Talk:Spontaneous human combustion

Portayal in serie?

I remember 1990s action/horror serie that portrayed this phenomena but I can't remember the name or anything related to it. Some people saw a large stain of blood appearing on the ceiling and when they went up to check it out all they could see was a burned pair of feet. Anyone has a clue? HenryCorp (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The static flash fire hypothesis part need rewiting...

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is important in creating a spark that could ignite something. A higher voltage doen't mean that the spark will be hotter or more powerful, it is the energy content of the spark that would cause the heating effect Bagster 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless Pseudoscience?

-- It is conjectured (by Heymeboor) that the recurring circumstance of aloneness, or actual loneliness in alleged SHC victims may be significant. The reason for the rarity of eyewitnesses may, in his view, be precisely because SHC happens to people when they are alone.

Sorry, but this makes absolutly no sense, how could being alone effect one's biological systems at all? I realise that someone else, not a wikipedia editor, made that conjecture, but it doesn't stop it from being nonsense.DevinOfGreatness 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to be pseudoscience, but it still is a hypothesis and deserves equal air time, does it not?

I take it neither of you have ever heard of psychosomatic illness ..? Or are you saying there's no such thing as psychosomatic illness? I think you're on a bit of sticky wicket here. Garrick92 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

To quote Sir Arthur Eddington, (English astronomer 1882 - 1944) "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

The fact that someone can't think of any possible way in which A can affect B does not prove that A does not affect B.

As well as psychosomatic illness, mentioned above, there are other ways that being alone might affect a person's biological systems. Someone who is alone may be more likely to neglect to eat, or eat peculiar foods, or not drink water and become dehydrated, any of which would affect their physiological state. I expect there are lots of other possibilities that I have not thought of. Wanderer57 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Finding consensus about the article

This section (which I've placed on the top of the talk page) is ment to discuss the use of the word alledgly, which happens too often so most of us think. It happens so often as to make someone think this theory is nothing but sillytalk. The use of these words violated the POV rules IMO. I am willing to prepare a case to take to the arbitration committee, but I think finding a consensus would be a better option. Therefore I open the floor to arguments for and against. Pellaken 17:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

remainder of the article

I rather force-merged two articles together here, anybody want to try to sort it out? -- Zoe

Done whkoh 3 Apr 2003 08:44 UTC

I think there's a bit of a conflict in this article. Firstly it states "Since many documented cases of SHC have occurred, it cannot be called an urban legend. ". It then goes on to discuss how SHC is not infact spontaneous at all. It doesn't provide any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to suggest that it might be spontaneous. In my mind this means that SHC is an urban legend, because it isn't spontaneous Mintguy 10:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

that would seem to make it a misnomer, rather than an urban legend. pauli 12:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==

it also happened in one x-files episode

I suspect there may be a bias here…

In this article it is stated that the experiments performed by the BBC proved the wick effect, thus disproving the theory of SHC. There has been some dispute about the extent that the BBC proved the candle effect, because of some variables and possibilities that they failed to address. When I have some more time I will try to edit this page and provide a link to a website that lists and explains problems in the BBC program, and why SHC is still a possibility.

[garrick92:] The major problems with the Wick Effect 'explanation' of SHC are as follows:

1) The wick effect (hereinafter WE) is real, but very uncommon. What happens is that if clothing is ignited and smoulders, it melts body fat into liquid underneath. This is then soaked up by the remaining clothing, which acts as a candle-wick, spreading, burning, melting and sucking up more fat in a self-perpetuating process.

It relies on unusual circumstances -- say, someone falling dead (of a heart attack, for example) with their arm dangling in an open fire or touching a hot electrical element. It also sometimes happens when a murderer tries to dispose of a body by incineration.

Differences between SHC and WE.

1) Necessary duration: WE = anything upwards from 14 hours. It is a slow process, with low lapping flames.

