12 replies to this topic

[mattmc]

Hello -- I am aware of two American cryonics companies, Alcor & Cryonics Institute. These are the only two American cryonic companies right? My question is, which one is better? Cryonics Institute is vastly cheaper, but that makes me think it isn't a good as the "expensive" alternative. Feedback or experiences about this?

[bgwowk]

According to the May-June issue of The Immortalist, the Cryonics Institute (CI) has 201 members with executed contracts and established funding. According to the May issue of Alcor News, Alcor has 743 members with contracts and established funding. So despite the large difference in cost, more people are still going with Alcor.

Why? CI has historically been very "low tech" in the sense that they have disavowed the utility of procedures for life support following cardiac arrest, or trained bedside teams. They have advocated a cryonics model where local morticians retrieve and ship bodies to CI. As I understand it, even shipment to CI is an extra cost not included in their minimum funding requirements. They do open-circuit cryoprotective perfusion with no temperature, pressure, or cryoprotectant concentration monitoring. They have defended their simple approach by arguing that nanotechnology is "necessary and sufficient" for cryonics to work.

CI has also been less conservative in budgeting for long-term care. As I recall, they have assumed a 7% annual return on investment whereas Alcor's minimums have assumed a 1% annual return. Those differing assumptions account for a large part of the price difference between the organizations.

To be more competitive, CI has begun to offer bedside standby services through a contractor at an extra cost. They also have a full-time cryobiologist working to improve their cryopreservation technology, and recently claimed to have created a brain vitrification technology. If CI continues to improve technically, it is inevitable that their costs will rise, although the costs may appear in the form of extra fees on top of their stated minimums. They haven't raised their minimums in decades, and with few economies of scale in cryonics, that minimum will buy less and less with every year that goes by.

The following item is on the Alcor website

http://www.alcor.org...q06.html#choose

If you live in Europe, it must be said that differences in "bedside" service are less relevant since such services are often not available from either organization.

---BrianW

[jaydfox]

Brian, can you point to where the 1% figure is stated? I could have sworn that it was 2% (still a very conservative rate), but I'll take your word for it. I just wanted to see where it was factored into the cost calculation...

[bgwowk]

From

http://www.alcor.org...OfCryonics.html

Selecting a factor of four by which to multiply the marginal capital amount was somewhat arbitrary. Clearly some additional money held in trust is needed to provide for contingent costs such as moving the patients, moving Patient Care Fund (PCF) money overseas in the event of inflation, and covering the costs of revival. In 1985, the Alcor Board of Directors considered the matter of reserves and adopted a less demanding requirement than the 4x previously used. To generate the necessary funding through impending interest on capital, we implemented a Patient Care Fund Policy that set the minimally acceptable working capital base at 50 times the annual projected patient care expenses (or, 2x the amount of principal required to generate the marginal costs of patient storage). This is because the historical cost of money -- deducting for inflation -- is 2 to 3 percent (any interest that we get beyond that just covers risk factors). As a safety factor, the long term care fund which we require as a minimum should be double (100x our yearly storage costs).

It is nominally 2%, but the final calculation step is then to double the reserve as a safety factor. Hence the 1%, although Alcor doesn't like to describe it that way.

---BrianW

[caliban]

Hello Matt

Impartial Feedback is not easy to come by, as many members stand by 'their organisation' there is some natural (in my view healthy) competition. Also members benefit from 'their' provider having more members.

As mentioned, both draw comparisons:

http://www.alcor.org...q06.html#choose
http://www.cryonics....omparisons.html

Where it should be pointed out that neither website is currently completely accurate/up to date since things are currently moving quite a bit regarding vitrification.

Also, while ALCOR and CI are the only two cryonics storage providers in the world, you might want to consider that suspended animation offers a rather advanced standby and suspension service in collaboration with both.

Moreover there are Cryonics Brokers like TransTime and the American Cryonics Society, but heir status is rather fickle as far as I can tell.

[Bruce Klein]

I support CI, and would suggest them for last minute suspensions. However, my dad and I are signed with Alcor mainly for the reasons put forth by Brian Wowk above.

[eternaltraveler]

I wish I could get my grandfather to sign up with any organization.

WWII vets are going to be in short supply in 400 years.

[benbest]

The Cryonics Institute has had a new President since
September 2003 -- me. A great many changes have occurred
at CI in the last two years and changes of this nature
are expected to accelerate. Therefore, to describe CI
in terms of what it has been historically is not a very
good guide to the present and (especially) to the future.
Although CI is small, it is growing very rapidly.

