Irish State Pathologist: Spontaneous human combustion a “myth”
When, in September, west Galway coroner Dr Ciarán McLoughlin ruled that a 76-year-old pensioner had died as a result of spontaneous human combustion it was, unsurprisingly, widely covered.
Today’s Irish Times notes the comments of Irish State Pathologist, Prof Marie Cassidy, at a separate inquest at Dublin Coroner’s Court where she is reported to have said that spontaneous combustion was “a myth and a theory that has not been valid for 500 years.” From the Irish Times report
Prof Cassidy said outside the court that spontaneous human combustion was a “misnomer”.
“It captures everybody’s imagination, this idea that somebody suddenly erupts into flame.
“The pattern is unusual in that the fire is localised to the body and the immediate surrounds because most fires that we deal with cause extensive damage to the fabric of the building, the body and everything else that is associated with it,” she continued.
“Because of that, this name tripped off the tongue. It goes back to Charles Dickens in Bleak House, where he describes a man dying with spontaneous combustion,” Prof Cassidy added.
But it shouldn’t trip off the tongue of a coroner, particularly when others might believe such rulings have authority. Just because investigators can’t find evidence of the source of a fire doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a source of some kind. Whether that should mean, possibly, an open verdict or death by misadventure is another matter.
[So no champagne dinner then? - Ed] No.
Topic: Society and Culture
Region: Global, Ireland
There’ surely a cue for a song here:
http://bit.ly/9RPNln
Rc indeed
http://youtu.be/wmin5WkOuPw
Thank you, BtB. I think if I had to listen to much more of that I might spontaneously combust myself.
What’s got two legs and goes woof?
”To prove that a human being might burn like a candle, Dr. John de Haan of the California Criminalistic Institute wrapped a dead pig in a blanket, poured a small amount of gasoline on the blanket, and ignited it. Even the bones were destroyed after five hours of continuous burning.”
When it starts snowing this year, a politician in a blanket may be the answer to those stricken by fuel poverty.
Two “facts” turn me on to this story:
1. Many years ago I chaired the local joint crematorium panel, and so — as a rank civilian — had the process explained to me.
As I recall, once a normally-fatted human body reaches a temperature somewhere above 700 degrees C., the fat will combust, burn and consume the rest.
Cremaroria work at a higher temperature to avoid the distasteful black smoke produced thereby.
The reported cases of “spontaneous combustion” seem all to involve fgatty-smoke deposits, which suggest to me that the incineration
Obviously this entry isn’t worked.
Sorry.
I’ll try again late.
OK: that effort on a iPad was a complete disaster.
Now, fully equipped with the tools for the job, a second go.
Two “facts” turn me on to this story:
1. Many years ago I chaired the local joint crematorium panel, and so — as a rank civilian — had the process explained to me.
As I recall, once a normally-fatted human body reaches a temperature somewhere above 700 degrees C., the fat will combust, burn and consume the rest. Once the cremators are up to working temperature, the knack is to keep feeding in cadavers. Then the process is remarkably efficient — in those days (before 1982) it needed about 40p worth of Thames Gas per stiff.
Crematoria work at a much higher temperature to avoid the distasteful black smoke produced thereby.
The reported cases of “spontaneous combustion” seem all to involve fatty-smoke deposits, which suggest to me that the incineration was incomplete or at a lower temperature.
2. The celebrated use by Dickens of spontaneous combustion (in Bleak House, one of my top three Dickens novels) caused a small furore, which is why all subsequent editions have that justifying authorial preface. He was basing the convenient — and appropriate in plotting terms — death of the rag-and-bone man, Krook, on accounts of the end of Countess Cornelia de Bandi Cesenate in Verona, 1731, and (I believe) the account by Giuseppe Bianchini. A translation of Bianchini is on-line.
Dickens (publishing in 1852) had literary precedents: Captain Marryat (Jacob Faithful, 1834), Herman Melville (Redburn, 1842) and Nikolai Gogol (Dead Souls, 1849) had all beaten him to it.
Fiction apart, if the phenomenon is spontaneous human combustion is to be totally — ahem! — exploded, there are numerous deaths to be credibly ascribed to other means.
Looking at the preview, that seems a better post. Sorry for the previous ones.
“Fiction apart, if the phenomenon [of] spontaneous human combustion is to be totally — ahem! — exploded, there are numerous deaths to be credibly ascribed to other means.”
No, Malcolm.
It’s for those who imagine that the phenomenon actually occured to provide evidence that spontaneous human combustion has ever taken place.
Absence of evidence [of a trigger source] is not evidence of absence [of a trigger source].
And literary examples are not credible witnesses.
In the meantime, here’s the Skeptic’s Dictionary entry on SHC again – which cites stories collected by Jonas Dupont published in De Incendiis Corporis Humani Spontaneis (1763) [referenced here].
Interestingly that last linked reference includes this note on the inspiration behind Jonas Dupont’s 1763 collection of stories. And something on your literary examples.
Malcolm, the combustion process requires an oxidizing agent so the only way that a smoldering fire could be sustained is if it burned from the outside in, and not vice versa. Since the body is mostly water, that would serve to cool the outter layers of fat below its ignition point by converting the heat into steam and drawing it away, thereby extinguishing the fire. I don’t see how the chemistry of fire can support a process that leads to complete burning.
Pete Baker @ 11:23 pm:
Why do we have this sniping every time? Clearly I am not welcome on any Baker thread; but why?
Oddly enough, I might just have enough marbles left not to confuse fiction and reality. Nor did I actually give unquestioning credence to SHC. I used the term “phenomenon”, which (where I come from) is generally a clue.
Much of the rest of your cut-and-paste was implicit in what I put up.
Incidentally, once SHC has been eliminated, according to some texts the next likeliest explanation has to be murder.
A happy bunny now?
Why do we have this sniping every time? Clearly I am not welcome on any Baker thread; but why?
A tad overly sensitive there, Malcolm. It was a straight response to your comment. And SHC is a ‘phenomenon’ that has yet to be proven to exist.
Incidentally, once SHC has been eliminated, according to some texts the next likeliest explanation has to be murder.
Again, no.
Spontaneous human combustion does not have to be eliminated.
Murder, on the other hand, does.
Alias @ 11:36 pm:
Again, see previous comment.
That apart, I concur.
Anyone who wants to “improve” on Dickens, can start here in Chapter XXXIII:
Note the belly-laugh implied in Sol’s Arms