SHC = Very very quick. In one of the best documented cases (that of Jeannie Saffin, 1982) the victim received fatal burns at full thickness (i.e., skin destroyed down to subcutaneous fat), covering 30 per cent of her body in less time than it took for her father to notice she was alight and throw water over her (they were both in the kitchen). Some of these burns appeared under nylon clothing which was only slightly melted in places. Her face was destroyed but her hair did not catch light.

2) Aftermath: WE: badly 'barbecued' body -- Some damaged flesh reduced to coarse grey ash like a bonfire, the remainder blackened or charred. Skeleton intact. Unclothed portions generally undestroyed (although damaged). Fire spreads easily to surrodounding objects due to prolonged period of burning. Smells of cooking pork. Body goes into full flexion (monkey position, with limbs curled).

SHC: Entire torso reduced to fine white ash. Extremities often untouched. Clean burn-line at junction. Fire very seldom spreads beyond objects in contact with body. Foul smell, unlike cooking meat.

3) The Skeleton WE: Skeleton damaged, but usually intact except for expansion/contraction damage. Friability *marginally* increased.

SHC: Skeleton reduced to ashes along with flesh -- This is uniquely remarkable. Even cremation (3hrs + at >1000 degs C) does not reduce the skeleton to ash. It has to be removed from commercial crematoria and pulverised in a device called a cremulator (or, informally, a crembola!) which is basically a spindrier full of ballbearings, prior to mixing with the 'flesh' ashes.

The article as it stands is completely dishonest. Examples:

//Victims are often female.//

• Most known victims are in fact male.

//Victims are often overweight.//

This is simply untrue.

//Most victims are also said to be alcoholic.//

• This is also simply untrue.

//There are never credible eyewitnesses of the actual combustion process.//

There are many well-attested and well-evidenced cases of SHC. In the case fo Jeannie Saffin (for example) there were two eyewitnesses (father and son) and no source of ignition was found by the ambulance men who attended or the police (who were conducting an inquiry into possible murder!). One of the investigating officers said there were no suspicious circumstances and in his opinion it was SHC. A verdict of death by misadventure was returned. 'Misadventure' means 'accidental homicide' or (more recently) 'death by natural phenomenon' (such as lightning strike). No-one was ever investigated for Saffin's death. She was not struck by lightning.

The description of the BBC QED programme is a complete misrepresentation of what was shown, which did not come anywhere near showing that SHC was actually WE and actually used trick photography (of a very minor kind) at one point to argue to the WE claim. I can go into (much) more detail if required.

[/garrick92]

5/7/05 -- A user called Mike Rosoft has begun to edit the page, with the note that I 'seem to be set to disprove the wick theory'. Not so, although I have pointed out obvious problems with it. I note that Mr Rosoft's user details list him as a skeptic on paranormal matters. No comment.

First, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Secondly, just because someone has different views then you doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong. They are merely trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Please read the Wikipedia policy, assume good faith if you have no already done so. Thanks! ^_^ -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You think?

Wow... it's not just that the page is loaded with POV, but lacks any real facts. "Most victims are" and "victims seldom are" are generic phrases that don't include any sort of metric, or reference to reported cases; list the specific cases in a seperate section or page if they're that the center of this argument is going to revolve around. I could say "Most wikipedia authors are kooks" but I should be able to cite specific examples to back up such a gross generalisation.

Oh, and garrick, four tildes (~) in a row should be inserted after your comments here to include your name and a date stamp for easy reading. Xinit 5 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

... Therefore I am

I'm new here and still catching up on posting technique, so apologies for any crass blunders. Good manners are all about helping people to correct errors painlessly, don't you think?

Please also bear in mind that the article I am overhauling is not even half complete. I do the broad strokes first, and get the details in later. Other people may have different techniques, but the world is big enough for us all. I'm sure you agree.

In dealing with an alleged phenomenon such as SHC, it is necessary to use words such as 'allegedly' and 'suspected' (etc) rather a lot. If I have omitted it here and there, please remember that I'm not done yet.

