of people being revived after prolonged (over one hour) 'death' caused by exposure to cold with few side-effects. However, and this is a BIG however- those people were "killed" by the cold; that is, they did not fall victim to leukemia and suddenly die, falling into icy water.

      So...

      The obvious(?) answer is to freeze people who are *near* death. Well, that's kind of murder/euthanasia according to the laws on the books. Without that particular issue, yeah, this would work great. But we'd have to come to accept this as preservation instead of euthanasia. We could work it until the chances of coming out of it alive were the same as surviving open-heart surgery or something comparable, but I think there would still be that mental/emotional block. Not to mention that critically-ill/hospice patients are already fragile. "Gramp is still alive but we're going to freeze him," still has a funeral feel. The person is, in effect, dying until revived when whatever criteria were met. If we don't cure cancer (for example) in our lifetime, then that *is* a funeral for the patient's family and friends.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    17. Re:Cryogenics? by telchine · · Score: 1

      >I think the greater obstacle is the entire "reviving them after they're dead" bit.

      I tried reviving someone before they were dead, and they got mightily annoyed with me! I recommend waiting until they are dead or unconscious before trying it out.

    18. Re:Cryogenics? by lena_10326 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe communications could be sent through a small worm hole. Small because maintaining a large worm hole for passing ships through would require vast amounts of energy, but one small enough for a tiny communications pipe would become practical sooner. That would create a faster than light communications device (ansible) so that exploratory machines sent through space could then be controlled real time or close to real time by future generations. The machines could be sent today in hopes that by the time of arrival the technology will have been invented to send communications through a worm hole.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    19. Re:Cryogenics? by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what this new molecule does. The beetle actually freezes at minus 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and survives all the way down to minus 100. The chemical make up up the molecule is similar to the makeup of a cell membrane. Apparently if it was made up of mostly proteins like more common anti-freeze molecules, it would be too large according to TFA.

      "UAF graduate student and project collaborator Todd Sformo found that the Alaska Upis beetle, which has no common name, first freezes at about minus 18.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the lab and survives temperatures down to about 104 degrees below zero Fahrenheit."

      "A possible advantage of this novel molecule comes from it having the same fatty acid that cells membranes do. This similarity, says Barnes, may allow the molecule to become part of a cell wall and protect the cell from internal ice crystal formation. Antifreeze molecules made of proteins may not fit into cell membranes."

      If they can identify and create an equivalent molecule compatible with human cell walls, that makes cryogenic suspension very feasible.

    20. Re:Cryogenics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This opens up a really gray area in terms of medical ethics

      Think about the problems in the in the legal arena:

      1) Gramps is still alive.

      2) Gramps always voted Democrat.

      3) Therefore...
      4) Profit!

      Oh wait, it's already been done.

    21. Re:Cryogenics? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      I'd have to track it down, but sure - we do know. We've revived frozen animals before - the process just doesn't work on larger mammals. It's not unexplored.

    22. Re:Cryogenics? by zacronos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is an interesting supposition, but there's no evidence that anything other than a quick revival would result in life being restored. We know that thermodynamically, the body is a veritable panic of high energy formations that are just dying to degrade (literally). We know that cryogenic freezing would suspend many of these processes...but all of the critical ones?

      We've not yet begun to imagine what those processes even are, much less say with any certainty that cold temperature will suffice to prevent them over a sufficiently long period of time.

      Quite the opposite, actually. There is evidence that in cases of cardiac arrest (where the body is generally healthy aside from the fact that the heart has stopped), slow revival can allow for a higher success rate after longer periods without oxygen, because the cells themselves only die hours after cessation of blood flow. If you read to page 2 of that link, you see that induced hypothermia is sometimes used precisely because it does help slow the process of cell death which follows clinical death. Granted, as far as I'm aware, we don't know that cryogenic freezing would suspend all of such processes, but the state of research in this area is much farther along than you seem to think.

