Go Back   Askaboutmoney.com > The Depths > Letting Off Steam

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 24-09-2011, 10:18 AM
Brendan Burgess Brendan Burgess is offline
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remix View Post
Going back to the original case, I think it's important not to just make the assumption that the coroner suggested a non-material cause.

...

I think it only qualifies as "steam venting" material if the reader makes the assumption he was implying a supernatural cause.
Not at all.

There is no such thing as Spontaneous Human Combustion.

As I understand the wick effect, there still has to be some outside spark.

The Coroner said that the fire was not the cause and therefore it had to be spontaneous human combustion.

It is far more likely that the investigators made an error in concluding that the fire was not the cause than some unnatural process took place.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 24-09-2011, 11:09 AM
onq onq is offline
Former user
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 4,411
Default

An expert in death confirms the cause was spontaneous human combustion.

An expert in fire related emergencies confirms the fire in the room was not the cause

Do old people die in mysterious circumstances where part or all of their bodies are burnt as if by an intense heat while the surroundings show few if any effects?

Yes, this is attested and the "wick effect is well known".

Denial of facts is a form of madness.

Hint:

Rebutting experts by citing the "discovery channel" isn't making THEM look unconvincing.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24-09-2011, 12:48 PM
hastalavista hastalavista is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 456
Default

The link from the indo in the first post is dead: is that an omen?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...85.html?via=mr

IT has it also so not fair to skewer the indo, in this case anyway

Re onq

Quote:
An expert in death confirms the cause was spontaneous human combustion.
Where is this?

Confirming cause of death.....
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24-09-2011, 12:53 PM
Purple Purple is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 5,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onq View Post
An expert in death confirms the cause was spontaneous human combustion.

An expert in fire related emergencies confirms the fire in the room was not the cause

Do old people die in mysterious circumstances where part or all of their bodies are burnt as if by an intense heat while the surroundings show few if any effects?

Yes, this is attested and the "wick effect is well known".

Denial of facts is a form of madness.

Hint:

Rebutting experts by citing the "discovery channel" isn't making THEM look unconvincing.

Spontaneous Human Combustion is a myth. It is nonsense. It has no basis in fact or science.
If the same supposed experts who claim spontaneous human combustion said the man was murdered by pixies or executed by aliens I'd be equally critical.

Hint: read my post again. I never rebutted the so-called experts by citing the discovery channel. I simply said it seemed they didn't watch it. If they knew their business they wouldn't have made such a verdict in the first place. Things that are 60-70% water don't generally spontaneously combust; there is always an outside cause.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24-09-2011, 01:14 PM
ajapale ajapale is offline
 
Posts: 7,687
Default

I see the original link from the indo has now gone dead. But not before it flashed around the world. I heard a reference to the case on BBC World Service last night.

Heres my take on it:

The coroner reached the conclusion that this death was unexplained. He "googled" this and found what looked like some plausable references to SHC on the internet. He made an mistake in referencing SHC in his findings. He could have just returned an open verdict but taking the needs of the next of kin in mind decided SHC might be of more benfit to them.

I think we all (professionals or otherwise) fall into the trap of googling something and accepting as fact something we read on the internet or see on the Discovery Channel.

aj
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 24-09-2011, 01:25 PM
Remix Remix is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 62
Default

I don't know how much he learns from the telly but he's very likely aware of the Wick Effect. In a BBC interview he said he referred to Professor Bernard Knights book on forensic pathology. The Wick Effect is described in the section on "Atypical Localized Burning an Spontaeous Combustion". The book is obviously dismissive of the spontaneous element but recognizes that many cases in this category are on record.

It's not uncommon in the medical field for descriptive terms to loose their original meaning but still remain in use. For example 'coma' means deep sleep but a person in a coma is not in a deep sleep and the brain shows disorganised patterns of activity totally unlike those of sleep. But nobody would deny a person is in coma by focussing purely on the literal meaning of the term.

Similiarly the term "spontaneous human combustion" appears to have become a catch-all category for all the strange instances of fatal burning that have occurred in apparently inexplicable cases where the ignition source is destroyed. One can easily think of better terms but unfortunately it this one that has stuck.

The most complete test of the wick effect that I have come across was published in the Journal of Forensic Science with a summary on pubMed. A pig carcass was used in the experiment.

The similarity of pig fat and muscle tissue to those in humans is well recognised. (In fact on a morbid note, scientists involved in terminal ballistics research with the goal of killing or maiming humans, have used pigs as a substitute for humans in their tests.)

But in the Wick experiment a necessary condition was 1L of fuel to provide the sustained temperature and burning to initiate the wick effect. If this article represents the best understanding of the effect in peer-reviewed literature, then one can see why having no evidence of an accelerant presents a problem in this particular case.

There has to be some mundane - possibly the wick effect or possibly still unknown - cause to this and similiar cases. There has to be because as someone pointed out, nowadays if this were divine intervention we'd be seeing it every day


Edit: p.s. the article is still available on the indo site. Link may have changed:
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...n-2886192.html
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 24-09-2011, 02:56 PM
Guest105
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought it was Michael Flatley there for a moment, I was thinking that he overstepped the mark
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26-09-2011, 09:40 AM
michaelm michaelm is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Castle Black
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zztop View Post
Wel..the Theory of Relativity is now under review
folowing 3 yeras review that found particles nanoseconds
faster.Can you believe anything.
Best neutrino joke I've seen so far . .
The barman says "we don't serve neutrinos in here" . . . a neutrino walks into a bar.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-11-2011, 07:43 PM
Brendan Burgess Brendan Burgess is offline
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23,036
Default

Inquest told spontaneous human combustion 'probably urban myth'


At least the Donegal coroner did a bit of research. (I wonder did he read this thread?)

Quote:
“There was a high level of cyanide in the blood stream and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, which is not normally there. There was no antemortem damage,” the coroner said.
“Death was caused by fire. There was talk of spontaneous human combustion at the time. I did a little research and that probably is an urban myth but when I did see the remains, it did come to mind . . . I believe the clothes acted like a wick on a candle”.
The jury returned a verdict of death by fire.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 24-11-2011, 09:07 AM
Brendan Burgess Brendan Burgess is offline
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23,036
Default

And now, the State Pathologist adds her weight

Spontaneous human combustion a myth

Quote:
STATE PATHOLOGIST Prof Marie Cassidy has described the idea of spontaneous human combustion as a “myth” enjoyed by fiction writers.

...
She described spontaneous combustion as a myth and a theory that has not been valid for 500 years.
...Prof Cassidy said outside the court that spontaneous human combustion was a “misnomer”.


“It captures everybody’s imagination, this idea that somebody suddenly erupts into flame.


“The pattern is unusual in that the fire is localised to the body and the immediate surrounds because most fires that we deal with cause extensive damage to the fabric of the building, the body and everything else that is associated with it,” she continued.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 24-11-2011, 11:52 AM
Complainer Complainer is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: South Dublin
Posts: 4,976
Default

Conor Brady saw it happen with his own eyes, so it must be true;

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...307948729.html
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 25-11-2011, 07:43 AM
Brendan Burgess Brendan Burgess is offline
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23,036
Default

Hi Complainer

That is a great article. A good insight into news journalism and it's interesting that the editors held back an enthusiastic young journalist from making a fool of himself and the paper.

Brendan
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 AM.