🚀 go-pugleaf

kayla191@my-dejanews.com wrote:
snip
> By far
> the most effective, hygienic, and also the 'neatest' way of disposing of
> these physical remains is by cremation. The exact technique applied, and
> whether open fires or electrical equipment is used, is immaterial. What is
> important is that cremation is increasingly gaining ground over other
> practices, and this may in future at least contribute towards purifying the
> soil, and reducing sources of infection.
snip

But what about (a) air pollution, (b) fuelwood driven deforestation, (c)
the half-burned corpses set adrift in the Ganges by families unable to
afford sufficient firewood to do the job right?  Solve one problem,
create three more.

-dl

-- 
Donald L. Libby, PhD (dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu)
NOTE:  TO REPLY BY E-MAIL REMOVE "nospam!" FROM MY RETURN ADDRESS
Opinions are my own not those of my employer.
Visit the Network at
http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/prevmed/network/index.html

Donald L. Libby wrote:

> kayla191@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> snip
> > By far
> > the most effective, hygienic, and also the 'neatest' way of disposing of
> > these physical remains is by cremation. The exact technique applied, and
> > whether open fires or electrical equipment is used, is immaterial. What is
> > important is that cremation is increasingly gaining ground over other
> > practices, and this may in future at least contribute towards purifying the
> > soil, and reducing sources of infection.
> snip
>
> But what about (a) air pollution, (b) fuelwood driven deforestation, (c)
> the half-burned corpses set adrift in the Ganges by families unable to
> afford sufficient firewood to do the job right?  Solve one problem,
> create three more.

    Isn't that just the way - As the kids say today " Shit Happens "

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> -dl
>
> --
> Donald L. Libby, PhD (dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu)
> NOTE:  TO REPLY BY E-MAIL REMOVE "nospam!" FROM MY RETURN ADDRESS
> Opinions are my own not those of my employer.
> Visit the Network at
> http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/prevmed/network/index.html

Donald L. Libby wrote:

> But what about (a) air pollution

Don't complain about air pollution until we can turn legislation around
and nail the people really responsible.  While CARB and the EPA are
practically demanding emissions-free automobiles, industrial air
pollution goes relatively unchecked.  And how about that thick black
belching smoke from almost any truck?  My 1987 Ford F250 pickup truck
can legally drive around with no catalytic converter, no smog pump, or
any emissions test whatsoever because of the GCVW rating.  But an F150
would be submitted to stringent testing.  Consumers are watched heavily,
while industrial tycoons go on belching forth pollutants LEGALLY.

-- 

Chris Hedemark
Work: IBM eNetwork Dispatcher
http://www.software.ibm.com/enetwork/dispatcher
Personal: Yonder Way http://www.yonderway.com
    "Earl Svein!  thou now wilt know
     That our lads can make blood flow --
     That the Hedemarkers hale
     Can do more than tap good ale." - Saga of Olaf Haraldson: Part II

kayla191@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> Cremation
> 

I intend to be cremated with the ashes placed in a flower pot; then have
some special herbs planted there; when the herbs are mature, my friends
and survivors will smoke and/or eat the herbs. <G>

JZ

>so many deaths are caused by infectious diseases, and in burying these
>corpses the soil becomes contaminated by the causal germs and viruses,
which
>may remain contagious for many years. Thus the burial of millions of the
>infected corpses has contaminated large parts of the Earth's surface

Hey, remember that viruses and causal germs are all nature too. Why have you
suddenly come down against them. Whatever happened to ecological diversity.
            Bring back smallpox, (just as soon as I've had the booster
-))  )

Jim Webster

In article <7c3hli$igf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, kayla191@my-dejanews.com
writes
>Cremation
>
>Throughout the ages the many races, each with its own customs, traditions and
>mystical and religious backgrounds, have devised numerous methods for
>disposing of discarded physical vehicles. These have varied from setting out
>the corpses to be devoured by wild animals, such as hyenas, crocodiles,
>tigers and vultures; burial, with the body in various postures, in graves,
>caves, tombs, catacombs, sepulchres and pyramids; burning on funeral pyres or
>other forms of cremation; and finally embalming to preserve the corpse
>against decomposition.
>
>Several of these methods are still practised, but burial in Mother Earth is
>probably still the most commonly used method. This is most unhygenic because
>so many deaths are caused by infectious diseases, and in burying these
>corpses the soil becomes contaminated by the causal germs and viruses, which
>may remain contagious for many years. Thus the burial of millions of the
>infected corpses has contaminated large parts of the Earth's surface. By far
>the most effective, hygienic, and also the 'neatest' way of disposing of
>these physical remains is by cremation. The exact technique applied, and
>whether open fires or electrical equipment is used, is immaterial. What is
>important is that cremation is increasingly gaining ground over other
>practices, and this may in future at least contribute towards purifying the
>soil, and reducing sources of infection.

