• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Disposing of the Dead: A Third Option

Skwim

Veteran Member
"Bear these words in mind, as I tell you about a new, ghoulish way of disposing of the dead.

Not burial, and not cremation.

No. It is a liquefaction process called by a variety of names — flameless cremation, green cremation or the “Fire to Water” method, and chemically known as alkaline hydrolysis.

20xp-cremation-2-master768.jpg

An alkaline hydrolysis unit at a funeral home in Windom, Minnesota.
Here is how it works (and, if you have just eaten, forgive me).

A machine uses a chemical bath to dissolve protein, blood, and fat.

After that happens, what’s left (in addition to the soul)?

:bssquare: A coffee-colored liquid consisting of minerals, salts, amino acids, soap and water.
:bssquare: Powdery bone.
:bssquare: Weakened bones that can be crushed into ash.
:bssquare: Any metal that was in the body, like dental fillings.

Now – imagine that for your mother.

Alkaline hydrolysis is not new. It was first patented in the United States in 1888 “for the treatment of bones and animal waste.” The process was modernized in the 1990s, when it was used to dispose of human cadavers and dead pets.

The process has become all the rage among younger funeral directors.

Why is alkaline hydolysis gaining in popularity?

Well, because for some people, reverence for the environment seems to take precedence over reverence for the dead.

:bssquare:Consider the fact that the death rate is close to one hundred percent. This means that at a certain point, we will run out of land for cemeteries.
:bssquare:The carbon footprint for liquefaction is about a tenth of that caused by cremation.
:bssquare:Liquefaction uses a fraction of the energy of a standard cremator and releases no fumes.

Then, there are other benefits of liquefaction. The resulting fluid contains nutrients. It can be used, and is already being used, as a fertilizer.
source
But what about the cost?

"in Minnesota, basic alkaline hydrolysis costs about $2,400, while the cost of direct cremation -- that is, simple cremation without an on-site ceremony -- ranges from about $800 to more than $4,300, depending on the provider. The national average cost for a traditional funeral, including burial and a headstone or monument, is about $10,000."
source
The possibilities seem endless.

th


Seriously though, what do you think?
.
 

Politesse

Amor Vincit Omnia
I always thought the original incinerator method - wherein most of you ends up as air pollution - was a bit grody.
 

Silverscale derg

Active Member
How about consuming the dead? Leaving them out to rot? Letting nature take over? I don't mean any offense but humans slaughter countless animals. Wolves, coyotes, and foxes are not commonly eaten yet are killed in large numbers and for idiotic reasons like "canadian" wolves which sure are not from the US but that is a human made border so it's not like they know that. Coyotes same thing. Most sure take the fur but if you're going to kill for a small thing like fur or a head and throw the body away then what's wrong with treating humans like that? There needs to be peace and equality
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

:bssquare:Consider the fact that the death rate is close to one hundred percent. This means that at a certain point, we will run out of land for cemeteries.
:bssquare:The carbon footprint for liquefaction is about a tenth of that caused by cremation.
:bssquare:Liquefaction uses a fraction of the energy of a standard cremator and releases no fumes.

Then, there are other benefits of liquefaction. The resulting fluid contains nutrients. It can be used, and is already being used, as a fertilizer.
source
This is just selling a product. Burial in a paper sack (or even without the paper sack) is the most environmentally friendly way to dispose of dead bodies.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That is a scary looking machine. I'd hate to be alone in the dark with it, and look at those trapezoidal shaped supports! Yikes! The people who handle the corpses probably have nightmares about it. What they should do is firstly give it a rectangular profile instead of circular, even though it may be harder to clean and less efficient. Secondly it should not look like just any old machine any more than a hearse looks like a standard automobile. It should have decorations. As is it looks like a Dalek turning people into coffee.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t see how it would hold no respect for the dead if done in the proper spirit of reverence.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This seems to replace one complicated method of corpse disposal with another. Whatever happened to allowing human corpses to be dealt with in the same manner as every other animal on this planet? Left to the surface, it becomes food for many an organism and the bones gradually weathered to dust by the elements. Why not that?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
This seems to replace one complicated method of corpse disposal with another. Whatever happened to allowing human corpses to be dealt with in the same manner as every other animal on this planet? Left to the surface, it becomes food for many an organism and the bones gradually weathered to dust by the elements. Why not that?
To each his own, but is that's how want your loved ones taken care of?



morto%2Bno%2Bbrejo%2B1.jpg



.
 
Last edited:

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
To each his own, but is that's how want your loved ones taken care of?



morto%2Bno%2Bbrejo%2B1.jpg



.
No preservatives, and a pine box under the cedars (maybe not even that--linen or natural fibers...or nothing at all), not too deep because it takes longer to decay...assuming it's a moist environment...dry environments are notorious for natural preservation. I see no need to keep anyone's atoms together for centuries or millennia, as we turn over most of the atoms in our body every few months, anyway...me today is not me five years ago, nor five years from now...

Except for my wife, I have no idea how any others of my loved ones want to be treated, or what their thoughts on the matter are...
 
Top