August Stundie Finals

[Travis]

In what way? By piling them on top of each other and setting them on fire? With no external fuel? With no flammable material surrounding the bodies? No. They can't be burned that way. I already asked the question in the Science forum and got the answer.

And yet the Nazi's designed and built crematoria that worked on this principle. Once an external fuel source got some bodies burning all they needed to do was tightly control airflow along with the addition of new bodies and they would work indefinitely.

If you think otherwise take it up in the Holocaust denial thread.

And remember their goal was to dispose of the bodies not produce energy or use the burning bodies to do any work aside from helping to burn other bodies.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I used to burn poop for a living running an incinerator at a wastewater treatment plant. The de-watered "Cake" was usually in the 10-12% range of organic solids with the rest being water, we would have to add a few gallons of fuel per hour to keep the temperature up (~1200-1400f) (we usually used about 40 gallons of fuel per day, 4-5 days a week for a 6.3 million gallon per day plant). At times we could get the solids content up to 15% and at that point we didn't have to add any fuel, just keep adding more cake and it would be self sustaining.

Now then, the Googles tells me that the human body is anywhere between 40-60% organic solids (mainly depending upon the persons fat content) with the rest being water. Logic tells me that there shouldn't be any issue with burning bodies without adding fuel once they have been ignited as long as you keep a decent flow of oxygen going to it.

There are also many reports throughout history of massive casualties where the only thing that you could do was to burn the bodies by the thousands (Hiroshima\Nagasaki in 1945 are the last ones that I can think of off of the top of my head that were well documented).

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Boy this is going to be close this month.

That's why I'm holding out my vote.

If everything goes right I will be sitting at my computer with ten seconds left
and hopefully I can send some sap serenading to Smiley's about his Stundie.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I actually found similar articles this morning while looking into the question. That paper has a reference to procedures for building pyres:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)/State Veterinary Service (SVS) (2001). – State
Veterinary Service Veterinary Instructions, Procedures and
Emergency Routines (VIPER), Chapter 3. Departmental
Guidance, available on request from DEFRA Library, London,
27 pp.

..but I haven't been able to find that document.

Any idea how they build these things, and maintain the burning process? Being a Vet, do you have access to the above procedures manual?

That linked article--Carcass disposal: lessons from Great Britain following the foot and mouth disease outbreaks of 2001--was interesting. Sounds like they used several different methods of disposing of large quantities of dead farm animals with burning on pyres being one of them. They mentioned that one problem with that method was that material for pyre burning became increasingly difficult to obtain. The price for fuel woods rapidly increased and poor quality coal made it difficult to achieve complete combustion. There was some discussion about continuous feed incinerators that you could feed carcasses into that required the carcasses alternate with wood fuel. There was a picture of one of the pyres from 2001. Looks to me like they set some bales of hay on the ground, stacked some logs in a criss-cross pattern on top of the hay bales, stacked some pallets on top of the logs and then put the carcasses on top of that before setting them on fire. I assume those were carcasses on top. They were all covered with more straw so you can't really see what they were burning. But whatever it was, it was burning furiously.

If burning humans is similar enough to burning farm animal carcasses for this article to have probative value to this discussion, I didn't see anything that sounds like it's accurate to say that a human body does not need fuel to burn or that once they catch on fire, they'll continue burning..

 

[jargon buster]

If burning humans is similar enough to burning farm animal carcasses for this article to have probative value to this discussion, I didn't see anything that sounds like it's accurate to say that a human body does not need fuel to burn or that once they catch on fire, they'll continue burning..

Cases of alledged Spontaneous Human Combustion clearly display where bodies have burnt without any additional fuel source.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I used to burn poop for a living running an incinerator at a wastewater treatment plant. The de-watered "Cake" was usually in the 10-12% range of organic solids with the rest being water, we would have to add a few gallons of fuel per hour to keep the temperature up (~1200-1400f) (we usually used about 40 gallons of fuel per day, 4-5 days a week for a 6.3 million gallon per day plant). At times we could get the solids content up to 15% and at that point we didn't have to add any fuel, just keep adding more cake and it would be self sustaining.