Burial is a very environmentally sound idea. Burial recycles ones
remains back in to the bio-sphere. Cremation destroys ones remains.
Burial no more putrifies the soil than the death and decomposition of
any other animal, be it a gnat or elephant. 

-- 
Gnome 11

Gnome 11 wrote:

> In article <7c3hli$igf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, kayla191@my-dejanews.com
> writes
> >Cremation
> >
> >Throughout the ages the many races, each with its own customs, traditions and
> >mystical and religious backgrounds, have devised numerous methods for
> >disposing of discarded physical vehicles. These have varied from setting out
> >the corpses to be devoured by wild animals, such as hyenas, crocodiles,
> >tigers and vultures; burial, with the body in various postures, in graves,
> >caves, tombs, catacombs, sepulchres and pyramids; burning on funeral pyres or
> >other forms of cremation; and finally embalming to preserve the corpse
> >against decomposition.
> >
> >Several of these methods are still practised, but burial in Mother Earth is
> >probably still the most commonly used method. This is most unhygenic because
> >so many deaths are caused by infectious diseases, and in burying these
> >corpses the soil becomes contaminated by the causal germs and viruses, which
> >may remain contagious for many years. Thus the burial of millions of the
> >infected corpses has contaminated large parts of the Earth's surface. By far
> >the most effective, hygienic, and also the 'neatest' way of disposing of
> >these physical remains is by cremation. The exact technique applied, and
> >whether open fires or electrical equipment is used, is immaterial. What is
> >important is that cremation is increasingly gaining ground over other
> >practices, and this may in future at least contribute towards purifying the
> >soil, and reducing sources of infection.
>
> Burial is a very environmentally sound idea. Burial recycles ones
> remains back in to the bio-sphere.

    the formaldehyde and boxes sure slow it down.

> Cremation destroys ones remains.

    The CO2 aand other volatiles are  recycled immediately the rest depends on how
soon the ashes are spread and where.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

> Burial no more putrifies the soil than the death and decomposition of
> any other animal, be it a gnat or elephant.
>
> --
> Gnome 11

In article <7c465i$1m2$2@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> writes
>
>> Burial is a very environmentally sound idea. Burial recycles ones
>> remains back in to the bio-sphere.
>
>    the formaldehyde and boxes sure slow it down.
>
Only if you are a Yank and go for the formaldehyde route. 

I'm getting buried, in UK, in my wool suit and a cardboard coffin, in my
own wooodland. I hope to re-incarnate as an English Yew.
-- 
Gnome 11

Gnome 11 wrote:

> In article <7c465i$1m2$2@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
> <harlind@epix.net> writes
> >
> >> Burial is a very environmentally sound idea. Burial recycles ones
> >> remains back in to the bio-sphere.
> >
> >    the formaldehyde and boxes sure slow it down.
> >
> Only if you are a Yank and go for the formaldehyde route.

    There's no other way - the law you know.

>
>
> I'm getting buried, in UK, in my wool suit and a cardboard coffin, in my
> own wooodland. I hope to re-incarnate as an English Yew.

    Trust you've given proper planting instructions ;-)

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

> --
> Gnome 11

Joseph Zorzin wrote:

> kayla191@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Cremation
> >
>
> I intend to be cremated with the ashes placed in a flower pot; then have
> some special herbs planted there; when the herbs are mature, my friends
> and survivors will smoke and/or eat the herbs. <G>
>
> JZ


I also want to be useful after death.  I envision my ashes in a coffee can
stored in a loved one's automobile.  If they get stuck on the ice, sprinkle
a little bit of me for traction -- glad to be of assistance!

Regards.

Did you know that cremation emits a very substantial amount of mercury vapour?
When exposed to heat the dental amalgam fillings (�silver fillings�)
disintegrates into mercury vapour. For more information see:

Mills A. Mercury and crematorium chimneys. Nature 1990.346:615.

K�nzler P, Andree M, (Bennig J). More mercury from crematoria. Nature
1991;349:746-747.

Ulf B

In article <7c48pe$7p2$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> writes

>> Only if you are a Yank and go for the formaldehyde route.
>
>    There's no other way - the law you know.

You gotta be joking. Why?

-- 
Oz

Oz wrote:

> In article <7c48pe$7p2$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
> <harlind@epix.net> writes
>
> >> Only if you are a Yank and go for the formaldehyde route.
> >
> >    There's no other way - the law you know.
>
> You gotta be joking. Why?

