BBC Reports Irish man died due to spontaneous combustion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the phenomenon of spontaneous human combustion (SHC), particularly in light of a recent case reported by an Irish coroner. Participants explore various theories, anecdotal evidence, and scientific explanations related to SHC, including the wick effect and external causes of combustion. The conversation touches on historical cases, experimental attempts to replicate SHC, and the plausibility of different scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Anecdotal
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the Irish coroner's ruling of spontaneous combustion in a recent case, noting its rarity.
  • One participant suggests a plausible scenario involving an accelerant and the wick effect, which could explain how a body might burn for an extended period.
  • Another participant recalls experiments conducted with pig carcasses that indicated external causes of combustion, emphasizing the role of clothing in the process.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the wick effect, questioning the time required for a body to burn completely and citing anecdotal cases that seem inconsistent with this explanation.
  • There are mentions of anecdotal stories, including one about a priest who reportedly caught fire during a sermon, highlighting the sensational nature of some SHC claims.
  • Some participants discuss the challenges of reconciling anecdotal evidence with scientific understanding, particularly regarding the time and conditions necessary for SHC to occur.
  • One participant humorously speculates about the possibility of spontaneous fusion in humans, suggesting a dramatic and implausible outcome.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the causes or mechanisms of spontaneous human combustion. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the validity of the wick effect, the plausibility of anecdotal accounts, and the time required for combustion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the available evidence, primarily relying on anecdotal accounts and historical cases. There is also mention of unresolved questions regarding the conditions necessary for combustion and the accuracy of timelines in reported cases.

Greg Bernhardt
Admin
Insights Author
Messages
19,911
Reaction score
10,925
A man who burned to death in his home died as a result of spontaneous combustion, an Irish coroner has ruled.

West Galway coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said it was the first time in 25 years of investigating deaths that he had recorded such a verdict.

Michael Faherty, 76, died at his home in Galway on 22 December 2010.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15032614
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't seen a case of that in awhile.
 
"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."

Hehe.


There was a fire in the fireplace. Fires will throw out sparks, depending on the kind and condition of the wood being burned. There was no mention of what the deceased might have been wearing, but I don't think the famous "Wick Effect" can be ignored or ruled out.

Plausible scenario: the guy spills aftershave (meaning: some kind of accelerant) on his clothes. Comes out in the living room and faints from the fumes, close to the fire. A spark jumps from the fire and ignites the accelerant. His clothes burn enough to start melting his body fat, which, in liquid form, starts "wicking" into his clothes. He burns in the manner of an oil lamp for hours.

The whole thing requires an unusual, but not impossible, train of events, which also explains why it isn't very common.
 
I recall that various "human combustion" theories were tested using pig carcasses in England. I can't seem to find a record of it online right now, but they ultimately decided that it was usually an external cause fed by subcutaneous fat. The only requirement was that the external clothing be able to burn at hot enough temperature to cause the skin to expose the fat.

I've also heard of the alternate explanation (a la South Park) that people spontaneously combust because they hold their farts in too long. So, you know... maybe...
 
FlexGunship said:
I recall that various "human combustion" theories were tested using pig carcasses in England. I can't seem to find a record of it online right now, but they ultimately decided that it was usually an external cause fed by subcutaneous fat. The only requirement was that the external clothing be able to burn at hot enough temperature to cause the skin to expose the fat.
I saw one proof-of-principle attempt to get a pig carcass to burn away by the wick effect on TV a few years ago, and they couldn't get it to work.

The Wikipedia, though, mentions the English attempts that apparently did work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_effect
 
zoobyshoe said:
I saw one proof-of-principle attempt to get a pig carcass to burn away by the wick effect on TV a few years ago, and they couldn't get it to work.

The Wikipedia, though, mentions the English attempts that apparently did work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_effect
I saw one or two different demonstrations that worked. The CA attempt didn't work, but they said the mistakes was that the room wasn't closed and the draft fanned the flames.
 
Last edited:
From an anecdotal perspective, which is all we really have, one of the problems with the wick explanation, in some cases, seems to be the time required. How long does it take to completely burn a body this way? I don't believe the time required for this is consistent with all famous cases of reported SHC. In the most extreme cases, IIRC, based on the last know observation of the vitctim by witnesses, the consumption of the body was thought to have taken place in as little as 45 minutes.

