Irish Man's Death Ruled Spontaneous Combustion

Pfft, no such thing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 18:45 · Score: 1, Funny

FIRST PO.. *poof!*

Re:Pfft, no such thing by Ihmhi · 2011-09-25 23:45 · Score: 0

Holy shit, the ending to that movie is fucking METAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b3fDrnYsUg
I can't stop laughing at the father's reaction to the fire...

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Pfft, no such thing by KingBenny · 2011-09-27 22:55 · Score: 1

maybe it's one of those anonymous rogue neutrinos again ... never do as they're told

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Fire in the fireplace? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 18:46 · Score: 0

Probably just a jumping ember. That's enough to set someone immobile on fire... Good luck in finding any trace of it once most or all the body has burnt.

Re:Fire in the fireplace? by toQDuj · 2011-09-25 19:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Except that humans are not particularly inflammable. Sure, the hair burns, and maybe a bit of the skin or clothing, but the huge quantities of water in the body make for a reasonable extinguisher. Perhaps, though, if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...

--
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by taiwanjohn · 2011-09-25 19:31 · Score: 5, Informative

The best explanation I've heard is the wick effect.

The "wick effect" hypothesis suggests that a small external flame source, such as a burning cigarette, chars the clothing of the victim at a location, splitting the skin and releasing subcutaneous fat, which is in turn absorbed into the burned clothing, acting as a wick. This combustion can continue for as long as the fuel is available. This hypothesis has been successfully tested with animal tissue (pig) and is consistent with evidence recovered from cases of human combustion.[5][6] The human body typically has enough stored energy in fat and other chemical stores to fully combust the body; even lean people have several pounds of fat in their tissues.
The presumption is that the person dies of other causes, and then a lit cigarette or some other ignition source starts the process. And you're right, from what I've heard, a high percentage of SHC victims were known to be heavy drinkers, which would only add more fuel to the fire.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by phonewebcam · 2011-09-25 19:58 · Score: 1

That would mean no-one has ever seen it. I mean, this process must take hours, whereas to me "spontaneous" means they burst into flames. Is there any recorded incident of someone seeing this? Are all the victims alone when it happens?
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by squizzar · 2011-09-25 20:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Spontaneous refers to the lack of any obvious ignition source (except the cigarettes they smoked, or the fire they 'fell asleep' next to - but I digress). If an empty desk in my office were to start smoldering and eventually flames appeared that would be spontaneous combustion as much as if the whole thing suddenly burst into flame.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by antifoidulus · 2011-09-25 20:18 · Score: 1

Maybe Tyler Durden went looking elsewhere for the fat to sell his soap and things went terribly awry.

--
Monstar L
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Serious+Callers+Only · 2011-09-25 20:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Spontaneous does not mean instantly or quickly, it means something happening with no apparent cause or external cause, or someone doing something involuntarily. The action doesn't have to be over quickly.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by MichaelSmith · 2011-09-25 20:38 · Score: 3, Funny

if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...
That would never happen in Ireland.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Runaway1956 · 2011-09-25 21:25 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion
Wikipedia seems to answer most of your questions. Read the accounts of the two survivors who were accompanied by relatives at the time.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by gmhowell · 2011-09-25 21:38 · Score: 1

if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...
That would never happen in Ireland.
57 comments and only one joke about drunk Irishmen? Slashdot truly is dying. The fact that nobody has licked to a Family Guy clip from when Peter went there just nails the coffin shut.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by adolf · 2011-09-25 22:04 · Score: 1

As a drunken Irish derivative, who is not precisely Irish but whose mother's family does (allegedly) have a castle over there somewhere:
I must hasten to admit that I have lit myself on fire many times. It has always been an accident, and I have so far always either been coherent enough to snuff the blaze, or able to wake up quickly enough to do the same.
I have no doubt that many another Irishman have had similar problems, and that a certain percentage of them were either too inebriated to adequately react or simply too dead at the time to respond at all.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Scrameustache · 2011-09-25 23:32 · Score: 2

to me "spontaneous" means

People who can't use dictionaries should DIAF.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Man+Eating+Duck · 2011-09-25 23:40 · Score: 0

57 comments and only one joke about drunk Irishmen? Slashdot truly is dying.
OK, here goes: "Two Irishmen walked out of a bar..."

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by erroneus · 2011-09-25 23:44 · Score: 1

This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
I have no insightful observations to offer except this:
We know that to "boil" does not require high temperatures -- just a substance which has a boiling point which is lower and/or an atmospheric pressure which is low enough to enable boiling to occur at lower temperatures. We also know that chemical reactions can and do happen at lower temperatures not necessarily requiring "heat" to perpetuate the reaction.
There have been cases of SHC where the clothes which the victims were wearing were largely unaffected by the reaction the body had undergone and the same for the other materials surrounding the body. So this insistence that there must be heat is probably the first obstacle to understanding what is going on. And "heat" is a relative measure in the first place. After all, a "rock" might be considered to be "frozen magma" and that regardless of its present temperature, it might be considered to be frozen if it is not in a liquid state. And relative to "absolute zero" I'm on frikken fire right now and so are you.
Sometimes to understand something, you have to forget what you think you know.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Purity+Of+Essence · 2011-09-26 00:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

This reminds of that time I didn't make a Family Guy reference and people unconsciously thanked me.

--
+0 Meh
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by elrous0 · 2011-09-26 01:02 · Score: 2

In most of the "spontaneous combustion" cases in the past, the victims have shared two important characteristics:
1) They were smokers
2) They were alcoholics
Combining a flammable liquid, lit cigarette, and someone prone to passing out--well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the likely scenario in most of these cases.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by tibit · 2011-09-26 01:02 · Score: 2

More fuel? How much alcohol, realistically, can you have in your body? I doubt you can really store even a liter of ethanol. That'd be two liters of vodka. And apart from what's buried deep in your GI tract, the rest of it is too diluted to be much of a concern.
Drinking simply makes you unaware of being on fire for long enough for the wick effect to get things going. I'm sure many elderly people have problems with peripheral sensing of pain, especially if they have circulation problems. They may well be not drunk and still on fire without knowing. My 30 y.o. friend had a (recently fixed) Chiari malformation, causing her to lose all peripheral sense of touch and pain, even deep pain. She looked like her hubby was beating and scalding her, even though it was of her own doing (no effing pun intended, please).

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 01:45 · Score: 1

One time my Irish-derivative friend sat across the table from me at the pub, holding a fork over the candle on the table for what seemed like about 5 minutes. The fork started to faintly glow, it was so hot - and he then had to start quickly switching hands to keep it over the fire.
Finally I stopped talking and just said, "What the FUCK are you doing???"
And then he smiled, and he branded my arm.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by mr1911 · 2011-09-26 01:56 · Score: 1

Why screw up an informative post with a statement of stupidity?

a high percentage of SHC victims were known to be heavy drinkers, which would only add more fuel to the fire.
Even with a BAC high enough to kill you, it isn't enough to turn your blood into a combustible fluid.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by SuricouRaven · 2011-09-26 02:10 · Score: 1

Of course they are all alone. If they weren't alone, whoever was with them would put the flames out before the fire takes hold.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by couchslug · 2011-09-26 02:10 · Score: 1

"Except that humans are not particularly inflammable"
Sober humans. He was Irish, after all. (runs)

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by JDG1980 · 2011-09-26 02:27 · Score: 1

Well, yes. If someone sees the incident, then it can be rationally explained, so it will not be described as "SHC."
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by j-beda · 2011-09-26 02:36 · Score: 1

This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
Well, except for the fact that they did not actually combust, so we don't really know that what they reported is in fact at all related to the supposed SHC cases such as this one.
Sure this case (and similar ones) are pretty creepy, but what do you think is more likely: An old guy dies from a heart attack (or other mundane cause) and a spark from the open fireplace in the room (was he a smoker? maybe he was smoking at the time and dropped his cigarette onto his clothes as he fell) starts his clothing to smolder and he burns like a candle for eight hours *as has been demonstrated possible with pigs*. Or some mysterious non-physical magic thing happened to char him in the spot.
Heck, I would more likely believe that someone strapped him to a chair, and injected him with air bubbles to cause his death, and then carefully laid him out and started him on fire in such a way as to maximize the wicking effect and cover up his evil plans. Rather than any mysterious SHC. What was the butler up to? Does the good-for-nothing son listed in the will have an alibi? Was the victim getting too close to the evidence of the toxic waste dumping coverup near the local reservoir? Have I been watching to much CSI?
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by hairyfeet · 2011-09-26 02:43 · Score: 1