    Oz - I thought you knew better than to ask that - didn't you read
any of OXGORE ? it's a law there doesn't have to be a logical reason. In
fact if you are in PA and are going to be cremated if you have a viewing
you have to go the formaldehyde route. Kind of puzzling Ey.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry
1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS





>
>
> --
> Oz

Ulf Bengtsson wrote:

> Did you know that cremation emits a very substantial amount of mercury vapour?
> When exposed to heat the dental amalgam fillings (�silver fillings�)
> disintegrates into mercury vapour. For more information see:
>
> Mills A. Mercury and crematorium chimneys. Nature 1990.346:615.
>
> K�nzler P, Andree M, (Bennig J). More mercury from crematoria. Nature
> 1991;349:746-747.

    That's what happens when analytical chemists develop too sensitive analytical
methods and have too much time on their hands - did they run mercury analysis on
the cadavers ( specially the really old ones ) to see what level humans tolerated
? Apparently sword fish and other ocean species do quite well ;-)

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> Ulf B

Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> 

> Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
> visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
> RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
> 

Hmmm... Another ecologist hater. Check out
http://home.epix.net/~harlind/eco.htm

In article <7c3hli$igf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, kayla191@my-dejanews.com
writes
>Cremation
>
>Throughout the ages the many races, each with its own customs, traditions and
>mystical and religious backgrounds, have devised numerous methods for
>disposing of discarded physical vehicles. These have varied from setting out
>the corpses to be devoured by wild animals, such as hyenas, crocodiles,
>tigers and vultures; burial, with the body in various postures, in graves,
>caves, tombs, catacombs, sepulchres and pyramids; burning on funeral pyres or
>other forms of cremation; and finally embalming to preserve the corpse
>against decomposition.
>
>Several of these methods are still practised, but burial in Mother Earth is
>probably still the most commonly used method. This is most unhygenic because
>so many deaths are caused by infectious diseases, and in burying these
>corpses the soil becomes contaminated by the causal germs and viruses, which
>may remain contagious for many years. Thus the burial of millions of the
>infected corpses has contaminated large parts of the Earth's surface. By far
>the most effective, hygienic, and also the 'neatest' way of disposing of
>these physical remains is by cremation. The exact technique applied, and
>whether open fires or electrical equipment is used, is immaterial. What is
>important is that cremation is increasingly gaining ground over other
>practices, and this may in future at least contribute towards purifying the
>soil, and reducing sources of infection.

Thinking about it, humans are the only animal, that in the civilised (?)
world, don't recycle/compost their exceretia, (Oh, sh*t, I can't spell
that word), or thier dead bodies. Experts from the Centre for

Now this means that there is a lot of potential fertiliser that could e
put back on the ground, to save on the environmental problems of using
artificial fertilizer to help grow crops...which produces more excretia,
so more fertiliser, etc.

This is a serious question. Does anyone know of what proportion of
artificial fertilisers could be saved by US or UK farming if all human
waste were composted back into fertiliser, or what the tonnage per
person could be given a life span of 70 years?

(let's leave bodies out of this for the moment, as too sensitive)
-- 
Gnome 11

Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> 
> Harold Lindaberry wrote:

> >
> 
> Hmmm... Another ecologist hater. Check out
> http://home.epix.net/~harlind/eco.htm


Thanks for the post, I loved the web site! )G(
-- 
Don Staples
UIN 4653335

Web Offerings:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/

For Forestry Conversation, Information, or Questions:  The news groups
bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry are available. 
http://forestry.miningco.com  is a commercial site that is one of the
best sites  on the web for forestry information and offers a bulletin
board for questions/comments.

Gnome 11 <thopkins@thopkins.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<DreROCAurl52Ewae@thopkins.demon.co.uk>...
> 
> Thinking about it, humans are the only animal, that in the civilised (?)
> world, don't recycle/compost their exceretia, (Oh, sh*t, I can't spell
> that word), or thier dead bodies. 

What about the sewage sludge that the Water Authorities in the UK are only
too happy for you to take to spread on your fields?  Or have I missed
something in your question?

David

In article <36E65F8F.15BA60E2@forestmeister.com>,
  Joseph Zorzin <redoak@forestmeister.com> wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> >
>
> > Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
> > visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
> > RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
> >
>
> Hmmm... Another ecologist hater. Check out
> http://home.epix.net/~harlind/eco.htm
>
I checked out Harold's site per your suggestion, JZ. Thanks for the research.

Part of his rant is:

"Thus the credo of most activist groups ( don't confuse them with FACTS dazzle
them with BULLSHIT )."

Harold should grow more coprophytic fungi. His website is full of it. This
explains why he is such an expert *in the field.* ;)

Daniel B. Wheeler
http://www.oregonwhitetruffles.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Joseph Zorzin wrote in message <36E65F8F.15BA60E2@forestmeister.com>...
 >
>Hmmm... Another ecologist hater. Check out
>http://home.epix.net/~harlind/eco.htm

Nothing wrong with hating ecologists, everything needs regular predation to
keep the system in balance. Can you imaging the desolation if ecologists
were allowed to breed unchecked?


