CONCORD, N.H.(AP) Since they first walked the planet, humans have either buried or burned their dead. Now a new option is generating interest _ dissolving bodies in lye and flushing the brownish, syrupy residue down the drain.
The process is called alkaline hydrolysis and was developed in this country 16 years ago to get rid of animal carcasses. It uses lye, 300-degree heat and 60 pounds of pressure per square inch to destroy bodies in big stainless-steel cylinders that are similar to pressure cookers.
No funeral homes in the U.S. _ or anywhere else in the world, as far as the equipment manufacturer knows _ offer it. In fact, only two U.S. medical centers use it on human bodies, and only on cadavers donated for research.
But because of its environmental advantages, some in the funeral industry say it could someday rival burial and cremation.
"It's not often that a truly game-changing technology comes along in the funeral service," the newsletter Funeral Service Insider said in September. But "we might have gotten a hold of one."
Getting the public to accept a process that strikes some as ghastly may be the biggest challenge. Psychopaths and dictators have used acid or lye to torture or erase their victims, and legislation to make alkaline hydrolysis available to the public in New York state was branded "Hannibal Lecter's bill" in a play on the sponsor's name _ Sen. Kemp Hannon _ and the movie character's sadism.
Alkaline hydrolysis is legal in Minnesota and in New Hampshire, where a Manchester funeral director is pushing to offer it. But he has yet to line up the necessary regulatory approvals, and some New Hampshire lawmakers want to repeal the little-noticed 2006 state law legalizing it.
"We believe this process, which enables a portion of human remains to be flushed down a drain, to be undignified," said Patrick McGee, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester.
How convenient. I could think of a similar inquiry. Let us take that newspaper article and do some mind's eye rewriting. Let's change some of the phrasing plus substitute "neuropreservation" or "heads only" in the place of "alkaline hydrolysis." The methods require dissimilar tasks, but once it's done, I don't see much difference at all.
The scandal sheet headline says "Cult Claims Row Of Stored Heads Might Still Be Alive!!" Roger Corman calls and wants the movie rights, says it'll be done by Halloween.
People, sick bastards included, do disgusting things. They go on with their good intentions paved on the way to hell. That's why I'm not riding on anyone's happy head choppers bus. Even to those who just want to speculate and self justify, my reasons should be glaring to thinkers.
In fact, it seems a little dim. I fail to see the parallel batween a liquefied brain and a severed spinal column. Are you saying they're equally irreparable? Care to elaborate?
I interpreted it as LLL favoring whole-body preservation
May 12 2008, 3:41 PM
Not getting on "the happy head choppers bus" - I love that one!
And it is undeniable that the severing of heads evokes a negative emotional reaction and is bad PR, and in that context not much unlike the dissolving of bodies and pouring them down the drain. A large body of people out there cannot get past those emotional reactions, to see that one might be an effective way to preserve life while the other, of course, is merely to dispose of it.