Irish Man's Death Ruled Spontaneous Combustion 224
chrb writes "BBC News is reporting that an Irish coroner has ruled that a dead man was killed by spontaneous human combustion. The controversial finding is a first in Irish history. From the article: 'West Galway coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said it was the first time in 25 years of investigating deaths that he had recorded such a verdict. Michael Faherty, 76, died at his home in Galway on 22 December 2010. Deaths attributed by some to "spontaneous combustion" occur when a living human body is burned without an apparent external source of ignition.'"
Nothing combusts for "no reason". (Score:2, Insightful)
If the reason isn't found, either the investigators are not good enough, or the science isn't. Otherwise such an "explanation" falls in the realm of witchcraft.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". (Score:2)
Coal,
Flour
I'm sure some other substances must too.... But these DO combust, without source of ignition.
Infact wikipedia has a nice list : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". (Score:3)
There are many things that "spontaneously combust". The classic example is a pile of oily rags in the cellar, but you could also cite Stallman's laptop. Spontaneously doesn't mean without reason, it means without external reason. (And it's not even quite that limited, as, for example, the pile of oily rags needs to be reasonably warm to start with. And oxygen needs to be in the atmosphere. Etc.)
There are several reported cases of humans "spontaneously combusting". They may not all be fabrications or misunderstandings. Just like batteries, we contain excess energy enough to destroy us. It's not clear that it ever releases spontaneously, but there's no proof that it never happens. It is, however, certainly unusual. But then so is a laptop's battery breaking into fire when it's not plugged in, and nobody's in the room. That, however, we know can happen. People doing the same thing is something that I consider still dubious, but not, in principle, unreasonable.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". (Score:2)
That's like saying a modern gun fires bullets without any source of ignition...
NVIDIA COVERUP!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NVIDIA COVERUP!!! (Score:2)
No, he had Yet Another iPhone5 prototype... and he's merely the world's first victim of Holding It Wrong 2.0(tm).
What garbage non-science! (Score:5, Informative)
I looked into this when I first read about it. Apparently a disproportionate amount of "spontaneous combustion" cases are older people found next to fire places, this man included. I was not able to find details that would rule out an existing fire in the fireplace contributing to the cause, like an absence of ashes. It's speculated that these cases are people who had a stroke or heart attack while warming themselves by the fire, after which a small spark flies out and eventually smolders the entire body.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC). TFA only mentions that the ruling was simply that he caught fire for some undetermined reason. No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit of picking one or two words that someone said and quoting them out of context in a headline.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:5, Interesting)
No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.
And neither is the BBC. - The coroner brought down the verdict of "spontaneous combustion" that appears in the headline and the BBC correctly defined what that means in the context of a coroner's inquest. They quote the coroner as saying - "This fire was thoroughly investigated and I'm left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation."
Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC)
There's nothing misleading about it, unless of course you're looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit...
Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.
Hay, I am a fan of the BBC. I still think their news reporting is the best in the UK, but there are clear instances where they fell short IMHO. I documented a recent case, but unfortunately forgot to grab a screen shot. This is the article in question:
Toyota recalls 110,000 hybrid cars on safety concerns [bbc.co.uk]
It has been fixed since I complained, but previously it had the sub heading 'Full Blown Crisis' and right underneath it the sentence "The good news is, they are not allowing it to become a full-blown crisis". You can see a copy of the original article, complete with the bad heading, here [myjoyonline.com]. That is hardly an isolated incident.
The first time it really hit me was when I was in Tokyo at the time of the earthquake, and the situation on the ground was very different to what the BBC was reporting. It got worse over the following days as they cherry picked quotes out of context or poorly translated (Japanese is extremely difficult to translate into English without losing important meaning through lack of context or differing social norms). I would watch someone go on TV to make a statement with my friends, and NHK would broadcast it in full. Then a few minutes later the BBC would report a sentence fragment and their reporters interpretation of what was said, which tended to sensationalise and generally failed to convey the content accurately.