Jim Webster

David Pickersgill wrote:

> Gnome 11 <thopkins@thopkins.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <DreROCAurl52Ewae@thopkins.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> > Thinking about it, humans are the only animal, that in the civilised (?)
> > world, don't recycle/compost their exceretia, (Oh, sh*t, I can't spell
> > that word), or thier dead bodies.
>
> What about the sewage sludge that the Water Authorities in the UK are only
> too happy for you to take to spread on your fields?  Or have I missed
> something in your question?

    In the US and I suppose UK too that's just the insoluble part - the really
soluble good stuff is just put in the rivers and sent on its merry way to the
ocean.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> David

Jim Webster wrote:

> Joseph Zorzin wrote in message <36E65F8F.15BA60E2@forestmeister.com>...
>  >
> >Hmmm... Another ecologist hater. Check out
> >http://home.epix.net/~harlind/eco.htm
>
> Nothing wrong with hating ecologists, everything needs regular predation to
> keep the system in balance. Can you imaging the desolation if ecologists
> were allowed to breed unchecked?

    I'm not agaist ecologists just the " freaky " ones - ones that say " if
this species goes extinct it is and indicator species and shows the world is
going down the crapper ".

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> Jim Webster

Harold Lindaberry wrote:

> > Only if you are a Yank and go for the formaldehyde route.
> 
>     There's no other way - the law you know.

Not true.  The first big thing you need to understand here is that the
Internet doesn't only exist in your backyard.  Now that we've gotten
through with that, I'll proceed with an example.  A loved one was buried
(in the U.S.) in 1994.  We were given the option of whether to pickle
her or not.  Since she asked for a closed casket service we didn't see
any value in pickling her and put her into the earth as-is without
having the funeral home go through special preparation.

-- 

Chris Hedemark
Work: IBM eNetwork Dispatcher
http://www.software.ibm.com/enetwork/dispatcher
Personal: Yonder Way http://www.yonderway.com
    "Earl Svein!  thou now wilt know
     That our lads can make blood flow --
     That the Hedemarkers hale
     Can do more than tap good ale." - Saga of Olaf Haraldson: Part II

Ulf Bengtsson wrote:

> Did you know that cremation emits a very substantial amount of mercury vapour?

Big deal.  I'm convinced that burying does far more to hurt the
environment.  Earth is for the living.  Cemetaries and country clubs are
the two largest wastes of land in our world today.  Worse yet, we bury
people horizontally to maximize waste of surface area (at least some
people have the good sense to stack coffins two high, which is at least
somewhat more efficient than the norm).

I fully intend to be cremated.  When I die, my leftover flesh is but a
discarded shell.  It should not continue to waste space.  I don't
particularly care how my loved ones discard of the ashes as long as they
aren't saved in an urn somewhere taking up space.

If my body cannot be cremated because of some silly future legislation,
then I wish to be buried un-pickled in a burlap sack underneath of a
newly planted tree.  If I must be buried in the ground then at least I
want to be of some value to some living thing.  And sentimental as we
humans are, it would give something much lovelier to my family to
remember me by then some cold morbid headstone in a sea of corpses that
have been preserved to hog real estate for the next few centuries.

I think if this were to become our tradition, we would certainly pay
more attention to our trees than we do now.  Out of respect for the dead
and whatnot.

If it were legal, I think it would be neat for the dead to sell their
bodies to make playthings for the rich.  The money would go to the loved
ones of the dead.  Personally if rich people got a hankering for human
head mountings on their trophy wall as a sort of gimmick, I'd give it up
for a nice sum.  My hands would make nice ash trays.  My legs, properly
preserved, legs to a table.  It is pretty morbid and I would never have
something like that in my house but the rich have eccentric tastes, and
money to burn.  Could a dead human body be worth $50,000 or more in
novelty parts?  My family could use that money.  But my wife would never
tolerate it, as she attaches more sentimentalities to the shell than I
do, so I would probably never really participate in such a thing.  If
such a morbid practice became the norm in rich circles, how much do you
think Bill Gates' head would go for?  Pavarotti's vocal chords?  
Stephen Hawkings' brain?  Bill Clinton's... errr... nevermind.

-- 

Chris Hedemark
Work: IBM eNetwork Dispatcher
http://www.software.ibm.com/enetwork/dispatcher
Personal: Yonder Way http://www.yonderway.com
    "Earl Svein!  thou now wilt know
     That our lads can make blood flow --
     That the Hedemarkers hale
     Can do more than tap good ale." - Saga of Olaf Haraldson: Part II

Chris Hedemark wrote:

> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
>
> > > Only if you are a Yank and go for the formaldehyde route.
> >
> >     There's no other way - the law you know.
>
> Not true.  The first big thing you need to understand here is that the
> Internet doesn't only exist in your backyard.