Now then, the Googles tells me that the human body is anywhere between 40-60% organic solids (mainly depending upon the persons fat content) with the rest being water. Logic tells me that there shouldn't be any issue with burning bodies without adding fuel once they have been ignited as long as you keep a decent flow of oxygen going to it.

There are also many reports throughout history of massive casualties where the only thing that you could do was to burn the bodies by the thousands (Hiroshima\Nagasaki in 1945 are the last ones that I can think of off of the top of my head that were well documented).

I have yet to find a report of cremating either a single body on a funeral pyre or the mass incineration of multiple bodies that was accomplished by lighting a pile of bodies on fire and then just adding more bodies as the fire started to burn down. I agree that it seems logical that human beings could theoretically continue burning once they catch on fire. Evidently that pesky water content gets in the way, however, because it's something that has never been done. Even the Nazis stacked wood or straw or something that will burn between layers of bodies and then topped it off with flammable liquids when they built their pyres. They needed fuel to burn bodies because, as a fuel source human bodies just plain suck.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I have yet to find a report of cremating either a single body on a funeral pyre or the mass incineration of multiple bodies that was accomplished by lighting a pile of bodies on fire and then just adding more bodies as the fire started to burn down. I agree that it seems logical that human beings could theoretically continue burning once they catch on fire. Evidently that pesky water content gets in the way, however, because it's something that has never been done. Even the Nazis stacked wood or straw or something that will burn between layers of bodies and then topped it off with flammable liquids when they built their pyres. They needed fuel to burn bodies because, as a fuel source human bodies just plain suck.

So what?

 

[Travis]

Well then I guess that settles it. Auschwitz didn't exist.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have yet to find a report of cremating either a single body on a funeral pyre or the mass incineration of multiple bodies that was accomplished by lighting a pile of bodies on fire and then just adding more bodies as the fire started to burn down. I agree that it seems logical that human beings could theoretically continue burning once they catch on fire. Evidently that pesky water content gets in the way, however, because it's something that has never been done. Even the Nazis stacked wood or straw or something that will burn between layers of bodies and then topped it off with flammable liquids when they built their pyres. They needed fuel to burn bodies because, as a fuel source human bodies just plain suck.

So just out of interest, if you didn't read about at least one case, how are you arguing against it?


You do realise that there is a difference between a pyre and a furnace? Also between the furnace of a crematorium and that used to produce breeze (for example)?

When i burn wood in my stove it burns under different conditions to those found in an iron age smelter, or a blacksmiths forge. Neither does the wood match the performance when burned under grill in a brazier. Am I therefore to suppose that the smelting of, or smithing of, metals were impossible?


Nope. We instead compare the furnace to other self sustaining furnaces, instead of different kinds of burning bodies that produce significantly different results in significantly different methods. The nazis were not producing funeral earns, their concern was not reduction to an even dust, it was to burn away flesh and tissue. To maintain a sanitised envornment for the guards, not the workers.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And by the way, at work I have seen a number mammals that touched live conductors burn happily long after the protection has switched off the power. This can make some pretty roaring fires if a badger or fox is decomposed enough to be ripe.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I have yet to find a report of cremating either a single body on a funeral pyre or the mass incineration of multiple bodies that was accomplished by lighting a pile of bodies on fire and then just adding more bodies as the fire started to burn down. I agree that it seems logical that human beings could theoretically continue burning once they catch on fire. Evidently that pesky water content gets in the way, however, because it's something that has never been done. Even the Nazis stacked wood or straw or something that will burn between layers of bodies and then topped it off with flammable liquids when they built their pyres. They needed fuel to burn bodies because, as a fuel source human bodies just plain suck.