That last point is critical. What a BBC news report on TV. Notice how when someone makes any kind of speech or statement, gives any kind of interview all you hear is a couple of seconds of the speaking. The rest of the report is then the journalist giving their account of what was said and their opinion/analysis of it. It can be argued that they do it for brevity, but the result is the same: they don't report the facts any more, the viewer is instead given an interpretation that is subject to journalistic pressures, i.e. making an interesting story. The BBC is still better than most, but if you go back and read TFA you can see that most of it is trying hard not to report the actual statement that was made.
All that is IMHO of course, but I'd say there is enough clear evidence of (not necessarily deliberate) misdirection to back up my more general feeling. The BBC does appear to be at least aware of this, for example you can see how they revise reports from time to time and how they have started to include the original Japanese wording in some of their Fukushima coverage (still nearly useless due to lack of context though). There is room for improvement and I am glad they take these issues seriously.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
'First Irish case' - Unattributed quote not discussed in TFA, it's a bald assertion, the reason it's in quotes is to indicate it is not the BBC who are claiming it as fact.
of death - He's dead, an unfortunate fact.
by spontaneous combustion - That was the coroner's official finding as to the cause of death, a sensational fact, but still a fact.
In what way did any of the above facts mislead you?
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
Sensationalising headlines like this is deceptive
This particular headline is factual, you may find the facts sensational, but there's no such thing as a deceptive fact.
It's well known that the BBC have a left wing bias.
The BBC is both praised and attacked by all sides of politics. It's you're own political bias that's on display here.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
People are quick to bash the Beeb, while they still want their favourite programmes and less brain dead "news" than ITV and the others.
Sure, Friday Night, Dr Who re-runs, Antique Road Trip and whatever the latest Eastenders rip-off soap is called might be low budget productions, but making shows like Top Gear and Planet Earth isn't exactly cheap.
But well worth it. My hat off for Sir David Attenborough for turning BBC TWO into something truly worth watching, as television goes.
What I miss the most is BBC World Radio on the LW band. Can't seem to get it on the shortwave band either anymore, stateside.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
They have a nasty habit of picking one or two words that someone said and quoting them out of context in a headline.
The hell you say. Not in the news media.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:3)
Considering the damage reported (substantial damage to both the floor around and the ceiling above the body) I wouldn't call it smoldering.
Yet spontaneous combustion... no I don't believe that either. A more likely explanation would be that the person had a lot of clothing on (elderly people are very good at feeling cold and putting on lots and lots of clothing - the person in question was sitting close to a fireplace so good chance he was feeling cold) that happened to be highly combustible and for whatever reason caught fire. Synthetic clothing may burn fast and hot and seriously damage a body, leaving damage on the floor around it and to the ceiling.
Surprising anyway that there are no other, more likely scenarios given than "spontaneous human combustion" as cause of death. Living humans are not exactly flammable to begin with. Our hairs maybe, but that's about it.
And indeed possibly he passed out for whatever reason, fell forward, and a spark jumping from the open fire set him alight. An unlikely scenario sure, but I'd say much more likely than spontaneous combustion.
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
I actually thought this had been resolved a while back - maybe I just heard of a theory and took it for fact.
As I understand it, what happens is that someone dies/falls into a deep coma with a source of ignition nearby (eg they are smoking at the time, or near an open fire). The human body then burns very slowly over many hours as kind of an inside-out candle - clothing acting as a wick and human fat as the wax.
This fits with the facts that it tends to be older people living alone, there is little damage to surroundings and some extremities are often completely undamaged.
Not really a cause of death though...
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
I remember seeing one on TV (so it must be true!@#!1!!!) where the victim was in a bathroom stall. But maybe someone came and flicked a cig on them :p
Re:What garbage non-science! (Score:2)
I remember seeing one on TV (so it must be true!@#!1!!!) where the victim was in a bathroom stall. But maybe someone came and flicked a cig on them :p
Because we all know that no-one smokes in the bathroom stalls. :)
In completely unrelated news (Score:5, Funny)
The first test of my DeathRay is a complete success! MUAHAHAHAHA!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:In completely unrelated news (Score:2, Offtopic)
You're sick.
And you're scared enough to post anonymously.
Can you blame him? Who wants to be the target of a guy with a working death ray?
any proof of the cause of spontanious combustion ? (Score:2)
I remember watching a documentary about spontanious human combustion in school during english class (about 20 years ago)..
