• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Judge stops Ohio funeral home from liquefying bodies

Status
Not open for further replies.

ToxicAdam

Member
Columbus, OH) -- For two months, a funeral home in Columbus, Ohio has been the only one in the state, and maybe the country, to offer an unusual alternative to cremation.

But now, the Department of Health is stepping in to stop it.

The controversial procedure is called alkaline hydrolysis. It converts body tissues to liquid that is then flushed into city sewers.

A similar version of the process is used on animal carcasses at the Ohio Department of Agriculture.


The Department of Agriculture says it's a more environmentally-friendly way to dispose of bodies.

But state health officials say it's not an acceptable way to dispose of bodies.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, Edwards began using the process in January and had disposed of 19 bodies with it, until the state stopped the funeral home from doing it last week.

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=428566


If you're new to the idea of alkaline hydrolysis, here's how it works. A 300°F solution of a strong base, in this case lye (sodium hydroxide), is sprayed on a body at 60 pounds of pressure per square inch in what looks sort of like a body-shaped stainless steel pressure cooker. The base hydrolyzes the tissues, leaving a syrupy brown liquid and some bone residue. The bone residue could be collected and dried, if desired, similar to the collection of cremated remains. In the case of animal carcasses, the solution is washed down the drain. There are two medical centers using the equipment for research cadavers (University of Florida in Gainesville and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). They flush the remains, too. Although the solution has a strong odor, it is sterile and does not pose a threat to the water supply.

The equipment for alkaline hydrolysis is a little more expensive than what you need for cremation, but the process may be more environmental friendly than cremation, which releases carbon dioxide and mercury from dental amalgams. The sodium hydroxide solution may be less troublesome than the blood and leftover embalming fluid washed down the drain when a body is prepared for burial.

http://chemistry.about.com/b/2008/05/10/alkaline-hydrolysis-dissolving-bodies-with-lye.htm

What a silly judge. We allow them to do this to animals but not humans? If a person elects this as a way to be disposed of, why should the law stop them?
 
ToxicAdam said:
What a silly judge. We allow them to do this to animals but not humans? If a person elects this as a way to be disposed of, why should the law stop them?
Sarcasm?

Because we have laws governing the handling of human remains, and as far as this judge is concerned, human remains never cease to be, and it might not be proper to dispose of them in a sewer. It's not exactly 'interment.'
 

ToxicAdam

Member
samus i am said:
So you are for this?


Of course I am.


DeuceMojo said:
Sarcasm?

Because we have laws governing the handling of human remains, and as far as this judge is concerned, human remains never cease to be, and it might not be proper to dispose of them in a sewer.


What makes human remains different than cattle remains?
 

Shanadeus

Banned
DeuceMojo said:
Sarcasm?

Because we have laws governing the handling of human remains, and as far as this judge is concerned, human remains never cease to be, and it might not be proper to dispose of them in a sewer. It's not exactly 'interment.'
What about people that dispose of human ashes?

Silly judge indeed, especially if this is more environmentally friendly.
 
FleaTheMagician said:
This is disgusting and makes me never want to drink water ever ever again.

WtNJX.gif
 

Shanadeus

Banned
zmoney said:



fuck. this. shit. agree with you dude.
FleaTheMagician said:
This is disgusting and makes me never want to drink water ever ever again.
What, you don't think other ways of dealing with human bodies won't result in particles from the dead body touching bodies of water?
 

HeySeuss

Member
With the population getting as high as it is alternate methods should be encouraged over traditional burial. But what's wrong with cremation? Flushing the liquified Goo down the sewer? Who in their right mind would think that would be morally acceptable by our society?
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Shick Brithouse said:
With the population getting as high as it is alternate methods should be encouraged over traditional burial. But what's wrong with cremation? Flushing the liquified Goo down the sewer? Who in their right mind would think that would be morally acceptable by our society?


I don't understand how this is a "moral" issue? The person dying elects to do this and the funeral home offers it as a service. How is morality being breached here?
 
Teh Hamburglar said:
Burial at sea. No greater honor.
You're at least committed to the deep, pretty similar to being covered in soil and having the earth reclaim your form.

Sewer, yeah, not really the same.
 
Shick Brithouse said:
Flushing the liquified Goo down the sewer? Who in their right mind would think that would be morally acceptable by our society?
indeed.


DeuceMojo said:
You're at least committed to the deep, pretty similar to being covered in soil and having the earth reclaim your form.

Sewer, yeah, not really the same.
indeed, not the same at all.
 

DoomGyver

Member
FleaTheMagician said:
This is disgusting and makes me never want to drink water ever ever again.
The water we drink has probably been just about everything on Earth. Shit, piss, snot, a womans vagina, a mans dick, your moms vagina, a horses cock, TREX cock, even.

Drink filtered bro.
 

JGS

Banned
Sounds messy
Seems to lack dignity
Seems legit over burial although I don't think I would ever use it on my relatives.

Cremation for...err life for me.
 

Zenith

Banned
No one has yet to put forth a moral argument against this apart from the knee-jerk "that sounds icky" (because burning corpses or dumping them into the ground is totally a world of difference...)
 
Full Recovery said:
The water we drink has probably been just about everything on Earth. Shit, piss, snot, a womans vagina, a mans dick, your moms vagina, a horses cock, TREX cock, even.