    23. Re:Cryogenics? by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There could be serious immunological issues with a compound like this. While it comes from a beetle, structurally this antifreeze seems to have a lot of similarity with bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS), which happen to be the endotoxins in Gram-negative bacteria. We produce the aptly-named lipopolysaccharide-binding protein to seek out LPS and raise the alarm to initiate an inflammatory cascade. In the abstract to the paper, it mentions that a thermal hysteresis effect of 3.7 degrees C was seen at a concentration of 5mg/mL. Making the very rough assumption that the same concentration would be necessary to adequately protect human cells against the deep freeze, the required dose might be hundreds of grams (not unreasonable, considering it would have to integrate into every cell). The toxic response to LPS varies, but bacterial septic shock usually requires about 1/1000th that concentration.

      Of course, nothing is known about the human immune response to this just-discovered compound (which hasn't even beeen fully characterized), so it's wild speculation on my part that your immune system might mistake it for a bacterial endotoxin. But if that did turn out to be the case, ironically it wouldn't be the cold that would kill you- it would be a fever.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    24. Re:Cryogenics? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I think the greater obstacle is the entire "reviving them after they're dead" bit.

      Isn't the whole point of cryogenics was to keep the body frozen long enough to overcome that obstacle?

    25. Re:Cryogenics? by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Xylomannan occurs naturally in the cell walls of red algae, so recombination genes for plants are already available...

    26. Re:Cryogenics? by Grismar · · Score: 1

      But we'd have to come to accept this as preservation instead of euthanasia.

      Let's start thinking about accepting it when someone actually succeeds in thawing out and reanimating a corpsicle. Sofar, I've only heard of people being turned into eerily life-like ice busts of their former selves. I'll believe it when I see it, until then I think this discussion is about as useful as discussing close encounter of the third kind protocols.

    27. Re:Cryogenics? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      The current understanding is that the ischemia (time without circulation) by itself isn't that damaging. The real damage is called reperfusion injury. When blood flow resumes, the byproducts of anaerobic metabolism and the associated free radicals start circulating in mass and causing havoc.

      Both Alcor and Suspended Animation's perimortem cryopreservation protocols include medications believed to help reduce reperfusion injury.

      Disclaimer: I am a funded Option 2 member of the Cryonics Institute.

    28. Re:Cryogenics? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      > Could this discovery be developed to make cryogenically preserving people work?

      No, but it is another step in that direction.

      > As it is right now, the cells rupture during the freezing process

      This isn't completely correct. The current state of the art causes significant dehydration of cells, and very few of them actually rupture during freezing. With vitrification, this damage is reduced even further as tissues become super-viscuous (like glass) instead of freezing.

      The $64,000 problem with working cryopreservation today is Cryoprotectant toxicity. The chemicals that make it feasible to vitrify tissue are toxic at high temperatures.

      Interesting reading on this topic (not linkspam. :D )
      http://www.21cm.com/
      http://benbest.com/cryonics/cryonics.html

    29. Re:Cryogenics? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      and even once you've solved that problem, you have to overcome difficulties of having your head whacked like a baseball by the staff of the cryogenic company.

    30. Re:Cryogenics? by AndersOSU · · Score: 2

      maybe we could put some kind of death panel in place to streamline the process.

  2. wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "ice crystals in an insect or other organism can draw so much water out of the organism's cells that those cells die"

    I thought the main problem was that the ice crystals both become sharp (like a crystal) and grow a bit in volume (ice being less dense than water) -- so the ice would burst out of the cell ravangin the cell walls and everything else at the same time. ...but the leading idea to save the cell was to pull a treefrog -- have a protein that expells the water from the cell, freeze drying the cell, so it was not damaged and in theory would take water back up again at warmer temps, without said ice crystal damage...

    For the record, i can't RTFA from where i'm posting.

    1. Re:wait... by Firehed · · Score: 4, Funny

      For the record, i can't RTFA from where i'm posting.

      Well of course not. This is Slashdot, after all.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:wait... by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately the summery took this bit drectly from TFA and it is as you'd suspect, technically incorrect. Ice breaks open the cells (lysing them) which causes the cell contents to spill out of the cell into whatever medium they are in. This quite predictably, kills the cells. However, ice that forms extremely rapidly forms a glass-like phase of ice that does less harm to the cells. The interesting things about this new antifreeze molecule are that 1) it's not a protein; it's a fairly simple molecule and 2) it's lipophillic (tends to hang around fatty things like cell membranes) which makes it a very useful discovery in terms of biological antifreeze molecules.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:wait... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      "so the ice would burst out of the cell ravaging the cell membranes and everything else at the same time." Plants have cell walls, animals have cell membranes.