???

> Now that we've gotten
> through with that, I'll proceed with an example.  A loved one was buried
> (in the U.S.) in 1994.  We were given the option of whether to pickle
> her or not.

    Do you live in PA ? That was the option I was given as the law when I
had a viewing and a cremation for my mother.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

> Since she asked for a closed casket service we didn't see
> any value in pickling her and put her into the earth as-is without
> having the funeral home go through special preparation.
>
> --
>
> Chris Hedemark
> Work: IBM eNetwork Dispatcher
> http://www.software.ibm.com/enetwork/dispatcher
> Personal: Yonder Way http://www.yonderway.com
>     "Earl Svein!  thou now wilt know
>      That our lads can make blood flow --
>      That the Hedemarkers hale
>      Can do more than tap good ale." - Saga of Olaf Haraldson: Part II

DVK <dvank@michweb.net> wrote:

(snip)

> I also want to be useful after death.  I envision my ashes in a coffee can
> stored in a loved one's automobile.  If they get stuck on the ice, sprinkle
> a little bit of me for traction -- glad to be of assistance!

ISTR a story in which cremation ashes were used to create a glaze for a
particular pot (ceramic), which was kept as a remembrance of the dead
person.

I have no desire to be useful to someone after death. 
I would quite like to become a fossil. But I'll settle for soil.

regards
sarah


-- 
Remove duplicate. to reply via email. 
------------------------------------------------------------
'Think of it as evolution in action'  Niven/Pournelle

Chris Hedemark <hedemark@raleigh.ibm.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Big deal.  I'm convinced that burying does far more to hurt the
> environment.  Earth is for the living.  Cemetaries and country clubs are
> the two largest wastes of land in our world today.  Worse yet, we bury
> people horizontally to maximize waste of surface area (at least some
> people have the good sense to stack coffins two high, which is at least
> somewhat more efficient than the norm).

I'd have to refer back to an historian friend of mine for the details,
but ISTR he calculated that his village churchyard (established c. 1100,
like the church) probably contains the remains of some 20,000 people.
Apparently bones show up each time a new grave is excavated, but they
are simply (politely? reverentially?) reinterred in the grave with the
new arrival.

Seems efficient enough to me, provided it's well above the water table.
No wonder the yew trees thrive.

regards
sarah

-- 
Remove duplicate. to reply via email. 
------------------------------------------------------------
'Think of it as evolution in action'  Niven/Pournelle

sarah wrote:

> DVK <dvank@michweb.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I also want to be useful after death.  I envision my ashes in a coffee can
> > stored in a loved one's automobile.  If they get stuck on the ice, sprinkle
> > a little bit of me for traction -- glad to be of assistance!
>
> ISTR a story in which cremation ashes were used to create a glaze for a
> particular pot (ceramic), which was kept as a remembrance of the dead
> person.

That ought to keep it out of the bio cycle for a while ;-)

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> I have no desire to be useful to someone after death.
> I would quite like to become a fossil. But I'll settle for soil.
>
> regards
> sarah
>
> --
> Remove duplicate. to reply via email.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 'Think of it as evolution in action'  Niven/Pournelle

In article <7c67vk$5km$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> writes
>
>
>David Pickersgill wrote:
>
>> Gnome 11 <thopkins@thopkins.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> <DreROCAurl52Ewae@thopkins.demon.co.uk>...
>> >
>> > Thinking about it, humans are the only animal, that in the civilised (?)
>> > world, don't recycle/compost their exceretia, (Oh, sh*t, I can't spell
>> > that word), or thier dead bodies.
>>
>> What about the sewage sludge that the Water Authorities in the UK are only
>> too happy for you to take to spread on your fields?  Or have I missed
>> something in your question?
>
>    In the US and I suppose UK too that's just the insoluble part - the really
>soluble good stuff is just put in the rivers and sent on its merry way to the
>ocean.

The complaint from environmentalists in UK is that there are a lot of
heavy metals left in sewage sludge, so it is a no-no for the like of
organic farms, who might otherwise like the idea.

