Does it really work? In theory, I don’t see why it wouldn’t.
It doesn’t work because the cell tissues break down and are destroyed by the crystallizing effect of freezing. No one has EVER been successfully defrosted, and experiments with animals have failed, too.
As for just having your head frozen and sewn onto another body in 500 years . . . Well, don’t hold your breath.
Actually, I can’t see any reason in theory why it would work.
Hibernation is not cryogenics.
It’s true that people have been revived after falling into cold water, but they haven’t been literally frozen.
Cryonics isn’t an ordinary science because it isn’t easily testable; the only way to “test” it is to wait and see if it works. Nonetheless, to state that it will never be possible to revive people who are cryogenically frozen one must believe that particular limits exist on the technology which humanity could conceivable develop in the future.
It’s true that the damage caused by freezing at cryogenic temperatures is enormous and extends to all levels of bodily structure. It may be that it is impossible even in principle that we might someday find a way to repair this damage, but I don’t see how anyone can reasonably be certain one way or the other.
And this argument is often used by companies offering cryonic preservation; “don’t worry, the smart people in the future will be able to rebuild all of the damaged tissues” - maybe this is true but I think not; they might be able to reconstruct all of the damaged cells, but that isn’t the same as bringing ‘you’ back - if the subtleties of whatever it is that makes you ‘you’ in your brain have been destroyed then they are gone for good.
Anyway, there’s no reason for alarm, because as technology advances, they will eventually reach the level where they can rebuild me from a photograph :rolleyes:
Experiments with animals have suceeded too:
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3274_j-n-kstorey.html
With enough research it may eventually be possible to freeze people without turning them into corpsicles. Then again maybe not.
There is a good book that details the development of cryogenics and the futility of it all. It’s called Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. It talks about how two corpsicles were defrosted for nonpayment and their bodies were examined. The was a lot of cellular damage (water expands when you freeze it, cells are filled with mostly water, and they pop like little plastic baggies), and some big fissures running through brain tissue, and this was from freezer burn, not the thawing process. The theory of the cryogenics folks is that nanobots will be able to repair the damage somehow, and that the persons personality and memory will be restored. I have serious doubts. Memory seems to be a fragile thing, and if being frozen for five years does serious damage, then 50 or 100 years would probably be much worse. If the damage was repaired somehow, then it would be done on assumptions, and whatever woke up wouldn’t really be likely to be similar to what was frozen. It might have some incomplete and fragmented memories of a person’s life.
To me, the question would be “why would people in the future expend resources to revive you, or if not that, then why would they continue running the freezers?” Seems like a long shot at best.
I’d just lie to reiterate that “cryogenics” is not the same thing as “cryonics”. Cryogenics is the branch of physics that deals with very low temperatures and has many legitimate practical applications. Cryonics is the practice of freezing bodies with the hopes of reviving them later. The word “cryonic” is a relatively recent invention (1967 according to www.merriam-webster.com ) that simply attached the high-tech sounding “-onic” suffix to a truncation of cryogenic. So, although there is some relation between two, they are different fields entirely.
So far, everyone has assumed the OP was asking about cryonics. Given the way it was written, I’d agree. However, is it possible that the intent was to ask about something like the cryogenic treatment of cutting blades? If we’re off track, please let us know, Chekmate.
I was talking about freezing people, but the average response is making me feel stupid. 
RE: 5 years of freezing vs hundreds: the length of time wouldn’t make a difference, would it? Once the person’s been completely frozen, the damage has been done and the body is more or less in stasis, isn’t it?
5 years is very different than 100 years. Decay continues, as do other changes. Particles are still bouncing off one another, even though the process is slowed down.
I had to clean out a dead grandma’s freezer (low temp, but not cryogenic temps), and found game meat that has been frozen for 15 years (date of kill on the package, people remember the other cuts and how good they were 15 years ago!). It was just grayish yuck, and probably had been for quite a while. Frozen stuff isn’t good forever, no matter what temperature you store it at (within practical limits - don’t give me any flak about absolute zero)
Freezer burn happens over time, but is decreased if temperatures are very stable. There is still a time limit though.
Cecil Adams discusses cryonics in this column: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_331.html
I just seen video today talking about it. Doctors are killing people doing complex surgery than bringing them back to life using freezing the brain.This is taking off like shock ways and more and more doctors are doing this.
The problem with the technology they are using is over a hour you get brain damage.So this is not a solution for cryogenics.
I think one of the main problems with cryogenics is how do you stop icecation of cells.With today’s cryogenics it like taking billions of small knives and stabbing all the cells.
Other problem is people have a lot of brain damage before the cryogenic.Has you cannot use cryogenic on living people but only dead people.And dead people start to have damage.
Can We Resurrect The Dead?(2012)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv6uwp_can-we-resurrect-the-dead-2012_shortfilms