Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 2-Year-Old Has Become the Youngest Person Ever To Be Cryonically Frozen

Posted by Soulskill on from the rest-in-peace dept.

merbs writes: After losing a long battle with brain cancer, 2-year-old Matheryn Naovaratpong became the first minor ever to be cryogenically frozen. This article is the story of how a Thai girl was frozen in Bangkok and shipped to Arizona to have her brain preserved in liquid nitrogen, while medical science works on a cure. "Typically we’d move the head from the trunk of the body. We didn't know what their reaction would be from the family, the mortuary, from border officials; this has to go through a number of shipping venues, customs, the TSA and so on. To see a frozen head in a box might have raised a number of red flags. In the U.S. that’s not a big deal, but there, they may not be accustomed."

8 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. WHAT? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok.. I read this..

    "To see a frozen head in a box might have raised a number of red flags. In the U.S. that’s not a big deal, but there, they may not be accustomed."

    And I think.. what the fuck is wrong with this country???

    1. Re:WHAT? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that a dead 2 year old, who had already had half her brain removed and the other half was seriously damaged, and dunking that in liquid nitrogen with the hope that someday a new body could be built for her and she'd be perfectly normal again ... is a con?

      Oh ... ya ... it is ...

      I don't know how the fuck anyone falls for it. Really... Why would they think that even if their bodies were preserved that long, and the technology was invented to create what's missing, and repair all the damage done by the freezing process, that anyone would spend the 14 bazillion New Earth credits (or whatever currency there is in futureland) to bring some old fucker back?

      In her case, the could have just saved a DNA sample. The story is clear about the condition her brain was in. Half was gone. The other half critically damaged.

      I'd have to think that it would be questionable in futureland to resurrect a 20th century person, even if they were in pristine condition. Say 21 years old with much above average intelligence, who was taught everything that there is to know, with no medical issues, no trauma. Just frozen as-is without cellular damage. Why would anyone opt to wake them up? Just to ask "Hey, so what was life like in the 20th century?"

      The whole cryogenics "industry" is a huge con.

      If these people are religious in the least, they'd have to believe that the soul was trapped in that frozen body until it was awakened. If it wasn't, there would be no reason to reincarnate them. What if they picked the wrong part to freeze? Like, if the soul was really in the liver, or maybe in the spinal cord between C1 and C3. Oops, sorry, we cut that part off.

      And if they aren't religious in the least, why bother? So they can wake up as a curiosity in the future? "Hi Cro-Magnon. Fire hot. We have spoken languages you don't understand. And try to wrap your mind around these three seashells. No more poison ivy toilet paper for you. No, don't hit females with a club to make them your mate/slave."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:WHAT? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're right, anyone in their right mind wouldn't fall for this scam.
      But I suppose that parents who lost their 2 year old kid after a long and painful illness aren't exactly in their right mind.

  2. Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by timrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?

    1. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people believe in an Invisible Sky Wizard? Why do people play the lottery? It's called Hope and as irrational and non-sensical as it may be it's an essential part of the Human condition.

    2. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by stevedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, hope is a belief that the world and everything in it has potential energy, and that under the right circumstances that can be converted into "kinetic" energy (i.e., the force of change). It is the belief that just because the ball is not moving does not mean the ball cannot move. It also means that just because a person believes that they have no value (or perhaps even currently do not seem to have much value) does not mean that they are, in fact, incapable of having value or of someday recognizing what their value is or could be.

      If "enlightenment" means believing that the world cannot be anything other than it, in its present state, currently is, then I do not want to be enlightened, because my enlightenment would be invalidated one nanosecond later, since even in that time the world would have done that which I had assumed to be impossible, and changed.

  3. Not fully junk by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.

    Why do people still spend money on this?

    It gives them hope. Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way? Sure there are other things they could do that would likely be more beneficial for mankind as a whole, but there are worse things, too.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not fully junk by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...no?

      There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.

      For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.

      Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:

      1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
      2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
      3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.

      The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.