    4. Re:wait... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "so the ice would burst out of the cell ravaging the cell membranes and everything else at the same time." Plants have cell walls and cell membranes, animals only have cell membranes.

      FTFY

      --
      $ make available
    5. Re:wait... by staalmannen · · Score: 1

      In fact, plant cells have a cell membrane and a cell wall. Thanks to the cell wall, the cell membrane can only expand to a certain size (pushing towards the wall: Turgor pressure), which means that a plant cell in low-salt (destilled) water will not burst as an animal cell does.

    6. Re:wait... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Of course this is but the latest anti-freeze that is found in nature.

      Having spent some time on Alaskan Glaciers I frequently saw ice worms, especially on cold rainy days that washed snow cover away. These things live their entire life at zero C, or within 3 or 4 degrees thereof.

      Locals win a lot of bets with tourists, who simply don't believe them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesenchytraeus_solifugus

      http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF19/1918.html

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. YES! by Mr.Fork · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now they can develop a candy for kids in the wintertime so they can stop sticking their tongues to metal posts!

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
    1. Re:YES! by temmi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry... as long as there are metal posts kids will try and stick their tongues to them. It's the law of nature.

    2. Re:YES! by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? Really, if you have your tongue stuck to anything, be it a popsicle or a metal pole you can just pour some warm water over it and it comes off just fine.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:YES! by mirix · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that cold water is supposed to work better, for some reason I can't seem to think of.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:YES! by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. Plus, its really unlikely that someone would die because if need be people will yank their tongue off the pole even if its painful if it will save them.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:YES! by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Yeah but then there is that gross layer of skin stuck to the pole and your tongue is sore for days.... I would not know this from personal experience er ummm I was kid leave me alone!!! lol

    6. Re:YES! by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Yeah its worse.... lol

      I have 2 video's that may be informative on the matter Muhahahaha!!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiZpOPRzFo

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fj37OTTmm4

    7. Re:YES! by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, of course, how do you go and fetch the warm water when your tongue is frozen to the pole.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:YES! by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      The most commonly offered reason (that hot water freezes faster than cold water) is that the rate of evaporation increases with water temperature, and so the evaporative cooling effect is stronger for hot water than it is for cold, so hot water gets cold faster. But that's a dumb reason, since while true, the rate wouldn't be fixed there, it would stay proportional to the temperature, so when the hot water had cooled to the same temperature as your cold water, its rate of evaporation would be the same, and thus from that point on, it would cool at the same rate. The less commonly offered reason is that in that extra time, more water would have evaporated away, and therefore while the cooling rate would be the same, the size of the object would be smaller, so it would cool faster. This is true, but beside the point. It takes a long time for hot water to cool to room temperature, and the time shaved by not having to cool that extra 2 mL of water will be absolutely dominated by the extra cooling time over all. Try it for yourself!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    9. Re:YES! by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Pssssssh, poles are nothing. Real Men try licking frozen traintracks....

      =P seems like the particularly appropriate smiler for this post.

    10. Re:YES! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If only there was some way to get such a thing to explode, so Mythbusters could tackle the question.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:YES! by SanguineV · · Score: 1

      Most people carry a repository of warm water (plus other stuff) in their bladder for just such an occasion! And if you can't aim well enough then ask a friend to help.

    12. Re:YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well they could try removing the child with dynamite

    13. Re:YES! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Dhanghit, now I'n thuck to the phole in two pflaces.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:YES! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be warm water per se. It just needs to be warm, and have mostly water. With that in mind, I'll say: Point upwards.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  4. Re:I for one... by maxume · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just wear boots and step on them.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  5. Geez by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

    ...poor guy

  6. Am I the only one... by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that was more interested in the ice cream?

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    1. Re:Am I the only one... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I'm not completely sure I'd want to eat ice cream with a random beetle antifreeze in it. ;)

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ew, this oxygen molecule I just breathed had previously passed through a sea slug, a mosquito, AND microsoft's main office. I think I am going to be sick.

  7. On the down side... by Trip6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the beetles have no protection against boil-over.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  8. Small ice crystals are by ChenLiWay · · Score: 1

    small

  9. So this is why Volkswagen Beatles were "cool" by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    They never overheated, and didn't require coolant.