Since the body is the 'best evidence' in any case of death (natural or otherwise), I think it makes sense to concentrate on the circumstances of the unsolved deaths of SHC victims -- sorry, *alleged* SHC victims. If you have any better ideas, I'll be pleased to hear them. Hey, there's an idea, eh!

Generalisations are generally odious (don't bother pointing out the irony of that remark please: I am aware of it), however, in my experience approximately 80 per cent of internet posters are mannerless plankton with an axe to grind.

Oh, and please proofread your posts before hitting 'save' -- It may be due to some lack of comprehension on my part that I had trouble understanding your comments at first, but that first sentence (for example) seems to be missing a clause. Please make it easy for me, as I am a busy person and don't want to misunderstand any of the vital points you clearly want to raise.

Many thanks for the 'four tildes' tip. If everyone was as helpful as you, life would be so much easier.

Garrick92 6 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Ah, the visual

"Mannerless plankton with an axe to grind"

Love it.

Xinit 7 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity

Oooh, get you.

Anyway, progress on the SHC entry is now in what we might call its midstage, and hopefully some of the alleged bias in it is being ironed out.

If there are any specific examples of bias, or 'skewed' text, please bring them to my attention (or better still, correct them yourselves, I haven't got all day, goodness grumble moan whitter etc). Because I want to get this into a state where I can take down the PoV flag with a minimum of wibbling.

However, *entre nous* I get the feeling that some people [looks around suspiciously] will never be happy until SHC is consigned forever by Wikipedia into the realm of mermaids, unicorns and those hairy people with the one ginormous foot that always appear on Olde Mappes. Which wouldn't really be cricket, would it?

Hopefully a 'third way' can be found.

Garrick92 11:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lack of scholarly sources

There seems to be a general glut of speculative editorials of dubious accuracy online and a glaring shortage of scholarly articles on the subject. I probably need to look harder, but this article MUST have substantial academic sources for it to be worth anything at all. SHC seems to attract misinformation and speculation, as well as 'paranormal' investigations and lurid "unsolved mysteries" TV shows, more than it attracts scholarly research. A challenge to anybody who is reading this (including me): Find real peer-reviewed articles, fix the article to conform to proven facts, and cite them. --TexasDex 19:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

has this been submitted to MythBusters?

Chicken and Egg

If you fix the article to conform to 'proven facts', you might as well just delete it. Think about it. SHC is not a proven fact, BUT there is vigorous and proper dispute over its existence. Hence the liberal use of phrases such as 'alleged phenomenon' (etc) in this entry.

The bottom line is that this subject boils down to a multiplicity of sources, some peer-reviewed (but mainly anti-) and some not. The most anyone can hope to do is summarise and synthesize them (which is why the entry SHC Controversy runs almost in parallel).

Anything else would be a pov problem. There comes a point at which adherence to peer-reviewed sources is effectively censorship (no, I'm not being hysterical: censorship is censorship, even on my desktop).

Think about the impossibility of writing an entry on meteorites, prior to the death of Lavoisier ... (of course, Lavoisier was proven wrong, which just goes to show you never can tell who's right).

• The best you can do is to point out the facts. Like 'Some people believe that humans can spontaneously catch fire (+ reference)' and 'While many experts agree that it is impossible without an external fuel source (+ reference)'. Although people will disagree with it it is just 'the facts'. NPOV on all sorts of paranormal things can give enough information (on both sides) for an intelligent person to discredit it in their own mind without stating any POV in the article or being biased in presenting information. --Darkfred 12:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • WP is not about discrediting or pushing anything, not even as a 'hidden goal' as you seem to state above.Mfhulskemper (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Removed this one

• The X-Files episode Soft Light suggests spontaneous human combustion as a possible explanation.

because it didn't say anything. If anyone who knows anything about this wants to fill the world n on it, bombs away. --Matt Yeager 05:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Alcoholic Stupidity?

