Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Nix Cremation, Decomposing is better for the Environment According to Scientist

By Squidny     Apr 24, 2007 in Environment
Forget "ashes to ashes," Australian scientist says when you die it would be better for the planet to be worm food.
When you die there are two options for what will happen to your lifeless body (mummification is rarely done today):
1. You are placed in some kind of box with dirt thrown over it.
2. You are placed in a furnace, the flesh is burned to ash, the bones are pulverized, and they are then mixed together and placed in a sealed jar (they prefer to be called urns).
Professor Roger Short says the former is much better for the environment (as long is the box is cardboard), as cremation releases carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming.
"The important thing is, what a shame to be cremated when you go up in a big bubble of carbon dioxide," said Short.
The scientist stated that cremation of the average adult male in Australia released 50 kilograms (110 pounds for us Americans) of CO2.
Professor Short, being ever so diplomatic about the sensitive topic, said he did not want impose on peoples’ religious beliefs regarding how they want their carcass prepared when they die. But to make nice with the environmentalists he also suggested "it would not be a bad idea to bequeath one's body as food for a forest." But then embalming would also have to be forgone as the fluids contain arsenic, mercury, and formaldehyde, which are toxic. Let’s see, dead meat sans embalming fluids? Better make it a quick funeral.
Hmmm, it would definitely save on funeral costs. Just dump the corpse in a cardboard box and bury beneath a tree. I guess it's the whole "circle of life thing." Yeah, the "Lion King" was cool…
More about Cremation, Carbon dioxide, Global warming