Steely Dan Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 Please read snippets of articles before voting!! Thanks! An article explaining that it's a bunch of hooey and how some believe it actually occurs with a rational explanation. Snippet of article; Ignition and wick-effect burning. Cases of claimed SHC are rare which suggests that the conditions necessary for wick-effect burning to occur are also rare. The most obvious requirement for a body to be set alight is that the person would have to be dead or greatly incapacitated; a heart attack, stroke, or severe inebriation being obvious candidates. Cigarettes, or other tobacco and related products, are often cited as the initial cause of ignition. The problem with this is that cigarette ends, although very hot, do not set light to flesh; they can burn through skin but are extinguished in the process. Cigarettes, however, do readily set light to inflammable clothing and furniture. Whether cigarettes or some other source of ignition, the source is external. The vast majority of fires that begin this way will spread and become a normal house fire. For a case to be described as SHC, the fire has to stay localised to the body. This is where the wick-effect comes into play. If body fat starts to melt and is absorbed by some clothing or sinks into the chair's stuffing, the wick-effect takes over. This means that instead of large flames being produced which could spread the fire, localised burning takes place with small, hot flames which are fuelled as more fat melts as the body burns. As long as the body is not too close to surrounding objects, the burning will not spread easily. Even newspapers, which burn readily if a flame is applied, require very high temperatures before they will combust spontaneously. Lastly, as the body fat is used up the flames start to die away. The item that the body is sitting in or lying on is prevented from burning further by the insulating soot and ash that was produced in the fire. Summary of requirements: * A dead or incapacitated individual; * a source of ignition; * inflammable clothing or furniture; * body fat melting; * a potential wick such as clothing or furniture stuffing; * enough isolation from surrounding objects to prevent direct ignition of them; * the production of insulating soot and ash to prevent the fire burning further once the fat has burned off. For a burning case to look like SHC, all of the above conditions need to be satisfied. This is probably what makes these cases so rare. Conclusion. Spontaneous Human Combustion as a phenomenon itself does not exist. It is most likely used as an explanation for deaths involving burning which occur under very unusual circumstances. Although it may seem impossible for a body to burn in a chair and leave most of the surrounding area untouched, the deaths can be explained without the need for fantastical theories. ____________________________________________________________ An article that argues the case for spontaneous human combustion as a natural occurrence. In December 1966, the body of 92-year-old Dr. J. Irving Bentley was discovered in his Pennsylvania home by a meter reader. Actually, only part of Dr. Bentley's leg and slippered foot were found. The rest of his body had been burned to ashes. A hole in the bathroom floor was the only evidence of the fire that had killed him; the rest of the house remained perfectly intact. How could a man catch fire -- with no apparent source of a spark or flame -- and then burn so completely without igniting anything around him? Dr. Bentley's case and several hundred others like it have been labeled "spontaneous human combustion" (SHC). Although he and other victims of the phenomenon burned almost completely, their surroundings, and even sometimes their clothes, remained virtually untouched In 1938, a 22-year-old woman named Phyllis Newcombe was leaving a dance at the Shire Hall in Chelmsford, England. As she descended the staircase of the hall, her dress suddenly caught fire with no apparent cause. She ran back into the ballroom, where she collapsed. Several people rushed to her aid, but she later died in the hospital. Although the theory was that Newcombe's dress had been ignited by a cigarette or a lit match thrown from the stairwell, no evidence of either was ever found. Coroner L.F. Beccles commented on the incident, "From all my experience I have never come across a case so very mysterious as this." In 1951, a 67-year-old widow named Mary Reeser was at home in St. Petersburg, Florida. On the morning of July 2, a neighbor discovered that Mary's front door was hot. When she broke into the apartment with the help of two workmen, they found Mary in an easy chair with a black circle around her. Her head had been burned down to the size of a teacup. The only other parts of her that remained were part of her backbone and part of her left foot. Other than Mary's charred remains, there was very little evidence of fire in her apartment. A forensic pathologist, Dr. Wilton Krogman, said of the incident, "[it's] the most amazing thing I have ever seen. As I review it, the short hairs on my neck bristle with vague fear. Were I living in the Middle Ages I'd mutter something about black magic." But the police report cited a far less supernatural explanation for the cause of death: a dropped cigarette, which ignited Mrs. Reeser's highly flammable rayon-acetate nightgown. In 1982, a mentally handicapped woman named Jean Lucille "Jeannie" Saffin was sitting with her 82-year-old father at their home in Edmonton, in northern London. According to her father, a flash of light caught his eye. When he turned to his daughter, he saw that her upper body was enveloped in flames. Mr. Saffin and his son-in-law, Donald Carroll, managed to put out the blaze, but Jeannie died of her third-degree burns about a week after entering the hospital. According to Carroll, "the flames were coming from her mouth like a dragon and they were making a roaring noise." There was no smoke or fire damage in the room. Some have wondered if an ember from her father's pipe ignited Jeannie's clothing. In most cases a source of fire is the likely explanation but some are unexplained. Is this like UFO sightings where the vast majority are hooey and it's a real thing that's extremely rare?
stuckincincy Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 Please read snippets of articles before voting!! Thanks! Snippet of article; Well, we have all come across flaming ass*oles that repeatedly post copyrighted text without concern if a site ends up getting sued because of their actions...
