New age: Details about 'Spontaneous Human Combustion'
|
|||||||||
Home
|
Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is the alleged burning of a person's body without a readily apparent, identifiable external source of ignition. The combustion may result in simple burns and blisters to the skin, smoking, or a complete incineration of the body. The latter is the form most often 'recognized' as SHC. There is much speculation and controversy over SHC. It is not a proven natural occurrence, but many theories have attempted to explain SHC's existence and how it may occur. The two most common explanations offered to account for apparent SHC are the non-spontaneous "wick effect" fire, and the rare discharge called "static flash fires". Although physically it can be shown that the human body contains enough energy stored in the form of fat and other tissues to consume it completely, in normal circumstances bodies will not sustain a flame on their own. Alleged CharacteristicsThere are many characteristics that together distinguish alleged SHC from other forms of fire. Indeed, it is a combination of most or all of the following factors in a fire death that leads to allegations of SHC in the first place.
Some alleged SHC fatalitiesThis list is not intended to be taken as comprehensive.
Some survivors of alleged SHCA number of persons have reported serious burns that injured their bodies with no apparent cause. If this is not the alleged phenomenon known as SHC, it would appear to be a very closely-related occurrence. This list is not intended to be taken as comprehensive.
SHC historical controversyThe idea that a human body can burst into flames without an external source of combustion is not accepted by mainstream science, although some individual scientists believe it is possible. This is not a new debate, but one that has been conducted over the last several centuries, and is still ongoing. This debate is discussed in more detail at entry: spontaneous human combustion controversy. HypothesesAt the present day, opinion on SHC remains divided. As with any apparently anomalous phenomenon, there are a number of theories that attempt to explain how SHC happens. These fall broadly into two camps, which might be called the misidentification theorists and the SHC theorists. General misidentification hypothesisThis is the hypothesis that all cases of alleged SHC are simply normal fires in which the cause has not been identified. This does not necessarily exclude the wick or static flash fire effects. An influential historical case of misidentification is that of the Countess Gorlitz . In 1847, the Count Gorlitz, who lived in the region of Darmstadt, arrived home and was unable to find his wife. When her locked private room was broken into, her body was found. It had been partially incinerated. The room was fire-damaged and in a state of disorder, with a door broken and windows smashed. A writing desk was also found burned, with its mirror broken. Candles in the room were found to be melted as well. The question arose of whether this death (in an apparently locked room) was caused by SHC. Three years later, a man called Stauff, former manservant of the Countess, was accused of her murder. He was arrested, tried and convicted. Stauff confessed that he had gone to the Countess's room and been tempted by the sight of the jewellery and money there. The Countess had returned unexpectedly and caught him in the act of stealing them. In the ensuing struggle, Stauff had strangled her. To cover his crime, he had made a heap of combustible items on her desk and set fire to them. His intention had been to destroy the entire room. This is a clear case of a murderer trying to cover his tracks, however Misidentification hypothesis does not propose a single cause for alleged SHC. Rather, misidentification theory holds that a number of unsolved fire cases have built up into an overarching SHC myth. In modern times, Beard and Drysdale cite the following as a single example of misidentification (taken from the files of CSICOP): An unnamed man was leaving his place of work (unstipulated but presumably a garage or similar, for reasons which will be immediately clear) when he lit a cigarette and immediately burst into flames. It transpired that the victim had been in the habit of using a compressed air line to blow detritus off his clothing. On this occasion the victim had accidentally used a pure oxygen line, temporarily (but greatly) increasing the flammability of his clothing. Within misidentification hypothesis, there are two main schools of thought, neither of which excludes the other. These are usually referred to as the wick effect and static flash. The wick effect hypothesisThe wick effect is a real phenomenon that has been proven to occur under certain conditions, and thoroughly observed. Since both wick effect and SHC would necessarily involve the incineration of bodies, and therefore the melting and combustion of body fat, there are many similarities between the known phenomenon (wick effect) and the alleged phenomenon (SHC). A fuller discussion of contemporary mainstream scientific acceptance of the wick effect theory of SHC can be found in the article, spontaneous human combustion controversy.
