I was recently given a book on Homeopathy that made some extreme and unbelievable claims. Not only hard to believe in the veracity department, but also in social responsibility!
They recommend fasting and, while they use an entire sentance to warn that breaking a fast with the wrong foods can be fatal, they give a whole page of advice on what to drink while fasting!
One of the more untenable claims (found in the section on colon cleansing): “Undertakers report that corpses rarely need to be embalmed these days-- we unwittingly eat so many preservatives that our bodies now take much longer to decompose after death!”
…no citation offered and nothing covering the topic in the bibliography.
From my searches, it seems that embalming uses arsenic and water (or did at one time), which is not related to BHA or BHT which are two of the more common food preservatives.
Is there anyway the two can really be related in any way?
Is there any truth at all to these claims? Do undertakers use less embalming fluid than in the past? Do they keep track of how much they use? Is there a newsletter or something?
If I killed myself by eating 2014 Twinkees, would my body decompose more slowly than if I gorged myself with celery?
When I worked at a mortuary (mid-70’s to early 80’s), embalming fluid was a solution of formaldehyde, methanol, and water. IIRC, it also contained dye to give the skin a more pleasing color. There were also serious chemicals that were injected into the abdominal cavity killed off bacteria and that hardened gut to prevent bloating. As I recall the procedure, the embalmer basically replaced the blood with embalming fluid. AFAIK, it is still done that way today.
Croak in your bathtub, preferably with the air conditioning busted in July. Have no family or roomates. Close the windows. Get back to me in three weeks once the neighbors break down the door about how you don’t decompose anymore because you eat too many preservatives.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the preservatives one eats might also help preserve one’s body after death, a useless tiny little bit. Just because they are different chemically from what embalmers use doesn’t mean they aren’t going to have any effect at all.
I’d be very very surprised, though, if any morticians actually think embalming is not needed in many cases these days. That sounds like bullshit of the highest order (or of the homeopathic order, one might say).
It doesn’t even make sense to say they “rarely” need to embalm corpses - it’s not as though they set the corpse on a slap and don’t worry about it unless it starts smelling funny. The sentence implies that undertakers only embalm the corpses that “need” it, but every corpse is embalmed immediately. If something happened to render human bodies unable to decompose, it would never be noticed by undertakers because they aren’t given a chance to.
Also, remember that the gut is thoroughly colonized by bacteria, and they’re important in human decomposition. We’d know it if all our guts magically became decolonized - it’d cause major digestive upset for starters. And you’d imagine our gut bacteria would be extremely sensitive to preservatives in food, since they’d experience the directest contact.
Several religions forbid embalming. And if burial is to take place rapily, or cremation occurs within a set time frame (I think it’s 24 or 48 hours) embalming is not necessary and not required.
In the link in the OP, and in most of the literature I’ve found, the implication is that BHT and the like are mostly used to keep fats from going rancid. In fact, they are chemically designed for that purpose.
I guess it’s just a nitpick on my part, but my uneducated WAG would be that fats in a decomposing body would have to decompose anaerobically, and that BHT and the like wouldn’t do a damn thing.
This is the part that’s really got my panties in a bunch!
I don’t find any other references to any information that even obliquely hints at something like this!
The author had to know, from the moment their hands made the pattern to render the words on paper or pixels that this was pure bullshit.
They didn’t misread or misinterpret some data or use outdated research or paraphrase someone else or skew real information toward their own ends.
They knew when they sent the manuscript to their editor that this was pure, unadulterated bullshit.
No, IANAD, disclaimer. No, IMO, no “take-this-with-a-grain-of-salt”, not even a caveat emptor.