Steely Dan Posted April 14, 2009 Author Posted April 14, 2009 what part starts on fire first ? I don't know mead but it's theorized that alcoholics or those who are drunk are prime victims.
mead107 Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I am not drinking 151 rum . Did flaming shots when I was younger . Wine is mellow so I know that I will not burst in to flames .
Steely Dan Posted April 14, 2009 Author Posted April 14, 2009 Well, we have all come across flaming ass*oles that repeatedly post copyrighted text without concern if a site ends up getting sued because of their actions... I believe Lori said that snippets are ok as long as the full article is linked. So Cincy check with her. If it's ok then you're just taking another swipe at me because you have some sort of unexplained hatred for me. I don't see why you need to keep making these personal attacks. Aren't they against the rules? Notice I don't respond to you in the ridiculous way you attack me? Perhaps you need to think about who is taking the high road and who is taking the low road.
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I don't know about human combustion, but I have nailed some hot chicks in my time.
/dev/null Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I don't know about human combustion, but I have nailed some hot chicks in my time. I didn't know inflatable women were microwavable
Beerball Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I didn't know inflatable women were microwavable huh, I was figuring decomposition.
stuckincincy Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I believe Lori said that snippets are ok as long as the full article is linked. So Cincy check with her. If it's ok then you're just taking another swipe at me because you have some sort of unexplained hatred for me. I don't see why you need to keep making these personal attacks. Aren't they against the rules? Notice I don't respond to you in the ridiculous way you attack me? Perhaps you need to think about who is taking the high road and who is taking the low road.\ Typically, 150 words or less, with attribution that clearly names the author, the publisher, the date of publication, and a clear expression of - not an alias - to the source link. Got it?
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I didn't know inflatable women were microwavable Of course they're not. They're far too big to fit in a microwave.
Bullpen Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I've been advised, by Mr Beerball, that I am to vote yes on your spontanious combustion, Steely. Where exactly is THAT voting button?
Steely Dan Posted April 14, 2009 Author Posted April 14, 2009 \ Typically, 150 words or less, with attribution that clearly names the author, the publisher, the date of publication, and a clear expression of - not an alias - to the source link. Got it? And that is written where as a rule, where and why are you the only one to call me on it in all the years I've been here?
Steely Dan Posted April 14, 2009 Author Posted April 14, 2009 I don't know about human combustion, but I have nailed some hot chicks in my time. huh, I was figuring decomposition.
stuckincincy Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 And that is written where as a rule, where and why are you the only one to call me on it in all the years I've been here? It's a convention in publishing...don't be captious. And a subject of countless lawsuits through the years. Feynman, I am calling you on it because I'm right and you are wrong. You have on several occasions put forth page after page of unattributed, full-text postings, without a stitch of attribution. I'm not after you, but I am imploring you to see sense, and change your ways regards this. Posting lengthy liftings of copyrighted material puts TBD at risk. That goes for everybody.
Chef Jim Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 I am not drinking 151 rum . Did flaming shots when I was younger . Wine is mellow so I know that I will not burst in to flames . Do yourself a favor and don't cook with wine. Or at least be very careful when you do.
stuckincincy Posted April 14, 2009 Posted April 14, 2009 My complexion is looking kind of waxy. And mine wanes. My blood circulation seems to be OK, though...today.
Steely Dan Posted April 14, 2009 Author Posted April 14, 2009 It's a convention in publishing...don't be captious. And a subject of countless lawsuits through the years. Feynman, I am calling you on it because I'm right and you are wrong. You have on several occasions put forth page after page of unattributed, full-text postings, without a stitch of attribution. I'm not after you, but I am imploring you to see sense, and change your ways regards this. Posting lengthy liftings of copyrighted material puts TBD at risk. That goes for anybody. BS, you've been after me for a long time. Your serious personal attacks prove that. That's why I'd like confirmation from Lori. You may be right and if you are I'll change my ways but don't try to tell me you're not after me when you call me odious for trying to encourage those who are facing horrible medical problems. I have no idea why you hate me as much as you do but it's obvious you do. So save the BS about not being after me because you have been for a long time. My complexion is looking kind of waxy. Is looking? How many years have you been using a mirror?
Recommended Posts