In How to Think About Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Schick/Lewis Vaughn, one explanation for SHC was that the victims' clothing caught fire and the victims were too drunk to be able to put it out. Apparently, the heat from such a blaze would be enough to leave remains such as those that were found. There is circumstantial evidence to support this theory.

Stupor and stuporer

Not in every case, nor even a majority, there isn't. This is addressed in the article. Garrick92 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is all of this alleging really necessary?

The only thing that made me think the article might be biased was the all-too-frequent use of the word "alleged" when referring to a phenomenon that the author seems ready to admit does happen. Not just that, but it's simply exhausting having to pepper the entire article with that same word, only a few times switching it up and saying "supposed" instead. Wouldn't the article be more readable with a detailed explaination of the controversy over SHC at the beginning followed by a mostly allegation-free body?Mstahl 19:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't it be...

Some highly reactive element coming out of compound and reacting? Say, a few moles of sodium randomly exiting sodium chloride state, and exploding? [edit by 24.118.230.154]

• A lower state of energy is stored in the ionic bonds between sodium and chlorine in sodium chloride than the state of energy of seperate sodium and chlorine atoms. It would require energy (a lot of it; the bond is "strong") to break those bonds. Because of this, sodium cannot exit spontaneously, and no net energy can be extracted from that reaction. The energy that would be released by the formation of a bond between sodium and something else would rarely be greater than that lost in seperating sodium and chlorine, as chlorine is extremely electronegative. Someone42 02:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Theory

I am concerned about the usage of theory in this article. Many references to SHC 'theories' should instead read as SHC conjectures or SHC hypotheses. Promoting these to theories lends credence and misrepresents them, leading to a violation of NPOV. --Anetode 03:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This will sound blunt, b u t ... I think that's specious special pleading. Go have a look at conspiracy theory and try that argument there. Are most conspiracy theories worth the name "theory"? Why, no. I'm not being nasty, just pointing out that this is (IMNVHO) straining at gnats. Garrick92 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Bias

The alleged bias in the alleged article, is allegedly too much. I allege that the alleged bias, and the alleged writers of the alleged article, are allegedly creating an alleged problem with alleged POV when they allegedly add alleged to each alleged sentance, each alleged paragraph, and each alleged section of the alleged article. I allege that the only alleged way to solve this alleged problem is to allegedly remove all alleged word that could allegedly cause an alleged bias.

anyone allegedly with me?

allegedPellaken 05:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly, Matt Yeager agrees with you. However, it allegedly has been alleged that certain allegedly highly-placed members in an alleged Wikipedia community allegedly will come to your house and allegedly kill your alleged children, allegedly eat food from your alleged refridgerator, and allegedly use the bathroom without flushing the toilets (allegedly) if you allegedly dare to forego an allegedly excessive interest in following an alleged NPOV stance to an alleged fault, allegedly at the alleged expense of allegedly actually writing what allegedly is an allegedly readable artice.

Allegedly yours,

--(allegedly) Matt Yeager, allegedly at 06:14, allegedly on 13 October 2005 (allegedly UTC)

I agree that the article as it currently stands is ugly in the extreme. I suggest a strategy for removing all the allegedlys whilst not upsetting those who sought to have them included is to set out very firmly at the beginning of the article that SHCs very existence is questioned. How does this sound:

"The term Spontaneous Human Combustion is used to describe a small number of deaths (and, even more rarely, injuries) by fire which some believe could not have been caused by anything other than the sudden ignition of bodily parts without an external source of heat. However, the possibility of such an occurence (and hence of SHC) is refuted within the scientific community and so any reference to SHC must be alluded to as an as yet unproven theory. Other theories as to the cause and progression of the fires are examined in this article."

Instead of "some believe" I shall try to remember to go off and find some highly thought of sources who are proponents and characterise them accurately (ie scientists, doctors or whomsoever they turn out to be). And instead of "within the scientific community" I would similarly go off and find solid citations to which I could refer.