    1. Re:So this is why Volkswagen Beatles were "cool" by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

      And they worked eight days a week.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
  10. TFA by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

    Since the summary is inadequate and misleading.....
    New Antifreeze Molecule Isolated In Alaska Beetle

    Scientists have identified a novel antifreeze molecule in a freeze-tolerant Alaska beetle able to survive temperatures below minus 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Unlike all previously described biological antifreezes that contain protein, this new molecule, called xylomannan, has little or no protein. It is composed of a sugar and a fatty acid and may exist in new places within the cells of organisms.

    "The most exciting part of this discovery is that this molecule is a whole new kind of antifreeze that may work in a different location of the cell and in a different way," said zoophysiologist Brian Barnes, director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology and one of five scientists who participated in the Alaska Upis ceramboides beetle project.

    Just as ice crystals form over ice cream left too long in a freezer, ice crystals in an insect or other organism can draw so much water out of the organism’s cells that those cells die. Antifreeze molecules function to keep small ice crystals small or to prevent ice crystals from forming at all. They may help freeze-tolerant organisms survive by preventing freezing from penetrating into cells, a lethal condition. Other insects use these molecules to resist freezing by supercooling when they lower their body temperature below the freezing point without becoming solid.

    UAF graduate student and project collaborator Todd Sformo found that the Alaska Upis beetle, which has no common name, first freezes at about minus 18.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the lab and survives temperatures down to about 104 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.

    "It seems paradoxical that we find an antifreeze molecule in an organism that wants to freeze and that’s adapted to freezing," said Barnes, whose research group is involved in locating insects, determining their strategies of overwintering and identifying the mechanisms that help them get through the winter

    A possible advantage of this novel molecule comes from it having the same fatty acid that cells membranes do. This similarity, says Barnes, may allow the molecule to become part of a cell wall and protect the cell from internal ice crystal formation. Antifreeze molecules made of proteins may not fit into cell membranes.

    "There are many difficult studies ahead," said Barnes. "To find out how common this biologic antifreeze is and how it actually prevents freezing and where exactly it’s located."

    This project was led by Kent Walters at the University of Notre Dame with collaborators Anthony Serianni and John H. Duman of UND and Barnes and Sformo of UAF and was published in the Dec. 1 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  11. New organic anti-freeze by formfeed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Beetlejuice!

    1. Re:New organic anti-freeze by Hailth · · Score: 1

      At first when I read the title, I thought mainly the same thing. "Oh great, now there are going to be gigantic nasty farms of these beetles in order to fill every car with cheap, organic antifreeze."

      The image was so horrifying... I can't think of a better place to be tortured to death than under a pile of Alaskan beetles in a beetle farm. Maybe it will happen in Saw 31.

  12. air-cooled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I believe the Beetle (at least the real type 1) was air-cooled, so it did not contain any antifreeze.

  13. Science beats nature by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used to drive a 1963 Beetle. They don't need antifreeze!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Frozen for the Voyage by Yergle143 · · Score: 1

    Yes well maybe sorta. Let's find out.

    The trick might be that you would have to have a special GM modified (species)
    of human with these (and perhaps other) antifreeze proteins inserted in their DNA.
    This already works for plants: mammal data, not so good.

    Simple transfusion of these in the blood of a normal human probably would
    never work (but is being explored to preserve organs)

    And no guarantees about your brain making the trip to cold storage and back
    intact. We wont ask much of you when you get to Jupiter.

    537

  15. Re:Rather OT: Brain information storage paradox by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

    I hate to be rude but this is some of the most retarded shit I have seen in some time. Instead of wasting time theorising nonsense just do some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Long-term

    It will be a boon to all involved.

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  16. Re:Rather OT: Brain information storage paradox by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

    Here's something I have been thinking about recently, which relates to cryogenic freezing:

    First, let's assume the brain stores memories in some form of physical structures (it sounds a stretch, but it's been theorised by some). Whether that is in RNA, or in some unknown physical property. Speaking in favour of this is certain inherited behaviour in animals - and even humans, like fear of spiders, and the ability of babies to see whether a dog is snarling or not. From the 'physical storage' perspective, producing computer networks similar to brains is theoretically very plausible - it's like cutting an unfathomably complex car in slices, gradually understanding how it works, and then building one yourself.