For the record, the Center for Alternative Technology in Wales recomends
composting domestic toilets, and suggests that the stuff should be left
composting for two years to get rid of any dangerous human bugs.
>
Theo
-- 
Gnome 11

In article <36E6BCE1.7C5D5455@raleigh.ibm.com>, Chris Hedemark
<hedemark@raleigh.ibm.com> writes
>Ulf Bengtsson wrote:
>
>> Did you know that cremation emits a very substantial amount of mercury vapour?
>
>Big deal.  I'm convinced that burying does far more to hurt the
>environment.  Earth is for the living.  Cemetaries and country clubs are
>the two largest wastes of land in our world today.  Worse yet, we bury
>people horizontally to maximize waste of surface area (at least some
>people have the good sense to stack coffins two high, which is at least
>somewhat more efficient than the norm).
>
>I fully intend to be cremated.  When I die, my leftover flesh is but a
>discarded shell.  It should not continue to waste space.  I don't
>particularly care how my loved ones discard of the ashes as long as they
>aren't saved in an urn somewhere taking up space.
>
>If my body cannot be cremated because of some silly future legislation,
>then I wish to be buried un-pickled in a burlap sack underneath of a
>newly planted tree.  If I must be buried in the ground then at least I
>want to be of some value to some living thing.  And sentimental as we
>humans are, it would give something much lovelier to my family to
>remember me by then some cold morbid headstone in a sea of corpses that
>have been preserved to hog real estate for the next few centuries.

Die in England. You can be buried anywhere you want to in anything you
want. If it is not in a graveyard, then the authorities need the
location (in case they later think they have come across a murder) and
for some strange reason, you need two doctor's death certificates, not
one.
>
>I think if this were to become our tradition, we would certainly pay
>more attention to our trees than we do now.  Out of respect for the dead
>and whatnot.
>
>If it were legal, I think it would be neat for the dead to sell their
>bodies to make playthings for the rich.  The money would go to the loved
>ones of the dead.  Personally if rich people got a hankering for human
>head mountings on their trophy wall as a sort of gimmick, I'd give it up
>for a nice sum.  My hands would make nice ash trays.  My legs, properly
>preserved, legs to a table.  It is pretty morbid and I would never have
>something like that in my house but the rich have eccentric tastes, and
>money to burn.  Could a dead human body be worth $50,000 or more in
>novelty parts?  My family could use that money.  But my wife would never
>tolerate it, as she attaches more sentimentalities to the shell than I
>do, so I would probably never really participate in such a thing.  If
>such a morbid practice became the norm in rich circles, how much do you
>think Bill Gates' head would go for?  Pavarotti's vocal chords?  
>Stephen Hawkings' brain?  Bill Clinton's... errr... nevermind.
>

-- 
Gnome 11

Harold Lindaberry wrote:

>     That's what happens when analytical chemists develop too sensitive analytical
> methods and have too much time on their hands - did they run mercury analysis on
> the cadavers ( specially the really old ones ) to see what level humans tolerated
> ? Apparently sword fish and other ocean species do quite well ;-)

We hear that type of vulgar argument from time to time. In this case we are talking
of up to 10 kilograms of mercury per year and crematorium.

Mills A. Mercury and crematorium chimneys. Nature 1990.346:615.

K�nzler P, Andree M, (Bennig J). More mercury from crematoria. Nature
1991;349:746-747.

Ulf B

Ulf Bengtsson wrote:

> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
>
> >     That's what happens when analytical chemists develop too sensitive analytical
> > methods and have too much time on their hands - did they run mercury analysis on
> > the cadavers ( specially the really old ones ) to see what level humans tolerated
> > ? Apparently sword fish and other ocean species do quite well ;-)
>
> We hear that type of vulgar argument from time to time. In this case we are talking
> of up to 10 kilograms of mercury per year and crematorium.
>
> Mills A. Mercury and crematorium chimneys. Nature 1990.346:615.
>
> K�nzler P, Andree M, (Bennig J). More mercury from crematoria. Nature
> 1991;349:746-747.
>
> Ulf B



    That is quite a lot 57.8 gm per day that sure must be a busy crematorium
considering the weight of the teeth vs. body weight vs. the % mercury in the amalgam
vs. the % teeth with fillings. IMO it still would be interesting to run analysis on the

cadavers to determine mercury - I guess I've probably had about as many amalgam
fillings as any one I don't know what % is represented as mercury. Do these numbers
represent effluent or sublimed mercury in the stack ?    Vulgar ? in what way ? Are you

suggesting that cremation should be stopped - that it is a health hazard to others or
to the people with the fillings ?

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

--------------8BDB5C294324CA7580609215
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



Gnome 11 wrote:

