SHC- Spontaneous Human Combustion, not far-fetched

[hefner]

SHC-Spontaneous Human Combustion is one of the most thoroughly documented of the mysterious, seemingly supernatural phenomena. There are thousands of coroner's photos for example. Unsolved-M did a superb segment or 3 about it.

 

My opinion on SHC is pretty clear: I think it's 100% feasible to occur naturally. To understand how, first y'gotta be aware that biologically we must always exist at the cutting edge (else an apter species would encroach our niche?). Socially, we can lounge and relax, but biologically we're always on the cutting edge, fine-tuned, with little leeway for error.

 

To maintain vitality, every cell of your body needs a continuous supply of Oxygen (call it O2), except nails and hair of course. Because of the way energy is bound up in O2, nearly every reaction with it tends to release energy, much/most of it thermal, I reckon. Combustion, FIRE, is simply a run-away reation with O2, nothing more. And here's your body sucking in O2 like a hog. There must exist certain key molecules to moderate these heated O2 absorption reactions, eh? There are zillions of crazy different molecules in the bloodstream of course so who knows?

 

Anyway, when conditions are just so, as an aberration, when a body is slightly dehydrated perhaps, or deficient in those tempering agents, it can happen; run-away reacting with O2, resulting in the actual combusting of bodily tissues.

 

That's my theory. :eek_big:

[Fishteacher73]

Stedies have shown that that SHC is in fact a myth. There is no way for the body to sponaneously ignite. If an external ignition source is present though, the body can be consumed by low heat fire, essentially burning like a candle. AS one area ignotes, it begins to melt surrounding fat that acts a s a slow fuel for the fire to continue to burn. This can eventually consume almost an entire body. Experiments have been done with pigs to illustrate this (pigs are used in many experiments in place of human bodies).

[alxian]

i'm mortally aprehensive of this now, for the past month or two i've been feeling unexplained and sudden warming in my limbs, like sun was warming it but nothing external was causing it.

 

do we know all of the bdies functions and the chemicals they produce and how they react with all the energy fields we are most oblivious of in our day to day lives?

 

one of the things they assoiciate with SHC is alcohol and another is body fat... thankfully i have very little of both to worry about, yay.

 

the fat in and of itself burns like an ember hot but not spiting flame everywhere, the body itself retains the heat possibly amplifying it. any combustible chemicals/compounds in the body such as alcohol keep the fire burning once it starts.

[GAHD]

To Alxiam: I don't think you've got much to worry about. Anyone can raise their limbs' temperatures: you learn to relax your vascular system and allow blood to flow more easily, distributing core heat more effectively. Try it, just relax and concentrate.

 

on SHC, I I havn't seen it myself and the only 'data' I've got to go off of is those wacked-out sci-fi shows like X-Files. I may be wrong but as far as I'm concerned it's just a myth.

[MortenS]

I would not be too worried about Spontaneous Human Combustion either..I'd be much more worried about forgetting candlelights, falling asleep while smoking, or any other kind of reckless behaviour near fire.

 

Here is an article that my colleague Mark Benecke wrote about Spontaneous Human Combustion:

 

http://www.benecke.com/combust.html

 

PDF version: http://www.benecke.com/combust.pdf

 

A little bit of warning is in place: it contains pictures of burnt bodies.

[alxian]

generally only cigarettes are found nearby, a sure ignition source but a cigarette can't burn an entire person and be found only half smoked.

[MortenS]

Actually, they can, if you wear flamable material. If you suffer from a disability, you might even have problems putting the fire out when you discover it.

 

I'd really like to see ONE case of spontaneous human combustion backed by evidence, that cannot be ripped to shreds by a thorough forensic examination.

[hefner]

Studies have shown that that SHC is in fact a myth. There is no way for the body to sponaneously ignite.

That's a hollow rebuttal, citing no documented evidence. Even if studies were to conclude the extreme unlikelihood of combustion of dead human tissue, that would in no way refute my theory about how it occurs.

 

"..whacked-out sci-fi shows" <-- another hollow rebuttal

[alexander]

anything can explode, really, all it takes is an atom to become unstable enough to split, then make another atom unstable and continue the chain reaction, you can explode water that way if you wanted to, but it just happens to be one of the 2 most stable elements on earth, so good luck trying... Anyways, i also do not think that you should worry about spontaneous human combustion any more then you should worry about a penny-size comet hitting you in the upper part of your left butt cheek, and even though probability states that anything can happen, the probability of a IHS is very, very, very, very low :eek_big:

[MortenS]

That's a hollow rebuttal, citing no documented evidence. Even if studies were to conclude the extreme unlikelihood of combustion of dead human tissue, that would in no way refute my theory about how it occurs.

 

"..whacked-out sci-fi shows" <-- another hollow rebuttal

 

Did you read the paper I cited? Not a single alleged SHC case with image documentation has yet to be classified as a SHC case, as there is a perfectly natural explanation for how the remains look like.

 

In some cases, the pictures used as evidence, is actually taken AFTER parts of the body are removed from the scene. In every case of alleged spontaneous comburstion, there has to be an investigation of the death by the police, the medical examiners, and other professionals. And in each case, it is possible to get additional info about the case by the photographer, the medical examiner and the police investigating the case. I have yet to hear a single case attributed to spontaneuous combustion, that could not be explained with more common ways of catching fire. If you have such evidence, please come forward it, the forensic science community would welcome you with open arms, if you have documentable, and reproducable results (eg with pigs or other animals). Just imagining up possible ways for the human body can catch fire without an ignition source that has a temperature above a few 100 degrees celsius is an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidence. What substances in the human body would cause this?

[hefner]

Did you read the paper I cited? Not a single alleged SHC case ... has yet to be classified as a SHC case... I have yet to hear a single case attributed to spontaneuous combustion... imagining up possible ways for the human body can catch fire without an ignition source that has a temperature above a few 100 degrees celsius is an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidence. What substances in the human body would cause this?

O2, a run-away reaction with same, as theorized.

 

No I hadn't read it but it was lousy and it didn't sway me.

 

Your operative phrasings:

- I have yet to hear a single case

- not a case has yet to be classified

- extraordinary claim *

 

* but mine's a theory, not a claim

 

Benecke's operative phrasings:

- the article seems to be one of the major sources of information for Germans interested

- The Expert Sources: To my knowledge, no scientific book or article written by...

 

I only agreed with his "is further proof that combustion never starts from [deep] inside a human body".

 

:hihi:

[alxian]

the other being beams of sunlight

 

if you cause one to explode the explosion will travel all the way back to the sun causing it to explode and evenrtually every light source in the universe will explode..

 

so don't try to explode beams of sunlight.

[alexander]

not a physics major or anything, but I'm pretty sure that sunlight is simply a beam of photons traveling in a wave-like fashion having both properties of a wave and a particle. Photon particles are similar to electrons in their dimensions, and so far, from what i know anyways, you cant really split or explode an electron, well or a photon in our case as it is one of the smalleer particles that arent really made up of multiple anything (although once again I'm not a physics major, and you could discuss the quark theory)...

[Fishteacher73]

O2, a run-away reaction with same, as theorized.

 

* but mine's a theory, not a claim

Theories are usually backed by some sort of evidence...not a vauge inference... such as, "There are zillions of crazy different molecules in the bloodstream of course so who knows?"

Benecke's operative phrasings:

- the article seems to be one of the major sources of information for Germans interested

- The Expert Sources: To my knowledge, no scientific book or article written by...

You have listed no other sources... and listed no other points of study... Seems a bit worse that the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I only agreed with his "is further proof that combustion never starts from [deep] inside a human body".

 

:hihi:

 

Further misrepresenting a quote (even with the brackets) changes the intent and scope of the quote. The actual quote is "is further proof that combustion never starts from inside a human body."

...

"never starts inside" is quite different from "never starts [deep] inside."

[hefner]

You're wrong on all 6 or 7 indictments. Hideous sanctimony, shallow, pedantic.

 

Wrong because only claims and assertions are "usually backed by" evidence. Theories can be theoretical, duh?

 

Wrong because if you'd stuidied the passage, he was referring to internal organs never being the source, as I had to so rightfully qualify, because the original writer was UNkempt.

 

***************************************

Derogatory remarks removed!

[alexander]

hefner, not my forum to moderate, but i saw this first, so, i beleive that you are in violation of our policy with those lines above, by openly attacking and flaming fish, please read http://hypography.com/forums/?page=rules

 

here are some quotes:

 

"If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on."

 

"Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts."

 

and lastly

 

"Also, rants, flames, arrogant posts, and hit-and-run posts might lead to temporary or permanent banning so please try to behave in here as you would in real life, and everyone will be happy."

 

I just wanted to say that this is an open forum and your opinion counts, but lets try to behave like grown ups here and not loose our heads.

[nemo]

You're wrong on all 6 or 7 indictments. Hideous sanctimony, shallow, pedantic.

It's nice to see people actually using a Thesaurus, but whining doesn't make you any more correct.

Wrong because only claims and assertions are "usually backed by" evidence.

Mmm... consider the context of your post; you are asking a scientifically-minded group of individuals to ponder your thoughts. Don't be surprised when they ask for some sort of rational to support your thought process.

Theories can be theoretical, duh?

Like my theory about how every woman would want me if she could only see the rock hard abs I'm cleverly hiding under my belly.

 

Wrong because if you'd stuidied the passage, he was referring to internal organs never being the source, as I had to so rightfully qualify, because the original writer was UNkempt.

If you are going to quote someone, quote them. If you are going to paraphrase, do so. If you are going to make an unsubstantiated rant against those people you are trying to convice that you are in some way knowledgeable on the subject at hand, you could at least follow it up with a quote from the Princess Bride.