Half of the class was spooked because it was such a weird topic..
I remember they discussed some deaths (showing burn marks on floors, carpets, ..) but scientifically there wasn't any explenation yet..
Anyone know if there's one now ?
Re:any proof of the cause of spontanious combustio (Score:3, Interesting)
As mentioned above, it's often old people lying close to a fireplace.
the second half is drunk fat people, who don't wake up when their clothes are burning. Their fat melts, and the rest of the clothes functions as a wick, replenishing the fire with more melting fat. Why they don't wake up, maybe they're already dead, but that's pretty hard to establish when there's almost no body.
Obligatory Repo Man quote (Score:4, Funny)
link [youtube.com].
Re:Obligatory Spinal Tap quote (Score:2)
Dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported.
link [youtube.com].
Hm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hm... (Score:2)
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's the first time the coroner ever came across someone dying in an embarrassing way and then, together with all the witnesses, decided to hide all of the evidence...
Not really: why would the coroner and the police officers all risk their reputation for a stranger? Even if he did die in a really embarrassing way, he's hardly the first to die with a gerbil up his anus, tied to a chair or something.
Re:Hm... (Score:3)
Yep that's why David Carradine died of spontaneous human combustion.
Re:Hm... (Score:2)
Re:Hm... (Score:2)
Your missing the full picture here, nothing was left of the body except his feet yet nothing else in the house was destroyed except floor under him and ceiling over him!
This is the true mystery of all these events.
Except it isn't that mysterious. If he burned like a candle, it isn't too surprising that nothing else when up in flames. This type of fire doesn't make a whole bunch of heat to cause things close by to burn. A bit of charring on the ceiling is about all you would expect. Sort of like what the candle inside a jack-o-lantern does to the top of the pumpkin.
Cause and Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Mystery solved. (Score:4, Funny)
He's Irish, therefore, he must have been drinking, and he's 76, so was probably taking nitro glycerine for his heart. Mystery solved.
Now, does that make me a forensic investigator?
Re:Mystery solved. (Score:3)
Maybe a lemming? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe a lemming? (Score:4, Funny)
OH NO!
Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! (Score:3)
It'd take an awful lot of energy for a human body to get up to ignition temperatures on its own. Most of the cases in our more superstitious days turned out to have cigarettes as an ignition source. I wouldn't rule out a defective electric blanket. Or pretty much anything that can make a spark around, say a wool blanket. I'm sure there are a lot of avenues of investigation we could follow before we go STAMPEEDING for "Spontaneous Human Combustion", Mr McLoughlin!
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! (Score:2)
The Gard are on their way.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! (Score:2)
Not that I buy the concept of "spontaneous human combustion" in any way, but I imagine the investigators probably checked for electric blankets etc.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! (Score:2)
ISTR a documentary a few years ago which explored a "human candle" theory - essentially, something on the victim catches fire (maybe their clothing) and the victim - for whatever reason - doesn't put it out. The heat from the fire melts their body fat, which goes on to further fuel the fire. Fat burns quite hot, and in so doing it consumes most of their body; but the absence of other flammable material near the victim means the entire house doesn't go up in smoke.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! (Score:2)
I noticed a lot of people spontaneously combust after being doused in gasoline. Did they check that?
If you RTFA, you would know that they did.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! (Score:2)
Sure, the pig studies where one burns up an entire pig via this type of wicking effect are just shoddy work done to cover up the murders done by the illumitati.
Animals have a lot of chemical energy stored in their body, under the right conditions they can sustain combustion. It doesn't have to happen at particularly high temperatures - it just takes a longer time to consume the material at lower temperatures.
It was the Guinness... (Score:2)
... and it's a record!
Unexplained Combustion (Score:2)
So in Ireland, "spontaneous combustion" is just a euphemism for "unexplained combustion?"
And how about these 503 errors? (Score:2)
lets put words in his mouth (Score:2)
"Spontaneous Combustion" was put in as the title of the article, despite the specific denial of that term by the coronor. That's sensationalism in its most basic form.