What do people think to this suggestion? It's not quite what I'd hoped, but I really, REALLY must go and sleep now ;o) But hopefully we can both make the article readable and ensure everybody's (reasonable) needs are accomodated.

Full disclosure: I was given a book about unexplained phenomena when I was about 7 years of age and I was absolutely enthralled by the pictures of SHC and would spend hours gazing at the photos of charred, lone legs. As a young adult I saw the BBC documentary about the wick effect and was rather disappointed that people were not suddenly catching on fire but tended to feel the wick did indeed explain it. However, I'd (very morbidly) love to be proved wrong and learn that people did indeed go up in smoke suddenly. --bodnotbod 12:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If what you mean is that the lead section would say, in effect, "All of this is one side's POV about SHC," and then the rest of the article would simply repeat assertions of the paranormalists as if they were fact, then I disagree. It would be too easy for a reader skimming the article to be misinformed. If you meant something else, please elaborate when you're rested up.  :) JamesMLane 14:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that I've walked into the middle of a long running argument, so I'm not currently too aware of where you stand. However, my assumption is that you do not hold that SHC as commonly described in folklore (ie, people bursting into flames and becoming a mound of ashes in quick time) to be possible. And (again, full disclosure) if I were forced to lay money down I would certainly be of the same view. So, no I am most certainly not suggesting we make it one side's POV. What I am suggesting is that instead of having the article proceed by saying:

• SHC (allegedly), is spontaneous (allegedly) (alleged) fire...

It should say:

• Begin by telling the reader that the subject is controversial.
• Present the agreed observed facts common to a number of deaths labelled SHC (ie agreed observations of the death scene ofwhich we have documentary evidence).
• Explain that the cases are different and notable to other deaths in fire because of these unusual factors (relative lack of damage of nearby furniture etc).
• Explain how these factors have contributed to the belief in SHC (in what you might call the paranormal sense).
• Describe the problems with such conclusions.
• Describe the competing theories.
• Describe any counterclaims to the competing theories.

As for the skim reader becoming misinformed - this is precisely why I placed all the emphasis on having a well thought out introduction. A good skim reader will place emphasis on introductions and conclusions. A bad skim reader will be misinformed no matter what you do, and we should feel no obligation to litter the entire piece with annoying breadcrumb trails that alienate anyone who can actually be bothered to pay attention. --bodnotbod 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SHC is a theory, like Evoulition, or a donough shaped universe. I doubt anyone would demand that so many "alledgeds" be in either of those articles. I'd be willing to prepare some arguments and take this to the arbitration committee. Pellaken 17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

SHC is not a theory in the sense that Evolution is a theory. Otherwise, you'd see it in biology books. At best, it is a hypothesis, and at worst misunderstood. EvilOverlordX 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting

I read this article not to long ago and thought it related to the subject of SHC. It seems to me like it certainly could have resulted in it had things gone a little differently.

Static turns power-dressing man into walking livewirePublished: Saturday, 17 September, 2005, 11:43 AM Doha Time

SYDNEY: An Australian man built up a 40,000-volt charge of static electricity in his clothes as he walked, leaving a trail of scorched carpet and molten plastic and forcing fire-fighters to evacuate a building.

Frank Clewer, who was wearing a woollen shirt and a synthetic nylon jacket, was oblivious to the growing electrical current that was building up as his clothes rubbed together.

When he walked into a building in the country town of Warrnambool in the southern state of Victoria on Thursday, the electrical charge ignited the carpet.

“It sounded almost like a firecracker,” Clewer told Australian radio yesterday. “Within about five minutes, the carpet started to erupt.”

Employees, unsure of the cause of the mysterious burning smell, telephoned fire-fighters who evacuated the building.

“There were several scorch marks in the carpet, and we could hear a cracking noise – a bit like a whip – both inside and outside the building”, said fire official Henry Barton.

