Dr. Walford responds about his condition

[Guest guest]

Dear Francesca,

There has been so much posted recently about my

" condition " and about my " attitude " (the Peg Macintyre

article etc.) that perhaps I'd better respond, through you.

(1) My " condition " . The specialist at Baylor said that the

only persons he had seen who have a gait disturbance like mine

had had carbon monoxide exposure. Now there was no CO exposure

inside Biosphere, but CO toxicity is in fact a type of hypoxia, and

there was a period of peculiar (normobaric, as opposed to high altitude)

hypoxia inside Biosphere (See my article recently published: Walford, R.L:

Biosphere 2 as voyage of discovery: the serendipity from inside.

BioScience. 52:259-263, 2002. ). I've always been very susceptible to

high altitudes in that I was always the first to feel bad on a mountain

trip. Some months ago one of the other Biospherians had an MRI to

rule out a pituitary tumor. It was ruled out but the radiologist noted in

passing some changes in the brain stem which he said were consistent

with CO exposure. This Biospherian has no gait or other neurological

problems, but I was the most affected clinically (shortness of breath,

sleep problems etc,) and this person the next most affected by the hypoxia.

There also developed a level of nitrous oxide about 80x normal,

and this is now thought to be neurotoxic. It is also true the CR was

very severe in Biosphere 2 (see photo of me in June issue of J. Gerontol.).

Also, the physical (as well as psychological)

stress was very severe --- not only more but FAR

more and continuous than anything I have ever experienced, and I've

done a lot of stressful things. I was also, at 67 on entry, 27 years older

than

the next oldest crew member, yet in the nature of things had to do an equal

share of the work. My neurological problems started during the last 6 or so

months inside. Putting all the above together is why I judge my

neurodegenerative

problems are related to the Biosphere 2 experience. But there is no way of

really

knowing. Also, it's such a special case that I don't think my condition

means

anything as far as the CR group is concerned. Certainly nobody on the list,

or any place else I know of, is likely to have comparable exposure.

(2) " Attitude " . Professional science writer-journalists usually get it

right, but

journalists who are not primarily science writers (like Macintyre) often not

only get it wrong but come on with a preconceived agenda that they try to,

as it were, " read into you. " They don't outright lie, but for example a

favorite

trick is to ask " Don't you think it's possible that .....? " and then they'll

add what they want to hear. If you answer, " Well, yes, it's possible " then

you

may find in the article, for example, " Dr. Walford says it's possible that

..... " ,

and then will come something I may not really agree with, but " it's

possible " , so

they have not actually misquoted me but have shifted the emphasis.

Dean and others of the group should bear this in mind as they represent

CR. It can really trip one up. So by the same token, the group should not

read my " attitude " towards anything at all into what is written by

non-science

professional journalists. The only thing right about her article is that I

don't wish to be a " guru " (as opposed, for example, to Sears, Atkins etc),

and that's why I don't post, and don't like to answer questions. I am too

much of an " authority figure " and the group does best without such a one,

in my view. Also, because of my " condition " , it's difficult both to keep up

with the literature on CR and do the documentary about Biosphere 2 that

I'm working on, so I really don't want to be involved in a lot

of questions.

I am going in another direction with what strength I still have.

Best regards,

Roy Walford