The incinerator was specifically designed to burn wet materials (6 levels, a rotating rake that knocked down the ashes to lower levels letting the hot gasses from the burning material to flow over the newer material removing moisture etc.). A mass crematorium would work essentially the same way, while a simple stack of bodies would probably need to be burned a few times after being shuffled around. Don't forget that I mentioned a good airflow as a requirement for it to work.

If one were to start off with the intent of disposing of a very large number of bodies by cremation with no intent to segregate the ashes then it would make sense to make an incinerator/crematorium that used the same basic principals as the poop incinerator that I once operated.

Make a heat resistant box (or cylinder probably) with a thick grate that has 6" to 1' holes at the bottom (as a guess), drop the bodies in from the top a few at a time, have a heat source at the bottom (at least at first) and as the bodies on the bottom start to burn and crumble into pieces they drop through the grate where they can be stirred to get more air to get hotter (and burn faster) and then remove the ashes once the fuel is removed from them. That heat then dries out the bodies above which will eventually catch fire at some point and so on.

I doubt that you could do an entirely untended type setup but there's no reason to think that it's not possible to do nor that it would take a whole lot of technology to accomplish although it would be pretty grisly work to have to do.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Let me just ask you a question: Did you sign up to this forum just to argue against a point that nobody's making?

No. I registered here because at first glance it seemed to be a forum where intelligent, critical thinking people could gather to discuss a wide variety of topics.

Might I suggest a better use of your time?

Better than spending time interacting with people who mock others for making factually correct statements that they themselves concede are correct? People who believe that "the Nazis did it" is a substitute for scientific proof? Yes, I believe there is a better use of my time.

 

[Tomtomkent]

People who believe that "the Nazis did it" is a substitute for scientific proof? Yes, I believe there is a better use of my time.

Well that is a gross representation of the argument made. The reason we know the Nazis did it is because we have evidence.

For a start, other than your cry of "Nuh-huh they can't because if they burned the bodies a whole different way they would have needed fuel" you have offered no proof of concept or evidence at all. Your entire argument has avoided addressing the specifics of the type of furnace, and conditions of burning. It also ignores that your basic premise of humans being so poor a fuel as to not be able to self sustain combustion is wrong.

You are simply ignoring that the science is real, and has been used for other more benign purposes in the past. The theory you deny is built upon science, archeaology and historical evidence. To claim this is a substitute for science is wrong.

 

[GlennB]

I have yet to find a report of cremating either a single body on a funeral pyre or the mass incineration of multiple bodies that was accomplished by lighting a pile of bodies on fire and then just adding more bodies as the fire started to burn down. I agree that it seems logical that human beings could theoretically continue burning once they catch on fire. Evidently that pesky water content gets in the way, however, because it's something that has never been done. Even the Nazis stacked wood or straw or something that will burn between layers of bodies and then topped it off with flammable liquids when they built their pyres. They needed fuel to burn bodies because, as a fuel source human bodies just plain suck.

Go to Google images, enter "foot and mouth" burn pit , and you'll see a report where 20,000 cattle carcases were burned in short order, among many others. The fuel is only essential to start the process, thereafter it can become self-sustaining.

Also look up "spontaneous combustion" in humans (as has been mentioned upthread). This has been tested on individual pig carcasses wrapped in cloth and the myth of "spontaneous combustion" debunked.

 

[uke2se]

No. I registered here because at first glance it seemed to be a forum where intelligent, critical thinking people could gather to discuss a wide variety of topics.

Well, you're in luck. A lot of us are intelligent and able to think critically, and you're free to dicuss almost whatever you want.

Better than spending time interacting with people who mock others for making factually correct statements that they themselves concede are correct? People who believe that "the Nazis did it" is a substitute for scientific proof? Yes, I believe there is a better use of my time.

You still don't understand how the Stundies work, I get that. Could you try to get over yourself and just drop it?

 

[TSR]

You still don't understand how the Stundies work, I get that. Could you try to get over yourself and just drop it?

In his defense, CH is not the only poster recently not to get it.


In almost exactly the same way.



On a similar range of subjects.



Just sayin'.