LAMEBRAINS (Score:2)
With the amount of possibilities, the fact that they would prefer not invest more time to really figure this out, and would rather just hash it up to spontaneous combustion, is pretty lame. I know 3 ways where you can burn the inside of a body outwards, and of which leaves no marks, but requires that the person have been close to alcohol, strong enough to combust near a flame. Once you have this, you need a catalyst and voila...
I will not say how, as these would leave me to feel responsible should any individuals use these techniques, but they do exist.
Plus some customers just start combusting (Score:2)
I've got a theory, that it's a demon, a dancing demon, no... something isn't right there...
What would be more newsworth is ... (Score:2)
... if a case of spontaneous human ignition were to be found. That would move my reaction from "ignorant Irish" court to "really, how could that happen?". BTW I cooked my oatmeal this morning using the spontaneous combustion of natural gas.
Re:What would be more newsworth is ... (Score:2)
I suspect that your natural gas fire was not "spontaneous", but rather was started either by a spark or a pilot light.
Unbelievable (Score:2)
Blipverts? (Score:2)
Hmmm... Have we ruled out Blipverts [google.com]?
MFA? (Score:2)
Was this one of those serious cases of an MFA, i.e. a Major Fart Alert (that went amok)?
Imagine... (Score:2)
ball lightening forming at the same location as a person.
Simple (Score:2)
Someone will point a high energy neutrino source at him next week.
Vampires (Score:2)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that humans are not particularly inflammable. Sure, the hair burns, and maybe a bit of the skin or clothing, but the huge quantities of water in the body make for a reasonable extinguisher. Perhaps, though, if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:5, Informative)
The best explanation I've heard is the wick effect [wikipedia.org].
The presumption is that the person dies of other causes, and then a lit cigarette or some other ignition source starts the process. And you're right, from what I've heard, a high percentage of SHC victims were known to be heavy drinkers, which would only add more fuel to the fire.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
I have no insightful observations to offer except this:
We know that to "boil" does not require high temperatures -- just a substance which has a boiling point which is lower and/or an atmospheric pressure which is low enough to enable boiling to occur at lower temperatures. We also know that chemical reactions can and do happen at lower temperatures not necessarily requiring "heat" to perpetuate the reaction.
There have been cases of SHC where the clothes which the victims were wearing were largely unaffected by the reaction the body had undergone and the same for the other materials surrounding the body. So this insistence that there must be heat is probably the first obstacle to understanding what is going on. And "heat" is a relative measure in the first place. After all, a "rock" might be considered to be "frozen magma" and that regardless of its present temperature, it might be considered to be frozen if it is not in a liquid state. And relative to "absolute zero" I'm on frikken fire right now and so are you.
Sometimes to understand something, you have to forget what you think you know.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
Well, except for the fact that they did not actually combust, so we don't really know that what they reported is in fact at all related to the supposed SHC cases such as this one.
Sure this case (and similar ones) are pretty creepy, but what do you think is more likely: An old guy dies from a heart attack (or other mundane cause) and a spark from the open fireplace in the room (was he a smoker? maybe he was smoking at the time and dropped his cigarette onto his clothes as he fell) starts his clothing to smolder and he burns like a candle for eight hours *as has been demonstrated possible with pigs*. Or some mysterious non-physical magic thing happened to char him in the spot.
Heck, I would more likely believe that someone strapped him to a chair, and injected him with air bubbles to cause his death, and then carefully laid him out and started him on fire in such a way as to maximize the wicking effect and cover up his evil plans. Rather than any mysterious SHC. What was the butler up to? Does the good-for-nothing son listed in the will have an alibi? Was the victim getting too close to the evidence of the toxic waste dumping coverup near the local reservoir? Have I been watching to much CSI?
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
The good thing is that watching CSI will give you a broader sense of potential natural explanations to what seems really odd.
And if the victim died or was unconscious before combustion will probably remain unsolved. If it was self-ignition, wouldn't there be more traces spread over the room while he tried to extinguish himself?
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:3)
In most of the "spontaneous combustion" cases in the past, the victims have shared two important characteristics:
1) They were smokers
2) They were alcoholics
Combining a flammable liquid, lit cigarette, and someone prone to passing out--well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the likely scenario in most of these cases.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:3)
More fuel? How much alcohol, realistically, can you have in your body? I doubt you can really store even a liter of ethanol. That'd be two liters of vodka. And apart from what's buried deep in your GI tract, the rest of it is too diluted to be much of a concern.