I read a book years and years ago on various weirdness and the ones researching it had a pretty good explanation. According to their findings nearly 97% of SHC cases all have these things in common: 1.-They are elderly, 2.-They drank regularly, 3.- They were to some degree overweight.
Their theory was the right mixture of gases in the body plus body fat to work as fuel would cause SHC which is why it is so rare. but according to their research it was pretty easy to spot the difference between SHC and say someone who burnt to death by falling asleep with a cigarette. With SHC everything is covered by an oily soot (The body fat being burned as fuel), there is little to no damage to the surrounding area, yet the body itself is almost completely burned up in the center mass, often with bones destroyed.
Finally as for what sets them off their theory was electrical, which is as good as any I suppose. they based it on the one case they could find of someone who survived it in I believe it was the 30s, thanks to having her daughter at home. the daughter reported her mother appeared to have some sort of fit followed by an almost static charge making the daughter's hairs stand on end, finally a white hot spot appeared on her mother and began smoking. The daughter dumped an entire jug of tea on her mother and managed to get her cooled enough to stop it, although with heavy burns down to the fat layer.
anyway as complex an organism as is the human it wouldn't surprise me that if the conditions are just right someone could SHC. After all look at the cases we have of people doing feats of strength that should have been physically impossible for their size, and without doing major damage to themselves. If you looked at it logically they should have had broken bones, ripped muscles, etc, yet they don't because the exact right combination of hormones and chemicals released by fear somehow overcome their natural limitations. So given what we know so far about the phenomenon I'd say its at least possible but extremely rare.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by mcavic · 2011-09-26 02:44 · Score: 1

That would never happen in Ireland.
You mean because the lethal level is different there, right? :)
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by tehcyder · 2011-09-26 03:02 · Score: 1

Probably just a jumping ember. That's enough to set someone immobile on fire... Good luck in finding any trace of it once most or all the body has burnt.
Phew, slashdot saves the day again. I'm sure none of the highly trained police and firemen thought of that..

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by M.+Baranczak · 2011-09-26 03:15 · Score: 2

Exactly - it's not even close.
A blood alcohol level of just 0.4% is lethal. But for a water-alcohol mixture to burn at room temperature, you need something like 70-80% alcohol.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Z00L00K · 2011-09-26 03:52 · Score: 1

The good thing is that watching CSI will give you a broader sense of potential natural explanations to what seems really odd.
And if the victim died or was unconscious before combustion will probably remain unsolved. If it was self-ignition, wouldn't there be more traces spread over the room while he tried to extinguish himself?

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by sootman · 2011-09-26 05:04 · Score: 1

> from what I've heard, a high percentage of
> SHC victims were known to be heavy
> drinkers, which would only add more
> fuel to the fire.
The average adult has about six quarts of blood. Assuming the density of blood is somewhat close to that of water, that's about 12 pounds of blood in, say, a 150-pound person. "Legally drunk" used to be 0.1% BAC so that's 1/1000th of 12 pounds of alcohol--about two tenths of an ounce. That's a very, very small amount of fuel. Even if you're five times over the old legal limit, that's just one ounce of alcohol.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by gfxguy · 2011-09-26 05:26 · Score: 1

... except the coroner, in this case, said there was no trace of any accelerants.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by plover · 2011-09-26 05:38 · Score: 1

OK, here goes: "Two Irishmen walked out of a bar..."
What? It could happen!

--
John
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by c6gunner · 2011-09-26 06:15 · Score: 2

This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
More people have reported being obducted by aliens. And about an equal number have had a jolly tea party with Mr. and Miss. Bigfoot.

Sometimes to understand something, you have to forget what you think you know.
Yes, giving yourself brain-damage is probably the best way to understand things. Screw those scienticians with their "Lurnings" and "Edumacation". All we need is ignorance.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by erroneus · 2011-09-26 07:29 · Score: 1

Well, my point is the FIRST thing that needs to be forgotten is that "all fire is hot." It's not.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by flaming+error · 2011-09-26 08:17 · Score: 1

Did you take that derivative and re-integrate it with the dust from whence it came?
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by c6gunner · 2011-09-26 08:49 · Score: 1

I suppose it depends on your definition of "hot". All fires produce heat. Some produce more than others. I'm not sure anyone would claim otherwise, especially not the experts.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 09:16 · Score: 1

He was brandishing a red-hot fork. My options were limited, and I was drunk enough that it didn't really hurt much.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 17:13 · Score: 0

But he just told you to forget that! Play ball!
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by adolf · 2011-09-26 19:10 · Score: 1

Wow. Fork you!
I've never seen outward behavior with such permanence toward an unrelated person from an Irish-derivative. I do have a habitually-drunken German-derivative friend from whom such a random antic would never be particularly surprising, however.
Then again, most of the Irish derivatives I know are directly related to me, and we all seemed to spend most our childhood actively trying to quite literally kill each other before everyone moved away (presumably, for the prosperity of the clan) once they became adults. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of them was married (twice!) to the aforementioned German derivative.
Indeed, it might not be an accident that it is an alleged castle instead of an actively maintained one. It seems likely, based on my experience with this particular genetic group, that at some point they all fled in different directions out of fear of eachother.
Family Christmas parties are, needless to say, very entertaining.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 23:20 · Score: 1

LOL, yes, from my experience with this particular Irish derivative, all of the clan members do better the farther they are geographically separated from one another.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Fire in the fireplace? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-03 09:20 · Score: 0

>I mean, this process must take hours, whereas to me "spontaneous" means they burst into flames.
I would have thought so too, because I never thought much about it or did any research. In most cases "spontaneous" would give connotations about things happening suddenly. Also, "combustion" sounds like something almost exploding. Just goes to show one should probably often try to pay mind to what one assumes.

Nothing combusts for "no reason". by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 18:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the reason isn't found, either the investigators are not good enough, or the science isn't. Otherwise such an "explanation" falls in the realm of witchcraft.

Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by djsmiley · 2011-09-25 23:26 · Score: 1

Coal,
Flour
I'm sure some other substances must too.... But these DO combust, without source of ignition.
Infact wikipedia has a nice list : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion

--
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 23:36 · Score: 0

Otherwise such an "explanation" falls in the realm of witchcraft.
No. We are not responsible for your preconceived notions of spontaneous human combustion.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by FranktehReaver · 2011-09-26 00:17 · Score: 1

What about Whiskey? I think there was a lot of Whiskey on scene... :D
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 01:16 · Score: 0

"You don't have an open mind" is not a compelling argument. Show some evidence -- it should be easy.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by Malties · 2011-09-26 01:20 · Score: 1

It says with no source of ignition. My diesel engine causes spontanious combustion thousands of times every minute without any source of ignition.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 01:48 · Score: 1

That's like saying a modern gun fires bullets without any source of ignition...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 03:31 · Score: 0

Compressing the diesel gas lowers it's point of ignition so low it can basically auto-ignite.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by HiThere · 2011-09-26 04:29 · Score: 2

There are many things that "spontaneously combust". The classic example is a pile of oily rags in the cellar, but you could also cite Stallman's laptop. Spontaneously doesn't mean without reason, it means without external reason. (And it's not even quite that limited, as, for example, the pile of oily rags needs to be reasonably warm to start with. And oxygen needs to be in the atmosphere. Etc.)
There are several reported cases of humans "spontaneously combusting". They may not all be fabrications or misunderstandings. Just like batteries, we contain excess energy enough to destroy us. It's not clear that it ever releases spontaneously, but there's no proof that it never happens. It is, however, certainly unusual. But then so is a laptop's battery breaking into fire when it's not plugged in, and nobody's in the room. That, however, we know can happen. People doing the same thing is something that I consider still dubious, but not, in principle, unreasonable.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by na1led · 2011-09-26 05:55 · Score: 0

Sounds like a case for the X-Files. Where is Mulder and Scully?

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by KDR_11k · 2011-09-26 09:14 · Score: 1

Oh I read the book version of that episode. Their explanation was a shadow made of antimatter that would make people touching it burn.
I don't think the writers got anything better than an F in physics.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-09-26 11:25 · Score: 1

SHE'S A WITCH! BURN HER!
Re:Nothing combusts for "no reason". by EdIII · 2011-09-26 18:04 · Score: 1

I would consider it highly dubious. We have two possibilities here:
1) A human can catch fire, burn from the inside out, explode, etc. while still alive. Pretty scary to think about, but even in urban legends and old wives tales, have we ever heard of anything like that witnessed by another human being? I have never heard about it at all. Granted, I am only one person, but that is some seriously awesome shit. You would expect a story, a myth, legend, etc. to be passed around about seeing something like that. Yet, this event is always without witnesses, and to my knowledge, involves enclosed spaces.
2) A dead human can catch fire and with our current forensic technology we cannot explain the source and/or pattern of the combustion, or even the approximate environment in which it can occur.
In both 1 and 2 you would expect some data, and correlated events. Meaning, that dead bodies left at room temperature in enclosed spaces have a much higher rate of combustion without an external ignition source, and that live people under some condition just catch fire.
We have no data supporting that at all, anywhere. Why are there not, in the entire course of human history, mention of dead bodies just catching fire with witnesses? Not even one? Statistically, I find that highly improbable, hence why I find it so dubious. People that are still alive? Not a single instance with a witness.
It is far more likely that we cannot establish the exact cause in a way that stands up to scientific scrutiny, explains multiple events, and can be reproduced in experimental environments. Yes, I am suggesting that we take dead bodies and setup specific environments. Why not? We perform a ton of research with dead bodies, and they are becoming more plentiful all the time. I would donate my body for such an experiment when I am dead. Seriously, it would be awesome if my body exploded. Wickedly cool, even.
Spontaneous Human Combustion is one of those catch-all explanations when nothing else applies. Kind of like a default in a switch statement, or schizophrenia when the psychologist just can't seem to narrow it down and just wants to go home.
There is a reason these bodies catch fire. Spontaneously is highly highly unlikely given how many human beings are on the planet and the rate at which information has traveled in the last 200 years. We would have something at this point.
It is just as reasonable for me to conclude that they were probed by aliens and that is just a cover-up by an organization of people that all wear black suits and have single character names.
This same logic applies to Big Foot. I mean seriously, the fucker is huge, hence the name. Unless he was trained in super spy school or the art of Ninjutsu, I am pretty sure somebody other than a drunk hunter with poor camera equipment would have come across one by now. Even a dead one.

NVIDIA COVERUP!!! by DurendalMac · 2011-09-25 18:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Fermi claims another life and they pay off the coroner!

Re:NVIDIA COVERUP!!! by Alex+Belits · 2011-09-25 19:37 · Score: 1

gb2/g/

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:NVIDIA COVERUP!!! by Arancaytar · 2011-09-25 22:39 · Score: 0

Now, let's not get hot-headed about this and start a flame war.
Re:NVIDIA COVERUP!!! by SmurfButcher+Bob · 2011-09-26 03:25 · Score: 1

No, he had Yet Another iPhone5 prototype... and he's merely the world's first victim of Holding It Wrong 2.0(tm).

--

help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

Wicking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 18:51 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, most of these cases can be explained by a slow burn (smouldering, such as started by a cigarette), using the human body as a fuel source, and something acting as a wick, like clothing or fibrous tissue.

Re:Wicking by Joce640k · 2011-09-25 22:53 · Score: 1

I don't think anybody's saying it's an unexplained paranormal event, they're just saying this is what happened to him.
(At least that's the way I read it)

--
No sig today...
Re:Wicking by hot+soldering+iron · 2011-09-26 00:03 · Score: 2

I remember some guys playing with a magnetron out of a microwave oven a couple of years ago managed to set some plywood on fire at a moderate distance (reports of almost 100 feet/30 meters). If it was true or not, I don't know, but it would explain a lack of any chemical residue or accelerants. It would be a perfect arsonist's tool, and would make forensic analysis a bitch. Directed energy really wouldn't leave a lot of trace behind, would it?

--
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
Re:Wicking by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 01:53 · Score: 1

That sounds crazy. I doubt wood could even ignite inside a microwave. But, if it is possible to light wood on fire with microwaves, then yes it would be the perfect arsonist's tool. You could drive up in an MFI diesel car, point a magnetron out the window and light a house on fire. The only evidence might be burned out electronics nearby.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Wicking by DrVomact · 2011-09-26 06:52 · Score: 1

I see no problem with calling this "spontaneous human combustion", if by SHC you mean "this guy burned up and we can't prove how it happened." The coroner didn't posit a supernatural explanation; he's basically saying he's got a bunch of ashes, and can't explain it. Nothing wrong with that; better to admit you don't know than to make up a "rational" explanation.
As far as hypotheses go, the "wicking effect" seems to make the most sense to me, also. The victim is either unconscious due to alcohol consumption, or drops dead of a heart attack; there's usually not enough of a body left to determine the state of the victim just before he combusted. Then he drops a cigarette, falls too close to a fireplace, or whatever...and it's crispy critter time.
For what it's worth, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the combustive power of body fat. They used to sell grills that were essentially a ten gallon metal garbage can. You wadded up a couple of sheets of newspaper, put the paper into the can and lit it. Then you put the steak on the grill across the top of the "can". Works wonderfully--the fat drippings are more than enough to cook the steak; in fact,. you have to take it off the grill or it'll get too crispy. Hmm...wonder what happens if you just wrap the steak in wadded up newspaper? *rationalizes that the sacrifice of a $10/pound steak is justified by Science...*

--
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Re:Wicking by Phasma+Felis · 2011-09-26 07:16 · Score: 1

Mmm, if the glue/resin/finish is flammable, plywood could ignite in a microwave, even if regular wood wouldn't. Woodn't. Whatever. Make your own joke.
Re:Wicking by Kittenman · 2011-09-26 08:34 · Score: 1

I see no problem with calling this "spontaneous human combustion", if by SHC you mean "this guy burned up and we can't prove how it happened." The coroner didn't posit a supernatural explanation; he's basically saying he's got a bunch of ashes, and can't explain it.
I do. Calling it SHC is akin to not looking inside an area on a map and writing 'Here be Dragons'. Maybe with a picture of one, for emphasis.
Coroners can record an 'open verdict', meaning that they don't know. Using the same analogy (I know ... it's maps, not cars), that's "Terra Incognita". Better than dragons any day of the week.

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Wicking by mhelander · 2011-09-26 17:27 · Score: 1

How many woods would a magnetron ignite if a magnetron could ignite woods.
Re:Wicking by Auntiegrav · 2011-09-27 02:16 · Score: 1

Depends if they nailed it or not.

Think about all that burning water... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 18:51 · Score: 1

Humans body contains about 80% of water (out of body weight). It means, if person weights 100kg (about 200 pounds), he/she have about 80kg (about 176 pounds) of water... and it's equal amount of water in litres (80L). Now all math geeks, wake up: How much energy you need to _burn_/_vaporize_ 80L of water?

I'll rest my case.

Re:Think about all that burning water... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 19:26 · Score: 0

About as much energy as stored in the human body as hydrocarbons. Wet things can burn, just not very fast or hot.
Re:Think about all that burning water... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 20:19 · Score: 3, Informative

1kg of lard contains 37700kJ and can therefore vaporize almost 16,9kg of water. 5kg of lard can vaporize 84kg of water.
Those 5kg just about cover the essential body fat, i.e the fat we need in/around our brain, skin, joints, etc.
Re:Think about all that burning water... by maxume · 2011-09-25 23:10 · Score: 1

Uh-huh. Where are you going to get the 20-odd MJ needed to heat the water 70 degrees or so?

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Think about all that burning water... by lyml · 2011-09-26 01:36 · Score: 1

Uh didn't you read his post? 1 kg of lard contained 38 MJ of energy.
Re:Think about all that burning water... by maxume · 2011-09-26 01:47 · Score: 1

I did, but apparently I wasn't thinking very clearly. These things happen.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Think about all that burning water... by ae1294 · 2011-09-26 02:50 · Score: 1

I did, but apparently I wasn't thinking very clearly. These things happen.
I, After a long day drinkin and beating the wife....
Re:Think about all that burning water... by DrVomact · 2011-09-26 08:18 · Score: 1

Humans body contains about 80% of water (out of body weight). It means, if person weights 100kg (about 200 pounds), he/she have about 80kg (about 176 pounds) of water... and it's equal amount of water in litres (80L). Now all math geeks, wake up: How much energy you need to _burn_/_vaporize_ 80L of water?
I'll rest my case.
Work before rest. According to the Wikipedia article on water content of the human body, the average is under 60%:

Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology states that "the total amount of water in a man of average weight (70 kilograms) is approximately 40 litres, averaging 57 percent of his total body weight. In a newborn infant, this may be as high as 75 percent of the body weight, but it progressively decreases from birth to old age, most of the decrease occurring during the first 10 years of life. Also, obesity decreases the percentage of water in the body, sometimes to as low as 45 percent".

Your objection might be fundamentally correct, if you're arguing that there's not enough energy in the average person's body fat to boil away the water, but we should start by working with the correct figures

--
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Re:Think about all that burning water... by tsotha · 2011-09-26 09:16 · Score: 1

Are you trying to say human bodies don't burn? Bodies burn quite well once you get them started - the Romans are supposed to have lit the road from Jerusalem to Rome (partially, one would think) with the burning corpses of the city's crucified residents after its sack in 70 A.D. The Romans were assholes when you stood up to them.

Classic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 18:53 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMfCG6nn1w

What garbage non-science! by SendBot · 2011-09-25 18:53 · Score: 4, Informative

I looked into this when I first read about it. Apparently a disproportionate amount of "spontaneous combustion" cases are older people found next to fire places, this man included. I was not able to find details that would rule out an existing fire in the fireplace contributing to the cause, like an absence of ashes. It's speculated that these cases are people who had a stroke or heart attack while warming themselves by the fire, after which a small spark flies out and eventually smolders the entire body.

Re:What garbage non-science! by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-25 19:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC). TFA only mentions that the ruling was simply that he caught fire for some undetermined reason. No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit of picking one or two words that someone said and quoting them out of context in a headline.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:What garbage non-science! by tomachi · 2011-09-25 19:21 · Score: 1

Nah I believe in it - but it should be renamed "Slow Post-Mortem Human Combustion". In all these cases the person probably died of other causes beforehand, so they didn't feel themselves slow cooking. Like the wick effect on a candle.
Re:What garbage non-science! by wvmarle · 2011-09-25 20:07 · Score: 2

Considering the damage reported (substantial damage to both the floor around and the ceiling above the body) I wouldn't call it smoldering.
Yet spontaneous combustion... no I don't believe that either. A more likely explanation would be that the person had a lot of clothing on (elderly people are very good at feeling cold and putting on lots and lots of clothing - the person in question was sitting close to a fireplace so good chance he was feeling cold) that happened to be highly combustible and for whatever reason caught fire. Synthetic clothing may burn fast and hot and seriously damage a body, leaving damage on the floor around it and to the ceiling.
Surprising anyway that there are no other, more likely scenarios given than "spontaneous human combustion" as cause of death. Living humans are not exactly flammable to begin with. Our hairs maybe, but that's about it.
And indeed possibly he passed out for whatever reason, fell forward, and a spark jumping from the open fire set him alight. An unlikely scenario sure, but I'd say much more likely than spontaneous combustion.
Re:What garbage non-science! by TapeCutter · 2011-09-25 20:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.
And neither is the BBC. - The coroner brought down the verdict of "spontaneous combustion" that appears in the headline and the BBC correctly defined what that means in the context of a coroner's inquest. They quote the coroner as saying - "This fire was thoroughly investigated and I'm left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation."

Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC)
There's nothing misleading about it, unless of course you're looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC.

Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit...
Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:What garbage non-science! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 22:35 · Score: 0

"No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus."
Previously called an 'act of God', which doesn't exist either.
Re:What garbage non-science! by drinkypoo · 2011-09-25 23:46 · Score: 1

I remember seeing one on TV (so it must be true!@#!1!!!) where the victim was in a bathroom stall. But maybe someone came and flicked a cig on them :p

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:What garbage non-science! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 23:50 · Score: 0

He's right, the BBC do manipulate their headlines to sensationalise things. If they were a red top tabloid that would be acceptable, but they are supposed to an impartial organisation, paid for by the taxpayer with some credibility. Sensationalising headlines like this is deceptive and they do it even more for political stories. It's well known that the BBC have a left wing bias.
Re:What garbage non-science! by mike2R · 2011-09-26 00:36 · Score: 1

I actually thought this had been resolved a while back - maybe I just heard of a theory and took it for fact.
As I understand it, what happens is that someone dies/falls into a deep coma with a source of ignition nearby (eg they are smoking at the time, or near an open fire). The human body then burns very slowly over many hours as kind of an inside-out candle - clothing acting as a wick and human fat as the wax.
This fits with the facts that it tends to be older people living alone, there is little damage to surroundings and some extremities are often completely undamaged.
Not really a cause of death though...

--
This sig all sigs devours
Re:What garbage non-science! by Custard+Horse · 2011-09-26 00:53 · Score: 1

I pay my TV licence fee and I think it is perfectly acceptable to sensationalise headlines to attract readership. The content is worth reading after all.
As the government subsidise only a tiny proportion of the running costs, by way of government grants, it is slightly disingenuous to suggest that the BBC is paid for "by the taxpayer".
Those who pay the licence fee way well pay tax but the opposite is not obligatory as only those who choose to watch television need purchase a licence.
Re:What garbage non-science! by Thumper_SVX · 2011-09-26 01:29 · Score: 1

I remember seeing one on TV (so it must be true!@#!1!!!) where the victim was in a bathroom stall. But maybe someone came and flicked a cig on them :p
Because we all know that no-one smokes in the bathroom stalls. :)
Re:What garbage non-science! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 01:30 · Score: 0

I looked into this when I first read about it. Apparently a disproportionate amount of "spontaneous combustion" cases are older people found next to fire places, this man included. I was not able to find details that would rule out an existing fire in the fireplace contributing to the cause, like an absence of ashes. It's speculated that these cases are people who had a stroke or heart attack while warming themselves by the fire, after which a small spark flies out and eventually smolders the entire body.
Wow, it's a good thing we have you to solve these cases instead of the highly trained professionals who actually examined the crime scene in person. I'm sure the police will be knocking on your door anytime to help them figure out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa next...
Re:What garbage non-science! by mr1911 · 2011-09-26 01:58 · Score: 1

They have a nasty habit of picking one or two words that someone said and quoting them out of context in a headline.
The hell you say. Not in the news media.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Re:What garbage non-science! by TapeCutter · 2011-09-26 01:59 · Score: 1

Sensationalising headlines like this is deceptive
This particular headline is factual, you may find the facts sensational, but there's no such thing as a deceptive fact.

It's well known that the BBC have a left wing bias.
The BBC is both praised and attacked by all sides of politics. It's you're own political bias that's on display here.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:What garbage non-science! by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-26 02:03 · Score: 1

Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.
Hay, I am a fan of the BBC. I still think their news reporting is the best in the UK, but there are clear instances where they fell short IMHO. I documented a recent case, but unfortunately forgot to grab a screen shot. This is the article in question:
Toyota recalls 110,000 hybrid cars on safety concerns
It has been fixed since I complained, but previously it had the sub heading 'Full Blown Crisis' and right underneath it the sentence "The good news is, they are not allowing it to become a full-blown crisis". You can see a copy of the original article, complete with the bad heading, here. That is hardly an isolated incident.
The first time it really hit me was when I was in Tokyo at the time of the earthquake, and the situation on the ground was very different to what the BBC was reporting. It got worse over the following days as they cherry picked quotes out of context or poorly translated (Japanese is extremely difficult to translate into English without losing important meaning through lack of context or differing social norms). I would watch someone go on TV to make a statement with my friends, and NHK would broadcast it in full. Then a few minutes later the BBC would report a sentence fragment and their reporters interpretation of what was said, which tended to sensationalise and generally failed to convey the content accurately.
That last point is critical. What a BBC news report on TV. Notice how when someone makes any kind of speech or statement, gives any kind of interview all you hear is a couple of seconds of the speaking. The rest of the report is then the journalist giving their account of what was said and their opinion/analysis of it. It can be argued that they do it for brevity, but the result is the same: they don't report the facts any more, the viewer is instead given an interpretation that is subject to journalistic pressures, i.e. making an interesting story. The BBC is still better than most, but if you go back and read TFA you can see that most of it is trying hard not to report the actual statement that was made.
All that is IMHO of course, but I'd say there is enough clear evidence of (not necessarily deliberate) misdirection to back up my more general feeling. The BBC does appear to be at least aware of this, for example you can see how they revise reports from time to time and how they have started to include the original Japanese wording in some of their Fukushima coverage (still nearly useless due to lack of context though). There is room for improvement and I am glad they take these issues seriously.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:What garbage non-science! by ksd1337 · 2011-09-26 02:21 · Score: 1

Actually, the coroner is going a step further:
Mr Green said he doubted explanations centred on divine intervention.
"I think if the heavens were striking in cases of spontaneous combustion then there would be a lot more cases. I go for the practical, the mundane explanation," he said.
Re:What garbage non-science! by arth1 · 2011-09-26 02:24 · Score: 1

People are quick to bash the Beeb, while they still want their favourite programmes and less brain dead "news" than ITV and the others.
Sure, Friday Night, Dr Who re-runs, Antique Road Trip and whatever the latest Eastenders rip-off soap is called might be low budget productions, but making shows like Top Gear and Planet Earth isn't exactly cheap.
But well worth it. My hat off for Sir David Attenborough for turning BBC TWO into something truly worth watching, as television goes.
What I miss the most is BBC World Radio on the LW band. Can't seem to get it on the shortwave band either anymore, stateside.
Re:What garbage non-science! by TapeCutter · 2011-09-26 02:43 · Score: 1

You made the bald assertion this particular headline was misleading - so far you have not put any hair on that assertion. So lets break it up to see what we can find...

'First Irish case' - Unattributed quote not discussed in TFA, it's a bald assertion, the reason it's in quotes is to indicate it is not the BBC who are claiming it as fact.

of death - He's dead, an unfortunate fact.

by spontaneous combustion - That was the coroner's official finding as to the cause of death, a sensational fact, but still a fact.

In what way did any of the above facts mislead you?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:What garbage non-science! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 04:12 · Score: 0

I'm sure alcohol had nothing to do with it.
Re:What garbage non-science! by tragedy · 2011-09-26 07:20 · Score: 1

Mike Green, who you quoted, is a retired professor of pathology who doubts "spontaneous human combustion". The coroner in this article is Dr Ciaran McLoughlin, who concluded that this was a case of "spontaneous human combustion". Annoyingly, the article says that the deceased was found lying with his head towards a fireplace, but that a fire in the fireplace was ruled out as a cause without explaining why it was ruled out as a cause. It may well be the case that they concluded that it was ridiculous that an ember thrown out by a fire could have lit someone on fire like that, but still went with the even more far-fetched idea that he simply burst into flames from within. It would be nice if they included a few more of the actual facts. It would also be nice if they stopped repeatedly referring to it as "spontaneous combustion" over and over again in the article. "Spontaneous combustion" is a real phenomenon (it once happened to the trash can in our kitchen when it was full of linseed oil soaked paper towels) with clearly understood mechanics whereas "spontaneous human combustion" is a dubious explanation for a small collection of events without a good explanation. Although, as far as lacking an explanation, it's interesting how many of these cases occur near, or even _in_ fireplaces.
Re:What garbage non-science! by DrVomact · 2011-09-26 08:27 · Score: 1

Yes, being in a place where news is happening, and then hearing or reading the media accounts of the events you witnessed can be a mentally dislocating experience: you just don't recognize the events that are portrayed in the news. I got to experience this back during the U. of Berkeley riots back in the 60s. I eventually found out why the reportage bore so little resemblance to reality: I listened in on a group of journalists at the end of a day of rioting. They were telling each other what had happened...establishing a consensus. Instead of each reporter giving his own viewpoint, you got consensus reality—as reported by ousiders who didn't know the people or the issues involved.

--
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary

In completely unrelated news by mmmmbeer · 2011-09-25 18:54 · Score: 5, Funny

The first test of my DeathRay is a complete success! MUAHAHAHAHA!

Re:In completely unrelated news by Gaygirlie · 2011-09-25 20:01 · Score: 2

You're sick.
Luckily it's possible to be both sick AND funny!
Re:In completely unrelated news by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2011-09-25 21:11 · Score: 0

You're sick.
And you're scared enough to post anonymously.
Re:In completely unrelated news by gmhowell · 2011-09-25 21:37 · Score: 1, Offtopic

You're sick.
And you're scared enough to post anonymously.
Can you blame him? Who wants to be the target of a guy with a working death ray?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:In completely unrelated news by St.Creed · 2011-09-25 22:05 · Score: 0

You're sick.
And you're scared enough to post anonymously.
Can you blame him? Who wants to be the target of a guy with a working death ray?
Uhhuh... not me!
And let me be the first to say that I, for one, welcome our new death-ray wielding overlords!

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

any proof of the cause of spontanious combustion ? by DZign · 2011-09-25 18:55 · Score: 1

I remember watching a documentary about spontanious human combustion in school during english class (about 20 years ago)..
Half of the class was spooked because it was such a weird topic..

I remember they discussed some deaths (showing burn marks on floors, carpets, ..) but scientifically there wasn't any explenation yet..
Anyone know if there's one now ?

--
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be

Obligatory Repo Man quote by Orgasmatron · 2011-09-25 19:00 · Score: 3, Funny

It happens sometimes. People just explode.

link.

--
See that "Preview" button?

Re:Obligatory Repo Man quote by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 16:11 · Score: 0

It happens sometimes. People just explode.
link.
my 1st wife went from a size 1 to a 14 ...it happens

Hm... by Zaldarr · 2011-09-25 19:07 · Score: 5, Informative

"The court heard Mr Faherty had been found lying on his back with his head closest to an open fireplace." ... "He said Professor Bernard Knight, in his book on forensic pathology, had written about spontaneous combustion and noted that such reported cases were almost always near an open fireplace or chimney." ... ""There is a source of ignition somewhere, but because the body is so badly destroyed the source can't be found," he said." The obvious solution is that his hair caught on fire; perhaps with some sort of flammable substance in his hair like an aerosol or hair gel and the damage was too great for forensics to pick it up.

--
I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/

Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 21:39 · Score: 0

There's another possible explanation too: the man died in some embarrassing way, and the coroner thought it best to spare his/his family's reputation.
Sometimes it's not smart to expect detailed answers to all your questions, or indeed, truthful ones.
Re:Hm... by St.Creed · 2011-09-25 22:07 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's the first time the coroner ever came across someone dying in an embarrassing way and then, together with all the witnesses, decided to hide all of the evidence...
Not really: why would the coroner and the police officers all risk their reputation for a stranger? Even if he did die in a really embarrassing way, he's hardly the first to die with a gerbil up his anus, tied to a chair or something.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 22:21 · Score: 0

Your missing the full picture here, nothing was left of the body except his feet yet nothing else in the house was destroyed except floor under him and ceiling over him!
This is the true mystery of all these events.
Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 23:18 · Score: 0

A long time ago BBC (Wales?) did a documentary series about Bernard Knight which covered this in one episode.
Effectively the body becomes a candle. The fat the wax and the clothing acts as a wick.
Fun series. The one about the shotgun was great.
Re:Hm... by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 01:58 · Score: 2

Yep that's why David Carradine died of spontaneous human combustion.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Hm... by j-beda · 2011-09-26 02:47 · Score: 1

Your missing the full picture here, nothing was left of the body except his feet yet nothing else in the house was destroyed except floor under him and ceiling over him!
This is the true mystery of all these events.
Except it isn't that mysterious. If he burned like a candle, it isn't too surprising that nothing else when up in flames. This type of fire doesn't make a whole bunch of heat to cause things close by to burn. A bit of charring on the ceiling is about all you would expect. Sort of like what the candle inside a jack-o-lantern does to the top of the pumpkin.
Re:Hm... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-26 04:34 · Score: 1

Oh I wish I could give you another funny mod for that. Well done Sir!

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!

Cause and Effect by Intropy · 2011-09-25 19:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

If your job is to figure out what caused something to happen, "I can't figure it out" is not success, but is at least a rational response. "It had no cause" is nonsense.

Re:any proof of the cause of spontanious combustio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 19:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

As mentioned above, it's often old people lying close to a fireplace.
the second half is drunk fat people, who don't wake up when their clothes are burning. Their fat melts, and the rest of the clothes functions as a wick, replenishing the fire with more melting fat. Why they don't wake up, maybe they're already dead, but that's pretty hard to establish when there's almost no body.

Mystery solved. by gstrickler · 2011-09-25 19:13 · Score: 3, Funny

He's Irish, therefore, he must have been drinking, and he's 76, so was probably taking nitro glycerine for his heart. Mystery solved.

Now, does that make me a forensic investigator?

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

Re:Mystery solved. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 19:44 · Score: 0

He's Irish, therefore, he must have been drinking, and he's 76, so was probably taking nitro glycerine for his heart. Mystery solved.
Now, does that make me a forensic investigator?
No, that makes you half-scientist. You've made a "suposition" and now you have to prove it...
Any subject for demostrating the premise?
Re:Mystery solved. by Mike+Mentalist · 2011-09-25 20:18 · Score: 1

Yup, the next episode of CSI: Slashdot is going to be based on your heroic exploits.

--
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Re:Mystery solved. by goose-incarnated · 2011-09-25 22:20 · Score: 2

No, proving a hypothesis makes you a pretty good lawyer. Scientists attempt to falsify their hypothesis.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:Mystery solved. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 04:38 · Score: 0

Yep, there's the answer. Being irish he had a BOC of 75%. He coughed while lighting his pipe and poof.
Re:Mystery solved. by uigrad_2000 · 2011-09-26 05:17 · Score: 1

Since when has nitro glycerin been flamable?

--
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Re:Mystery solved. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 08:21 · Score: 0

As an Irishman, I find this plausible assertion highly offensive.
Re:Mystery solved. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 09:16 · Score: 0

As an Irishman, I find your plausible assertion highly offensive.

Maybe a lemming? by Claudix · 2011-09-25 19:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Lemmings explode after shaking their bodies.

Re:Maybe a lemming? by NoobixCube · 2011-09-25 20:09 · Score: 3, Funny

OH NO!

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Re:Maybe a lemming? by Techman83 · 2011-09-26 16:53 · Score: 1

I hope I'm not the only one where the exact sound sequence played out in my head and a reminder of the perverse sense pleasure enjoyed whilst watching 100 lemmings explode, bringing the computer to it's knees.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
Re:Maybe a lemming? by NoobixCube · 2011-09-26 17:50 · Score: 1

I remember getting fed up and nuking the lot of the little bastards so many times. Watching them explode in the blue white and green confetti was satisfying.

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Re:Maybe a lemming? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 02:28 · Score: 0

ARMAGEDDON!

cider by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · 2011-09-25 19:22 · Score: 1

too much cider.

Re:cider by GrimmParoD · 2011-09-25 19:44 · Score: 1

Potato Water, more likely. The codgers are more subtle than younguns like to credit.

Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by Greyfox · 2011-09-25 19:43 · Score: 2

I noticed a lot of people spontaneously combust after being doused in gasoline. Did they check that?

It'd take an awful lot of energy for a human body to get up to ignition temperatures on its own. Most of the cases in our more superstitious days turned out to have cigarettes as an ignition source. I wouldn't rule out a defective electric blanket. Or pretty much anything that can make a spark around, say a wool blanket. I'm sure there are a lot of avenues of investigation we could follow before we go STAMPEEDING for "Spontaneous Human Combustion", Mr McLoughlin!

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by newcastlejon · 2011-09-25 20:53 · Score: 1

I'm treating your sig as a confession.
The Gard are on their way.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by Legion303 · 2011-09-25 21:17 · Score: 1

Not that I buy the concept of "spontaneous human combustion" in any way, but I imagine the investigators probably checked for electric blankets etc.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by DThorne · 2011-09-25 23:55 · Score: 1

I thought all this was solved over a decade ago? The odd circumstances(incredibly high localized heat, feet and lower legs frequently unburned, the oily smoke on the ceiling but the room not properly catching fire, etc) was easily duplicated with dead animals and essentially showed that despite the water content in a mammal, it's the *fat* that acts as a fuel source. Essentially, the body behaves as a slow burning candle, with bones or other materials as the wick. All that's odd here is the ignition source, all the 'spooky and unexplained trappings' are good science. In the past, stoves, fireplaces, cancer sticks and other natural oddities such as sparks from a distant fire landing on someone who had recently or was in the process of dying was all you needed to take away the Geraldo angle and just make it a tragic story.
So the examiner failed to find a combustion source - stranger things happen on Castle every week errr...
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by jimicus · 2011-09-26 00:34 · Score: 1

ISTR a documentary a few years ago which explored a "human candle" theory - essentially, something on the victim catches fire (maybe their clothing) and the victim - for whatever reason - doesn't put it out. The heat from the fire melts their body fat, which goes on to further fuel the fire. Fat burns quite hot, and in so doing it consumes most of their body; but the absence of other flammable material near the victim means the entire house doesn't go up in smoke.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 02:14 · Score: 0

Most of the cases in our more superstitious days turned out to have cigarettes as an ignition source.
Actually, that's complete bullshit. Most cases are completely unexplained to this date. To date, no attempted recreation has come even close though contrary claims by dishonest researchers are abound. Frequently the claim is, "yes, we recreated it", and in closer inspection, its looks nothing like what is actually observed. Its stupidity wearing a lab coat.
The thing most common about "spontaneous combustion" is that the amount of heat required to fully consume a human is typically in far excess of what is required to completely destroy the building they are in. Furthermore, the unique thing about this phenomenon is typically the entire body is not consumed and even more odd, typically highly flammable materials in close proximity, which should have caught fire due to the required heat (which should be enough to burn the entire room) to consume the body, did not. In fact, frequently the surrounding area shows no heat damage whatsoever.
Bluntly, any case which can be attributed to a cigarettes, by its very nature, so significantly different from the classical phenomenon in any meaningful way, it is by definition not spontaneous combustion.
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by Thelasko · 2011-09-26 02:24 · Score: 1

I noticed a lot of people spontaneously combust after being doused in gasoline. Did they check that?
If you RTFA, you would know that they did.

The court was told that no trace of an accelerant had been found and there had been nothing to suggest foul play.

--
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Re:Spontaneus Combustion Or... MURDER?! by j-beda · 2011-09-26 03:06 · Score: 1

Sure, the pig studies where one burns up an entire pig via this type of wicking effect are just shoddy work done to cover up the murders done by the illumitati.
Animals have a lot of chemical energy stored in their body, under the right conditions they can sustain combustion. It doesn't have to happen at particularly high temperatures - it just takes a longer time to consume the material at lower temperatures.

It was the Guinness... by macraig · 2011-09-25 19:48 · Score: 1

... and it's a record!

Oh, my! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 19:55 · Score: 0

http://www.explosm.net/comics/2554/

Ban Blipverts NOW! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 19:55 · Score: 0

Damn advertising!

A How To by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 20:26 · Score: 0

Step 1: set pant leg on fire outside.
Step 2: run into house now absent cause of ignition.
Step 3: Hope to god you pass out.
Step 4: Burn slowly enough that the fat boils and ignites the marrow apparently burning you from the inside out.
Step 5: Declared Spontaneous Combustion.

Two stories confirming worst stereotypes :-\ by Alex+Belits · 2011-09-25 20:26 · Score: 0

Italy has incompetent government officials who couldn't possibly get into their positions without corruption.
Ireland has flammable people.

All we need to complete a full set for this week is some outrageous murder in US, more outrageous murder in Mexico, crooks taking over something large and valuable in Russia, some kind of violence in the Middle East, and chavs or soccer hooligans breaking stuff in UK!

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Ireland is the new Romania by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 20:35 · Score: 0

It used to be that all these weird and wonderful filler material came from Romania. Now that Romania's economy is up and Ireland is down, the situation is reversed and miracles happen in Ireland again.

It's all linked by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 20:41 · Score: 0

As sad as this case is one can't miss that the fourth season of Fringe started a few days ago. Suddenly neutrinos go faster than light and people spontaneously combust. It looks like it will be a hell of a season.

Re: by taiwanjohn · 2011-09-25 21:00 · Score: 2

Apparently another common factor in SHC deaths is that the victims tend to live alone. However, there is one freaky story in the Wikipedia article linked above.

In September 1985, Debbie Clark was walking home when she noticed an occasional flash of blue light.[13] As she claimed, "It was me. I was lighting up the driveway every couple of steps. As we got into the garden I thought it was funny at that point. I was walking around in circles saying, 'Look at this, mum, look!' She started screaming and my brother came to the door and started screaming and shouting 'Have you never heard of spontaneous human combustion?'" Her mother, Dianne Clark, responded, "I screamed at her to get her shoes off and it [the flashes] kept going so I hassled her through and got her into the bath. I thought that the bath is wired to earth. It was a blue light, you know, what they call electric blue. She thought it was fun, she was laughing."

Obviously that would have nothing to do the the wick effect, and there doesn't seem to be any corroboration of the event. Still... makes you wonder.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC

Unexplained Combustion by LS · 2011-09-25 21:14 · Score: 1

So in Ireland, "spontaneous combustion" is just a euphemism for "unexplained combustion?"

