zeb haradon wrote:
>
> >From: Doug Skrecky <oberon@vcn.bc.ca>
> >CryoNet - Wed 20 Dec 2000
> >
> >Message #15136
> >From: Eugene.Leitl
> >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Science/2000-12/gene031200.shtml
> >
> >Gene research scientists close to human hibernation breakthrough
> >> >By Jonathan Thompson
> >>
> >Space travel hibernation, said Professor Andrews, is still "pure
> >science fiction".
>
> Without artificial gravity, wouldn't there be severe atrophy? There would be
> expenses saved on food, but you would still need to supply a life support
> system.
> I see it as useful only in an emergency type situation where food is running
> out. There's an accident on a Mars colony, half the food is lost, so 90% of
> the crew goes into hibernation while waiting for the new supplies to arrive.
I was under the impression that metabolic rates decrease in hybernation,
so atrophy rates should decrease as well.
>
> Possibly, but I suspect that in the millions of years of not hibernating,
> our bodies have developed dependencies on our wake/sleep cycle. I wake up
> with a headache if I sleep just 14 hours.
> Does anyone know how Bears and Squirrels eliminate feces and urine while
> hibernating?
They pretty much don't. Since they are living off of fat, there is
nothing in their digestive tract to expel, and the metabolism slows
enough that respiration recycles materials that would be expended at
higher metabolic rates (and living off fats really minimizes the
impurities you need to filter anyways), though I imagine that after
waking up one would need to take a good syrupy whizz anyways. Kidney
stones are a matter of salts leaching out, but if these are conserved in
the fat burning cycle you'd not pass them out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:38 MDT