Drinking simply makes you unaware of being on fire for long enough for the wick effect to get things going. I'm sure many elderly people have problems with peripheral sensing of pain, especially if they have circulation problems. They may well be not drunk and still on fire without knowing. My 30 y.o. friend had a (recently fixed) Chiari malformation, causing her to lose all peripheral sense of touch and pain, even deep pain. She looked like her hubby was beating and scalding her, even though it was of her own doing (no effing pun intended, please).
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
a high percentage of SHC victims were known to be heavy drinkers, which would only add more fuel to the fire.
Even with a BAC high enough to kill you, it isn't enough to turn your blood into a combustible fluid.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:3)
Exactly - it's not even close.
A blood alcohol level of just 0.4% is lethal. But for a water-alcohol mixture to burn at room temperature, you need something like 70-80% alcohol.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
> from what I've heard, a high percentage of
> SHC victims were known to be heavy
> drinkers, which would only add more
> fuel to the fire.
The average adult has about six quarts of blood. Assuming the density of blood is somewhat close to that of water, that's about 12 pounds of blood in, say, a 150-pound person. "Legally drunk" used to be 0.1% BAC so that's 1/1000th of 12 pounds of alcohol--about two tenths of an ounce. That's a very, very small amount of fuel. Even if you're five times over the old legal limit, that's just one ounce of alcohol.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:4, Interesting)
Spontaneous refers to the lack of any obvious ignition source (except the cigarettes they smoked, or the fire they 'fell asleep' next to - but I digress). If an empty desk in my office were to start smoldering and eventually flames appeared that would be spontaneous combustion as much as if the whole thing suddenly burst into flame.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:4, Interesting)
Spontaneous does not mean instantly or quickly, it means something happening with no apparent cause or external cause, or someone doing something involuntarily. The action doesn't have to be over quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently another common factor in SHC deaths is that the victims tend to live alone. However, there is one freaky story in the Wikipedia article linked above.
Obviously that would have nothing to do the the wick effect, and there doesn't seem to be any corroboration of the event. Still... makes you wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Who knows if these events have anything to do with sponaneous human combustion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously that would have nothing to do the the wick effect, and there doesn't seem to be any corroboration of the event. Still... makes you wonder.
But she didn't combust. And if there was enough heat in the mysterious blue flashes to ignite her she probably would have noticed (why are my shoes smoking?). And if there was enough energy to ignite her, you would need something like the wick effect to sustain the combustion. And she'd need to be by herself or someone would just throw a bucket of water over her.
Re: (Score:2)
There was one guy in Australia I think who had built up so much static charge he was leaving smouldering footprints in the carpet behind him, in a hotel, with plenty of witnesses. Here it is... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4252692.stm?lsm [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Why do they always measure volts but not amps? A police taser can be as much as 100KV. An average person in a dry climate could build up 40KV without trying too hard. 40kv at low enough amperages can be 100% safe for human contact.
40KV doesn't tell me shit other than that his sparks were jumping close to half an inch.
Now it's obvious that the amperages involved here were pretty high since he was burning and melting things. How safe is this situation for the human body?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So there's no way to measure the difference between a routine doorknob zap and a guy leaving scorchmarks on the carpet and melting plastic? That sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will only get current during the actual discharge of the static electricity.
The current can be calculated by taking the resistance it goes through.
If you knew his capacity , you could probably calculate the charge he was holding ( Q = C. U )
Then , by measuring the time of the discharge, you could find out how high the current was at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that should be impedance, not resistance.
The higher the impedance, the lower the current will be , and the longer it will take to discharge.
Should be a fun experiment though :-)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion [wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia seems to answer most of your questions. Read the accounts of the two survivors who were accompanied by relatives at the time.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:3)
to me "spontaneous" means
People who can't use dictionaries should DIAF.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:4, Funny)
if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...
That would never happen in Ireland.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...
That would never happen in Ireland.
57 comments and only one joke about drunk Irishmen? Slashdot truly is dying. The fact that nobody has licked to a Family Guy clip from when Peter went there just nails the coffin shut.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
As a drunken Irish derivative, who is not precisely Irish but whose mother's family does (allegedly) have a castle over there somewhere:
I must hasten to admit that I have lit myself on fire many times. It has always been an accident, and I have so far always either been coherent enough to snuff the blaze, or able to wake up quickly enough to do the same.
I have no doubt that many another Irishman have had similar problems, and that a certain percentage of them were either too inebriated to adequately react or simply too dead at the time to respond at all.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
One time my Irish-derivative friend sat across the table from me at the pub, holding a fork over the candle on the table for what seemed like about 5 minutes. The fork started to faintly glow, it was so hot - and he then had to start quickly switching hands to keep it over the fire.
Finally I stopped talking and just said, "What the FUCK are you doing???"
And then he smiled, and he branded my arm.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds of that time I didn't make a Family Guy reference and people unconsciously thanked me.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
"Except that humans are not particularly inflammable"
Sober humans. He was Irish, after all. (runs)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? (Score:2)
Probably just a jumping ember. That's enough to set someone immobile on fire... Good luck in finding any trace of it once most or all the body has burnt.
Phew, slashdot saves the day again. I'm sure none of the highly trained police and firemen thought of that..
Re:Think about all that burning water... (Score:3, Informative)
1kg of lard contains 37700kJ and can therefore vaporize almost 16,9kg of water. 5kg of lard can vaporize 84kg of water.
Those 5kg just about cover the essential body fat, i.e the fat we need in/around our brain, skin, joints, etc.
Re:Think about all that burning water... (Score:2)
Re:Think about all that burning water... (Score:2)
I did, but apparently I wasn't thinking very clearly. These things happen.
I, After a long day drinkin and beating the wife....
He's Irish, it's easy to explain. (Score:2, Funny)
It's all the whiskey in him. Whiskey burns, so add a spark from something, anything, and poof a human Molotov cocktail. Don't tell the IRA, they might get some ideas.
Re:Wicking (Score:2)
I don't think anybody's saying it's an unexplained paranormal event, they're just saying this is what happened to him.
(At least that's the way I read it)
Re:Wicking (Score:3)
I remember some guys playing with a magnetron out of a microwave oven a couple of years ago managed to set some plywood on fire at a moderate distance (reports of almost 100 feet/30 meters). If it was true or not, I don't know, but it would explain a lack of any chemical residue or accelerants. It would be a perfect arsonist's tool, and would make forensic analysis a bitch. Directed energy really wouldn't leave a lot of trace behind, would it?
Re:Wicking (Score:2)
That sounds crazy. I doubt wood could even ignite inside a microwave. But, if it is possible to light wood on fire with microwaves, then yes it would be the perfect arsonist's tool. You could drive up in an MFI diesel car, point a magnetron out the window and light a house on fire. The only evidence might be burned out electronics nearby.
Re:No source of ignition except a fireplace? WTF (Score:2)
Which part of "had NOT been the cause" do you not understand?
They basically came to the conclusion that the fireplace wasn't the source of the fire. Myriad other things could be. He could have been smoking, the ash dropped on his shirt, a fire started (thereby eliminating the cigarette evidence in some cases), but he just happened to fall near the fireplace.
The cause of death, then, is NOT the fireplace at all, in any way. And these people deal in legalities and medical practice - if they don't think the fireplace caused it, they can't just make stuff up or say "Well, it was probably..." Thus the verdict was "spontaneous combustion" (which doesn't mean that his stomach just caught fire, but that they could not determine the cause).
The forensic investigator that says "Oh, it must have been the fire" is the one that lets a murderer get away with it, or mistakes a suicide for murder and puts innocent people behind bars. The investigator that says "I have no clue" does neither and doesn't hinder other investigations that could hinge on his evidence.
Re:His pacemaker had a web server (Score:2)
This could be a game in one of the Saw movies.
"I've made a little P4 Prescott server and implanted it in your chest. I'm about to post a link to Slashdot saying it shows the latest photos taken from a TubeSat. There's a knife on the floor in front of you, let's see if you can dig it out in time."