--
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie

Re:Unexplained Combustion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 02:52 · Score: 0

News flash; "unexplained combustion" has long ago become a euphemism for "spontaneous combustion". It got its name from early lore. After many looks by various researchers, "spontaneous combustion", now mean, "unexplained combustion", typically accompanied with various other distinguishing fingerprints which are unique to the phenomenon. It is the additional fingerprints which set it apart from just, "unexplained combustion."
Re:Unexplained Combustion by betterunixthanunix · 2011-09-26 08:29 · Score: 1

Not just Ireland, but everywhere else too. You have a body that burned at high temperature, no damage to the room except the floor under the body and the ceiling over it, and no evidence of unusual chemicals on the body. This phenomenon is called "spontaneous combustion" because it appears that the body just started burning without an external ignition. Since most of these cases occur near fireplaces, it is likely that the cause is a spark from the fireplace, which under yet-unknown conditions can cause a human body to burn (perhaps with clothing acting as a wick). I doubt that any forensic team would be able to distinguish the ashes from whatever spark set the man on fire from the ashes from his clothes or body, particularly given the temperature at which he burned.

Really, the phrase is just a euphemism.

--
Palm trees and 8

His pacemaker had a web server by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 21:14 · Score: 0

and somebody posted the url on Slashdot.

Re:His pacemaker had a web server by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 02:23 · Score: 1

This could be a game in one of the Saw movies.
"I've made a little P4 Prescott server and implanted it in your chest. I'm about to post a link to Slashdot saying it shows the latest photos taken from a TubeSat. There's a knife on the floor in front of you, let's see if you can dig it out in time."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:any proof of the cause of spontanious combustio by sp4rk · 2011-09-25 21:26 · Score: 1

It's caused by a phenomenon called the human wick effect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_effect for more info.

... really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 21:39 · Score: 0

Deaths attributed by some to "spontaneous combustion" occur when a living human body is burned without an apparent external source of ignition.'"

Jesus, are people even reading the damn summaries on this site anymore?
Explains why I don't login now.

Re:... really? by mcavic · 2011-09-26 02:45 · Score: 1

The word "apparent" is the key here.

He's Irish, it's easy to explain. by lexsird · 2011-09-25 21:56 · Score: 1, Funny

It's all the whiskey in him. Whiskey burns, so add a spark from something, anything, and poof a human Molotov cocktail. Don't tell the IRA, they might get some ideas.

--
Take the Red Pill.

Re: by khallow · 2011-09-25 21:58 · Score: 1

Build up enough static electricity and you can see it even in daylight. Doesn't mean that you're about to blow up.

Re: by tinkerton · 2011-09-25 22:08 · Score: 1

Exactly. Who knows if these events have anything to do with sponaneous human combustion.

Re: by jamesh · 2011-09-25 22:37 · Score: 1

Obviously that would have nothing to do the the wick effect, and there doesn't seem to be any corroboration of the event. Still... makes you wonder.

But she didn't combust. And if there was enough heat in the mysterious blue flashes to ignite her she probably would have noticed (why are my shoes smoking?). And if there was enough energy to ignite her, you would need something like the wick effect to sustain the combustion. And she'd need to be by herself or someone would just throw a bucket of water over her.

Re: by gomiam · 2011-09-25 22:40 · Score: 1

Considering the amount of charge required... no, they don't. Now, if you happen to have some gasoline vapours near...

from Russia with love by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 22:45 · Score: 0

was he drinking a lot?

in our kolkhoz we had several occasions with hard drinker burndown

Its an internal booze issue by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 22:52 · Score: 0

They need to check his alcohol stream for whiskey levels! If he was smoking and sweating, its quite possible the vapors caught fire!

Re:Obligatory Spinal Tap quote by dkleinsc · 2011-09-25 23:02 · Score: 1

Dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported.

link.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

No source of ignition except a fireplace? WTF by rumpledoll · 2011-09-25 23:06 · Score: 1

From the article "Forensic experts found that a fire in the fireplace of the sitting room where the badly burnt body was found, had not been the cause of the blaze that killed Mr Faherty.". Yet we the investigator has no clue how the body could have caught fire. Geez.

Re:No source of ignition except a fireplace? WTF by ledow · 2011-09-25 23:28 · Score: 1

Which part of "had NOT been the cause" do you not understand?
They basically came to the conclusion that the fireplace wasn't the source of the fire. Myriad other things could be. He could have been smoking, the ash dropped on his shirt, a fire started (thereby eliminating the cigarette evidence in some cases), but he just happened to fall near the fireplace.
The cause of death, then, is NOT the fireplace at all, in any way. And these people deal in legalities and medical practice - if they don't think the fireplace caused it, they can't just make stuff up or say "Well, it was probably..." Thus the verdict was "spontaneous combustion" (which doesn't mean that his stomach just caught fire, but that they could not determine the cause).
The forensic investigator that says "Oh, it must have been the fire" is the one that lets a murderer get away with it, or mistakes a suicide for murder and puts innocent people behind bars. The investigator that says "I have no clue" does neither and doesn't hinder other investigations that could hinge on his evidence.

And how about these 503 errors? by damn_registrars · 2011-09-25 23:40 · Score: 1

Is slashdot facing spontaneous combustion as well? I had to use https to load this page - attempts with http failed with the 503 / guru meditation / varnish error.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re: by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · 2011-09-25 23:48 · Score: 1

Don't "just throw a bucket of water over her". Its a grease fire!

Re: by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-09-25 23:53 · Score: 1

There was one guy in Australia I think who had built up so much static charge he was leaving smouldering footprints in the carpet behind him, in a hotel, with plenty of witnesses. Here it is... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4252692.stm?lsm

Human spontaneous combustion... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 00:08 · Score: 0

200 cases reported.
Zero witness.
Draw your own conclusion...

Wikipedia has an interesting fact though : "The "wick effect" hypothesis suggests that a small external flame source, such as a burning cigarette, chars the clothing of the victim at a location, splitting the skin and releasing subcutaneous fat, which is in turn absorbed into the burned clothing, acting as a wick. [...] The human body typically has enough stored energy in fat and other chemical stores to fully combust the body"
This would explain how a body properly lit on fire by a "small" heat source could burn completely.

QED Document by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 00:29 · Score: 0

This might explain it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/158853.stm

lets put words in his mouth by v1 · 2011-09-26 00:39 · Score: 1

He said he would not use the term spontaneous combustion, as there had to be some source of ignition, possibly a lit match or cigarette.

"Spontaneous Combustion" was put in as the title of the article, despite the specific denial of that term by the coronor. That's sensationalism in its most basic form.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:lets put words in his mouth by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 01:35 · Score: 0

Read the article again - the coroner did indeed conclude spontaneous combustion but your quote pertains to a pathology professor that was also interviewed.

Was he a former Spinal Tap Drummer? by MooseDontBounce · 2011-09-26 00:44 · Score: 1

That would explain everything.

Sudden Death by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 01:03 · Score: 0

Better than in some other country where whenever they don't want to investigate further or don't like the real reason, they just classify it as "sudden death".

LAMEBRAINS by hesaigo999ca · 2011-09-26 01:05 · Score: 1

With the amount of possibilities, the fact that they would prefer not invest more time to really figure this out, and would rather just hash it up to spontaneous combustion, is pretty lame. I know 3 ways where you can burn the inside of a body outwards, and of which leaves no marks, but requires that the person have been close to alcohol, strong enough to combust near a flame. Once you have this, you need a catalyst and voila...

I will not say how, as these would leave me to feel responsible should any individuals use these techniques, but they do exist.

Spontaneous Combustion is just that by jlbprof · 2011-09-26 01:05 · Score: 1

It's not magic, it's not ghosts. They just don't know what caused the spontaneous combustion. Just like in UFO's it's an unidentified flying object not an alien saucer they just don't know what it is.

--
I go out of my way to complicate the simple things, so that I can simplify the complicated things.

Plus some customers just start combusting by VGPowerlord · 2011-09-26 01:09 · Score: 1

I've got a theory, that it's a demon, a dancing demon, no... something isn't right there...

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

Re:Plus some customers just start combusting by lennier · 2011-09-26 08:57 · Score: 1

It could be bunnies.
Bunnies aren't just cute like everyone supposes!
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses!

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Plus some customers just start combusting by VGPowerlord · 2011-09-26 09:22 · Score: 1

And what's with all the carrots... what do they need good eyesight for, anyway?

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

What would be more newsworth is ... by RNLockwood · 2011-09-26 01:14 · Score: 1

... if a case of spontaneous human ignition were to be found. That would move my reaction from "ignorant Irish" court to "really, how could that happen?". BTW I cooked my oatmeal this morning using the spontaneous combustion of natural gas.