    The problem with "physical storage" is: Some people have photographic memory of their entire lives.

    This seems to be incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory

    Eivind.

    --
    Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  17. Re:Rather OT: Brain information storage paradox by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry you took personally what I said previously - I can only hope that the last line is not how you talk with people in the real world. You mentioned some quite silly things about memory - I called you out on it, and gave a link where you could find more information about it. I'm sorry you weren't able to find what you were looking for in two paragraphs so I will bring it out more clearly.

    Long-term memories, on the other hand, are maintained by more stable and permanent changes in neural connections widely spread throughout the brain.

    What is says here is that memory is a result of neural connections - you can find out more about this on the main page for long term memory. Contrast this to your thoughts on RNA, electricity or "quantum storage". I don't think much more needs to be said here.

    You mention that you are really talking about storing consciousness which is quite confusing given that you only briefly mention something about it at the end, after spending your whole post talking about memory encoding. You have either confused the two concepts which are separate (note that plenty of animals show long-term memory but few consciousness) or god knows what.

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  18. Pardon me, have you any Grey Molecules? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Other insects use these molecules

    "Hi, can I use your molecules for several months?"

  19. That's just the beginning of ethical dilemmas. by weston · · Score: 1

    Because barring some economic revolution (likely only presaged by the discovery of insanely cheap inexhaustible low-impact energy source), the costs of keeping people in a state of suspended animation are going to be an agonizing issue. The space for keeping people alone could to be an issue, let alone the costs of attentive and professional maintenance techs and medical staff, and of course, refrigeration. I think at a minimum we're talking about Manhattan apartment prices and possible continual hospital stay prices.

    So... after you've decided it's OK to "kill" someone by freezing them, you have to decide: can you afford it? Is it worth it? How much life do they have left even assuming in 20 years there's a cure for cancer? How are they going to feel if in 20 years they wake up and their children are their biological age -- or potentially dead, along with most of their contemporary friends are dead? But on the other hand, how are you going to feel about letting a loved one go when the prospect of magical medical advances just 20-30 years out are in front of you? How would you live it down if you didn't?

    And that's just the micro issues. How does economics change when people can sometimes sleep and let an investment compound and compound -- and wake up and suddenly consume? Ever longer chronological periods of life alternating between consumption and maintenance for a steadily increasing population?

    Heck, what happens when the rich can afford this but the poor can't? An oligarchy of long-lived who can profit handsomely from certificates of deposit, let alone better investments?

    1. Re:That's just the beginning of ethical dilemmas. by Grismar · · Score: 1

      An extremely amusing, tongue-in-cheek short movie about the problem you are talking about is the Norwegian "Cold and Dry".

      If you have a chance to see it at some festival or perhaps find it somewhere on the net, I recommend it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1223897/.

  20. Re:Don't engines use anti-freeze for their geers? by Sillygates · · Score: 2, Informative

    nope, that's just motor oil.

    Antifreeze/coolant is only used in watercooled engines

    --
    I fear the Y2038 bug
  21. buffer that by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    If these beetles contain corrosion inhibitor molecules to, it'd be perfect for the radiator of my V8 Leyland P76, SQ-36 is getting damned expensive these days.

  22. Re:I for one... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

    Oh, was that your auntie?

  23. northern new york state, february by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    its been below zero outside for weeks, snow is piled high. working on this house with sunken foot high wells for the basement windows, requiring you to clean out the snow and leaves that often gather in the wells, so it doesn't break the windows or leak water inside. so i'm yanking out this snow and compacted ice and leaves accumulated, and underneath, half frozen in the ice, is a dead toad. sad

    then the fucker kicks me

    absolutely blew my mind. well below zero in february. half frozen in ice. i put him back in the window well, give him a roof of leaves

    this was two years ago. same toad still lives in the same window well to this day, dining all summer with gusto on the worms and bugs that fall in the well. never left. probably frozen under the snow right now. some sort of toad oasis

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  24. Already done by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    They actually did that:

    http://www.tv.com/mythbusters/snow-special/episode/1056466/recap.html

    Not every myth has to have an explosion, just every episode.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Already done by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I meant the hot water freezes faster than cold water myth.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  25. Some reading for you by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel