The main advantage is that it requires no cooling and is cheap. People might be normally buried after the procedure, so it would seem less weird. However, a good perfusion of the brain with the fixative is hard to achieve.
Chemical fixation could also be combined with those low maintenance cryonic graves just in case the nitrogen boils off.
What I’d love to know is how chemical and thermodynamic means of preservation interact, for example if you can get someone to −40C in the permafrost, will chemical preservation suffice? What about −70C? How much difference does temperature make? (Arrhenius equation suggests that a 10C decrease roughly halves reaction rates, so −70C is 2^10 or 1000 times slower than 30C, and −140C is 2^17 or 131,000 times slower)
If you care about cryonics and its sustainability during an economic collapse or worse, chemical fixation might be a good alternative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_brain_preservation
The main advantage is that it requires no cooling and is cheap. People might be normally buried after the procedure, so it would seem less weird.
However, a good perfusion of the brain with the fixative is hard to achieve.
Chemical fixation could also be combined with those low maintenance cryonic graves just in case the nitrogen boils off.
Agreed re: this.
What I’d love to know is how chemical and thermodynamic means of preservation interact, for example if you can get someone to −40C in the permafrost, will chemical preservation suffice? What about −70C? How much difference does temperature make? (Arrhenius equation suggests that a 10C decrease roughly halves reaction rates, so −70C is 2^10 or 1000 times slower than 30C, and −140C is 2^17 or 131,000 times slower)
Interesting that 2^20 hours is 120 years, so
an hour at room temp ==
a decade at −135 ==
a century at −170C ==
a millenium at LN2