--
Nate

Re:What would be more newsworth is ... by j-beda · 2011-09-26 03:09 · Score: 1

I suspect that your natural gas fire was not "spontaneous", but rather was started either by a spark or a pilot light.
Re:What would be more newsworth is ... by RNLockwood · 2011-09-26 06:00 · Score: 1

I suspect that your natural gas fire was not "spontaneous", but rather was started either by a spark or a pilot light.
Yes, the *ignition* was not spontaneous but the resultant *combustion* was spontaneous.

--
Nate

Re: by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 01:43 · Score: 2

Why do they always measure volts but not amps? A police taser can be as much as 100KV. An average person in a dry climate could build up 40KV without trying too hard. 40kv at low enough amperages can be 100% safe for human contact.

40KV doesn't tell me shit other than that his sparks were jumping close to half an inch.

Now it's obvious that the amperages involved here were pretty high since he was burning and melting things. How safe is this situation for the human body?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Unbelievable by chinton · 2011-09-26 01:49 · Score: 1

I would be more likely to believe that bigfoot broke into his house and set him on fire.

I can relate... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 02:02 · Score: 0

'cause lately I've been thinking of combustication as a welcomed vacation from the burdens of the planet Earth..Like gravity, hypocrisy and the perils of being in 3 D but thinking so much differently

Pardon me.

Blipverts? by InsertCleverUsername · 2011-09-26 02:12 · Score: 1

Hmmm... Have we ruled out Blipverts?

--
Ask me about my sig!

Re: by black+soap · 2011-09-26 02:19 · Score: 2

Because static electricity doesn't have current to measure, so it it would be hard to quantify in amps, a unit of current? Once there is current, it is no longer static.

Re: by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 02:26 · Score: 1

So there's no way to measure the difference between a routine doorknob zap and a guy leaving scorchmarks on the carpet and melting plastic? That sucks.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re: by mcavic · 2011-09-26 02:41 · Score: 1

Right. You can build up a lot of kv. But if you're measuring amps, you're probably already dead.

Excellent CSICOP article on SHC cases by JDG1980 · 2011-09-26 02:43 · Score: 1

This article on CSICOP has detailed descriptions on several alleged cases of "spontaneous human combustion," and explanations for what probably actually happened in each one. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/not-so-spontaneous_human_combustion/

MFA? by G3ckoG33k · 2011-09-26 02:43 · Score: 1

Was this one of those serious cases of an MFA, i.e. a Major Fart Alert (that went amok)?

Fireplace as a source of air currents? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 02:47 · Score: 0

he just happened to fall near the fireplace.

I wonder if the presence of the fireplace has something to do with how likely it is that the wick effect will take place.

Scenario A: Dead guy, lit cigarette, in a closed room. Either the process stops because the fire runs low on oxygen, or heat builds up in the room to the point that the whole house goes up in flames.

Scenario B: Dead guy, lit cigarette, near a fireplace. Some of the hot smoke goes up the chimney, and fresh air from closer to the ground is continually drawn over the "candle", keeping it lit.

Imagine... by 3seas · 2011-09-26 02:57 · Score: 1

ball lightening forming at the same location as a person.

Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 10:42 · Score: 0

I lighten my balls on a regular basis. Else I could drown while swimming.

Spontaneous Human Combustion: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 03:26 · Score: 0

help stamp it out, before someone has to help stamp you out!

Simple by PPH · 2011-09-26 03:26 · Score: 1

Someone will point a high energy neutrino source at him next week.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

You can't explain that! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 03:28 · Score: 0

Clearly the human body must've been designed this way.

Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 03:28 · Score: 0

It's only a grease fire if it's an Italian.

Blipverts by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 03:41 · Score: 0

I, for one, think it was the BBC's increasing use of blipverts that caused this man to go up in flames, and they paid off the coroner to rule it "spontaneous combustion".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IANjVcohKO4

Skeptoid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 03:42 · Score: 0

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4258

Doesn't seem impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 04:06 · Score: 0

Given that there seems to be a chemical process that can cause a human body to give off nerve gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Ramirez), I don't find spontaneous combustion too far-fetched. Obviously it's quite rare, but not wholly impossible. Those whacky chemists.

Re: by ais523 · 2011-09-26 04:10 · Score: 1

The amount of current/amperage is a measure of how quickly the charge can deplete. When you talk about the current of a battery, it's a case not of "how much current does the battery have" but "how much is it capable of providing when the contacts are shorted together", which is a useful concept. In the case of charge buildup on a human, the most useful current-like statistic would probably be the amount of stored energy. Once you know that, you can work out the maximum current that can be sustained for a given length of time through a given material. (The voltage would affect how much current would pass through a material of a given resistance, and the amount of energy how long it would be sustained for; even thousands of amps moving over a potential difference of thousands of volts won't do much if it only lasts for a femtosecond, as there's not that much energy dissipated.)

--
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"

Thats Incredible! by zawarski · 2011-09-26 04:13 · Score: 1

I remember seeing this on "That's Incredbile". Dang, Cathy Lee Crosby was so hot back then, I am surprised she didn't spontaneous combust! http://www.celebs101.com/gallery/Cathy_Lee_Crosby/21276/cathy_lee_crosby_photo_7.jpg Though today, not so much.. http://im.in.com/connect/images/profile/oct2009/Cathy_Lee_Crosby_300.jpg

Re: by kdemetter · 2011-09-26 04:42 · Score: 1

I think you will only get current during the actual discharge of the static electricity.
The current can be calculated by taking the resistance it goes through.

If you knew his capacity , you could probably calculate the charge he was holding ( Q = C. U )
Then , by measuring the time of the discharge, you could find out how high the current was at that time.

--
Slipping shoelaces ?

Re: by kdemetter · 2011-09-26 04:46 · Score: 1

Sorry, that should be impedance, not resistance.
The higher the impedance, the lower the current will be , and the longer it will take to discharge.

Should be a fun experiment though :-)

--
Slipping shoelaces ?

Vampires by wiedzmin · 2011-09-26 05:13 · Score: 1

Has nobody seen Blade here? The man was obviously a vampire.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.

Oxygen by Bruce+Perens · 2011-09-26 05:44 · Score: 1

People will burn in pure oxygen without the addition of a combustible substance (an "accelerant") rather than an oxydizer. But the things around them would likely go up as well. It's the fact of a body burning without its surroundings being damaged that is odd. What if for some reason the man's lungs were filled with pure oxygen? Oxygen can be in homes for medical purposes. Or perhaps it could be let into a home by foul play. You wouldn't find the oxygen afterward, but if it's from medical use in the home you would find a cylinder.

--
Bruce Perens.

Jameson Effect by Starteck81 · 2011-09-26 06:04 · Score: 1

He probably drank too much Jameson and sat too close to the fireplace.

--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H

Re: by qzjul · 2011-09-26 06:10 · Score: 1

You could measure his capacitance...

He just met a new girlfriend, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 06:19 · Score: 0

Maybe... he was holding his farts in?

SHC by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 10:20 · Score: 0

Where the gods dont wait to send you to hell.

Re:Obligatory Max Headroom reference by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-09-26 11:43 · Score: 1

Perhaps Network 23 is testing their Blipverts again...

Internet CSI by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 11:47 · Score: 0

Its pretty cool that so many people could solve the case with out even seeing the scene. The coroner must be retarded. Its probably just a matter of time before the drunk starts blaming deaths on leprechauns.

Re: by miasmic · 2011-09-26 12:48 · Score: 1

Mod parent up - it's clearly a case of the quantity of charge charge held, the time factor of current being irrelevant

BBC shamed by misleading headline! by uninformedLuddite · 2011-09-26 18:46 · Score: 1

Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC)..

How dare you

TFA only mentions that the ruling was simply that he caught fire for some undetermined reason..

He was flammable?

No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus..

Can I be the first to make this claim. I feel it is my role in this situation.

Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now..

You're common.

They have a nasty habit of picking one or two words that someone said and quoting them out of context in a headline.

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.

The new A.D.D...... by jonnyf5ve · 2011-09-27 02:11 · Score: 1

Spontaneous Combustion... THE EASY ANSWER!!!!! Just put some hummus on it!.... LAWL!

Neutrino collision? by JigJag · 2011-09-29 05:02 · Score: 1

I've always wondered whether neutrinos collision was at the source of such reports. Since our body is constantly showered with them and since they barely ever affect matter being so small, neutral, etc, then maybe the one time that it hits something, the energy released completely consumes the recipient.

JigJag

--
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang

Slashdot Mirror

Irish Man's Death Ruled Spontaneous Combustion

224 comments