In the case of Henry Thomas, Heymer published a description of the scene and his own questions about what he suspected was a case of SHC, which appeared in the magazine New Scientist . A rebuttal was printed in the next issue of the magazine from David JX Halliday of the Metropolitan Police Force's Fire Investigation Unit, stating inter alia: "This process, which I prefer to call prolonged human combustion, is usually fuelled by fat rendered from the body by the fire. It is no coincidence that in many of the cases this unit has encountered the victim was obese, and there was always a long delay before the fire was discovered. "Examples of prolonged human combustion are, admittedly, rare but this should not be taken as evidence that an unusual source of ignition is involved. Indeed, all cases investigated by this unit have been resolved to the satisfaction of the courts without recourse to the excuse of 'spontaneous' human combustion." BBC ExperimentUsing a dead pig wrapped in a blanket and placed in a purpose-built room, The BBC set out to prove the 'wick' theory in its science television show QED. A small amount of petrol was poured on the blanket as an accelerant. After igniting the petrol, the researchers left it to burn by itself. The temperatures of the fire was regularly recorded and it was only around 800° C (1472° F). As the fire burned through the pig's skin, it melted its subcutaneous fats, which flowed onto the blanket. Bone marrow, which also contains a high amount of fats, also contributed to the burning. The surrounding furniture was not burnt although a television placed above a cupboard had its plastic cover melted. The fire had to be manually extinguished after seven hours. The majority of the pig's body had been burnt to ashes. The static flash fire hypothesisThis is a condition in which static electricity apparently builds up to such dangerous levels in the human body that a sparking discharge can ignite clothing. A noticeable static electricity shock typically measures 3,000 volts, created by performing certain activities. The charge can build up to much greater levels depending on other conditions such as humidity. Walking across a carpet can create a potential difference of 1,500 to 35,000 volts. Static discharges can ignite petrol fumes at filling stations, and are one suspected cause of filling station explosions which are popularly (but erroneously) believed to be caused by emissions from mobile phones. Seventy percent of such incidents occur in cool dry weather, which favours the buildup of static. The phenomenon of massive static charges on human bodies was first noted by the late professor Robin Beach of the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute . Professor Beach believed that some people could build up a sufficient static charge to ignite combustible materials in contact with their bodies. While putting this forward as a possible cause of SHC reports, Beach did not believe there was a connection to allegedly genuine SHC as no known form of electrostatic discharge could cause the tissues of the human body to ignite. In static flash fire cases, the voltage that builds up is much higher, producing bright flashes capable of illuminating dark surroundings, or shimmering flame-like effects, depending on circumstances. In some cases, the charge is apparently sufficient to ignite dust or fluff clinging to clothing, which may then set clothing alight. Survivors of static flash fires/eventsTwo examples of people surviving potentially-catastrophic static flash events are given in John E Heymer's book 'The Entrancing Flame'. Each case is backed up by an eyewitness. The accounts are in the form of written and signed statements from named indviduals, shorn of some details to protect the privacy of correspondents. Summaries follow.
Spontaneous human combustion conjecturesAdherents to SHC conjectures hold that the cause of SHC is none of the above, but that it is a discrete and genuine phenomenon in which the flesh of the human body catches fire without any external cause. The field of SHC theories divides into two camps: The supernaturalists and the non-supernaturalists. The supernaturalists believe that the cause of SHC is almost certainly beyond human knowledge forever. This faction puts forward various conjectures that include poltergeists, divine wrath, etc, which are not considered separately here. The non-supernaturalists believe that SHC is either knowable or will be knowable. There is little or no general agreement between those advocating such SHC conjectures. Moreover, there is little agreement between the SHC non-supernaturalists and the SHC skeptics. Brief discussions of some of these advocates follow: John E Heymer and 'The Entrancing Flame'Described by Joe Nickell as an "English coal-miner-turned-constable,", John E Heymer wrote a 1996 book entitled The Entrancing Flame. This gets its title from one deductive conclusion that he has reached from examining many cases, namely that SHC victims are lonely people who fall into a trance immediately prior to their incineration. Heymer suggests that a psychosomatic process in such emotionally-distressed people can trigger off a chain reaction by freeing hydrogen and oxygen within the body and setting off a chain reaction of mitochondrial explosions. Heymer's theories have won little support. They have also generated misunderstanding: Ian Simmons, in a review of The Entrancing Flame, criticised Heymer thus: "He seems to be under the illusion that exist as gases in the cell and are thus vulnerable to ignition, which is, in fact, not the case." Larry Arnold and the 'Pyroton'Larry Arnold is a private researcher, who has devoted much time to the SHC controversy. He is director of an organization called ParaScience International . Arnold, in his 1995 book on SHC entitled Ablaze!, theorises that a hitherto-unknown subatomic particle which he refers to as the pyroton is emitted in cosmic rays, usually passing harmlessly through the body like a neutrino, but occasionally striking a cell nucleus and triggering off a chain reaction that destroys the body entirely. Reaction to Arnold's theory has been almost unanimously negative. In 1996, in a Fortean Times article, Ian Simmons said: "There is, however, no independent evidence for such a particle and just inventing it to explain SHC is not really a runner" Use in written fictionSpontaneous human combustion is occasionally used in works of written fiction:
Use in other popular cultureSpontaneous human combustion is also used in popular culture movies and television shows:
Quotes
See also
Combustión espontánea Combustion spontanée Spontán emberi öngyulladás Spontane zelfontbranding Samospalenie (zjawisko niewyjaśnione) Itsesytyntä
|
||||||||