One of my favorite anecdotes is the story of the priest who kept breaking out in flames during his sermon. Now THAT will get the attention of the congregation!
 
Ivan Seeking said:
From an anecdotal perspective, which is all we really have, one of the problems with the wick explanation, in some cases, seems to be the time required.

Yes, the information has been really anecdotal. One problem is how severely the body was burned. Our body is mostly water and much energy is required to vaporize it all. Therefore the body must remain rather intact if the cause is the wick effect.
 
I'm waiting for spontaneous fusion in a human body, leading to incineration of a town for no apparent reason.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
From an anecdotal perspective, which is all we really have, one of the problems with the wick explanation, in some cases, seems to be the time required. How long does it take to completely burn a body this way?
I believe one of the shows I saw set the minimum time at about 12 hours. This wasn't the time it takes for all the fat to burn but the minimum time it takes to turn bone to ash by oil flame. (In cremation, even though it's at higher temperatures, the bone is only partially reduced to ash, in the short time allotted. They actually grind the remaining bone to powder for inclusion with the ashes given to the recipient of the remains.) They estimated 12 hours of flame from 12 to 18 inches high (whatever amount of heat that might represent) needed to reduce the largest bones to ash.
I don't believe the time required for this is consistent with all famous cases of reported SHC. In the most extreme cases, IIRC, based on the last know observation of the vitctim by witnesses, the consumption of the body was thought to have taken place in as little as 45 minutes.

One of my favorite anecdotes is the story of the priest who kept breaking out in flames during his sermon. Now THAT will get the attention of the congregation!
There are tales (both lore and fictional literature) and there are documented findings of burned up people. In the tales you have spontaneous human combustion happening, even, right before the eyes of witnesses:

[PLAIN]http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/sa00096.php[/URL]

I don't know all the cases with documentation (firefighter and police reports) but I doubt if there are cases where the deceased was actually seen only 45 minutes before being found consumed by flames. If there was a such a case I would have to doubt the accuracy of the timeline before anything else. Most of these cases are older people who live alone and haven't been checked on in a few days.

I did see one show where a middle aged couple was interviewed. Their story is that on two occasions the man woke up with "smoke" apparently rising up off his skin. Whatever it was, it did not escalate to flame, and eventually stopped by itself: the man and his wife were both in perfect shape for the interview. The assumption was made, of course, that this must be how SHC starts, but that is just an assumption. There's no telling what that incident was about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
PAllen said:
I'm waiting for spontaneous fusion in a human body, leading to incineration of a town for no apparent reason.

Heh...

zoobyshoe said:
I did see one show where a middle aged couple was interviewed. Their story is that on two occasions the man woke up with "smoke" apparently rising up off his skin. Whatever it was, it did not escalate to flame, and eventually stopped by itself: the man and his wife were both in perfect shape for the interview. The assumption was made, of course, that this must be how SHC starts, but that is just an assumption. There's no telling what that incident was about.

Most people can feel a temperature differential of just a few degrees. I can't imagine that he was smoking from heat and was able to deal with the episode calmly. Even if the heat is internal it was hot enough to cause smoke. I'm going to guess this was less a case of spontaneous-human-combustion and more a case of telling-a-shared-dream-to-get-on-TV. It's easy... jut set aside your personal incredulity and recite what you honestly feel happened with no filters.
 
  • #12
FlexGunship said:
Most people can feel a temperature differential of just a few degrees. I can't imagine that he was smoking from heat and was able to deal with the episode calmly. Even if the heat is internal it was hot enough to cause smoke. I'm going to guess this was less a case of spontaneous-human-combustion and more a case of telling-a-shared-dream-to-get-on-TV. It's easy... jut set aside your personal incredulity and recite what you honestly feel happened with no filters.
Yeah. My best guess is that it was a case of Folie a Deux. The man woke up hallucinating the smoke, said something to his wife like "WTF? Why is there smoke coming off my skin?", and that entrained her into the hallucination.

Alternatively, he might have hoaxed the incidents for his wife's benefit in a manner something like this:

 
Last edited by a moderator: