Don't your opinion of this Chris but I think its a poor verdict. Alleged spontaneous combustion has been debunked for years and this just makes the court look like it's behind the times. Looking forward to the witch trials next week though

Should be 'know your opinion' - any sign of an edit button soon?

And there was me thinking SHC was just an urban myth. It is worth noting that there always seems to be an open fireplace adjacent to the deceased - my money is on a related scientific explanation.

Having just watched Dr Who, it seemed an appropriate time to join the debate;-) Bunkum, absolute bunkum. How a court could find such a conclusion beggars belief. If there really was no evidence of an ignition source then cause not established would surely have been more appropriate? How would a human body generate enough heat to spontaneously combust? Or is it more likely to be a small source and an immobile, senseless victim? This is the most sensible sentence from the article in my opinion. "There is a source of ignition somewhere, but because the body is so badly destroyed the source can't be found," said retired Professor of pathology Mike Green. It is not April 1st is it? Or has the BBC just picked up on Friday topics? p48

I too have been a fire investigator in a former life and have attended courses and seminars on a range of causes. I have spoken with some of the leading Fire Investigators in the UK and Europe who are all sceptic of the concept spontaneous human combustion (SHC). The 'wick effect' is now been established as the supposed cause of the slow and localised development of many of the so-called SHC fires. This is where a ignition source (match/candle/radiated heat from a room heater or similar) has ignited clothing. It flames for a short time causing heat which warms and even perhaps ignites skin. Fats released from the skin supply fumes and fire burns slowly with minimal energy output using the remaining clothing as a wick in a candle. Such fires can burn for hours before being discovered (as a 8 to 15 stone candle would!). This can cause significant damage to a very localised area of a body with minimal damage elsewhere. One job I attended was a fire where an elderly ex fireman had slipped down from his chair (sleeping or ill) to a position where his legs and backside were on the floor and his upper torso was propped in the lower part of the leather chair. The fire was contained to half his body and a 1m2 section of timber flooring. His legs were consumed by fire as was his pelvic region, but his upper torso, head and chair were relatively unscathed. The alarm was raised when part of the floor collapsed into the flat below, rather surprising the neighbours who could just make out his body through the hole. The chap wasn't a smoker but did use candles from time to time (although none were found). The result of the investigation was a candlle & wick effect was the most likely cause & development of the fire. The smouldering spread to the timber flooring being attributable to ignited fat dripping down. It is almost certain that this type of fire would have been established a SHC many years ago, or even today in some parts of the world. From stories such as this and scientific evidence, I real doubt that SHC exists. After saying that, I have not come across bodies (Such as in Chris's account) which have been damaged from within, except for a chap who drank 3 x cans of liquid lighter fuel before igniting himself. Mind you, there was nothing slow about the development of that fire!

April 1st here a bit early? Too much water in the body for it to happen. Think about it, there you go walking to the shops when whoosh.. there goes another one. Getting toasted by a fire in one thing but just 'flame on' ?

That is a very good question to which I have no reply other than perhaps speed. I assume a modern crem would do it's work substantially quicker, than slow cooking auntie Maude by turning her into a human candle. Any ideas?

I can't offer any insights on spontaneous human combustion, but can share some experience of crematoria, mainly through OS&H visits to my (local authority) employer's crematorium. The average human body comprises about 70% water, so much of the heat energy during cremation is probably engaged in heating and evaporating the water content. Body fat presumably serves as a fuel in assisting the process to leave just the main bones which are subsequently removed and pulverised in a special machine (cremulator) to produce the deceased person's ashes. For those interested in such matters, the "History of Modern Cremation in Great Britain from 1874" on the website of The Cremation Society of Great Britain (CSGB) at http://www.srgw.demon.co...oc/History/HistSocy.html is fascinating to read. Though the CSGB was spearheaded by Queen Victoria's doctor, it struggled in its efforts until it received unwitting support from the case of an eccentric Welsh doctor who was arrested and tried in 1884 for publicly cremating his dead infant son. The Cardiff Assize trial judge decreed that no existing UK laws forbade cremation, and therefore it was legal provided that the process causes no nuisance to others. By the way, I've no connection with the CSGB - I just find this topic, like many others, a fascinating aspect of life - or rather death in this case. Also, from discussions with crematoria staff and OS&H people, it seems that most or all crematoria staff have experienced problems with deceased firemen who have been sent for cremation wearing their uniforms - made of asbestos! As such uniforms greatly impede the cremation process, the cremations have to be stopped temporarily to allow the uniforms to be removed - with or without appropriate asbestos precautions! Is this just a common fable which most crem staff simply like to tell or have such circumstances actually happened at some or many crematoria?

It's some interesting stuff but I fall between the cracks on this as I'm a skeptic who's prepared to believe given the lack of solid evidence to disprove it's existance. I'm inclined to accept that this can happen but I'm still convinced that in most cases an external ignition source is probably the trigger to causing the fire. In relation to the tests done on pigs? Well, I watched the recent film 'Ironclad' a couple of weeks ago (about King John's seige of Rochester castle) and was surprised to find out that pigs were brought in to burn the mine works that were made to demolish the castle foundations. Thing is wouldn't that sort of heat create a lot of additional damage?

'Death by Spontanous Combustion' a forum post by 'ChrisBurns' Love it!

I don't like teling people but my real name is Kevin Risk-Assessment! ;-)

Yes my parents, the Lightyears had a sense of humour calling me Buzz! Like the name Kevin Risk-Assessment by the way!

That's an unusual way to determine your beliefs. Are you saying that if something cannot be disproved, then it probably exists? If so, consider this: "I have a group of leprechauns and fairies who dance around at the back of my shed at sunset, making an awful noise (But only when I am alone)". Using your theory, if this statement cannot be disproved, then it must be true. Is that what you are saying?? Probably not I hope!! :) I have serious doubts about SHC due to the lack of credible evidence to prove it's existence. Surely that's the only way to approach a scientific problem

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Wouldn't shout too loud about the leprechauns... especially in the current state of the economy! ;)