Ah sure, Michael's on fire tonight...

Agreed. Too many questions.

The only way I could conceive of doing the sorts of damage I have seen in some photos would be to force someone to swallow something like raw sodium.

It never seems to happen to animals, either.

So, one of life's mysteries.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

Animals don't smoke or have fires. They burn perfectly well in experiments.

Only for idiots.

Reply to
Huge

Many years ago (over 20) I did have a patch of going ketotic myself. Though not diabetic (at least no blood test has ever shown it, nor doctor suggested it) my then partner was convinced from her nursing experience. And I could smell it myself.

It was quite possibly when I was trying to lose weight - much safer to stay an FB. :-)

Reply to
polygonum

The Atkins diet, i.e. very low carbohydrate, can produce the same ketosis and smelly breath.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

You beat me to it. It only takes a few grammes of carbs to stop the ketosis though.

Reply to
John Williamson

Don't be silly.

Reply to
Gib Bogle

Perhaps because most animals do not drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and go to sleep in front of open fires. Just guessing ...

Reply to
Gib Bogle

Read up on the cases and look at the photos.

That's not a bottle of whisky catching fire.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You might find it easy to believe that a freak reaction could cause spontaneous combustion but frankly, I think that falls in with "alien abduction" theories.

Extraordinary claims (spontaneous combustion in the absence of any conventional scientific explanation) require extraordinary proof.

Why should people be the only animals bursting into flames? Why not other animals? Given that we're hugely outnumbered in the animal kingdom I'm sure that if animals were self conflagrating we'd have some evidence for it by now (and more than a few witnesses).

The verdict was a nonsense and is a sad indictment of the poor understanding of the scientific process and standards of proof required to make such a claim.

Just because the cause of fire wasn't determined doesn't provide sufficient excuse to call the combustion "spontaneous". The judge might as well have declared that the fairies did it for all the evidence that he had.

Tim

Reply to
Tim Downie

Very good question.

Exactly. It seems to be a purely human thing.

The point is that it does exist as an unexplained phenomenon. I am willing to concede its not as spontaneous as it might be, but people do NOT normally burst into 1000C+ flames from the inside out, either.

Agreed its a bad term, but its the term used when this exact pattern of combustion happens, and pig experiments notwithstanding, no one has managed to replicate the effects fully in a lab.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

It also said he had heart problems. Those two in combination would tend to indicate obesity, and fat burns quite well given a wick - clothes or carpet would do.

This would also tie in with extremities being unburnt - very few people have fat hands and feet.

Andy

Reply to
Andy Champ

The process of non-shivering thermogenesis - heat production without shivering - is undergoing considerable research at present.

Seems that various uncoupling proteins, such as the prosaically named UCP1, can short-circuit the oxidative phosphorylation pathway and cause production of heat rather than ATP. This is well known in hibernating animals - and babies - but relatively unknown in adult humans.

Maybe an excess of UCP1 (or an analog) could cause high levels of local thermogenesis, at the extreme resulting in, or at least contributing to, apparent SHC?

Reply to
polygonum

I didn't say I found it "easy to believe". I said I believed it "possible". Maybe improbably possible, but possible all the same. As I suggested, there are chemical reactions which can cause combustion - the safe return of the Apollo astronauts was trusted to one. Whether such reactions can occur (a) naturally and (b) in the human body is another question. And one I freely admit I am unqualified to be authoritative about.

True. But absence of proof, is not proof of absence. There are lots of things scientists don't know. Which doesn't make them impossible.

ISTM a lot of people confuse "it could happen" with "believing".

OK, good question - you've got me there. However, strange things can happen. IIRC aren't there cases of tightly packed bales of hay bursting into flames ?

formatting link

I agree that it seems that society is becoming less science-aware than more. But sometimes scientists don't help themselves.

I think Arthur C Clarke has it spot on, when he said "if a respected scientist claims something is possible, he is very likely correct. If a respected scientist claims something is impossible, he is very likely wrong."

Reply to
Jethro

for both clothes and hay are known and understood. Spontaneous combustion, certainly, but no mystery.

With the proviso that the learned scientist will normally do his best to find out *why* something impossible just happened.

Reply to
John Williamson

there is a shortage of volunteers for lab experiments...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Occam had a more suitable idea for this case.

Reply to
Clive George

If it involves laying about and just watching Jeremy Kyle et al, then I could think of a few candidates ...

Reply to
Paul - xxx

If only it happened to everyone who was half pissed, overweight and stretched out watching jeremy Kyle

I was subjected to 30 seconds of horror today post the Rubgy, when two 'unfuckable lard arses*' one of whom seemed to have managed it, because the other blob appeared to be her daughter, were screaming at each other about something or other.

SHC would seem the appropriate solution.

*as Berslusconi referred to Ms Merkel
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I have been unfortunate enough to contract 'man-flu' since thursday last week, so have taken today and tomorrow off to recover .. this involved watching JK today. Well, when I say watching, I meant TV was on, but my son who is supposed to be at university is still hanging around and is currently vegetating around anyone's house and scrounging free meals and board and washing and cleaning ... was watching it and i caught it.

I've honestly not seen it before and actually watched a lot of today .. absolutely gob-smacked!

Where do these people come from?

Married less than a year and if the chap didn't pass the lie-detector the young lady (hmm) wanted a divorce, but not reeeeaallllly .... Then another couple where one was checking the others phone and texts and sending texts to some women found on the blokes phone!!!! Do these people not just sit and talk to their partners? Do they not marry for love and trust their partners come what may?

The apparent high levels of morale outrage from them was somewhat outweighed by the utter 'chavishness' (common in my day) of their manners.

Jeez I feel rather proud now, where previously I thought it just natural, to say that on October 1st it'll be my 23rd wedding anniversary and despite the odd flirt when under the influence occasionally (on both our parts) there's never, absolutely never, been a time when she didn't trust me and I didn't trust her! I've never felt the need to play away and I'm damn sure the missus hasn't either!

We actually talk to each other too ... despite letting her map-read occasionally .. ;)

Reply to
Paul - xxx

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.