Those who judge quality entirely on the basis of
price and who want professional Standby & Transport should
add the price for CI storage and perfusion ($28,000 or
$35,000) to the Suspended Animation price to get totals
ranging from about $50,000 to about $130,000 depending
upon the level of coverage. (Detailed pricing information
can be found at http://www.cryonics....A_details.html)

The claim that CI does no temperature, pressure or
cryoprotectant concentration monitoring with our new
vitrification protocol is false, as should be evident
from the description of the application of this
protocol to a dog:

http://www.cryonics....s/Dog_Thor.html

We have not had the opportunity to apply this protocol
to a human yet, but will do so at the first opportunity.
Our technical capabilities in this area are increasing
very rapidly, as should be evident in future published
reports.

I am commited to technical progress at CI, but I am
also committed to keeping costs low. I don't know where
Brian got the figure of an anticipated 7% return -- in
my years at CI I have never heard this number. A more
interesting question might be 1% or 7% of *what*? CI
does not have a large paid staff and we do not have a
lot of expensive equipment. Our marginal costs are
currently less than $100 per year (formerly they were
much larger). If our current rapid growth continues my
hope is that economies of scale may someday allow us
to cut prices to make cryonics accessible to even
more people.

Another commitment I have had as CI President is
to oppose the hate-filled competitive hostility I have
seen between Alcor and CI. I am above all a cryonicist,
not a partisan. I have written this reply not to attack
Alcor, but to set the facts straight about the Cryonics
Institute. I regret the comparisons page on the CI
website, but the fact that I am not politically strong
enough to have it removed does not mean I am not
politically strong enough to advance CI technically.

My least favorite FAQ is to make comparisons between
Alcor and CI. It was extremely difficult for me to
write this reply. It has not been my intention to be
attacking and it is my intention to not reply further
to this thread even if unfair accusations are made.
CI's future accomplishments will speak for themselves.

-- Ben Best, President, Cryonics Institute

[benbest]

Point of clarification:

I meant to say that our marginal costs are $100 per
year *PER PATIENT*.

-- Ben

[Bruce Klein]

Great to see your reply, Ben!

I hope CI continues to make further advancements and I look forward to seeing you in Atlanta on Nov 5.

[bgwowk]

I applaud Ben's improvements at CI, but I believe the old guard will perpetuate old ways unless the market and membership agitate for more.

Ben wrote:

I meant to say that our marginal costs are $100 per
year *PER PATIENT*.

That's an incomplete number. It is based on the performance CI's two best Cryostats, HSSV-6-3 and HSSV-6-5.

http://www.cryonics.org/cryostats.html

The average cost per patient currently maintained at CI is higher because of legacy cryostats. Before bulk-delivered liquid nitrogen, and before the HSSV-6, the cost per patient per year was an order of magnitude higher. The annual 7% of principal figure is something I recall from the 1990s, and it seems right for that era. I confess I did not know the newest dewars were performing so well until I read the above URL.

However, even assuming all future Cryostats perform as well as the best HSSV-6's or better, $100 per patient per year is still an incomplete number. It was obtained by multiplying daily per patient liquid nitrogen boiloff (1.5 liters per patient per day) by the apparent delivered cost of liquid nitrogen. This does not consider external storage tank boiloff, transfer losses, cryostat amortization, labor, or floor space charges (which at a minimum must include facility operating costs even if the building is owned outright). Anyone who contemplates starting a cryonics organization (Ben and I know who I'm talking about) on the belief that whole bodies can be stored at a marginal cost of $100 per patient per year is going to be sorely mistaken.

Let's forget about dollars, and just compare required resources. CI's best cryostats consume 10/6 = 1.7 liters per patient per day. Alcor's best Bigfoot dewars consume 9/4 = 2.3 liters per patient per day. But the facility square footage per patient is much smaller for Alcor's dewars than CI's cryostats. Alcor and CI per-patient care expeneses are therefore comparable (which is pretty remarkable considering how different the technologies are).

Alcor sets aside long-term care funding minimums at least four times greater than CI does, despite similar maintenance costs. This is important to remember if anyone says that Alcor costs more because it operates less efficiently. Alcor costs more than CI because it uses more expensive stabilization and perfusion procedures, and because it is more conservative in calculating long-term care funding requirements.

---BrianW

P.S. http://www.cryonics.org/cryostats.html contains the text:

The resulting thermal conductivity (or perlite) is about 0.0007 Watts per meter-Kelvin -- roughly one-thousandth the thermal conductivity of water or brick and about one-fortieth the thermal conductivity of extruded polystyrene foam boards. 

That is the thermal conductivity of *evacuated* perlite. The thermal conductivity of perlite after manufacture, before evaculation, is 100 times greater. The text isn't clear on that point.

[cryofan]

Interesting discussion. I had no idea what CI's exact membership was until now.

Any speculations on what the rising price of oil may do to the cost of LN in 20 years or more?


-randy smith

[Set]

I support CI, and would suggest them for last minute suspensions. However, my dad and I are signed with Alcor mainly for the reasons put forth by Brian Wowk above.

I feel almost exactly the same, however I am planning WAY in advance so I have chosen Alcor.

Edited by memysabu, 03 August 2005 - 08:11 PM.