Slashdot Mirror


The Science of Hugo Chavez's Long Term Embalming

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Discover Magazine reports that Hugo Chavez will apparently get an embalming job designed to keep him looking alive for decades similar to that of Russia's Vladimir Lenin, whose body still lies in a mausoleum in Moscow's Red Square, nearly 90 years after his death. So how do you preserve a human body for decades without it turning into a pile of melted tissue? First, get to work quickly. Upon death, the human body starts decomposing immediately. The way to stop it is with formaldehyde, a preservative used for the past century, which inhibits the enzyme decomposition as well as killing bacteria. 'You pump the chemical in, and as the formaldehyde hits the cells of the body, it firms up the protein of the cell, or fixates it,' says Vernie Fountain, head of the Fountain National Academy of Professional Embalming Skills in Springfield, Mo. 'That's what makes them stiff.' With a body that will have to be on display for years, it's likely to require a top-shelf, super-strong solution. 'If I were doing Hugo Chavez, I would strengthen the solution and use more preservative product,' says Fountain. Next, get a good moisturizer. Formaldehyde preserves, but it also dries out the body. Vaseline or other moisturizers can preserve the look of skin, according to Melissa Johnson Williams, executive director of the American Society of Embalmers. Finally keep cool. Heat decomposes a body so for long term preservation, the body has to be kept at the temperature of a standard kitchen refrigerator, somewhere in the mid-40s. Lastly, if Venezuelans really want to keep Hugo Chavez around forever, like many other world figures, there's only one solution that works, according to Fountain. 'The best form of preservation is mummification.'"

29 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Plastination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They should really look into plastination.
    The whole process is specifically designed to put dead people on display.

  2. Or be a saint by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or be a saint, blessed with incorruptibility.

  3. Super Cooling by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Informative

    "the body has to be kept at the temperature of a standard kitchen refrigerator, somewhere in the mid-40s."

    No, store it at 27 degrees F which is -2.78 degrees C if you want to keep the meat fresh, not frozen and stop microbial action.

    This is the temperature that we store fresh meat at. It is below standard refrigerator temperatures. Meat freezes at 25ÂF which is below the freezing point of water because of the salts in the blood and cellular fluid. A lot of research has been done on this - initially regarding the storage of fish for Norway's trawlers and later for the storage of pork.

    For the absolute best results adjust this freezing temperature to account for the preservative solution which will likely change the freeze point downward - then stay just above that point of freezing for the meat.

    There is a lot of science behind this in the meat industry that could be applied to Hugo.

    1. Re:Super Cooling by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      You don't want him "fresh" you want him to slowly turn to jerky rather than totally dried out crispy like King Tut.

    2. Re:Super Cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was jerky enough when he was alive

  4. Re:Call me skeptical by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    But I highly doubt they're going to be able to do this properly.
    I doubt their embalming job would last a year.

    They just don't strike me as the kind of people who can pull it off.

    Check out the web site for "Fountain National Academy of Professional Embalming Skills". If these guys do embalming with the same professionalism they utilize with web site creation, they'd get better results if they stuck Chavez in a blender.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And gave it away to the likes of Cuba and Bolivia and Iran for influence, while the citizens who elected Hugo Chavez received no benefit and the petro industry in Venezuela degraded due to lack of upgrades.

    1. Re:Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The petrol industry pays for their OWN upgrades... What Chavez did was increase the amount of rent the country charged to pump its oil... So the private industry retaliates by dragging their feet causing delays.

      Remember said industry tried to violate the laws of the country and depose him... They FAILED, do he has no reason to play fair and not convert his country to be as anti-budiness as possible.

    2. Re:Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "while the citizens who elected Hugo Chavez received no benefit"

      They disagree.

    3. Re:Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the same way that Chavez violated the laws of the country and attempted a coup of a lawfully elected government and failed at it. Oh the irony...

    4. Re:Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Cutting poverty in half is no benefit? You mean the rich received no benefit.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by gwolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Umh...

      However, Venezuela doesn't have freedom of speech.

      Others have already questioned your saying. Yes, some years ago he cancelled a critical TV chain's title of concession (permit to transmit on air). That is, however, within his legal power, and at least in many other countries, I know of similar facts. But printed media, radio and TV can (and do) strongly oppose the government.

      Remember even the Soviet Union had elections

      There are several differences and important points:

      • The USSR had *single party* elections, while Venezuela has multi-party elections. When they have held referendums, of course, the options were "yes" and "no" - But when they voted for president, governors and congress, they had many parties to choose from. Last year he won by almost 60% to 40%, and they had only two running candidates.
      • The USSR was (and Cuba is) in many senses more democratic than the USA is now. Think of the system: It is a pyramid of indirect elections. Exemplifying quite simplisticly: Anybody in your block could run for, say, representing the block in the city council. The city governor is elected in the city council, from within the city council members. The provincial government is elected among city governments. The country is elected from within the provincial governments.
        That means that, yes, you have to be aligned with The Party (as in the USA you need to be aligned with Either of The Two Parties), and if you want to go up, you have to be a great politician (just as it stands in our current pseudo-democracies).
        Yes, for the people at large, getting an issue pushed up to the President was incredibly hard. But it is not perfect (although much better, yes) for us today.
    6. Re:Preserved To Show Who Took over $100 Billion... by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      As an oil company, or any business for that matter, you don't invest in the infrastructure and expect to take a net loss because some dickhead

      Less profit is not a loss. Dickhead.

      And as a Texan living in Houston, fuck CITGO for flying the American flag half-mast in his (Chavez) honor. I refused to pump gas at one of those places, now I'm going a step further and recommending that no one else pump there too. It's anti-American to support CITGO!

      Did you vote for McCain/Palin in 2008? Cuz you do know that Palin increased oil royalties for people living in Alaska, right?

  6. Re:uh oh by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 4, Informative

    That word, I don't think it means what you think it means...

  7. Embalming, shudder by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In high school the essay Behind the Formaldehyde Curtain made a big impression on me; embalming was described as really creepy and artificial, which I suppose it is in any instance, but do they really need to circulate three to six gallons of dyed and perfumed solution of formaldehyde, glycerin, borax, phenol, alcohol and water through the stiff? It was much like when I found out that "milk" on the breakfast cereal on TV was actually glue. We're being scammed! Sort of.

    Dumping all that junk into the ground doesn't seem very good for the environment, either - I imagine in the years since (late 60s) the essay was published a bit of attention has been paid to making embalming a bit less toxic - or was that not an issue in the first place? At any rate, cremation for me, thank you - although after losing both parents I've found out that isn't cheap, either.

    1. Re:Embalming, shudder by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Post-death processing is heavily regulated in most states, and like most regulation it tends to drive up prices and limit entry into the field. It is a splendid example of Fascism. My experience is in Connecticut: you can't process the estate to hand out inheritances until you have a death certificate. Only funeral homes can originate death certificates.

      Disposing of a corpse should probably cost about $200. In Connecticut, it's over $6000 (year 2009).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. I started the embalming process years ago by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm up to single malt whiskey now and plan to switch to Everclear by my 70s. If I drop in my 80s they should be able to prop my corpse in the corner and use it as a coat rack.

  9. Have they considered plastination? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting
  10. Re:Call me skeptical by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are asking Russians to do it, so Chaves will be ok :)

    I would love to live in a world where all presidents or whatever called heads of a state are embalmed and stored in a mausoleums for the amusement of the next generations.

    What somewhat surprises me is that they don't get the wacky plastination guy in on the project. The actual product isn't really a preserved body in any useful sense(as the name suggests, the original tissue is largely replaced by polymers); but the replacement occurs down to impressively tiny details, the results look fantastic, and they last nobody-knows-how-long-but-a-long-time under normal indoor conditions.

  11. I find this rather nauseous... by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been lucky enough to have travelled around the world, including Moscow and Peking.
    Never felt the need to visit the chemically-preserved remains of "great" men there.

    Can anybody please cite me a truly humane, visionary leader who was embalmed in modern times, for public display?
    How about "despots"?
    Candidates should include Tito and Ataturk?

    Nope, not one. They did not need it, and neither did the population they left behind.

    1. Re:I find this rather nauseous... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Good old Jeremy Bentham makes an entertaining visit...

    2. Re:I find this rather nauseous... by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 2

      Chavez has done a lot of good for his country and for getting Latin America out from under the thumb of US domination, he was loved by many, but yes embalming seems a bit over the top, I can see no reason to do this. Keep the spirit of what he was trying to achieve alive, this will be a much better way to honor his memory than by putting his body on display.

      Oh and for anyone interested in an in-depth and more balanced story about Chavez than the sound-byte propaganda put out by the mainstream media, read this excellent article. You may also be interested in watching this with Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!

    3. Re:I find this rather nauseous... by Sulphur · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good old Jeremy Bentham makes an entertaining visit...

      But is it utilitarian?

  12. Here's hoping by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    After they have him stuffed they fit him with animatronics so he'll jump up every so often to scare the shit out of tourists.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  13. Re:Call me skeptical by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    link.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. Re:uh oh by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but the more accurate "fascist" has too many negative connotations to be acceptable.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  15. Re:Call me skeptical by Guillermito · · Score: 2

    Ironically, in 2009 Chavez ordered to confiscate one of these body exhibitions that was on tour in Caracas, because he said it was immoral to put unsepulchered bodies on display.

    http://news.sky.com/story/676071/chavez-blocks-venezuela-dead-body-art-show

    In case you understand Spanish, you can hear it from the man himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2MfLT-U2qo

  16. Re:Keeping him dead's easier than keeping him aliv by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Write to Congress, a few of them people there look like they already perfected the art.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:uh oh by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Yes, but the more accurate "fascist" has too many negative connotations to be acceptable.

    As opposed to "communist", which has nothing but warm fuzzy connotations? But yeah, Obamacare is fascism, straight up. Forcing citizenry to buy junk products from a bloodsucking industry...and there's that whole continuation of the Unitary Executive thing....