Talk:James Bedford

Viable

"In May 1991, his body's condition was evaluated when he was moved to a new dewar" Dewar?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.115.196 (talk • contribs)

Probably shorthand for dewar flask, which I changed to "storage place" not knowing where exactly he was moved to. Although I did feel tempted to chop the whole sentence out because it reads like it's half-finished - his body was re-examined, then what? Kimchi.sg 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

More info please! Is his body still viable? Bobo12345 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The condition of his body has apparently not changed since he was frozen in 1967. Very little molecular motion occurs at cryogenic temperatures. The main change to the condition of his brain since the time of his legal death would be due to freezing damage, since the perfusion of cryoprotectants was very primative (no vitrification). Whether or not he can be reanimated depends on the capacity of future science to solve the jigsaw puzzle of restoring the brain to its original condition before the freezing damage. Some deny that science will ever be able to do this, others claim that nanotechnology will make it possible. Other technologies will be required to rejuvenate him to a youthful condition. --GirlForLife 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Came to read this article after learning about Dr. Bedford on the 50th anniversary of his freezing, but this article omits the very key information I was hoping to find. What are the circumstances that will trigger his unfreezing, or is he supposed to be kept frozen indefinitely for research purposes?97.65.103.250 (talk)

Dead or Alive

Was he dead or alive when frozen?

If dead, it would present extreme difficulties reviving him when the technology exists, compared to reviving a person frozen when living.

If alive, assuming someone else rather than himself froze him, wouldn't it legally qualify as murder?

Seems from the referenced source he was frozen immediately following his death. I added this to the article. (As for how they would get him back to life again, I have not the faintest idea.) Suede 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, that will be a Solved Problem in The Future. DS 00:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

His heart was stopped, so he was legally dead. But his brain cells and brain structure had not yet decayed/decomposed. So legal death may not mean irreversible death. For more on this subject see Clinical death and Information theoretical death. --GirlForLife 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

His date of birth was April 20, 1893, according to the Social Security Death Index accessible for free at Familysearch.org. Does this count as original research? --Cam (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A Google Books "snippet view" of Who's Who in American Education (1928) confirms this birthdate. --Cam (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Bedford is Important

Oppose deletion -- James Bedford was the first human being to be cryopreserved and maintained in liquid nitrogen until the present day, a total of over 41 years. Bedford is a noteworthy figure for all cryonicists, not just "some cryonics group". His cryopreservation is a watershed event in the history of cryonics -- so much so that the day of his cryopreservation, January 12 is the the most noteworthy holiday in the subculture of cryonics. To delete this article would be to severely discriminate against the cryonics ethnic group and subculture. -- Ben Best (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deletion -- In fact, even if cryonics were pure hokum, James Bedford would be as important as the first mummy, if anybody knew who he or she was. Bedford was the first person treated by a method (cryonics) which has received a lot of attention. Son of eugene (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a coatrack, by definition

from wikipedia's coatrack page:

"An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip."

This article precisely meets this exception. There is no advertising in this article for "some cryonics group or another". The objector is merely betraying their anti-cryonics bias by not citing what exactly constitutes the advertising here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gensmahaut (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a coatrack

Oppose deletion -- As gensa said, this isn't a coatrack because it focuses on the thing he's most famous for.

As for it's notability: Cyronics research is far more than trying to cheat death, it's the study of cooling organs. So even if it doesn't work it's research could benefit society someday, for example the long-term storage of organs.(Edwardmorrill (talk) ~) —Preceding comment was added at 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as is: Notable and descriptive. bwisok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwisok (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs improvement, but not a coatrack

Oppose deletion -- The article definitely needed work, and needs more. Had some redundancy which I removed, and needs more citations. But a simple Google search shows that he is mentioned in multiple books (none of which appear to be trying to sell cryonics) as well as web pages. He is a notable figure. --Zhmort (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deletion He's as notable as any astronaut, and we even have bios of astronauts who were killed flying airplanes and never made it into space (see Charles Bassett). The entire "coatrack" policy is ridiculously biased. Why do we have bios of astronauts except that people are interested in space? Why bios of obscure Western lawmen except that people are interested in the Wild West? (see Charlie Bassett). We even have bios of minor baronets who never did anything, because people have a thing about WP:ROYALTY. Since there are no BLP issues involved here, leave this guy alone. He's the first person ever to do what he did, and is a natural bio subject. SBHarris 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Total Opposition

Oppose Deletion I am giving my opposition against the deletion of this page. --Despres (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wives in suspended animation

If Bedford became the first cryopreserved person in 1967, how can his first wife who died in 1917 also be in suspended animation, as stated under "Personal Life"? 84.55.83.49 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Photography of his

Could be karmic Earthboy99999 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)