Feb 21 2013

Another Alleged Spontaneous Human Combustion Case

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Another Alleged Spontaneous Human Combustion Case”.

Share

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Another Alleged Spontaneous Human Combustion Case”

  1. Cornelioidon 21 Feb 2013 at 9:26 am

    While it doesn’t amount to spontaneous pig combustion, there does seem to have been a trend lately of hog barns exploding following the accumulation of a yet-unexplained foam in their manure pits. In any event, the conditions of the hogs (and their manure) was somewhat different than those of the individuals purported to have spontaneously combusted.

  2. oddoklahomaon 21 Feb 2013 at 9:29 am

    You’ll be happy to know the local blogs have been all over the story with good information. My website linked to the Skeptoid episode on this, and the big local social blog name-checked the JREF and its Pigasus Award in their post.

    Here are the relevant links:

    http://oddoklahoma.com/2013/02/19/news-9-wins-the-stupid-headline-award/

    http://www.thelostogle.com/2013/02/19/spontaneous-human-combustion-in-oklahoma/

    We also had a Chupacabra story here this week.

    http://oddoklahoma.com/2013/02/21/coyote-with-mange-mistaken-for-chupacabra/

  3. locutusbrgon 21 Feb 2013 at 1:23 pm

    @ Cornelioid
    I am not aware of the specific explosions you are talking about. Still hog waste is high in methane especially if left to decompose. It seem very plausible that a hog barn exploding could be related to a build-up of methane in building. O2 plus spark= Boom. Not really an issue in this case unless he had switched to living room for defecation.

  4. Cornelioidon 21 Feb 2013 at 2:25 pm

    @locutusbrg

    Yep! As i understand it, the direct cause of the explosions is known (methane concentration in the foam being ignited by a spark), but that of the foam itself is not. My second sentence was tongue-in-cheek—risky for a skeptical blog, i know.

  5. Amy(T)on 21 Feb 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Ugh, my city only ever gets bad press. Of course, we pretty much always deserve it.

    @ oddoklahoma

    Good to see another Okie on here! I rarely see Okies on skeptic blogs, not surprising for the lack of critical thinking the majority of our state falls into . . . I’ll be adding your blog to my list, and of course I’ve heard of the list ogle!

  6. Davdoodleson 22 Feb 2013 at 1:09 am

    “The hallmark of the SHC claim is that ignition occurs without an external source. It is curious, then, that one fairly consistent feature of alleged SHC cases is the presence of an external ignition source.”

    Just what I’d expect a shill for shill for Big AdiposeOozeCandle to say!
    .

  7. Heptronon 22 Feb 2013 at 7:28 pm

    Didn’t we put this issue to bed in Season 1 or 2 of CSI when they did the ‘pig in the nightgown’ experiment? :)

  8. Piebald Skepticon 16 Mar 2013 at 1:29 am

    These cases are labelled as ‘spontaneous’ by the media and other gullibles because of a lack of proof of how the flame source ‘ jumped’ to the victim. The most obvious cause of this is methane in human flatus. In the unconscious it accumulates until the gas pressure overcomes anal sphincter pressure, in the dead usually when rigor mortis ceases and the gas can escape. The naked flame source ignites the ‘blob’ of methane which flashes to the clothing, and there it burns slowly enough to commence the candle effect of slow burning as you have described.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.