> In article <36E6BCE1.7C5D5455@raleigh.ibm.com>, Chris Hedemark
> <hedemark@raleigh.ibm.com> writes
> >Ulf Bengtsson wrote:
> >
> >> Did you know that cremation emits a very substantial amount of mercury vapour?
> >
> >Big deal.  I'm convinced that burying does far more to hurt the
> >environment.  Earth is for the living.  Cemetaries and country clubs are
> >the two largest wastes of land in our world today.  Worse yet, we bury
> >people horizontally to maximize waste of surface area (at least some
> >people have the good sense to stack coffins two high, which is at least
> >somewhat more efficient than the norm).
> >
> >I fully intend to be cremated.  When I die, my leftover flesh is but a
> >discarded shell.  It should not continue to waste space.  I don't
> >particularly care how my loved ones discard of the ashes as long as they
> >aren't saved in an urn somewhere taking up space.
> >
> >If my body cannot be cremated because of some silly future legislation,
> >then I wish to be buried un-pickled in a burlap sack underneath of a
> >newly planted tree.  If I must be buried in the ground then at least I
> >want to be of some value to some living thing.  And sentimental as we
> >humans are, it would give something much lovelier to my family to
> >remember me by then some cold morbid headstone in a sea of corpses that
> >have been preserved to hog real estate for the next few centuries.
>
> Die in England. You can be buried anywhere you want to in anything you
> want. If it is not in a graveyard, then the authorities need the
> location (in case they later think they have come across a murder) and
> for some strange reason, you need two doctor's death certificates, not
> one.

To make doubly sure  one is really dead before burial perhaps  ;-)  regulations -
regulations if it ain't one thing it's another - used to be the governments job to
protect one from birth till death - now from the womb to the tomb - next from the
erection to the resurrection ?

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

> >
> >I think if this were to become our tradition, we would certainly pay
> >more attention to our trees than we do now.  Out of respect for the dead
> >and whatnot.
> >
> >If it were legal, I think it would be neat for the dead to sell their
> >bodies to make playthings for the rich.  The money would go to the loved
> >ones of the dead.  Personally if rich people got a hankering for human
> >head mountings on their trophy wall as a sort of gimmick, I'd give it up
> >for a nice sum.  My hands would make nice ash trays.  My legs, properly
> >preserved, legs to a table.  It is pretty morbid and I would never have
> >something like that in my house but the rich have eccentric tastes, and
> >money to burn.  Could a dead human body be worth $50,000 or more in
> >novelty parts?  My family could use that money.  But my wife would never
> >tolerate it, as she attaches more sentimentalities to the shell than I
> >do, so I would probably never really participate in such a thing.  If
> >such a morbid practice became the norm in rich circles, how much do you
> >think Bill Gates' head would go for?  Pavarotti's vocal chords?
> >Stephen Hawkings' brain?  Bill Clinton's... errr... nevermind.
> >
>
> --
> Gnome 11



--------------8BDB5C294324CA7580609215
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<HTML>
&nbsp;

<P>Gnome 11 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In article &lt;36E6BCE1.7C5D5455@raleigh.ibm.com>,
Chris Hedemark
<BR>&lt;hedemark@raleigh.ibm.com> writes
<BR>>Ulf Bengtsson wrote:
<BR>>
<BR>>> Did you know that cremation emits a very substantial amount of mercury
vapour?
<BR>>
<BR>>Big deal.&nbsp; I'm convinced that burying does far more to hurt the
<BR>>environment.&nbsp; Earth is for the living.&nbsp; Cemetaries and country
clubs are
<BR>>the two largest wastes of land in our world today.&nbsp; Worse yet,
we bury
<BR>>people horizontally to maximize waste of surface area (at least some
<BR>>people have the good sense to stack coffins two high, which is at
least
<BR>>somewhat more efficient than the norm).
<BR>>
<BR>>I fully intend to be cremated.&nbsp; When I die, my leftover flesh
is but a
<BR>>discarded shell.&nbsp; It should not continue to waste space.&nbsp;
I don't
<BR>>particularly care how my loved ones discard of the ashes as long as
they
<BR>>aren't saved in an urn somewhere taking up space.
<BR>>
<BR>>If my body cannot be cremated because of some silly future legislation,
<BR>>then I wish to be buried un-pickled in a burlap sack underneath of
a
<BR>>newly planted tree.&nbsp; If I must be buried in the ground then at
least I
<BR>>want to be of some value to some living thing.&nbsp; And sentimental
as we
<BR>>humans are, it would give something much lovelier to my family to
<BR>>remember me by then some cold morbid headstone in a sea of corpses
that
<BR>>have been preserved to hog real estate for the next few centuries.

<P>Die in England. You can be buried anywhere you want to in anything you
<BR>want. If it is not in a graveyard, then the authorities need the
<BR>location (in case they later think they have come across a murder)
and
<BR>for some strange reason, you need two doctor's death certificates,
not
<BR>one.</BLOCKQUOTE>
To make <U>doubly sure</U>&nbsp; one is really dead before burial perhaps&nbsp;
;-)&nbsp; regulations - regulations if it ain't one thing it's another
- used to be the governments job to protect one from birth till death -
now from the womb to the tomb - next from the erection to the resurrection
?

<P>� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
<BR>Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry
1998

<P>Harold Lindaberry&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; reply E - mail&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
harlind@epix.net
<BR>visit OXGORE website at&nbsp; <A HREF="http://www.epix.net/~harlind">http://www.epix.net/~harlind</A>
<BR>RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>

<P>>
<BR>>I think if this were to become our tradition, we would certainly pay
<BR>>more attention to our trees than we do now.&nbsp; Out of respect for
the dead
<BR>>and whatnot.
<BR>>
<BR>>If it were legal, I think it would be neat for the dead to sell their
<BR>>bodies to make playthings for the rich.&nbsp; The money would go to
the loved
<BR>>ones of the dead.&nbsp; Personally if rich people got a hankering
for human
<BR>>head mountings on their trophy wall as a sort of gimmick, I'd give
it up
<BR>>for a nice sum.&nbsp; My hands would make nice ash trays.&nbsp; My
legs, properly
<BR>>preserved, legs to a table.&nbsp; It is pretty morbid and I would
never have
<BR>>something like that in my house but the rich have eccentric tastes,
and
<BR>>money to burn.&nbsp; Could a dead human body be worth $50,000 or more
in
<BR>>novelty parts?&nbsp; My family could use that money.&nbsp; But my
wife would never
<BR>>tolerate it, as she attaches more sentimentalities to the shell than
I
<BR>>do, so I would probably never really participate in such a thing.&nbsp;
If
<BR>>such a morbid practice became the norm in rich circles, how much do
you
<BR>>think Bill Gates' head would go for?&nbsp; Pavarotti's vocal chords?
<BR>>Stephen Hawkings' brain?&nbsp; Bill Clinton's... errr... nevermind.
<BR>>

<P>--
<BR>Gnome 11</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;</HTML>

--------------8BDB5C294324CA7580609215--

In article <3RT89AACfr52Ew$L@thopkins.demon.co.uk>, Gnome 11 <thopkins@t
hopkins.demon.co.uk> writes

>The complaint from environmentalists in UK is that there are a lot of
>heavy metals left in sewage sludge, so it is a no-no for the like of
>organic farms, who might otherwise like the idea.

There are a lot of heavy metals in soils, too. This is fortunate as most
are essential. In my experience (as an ex-user of some 30MG++ over 30
yrs) it would be much more use if it had more copper and zinc.

>For the record, the Center for Alternative Technology in Wales recomends
>composting domestic toilets, and suggests that the stuff should be left
>composting for two years to get rid of any dangerous human bugs.

In that case a standard digested sludge from a sewage works is
considerably more efficient. I dread to think of the piles of compost
and masses of transportation that would be required to do this for the
sewage from a medium sized town.

[NB Apologies for my absence, I am having problems with my newsreader.]
[Please don't cheer.]

-- 
Oz

Dental amalgams (�silver fillings�) contain 50% of mercury by weight. Half of your �silver
fillings� are pure mercury.

Mills calculated with an average of five fillings per subject or 3 grams of mercury. The
crematorium used in the calculations performed an average of 3723 cremations per year over
the last five years. Mills calculated an emission of 11 kilograms of mercury per year from
this crematorium alone.

K�nzler P et al performed measurements in two crematoria in Switzerland. They say in their
letter that their findings are in good agreement with calculations performed by Mills. They
found no correlation between mercury emission and body weight, model of coffin, medical
history, age or sex. They concluded that the mercury emissions are probably due to amalgam
fillings.

As a consequence of these and other findings crematoria in Sweden have been/are being
fitted with filters.

Ulf B

Ulf Bengtsson wrote:

> Dental amalgams (�silver fillings�) contain 50% of mercury by weight. Half of your �silver
> fillings� are pure mercury.
>
> Mills calculated with an average of five fillings per subject or 3 grams of mercury. The
> crematorium used in the calculations performed an average of 3723 cremations per year over
> the last five years. Mills calculated an emission of 11 kilograms of mercury per year from
> this crematorium alone.
>
> K�nzler P et al performed measurements in two crematoria in Switzerland. They say in their
> letter that their findings are in good agreement with calculations performed by Mills. They
> found no correlation between mercury emission and body weight, model of coffin, medical
> history, age or sex. They concluded that the mercury emissions are probably due to amalgam
> fillings.
>
> As a consequence of these and other findings crematoria in Sweden have been/are being
> fitted with filters.

    Thanks about the composition and information, I'm still not clear about whether this 11 kg
is emissions from the stack or total including stack deposits- a more significant number might
be average mercury levels down wind vs. distance from the stack not that IMO it represents a
real potential health hazard - if it is of real health concern they are interested in - did
they check on benz a pyrene from the burning fat or dioxin.? What is the value of the 11 kg of
mercury and the 11 kg of silver maybe it could be a money making recycling process - but I
suspect it might be simpler to just pull the teeth prior to incineration whether it is looked
at as a health hazard or a recycling process either way it would save a lot of money I'm sure
the cadaver wouldn't voice an objection.. That might make a more logical law but then again who
says laws need to be logical.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS



> Ulf B