Drink filtered bro.

wait wait wait. so i could be drinking a french man's piss?
 

JGS

Banned
Zenith said:
No one has yet to put forth a moral argument against this apart from the knee-jerk "that sounds icky" (because burning corpses or dumping them into the ground is totally a world of difference...)
I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. It's purely an icky thing.

It could also spawn a whole new Weekend at Bernie's. I'm imagining the possibilities.
JodyAnthony said:
judge shouldn't be able to stop people from having this done, if its what they want done.
I thought it was the health department.
 

Jangocube

Banned
Full Recovery said:
The water we drink has probably been just about everything on Earth. Shit, piss, snot, a womans vagina, a mans dick, your moms vagina, a horses cock, TREX cock, even.

Drink filtered bro.

Pretty much this.

The water you drink has probably passed through almost every vile thing imaginable at one point in it's existence.

It only matters how clean it is once you drink it.
 

KimiNewt

Scored 3/100 on an Exam
I don't see how the water that'll have this stuff in it is disgusting. The solution obviously entirely tears apart the body and separates & creates various molecules which are just like their regular non-human-originating counterparts - which may be in water as well.
 
exactly. Although i would be more for a procedure that puts human remains to some benefit to society, like that heated swimming pool a while back.
 

Ourobolus

Banned
Rygar 8 Bit said:
down the sewer? how disrespectful
How is it disrespectful if the person opts for this sort of "burial" method? If that's what I want, then that would be considered respecting my wishes.
 

Pseudo_Sam

Survives without air, food, or water
Shick Brithouse said:
Who in their right mind would think that would be morally acceptable by our society?

Wat? Not everyone worships the carcasses of their relatives with such furor. Who gives a shit about the physical body? I would prefer to relish the memories and good times of a loved one, instead of arbitrarily hanging on to some rotting bit of flesh that has zero practical value to me.

Point is, your usage of "morally acceptable" is somewhat confusing, because it presupposes all of society having the same fascination towards dead bodies that you do. If liquefying the body is easiest/cheapest/cleanest, then why shouldn't I be allowed to consider it?
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
i dont know if i feel comfortable knowing i might have a little molecule of Steve floating around in my water down the line.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
Soylent clear is people!





[EDIT]
Dammit SimleuqiR!!!

I did a search for soylent. Didn't scroll through to look for pics :p
 

Hey You

Member
What if more and more funeral homes did this? Wouldn't it pollute local waters? Is it dangerous for human contact or even indigestion?
 

Borgnine

MBA in pussy licensing and rights management
ITT: people who think they're more than just meatsacks like every other animal. Probably afraid their "soul" will clog up the drain. Turn 'em brown flush 'em down I say.
 
I'm for this so long as it comes with a flushing noise when the goo is dispensed with.

"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to..." *whoooooooooooooossssshhhhh glug glug glug*
 

Ourobolus

Banned
This is great! I can just hand out cups at my funeral, and everyone can have a little me inside them forever!

or until they pee me out
 

Zoe

Member
Shick Brithouse said:
But what's wrong with cremation?

The equipment for alkaline hydrolysis is a little more expensive than what you need for cremation, but the process may be more environmental friendly than cremation, which releases carbon dioxide and mercury from dental amalgams. The sodium hydroxide solution may be less troublesome than the blood and leftover embalming fluid washed down the drain when a body is prepared for burial.

.
 
The best part about being discharged into the sewer is that there's a good chance these "remains" will end up on your lawn if you have reclaimed water for irrigation. I don't want hobos on my lawn in any shape or form.
 
Dave Inc. said:
I'm for this so long as it comes with a flushing noise when the goo is dispensed with.

"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to..." *whoooooooooooooossssshhhhh glug glug glug*

lol... 'we got a lingerer! someone got a coathanger?'
 
What was the judge's reasoning behind this?

I would say that a person has the right to have their body deposed of however they see fit, but the only thing I can see wrong with this is that they are being dumped into the city sewer, leaving the onus on the city for filtering and recycling the water. Nothing worse than finding out that the city's water recycling may be inadequate to deal with the liquified remains.

If the bodies are buried or burned, its not the city's responsibility. Any additional measures that need to be take are the responsibility of the funeral home or crematorium, whereas here it would be the cities failure.
 

HeySeuss

Member
Pseudo_Sam said:
Wat? Not everyone worships the carcasses of their relatives with such furor. Who gives a shit about the physical body? I would prefer to relish the memories and good times of a loved one, instead of arbitrarily hanging on to some rotting bit of flesh that has zero practical value to me.

Point is, your usage of "morally acceptable" is somewhat confusing, because it presupposes all of society having the same fascination towards dead bodies that you do. If liquefying the body is easiest/cheapest/cleanest, then why shouldn't I be allowed to consider it?
I have no issues with the bodies being liquified, I just think that flushing the remains down the sewer is a bad idea from many standpoints.

Our society by and large holds a great deal of reverence for how human remains are treated, so when I said that I was speaking as our society as a whole, not my own personal beliefs.

There just has to be a better way to get rid of the leftovers, thats all.
 

Zoe

Member
Shick Brithouse said:
I have no issues with the bodies being liquified, I just think that flushing the remains down the sewer is a bad idea from many standpoints.

Then what would you do with them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom