I just read Cecil’s Straight Dope Classic about what happens during cremation, and it reminded me of a somewhat morbid question I’ve had for a while.
Is cremation bad for the environment? Is the smoke from the burning treated somehow, or does it escape to affect air quality? How much energy is required to heat a furnace that high? I know from much morbid reading that certain…substances…are left over after the ash has been collected. Would these then go to a landfill? Since I understand many crematories require a box or coffin of some kind, isn’t it wasteful of resources to have to buy something that you’re going to reduce to ash anyway?
I ask this because a LOT of people, especially on the SDMBs, seem enthusiastic on the subject of wanting to be cremated. However, a lot of people also have a strong desire to preserve the environment, and I’m curious as to whether cremation is an environmentally sound choice. I understand that environmental friendliness is probably not the first consideration people have when choosing cremation, nor do I question anybody’s decision regarding burial customs. Furthermore, I’m not a huge environmentalist, just interested in what the facts are.
Palandine, who wants to be buried in a simple coffin with no vault
I’m just guessing to bump the thread so that the know-it-alls can take a shot.
Ash = Fertilizer, no problem that I can see, unless human ash is somehow richer in phosphorus or something else that can be harmful to soil quality. Depends on quantities too. Should be no worse than burial.
Container = An unfinished un-upholstered wooden box is probably your best choice since AFAIK you must be in a box of some kind to be cremamted.
Burning Method = Probably a natural gas burning oven which burns fairly clean.
Smoke = This is probably the main problem area for the environment that I can see. Incompletely burned fat, paint, varnish, textiles.
Cremation bad for the environment? Usually it’s promoted as good for the environment…
Anyhow, here are my WAGs:
Smoke: unless the person in question has made a habit of ingesting highly toxic chemicals or radioactive substances in life that could be released by burning, this shouldn’t pose a real problem. No, inhaling the smoke isn’t good for you but the results should be less toxic than what’s produced by the average house fire. In WWII, the massive crematories used at the death camps did sometimes produce a fine ash that fell snow-like in the vicinity of the place, but people there were dropping dead from lack of food and clothing, not inhaling people fumes.
Residue: again, no bizzarro chemicals. Makes good fertilizer, provides valuable minerals to plants. After a forest fire new growth thrives in the ashes.
Container: now, if you use some sort of elaborate, highly varnished thing you might start getting into toxic paints and such, but most cremations cost less than burials, and there’s no reason not to use a bare-bones (sorry) container since you’re just going to burn it. Heck, use a heavy-duty cardboard to make the box.
Burning method: when we cremated my sister the funeral home said they used natural gas - burns hot and clean, potentially renewable resource since there are sources other than oil wells.
On the plus side - “cremains” use much less land for storage than corpses. Also more sanitary, since the remains are sterilized and can not transmit disease.
I just can’t see it as environmentally friendly. Basically we have (I estimate) about a billion pounds of cadavers to dispose of every year. There is no way that burning that much organic matter can be good for the environment. Sure it’s better than burial in a hermetically sealed coffin from a land-use perspective. But the best alternative has to be recycling of some kind.
Far more than a billion pounds of “organic matter” probably goes up in flames every year from naturally occuring forest fires, not to mention folks cooking over wood fires in much of the non-western world.
We’ve got burial and we’ve got cremation - any suggestions for a better alternative?
If we could overcome the taboo involved, grinding the corpses up and drying them to use as agricultural fertiliser (like we do with fish meal) would be more ‘environmentally friendly’ because it wouldn’t release all the carbon back as CO[sub]2[/sub], plus it would probably use less fossil fuels (although the grinding and drying process would of couorse require energy input of some sort).
That said, I’m not sure I could personally stomach the idea of eating vegetables that have been directly fed on Soylent Green - irrational, I know; it all goes around eventually.
my vision - a graveyard where you’re buried in a biodegradable coffin and after 50 years or so the area is recovered for other use. trees are planted, deer frolic, whatever. there are already countries with rent-a-graves that are cleared out after so many years. i don’t see how composting would be worse.
health hazards are the only tiny little snag i see. but would a decomposed corpse still be a hazard after 50 to 100 years? I kind of doubt it. maybe. if it’s prions maybe. maybe some viruses.
We already have these; ‘woodland burial grounds’ - no headstones, the bodies are buried in biodegradable coffins etc (I saw a nice one made of wicker basketwork, like a big moses basket for the return journey)
Everything is, technically, bad for the environment. The question becomes, is cremation in the amounts anticipated worse for the environment than it can tolerate?
There is a tribe of people in a mountainous area of remote middle Asia who have a considerable problem of acheiving either burial or cremation - there simply isn’t enough soil or fuel.
Sop they have solved the problem ina somewhat grisly fashion. After the funeral rites have been completed, the deceased removed to a rocky outcrop and dismembered. Then the pieces are left for birds of prey to complete the task of disposal.
I’m sorry that I don’t have a cite for this. It was something that I once heard/read/saw (pick one, I can’t remember) from a travelogue.
Hmm, my Irish-American ex-boyfriend wanted the same thing. You’re name’s not Seamus, is it?
Thanks for the answers everyone. Very informative. Most of my relatives are buried in a rural cemetery in the middle of a cow pasture. I kind of like the idea of the cows eating grass that we’ve fertilized. Turnabout is fair play.
But I DON’T want a vault. Everything I’ve read says decomposition is far more gross within a sealed vault than in wood in the ground.
You may already know this, but the vault’s purpose is to prevent ground collapse when the casket rots. Without the vault there will eventually be a depression in the ground at the burial site.
I’m told that vaults are required by law in many, if not all, areas of the USA.
I can see where a lot of cemeteries might require that, Gary.
My own grandparents in the rural cemetery I mentioned were buried without vaults. The cemetery does not have perpetual care, and yes, every spring we have to add more soil and plant new grass seed.
Scroll down to my post in the “6 feet?” thread. My friend was not able to witness the ceremony, but said you could see the vultures waiting for the next ceremony.
Do a google search on ‘Sky burial’ - in deference to sensibilities and my own squeamish stomach, I refrained from posted the pictures taken at one ‘sky burial’