Fire-fighters cut electricity to the building thinking the burns might have been caused by a power surge.

Clewer, who after leaving the building discovered he had scorched a piece of plastic on the floor of his car, returned to seek help from the fire-fighters.

“We tested his clothes with a static electricity field meter and measured a current of 40,000 volts, which is one step shy of spontaneous combustion, where his clothes would have self-ignited,” Barton said.

“I’ve been fire-fighting for over 35 years and I’ve never come across anything like this,” he said.

Fire-fighters took possession of Clewer’s jacket and stored it in the courtyard of the fire station, where it continued to give off a strong electrical current.

David Gosden, a senior lecturer in electrical engineering at Sydney University, told Reuters that for a static electricity charge to ignite a carpet, conditions had to be perfect.

“Static electricity is a similar mechanism to lightning, where you have clouds rubbing together and then a spark generated by very dry air above them,” said Gosden. – Reuters

Anyway, thats that. Tdelisle 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This story beggars belief. See Wikinews:Australian man allegedly ignites carpet, plastic with static electricity for a rebuttal. DES 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually do recall specific mention that some SHC people WERE wearing wool clothing. Pellaken 17:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

you mention a current of 40,000 volts.... you are mixing units... a current cannot be in volts... Bagster 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if you experience a discharge of 40,000 volts of 'voltage' (electrical potential), normally, you wouldn't burst into flames. In an experiment I have performed many times with my students, they are laden using a Holtz' machine and then discharge themselves by touching some of their class-mates. I've never had any injuries to either of them, either mortal or less, although they were laden to upwards of 50,000 volts electrical potential (and we've possible breached to 120,000 V border -- as a rule of thumb, every centimeter of 'spark' generated *roughly* corresponds to a potential difference of about 20,000 V, depending, for example, on air humidity, skin resistance (think perspiration: salt water and electricity make for a mean combination!)).

I have performed said experiment in so many different settings, atmospheric conditions and with differently-clothed students that I sincerely doubt that clothing or carpet can be ignited without any additional fuel source at hand, at least in any reasonable circumstances compatible with life. Mfhulskemper (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible to NOT be neutral?

This isn't a political discussion. Why is there any dispute at all.

People only dispute things that are political? Tell that to people researching string theory or the origins of the universe or the age of newly discovered archaelogical items or any number of things. I guess that what you're saying is "this is a matter of science and therefore the evidence will speak for itself". I think the best we can do here is report the evidence, what conclusions have been drawn from the evidence and who drew them, then people can decide for themselves. --bodnotbod 22:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly, madly, deeply

The oh-so-witty popinjays taking the mickey out of the use of "allegedly" are quite right to do so. Sorry about that, it's just a useful shorthand way of pointing out that something isn't an established fact (without resorting to synonyms). You're right about it being ugly and repetitive, too, but hey, I wanted to get it finished was sure someone would come along later and polish it up. And how right I was!

Interstingly enough, I allegedly came in here to post the article about the man and his Static Flash Hell, and then saw it had already been mentioned. I personally think that it definitely should go in the 'Static Flash Fire' section, as excerpt and/or link; it's clearly germane and would fit nicely into the flow of the explanation.

Garrick92 17:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Exploding Cows

"Cows also have the problem. They have been known to explode, killing many farmers and animals in the process." A marvellous throwaway line but, at the risk of killing a fine rural legend, cows 'explode' from a stomach condition called 'bloat', where a sudden excess of lush grass causes gases that can't escape cows' double-stomach system and will burst them open if not caught in time. Messy, but unlikely to be fatal to bystanders.

Gladstone 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC) PUT IT BACK unless YOU KNOW that the statement was NOT about COMBUSTION, which is the subject of this article. Why would anyone have added it if they WERE NOT talking about cows BURNING? I know that YOU'RE not talking about cows burning but GET REAL - shall we go delete the article on bloat while you're at it?

Rightly deleted in my opinion. WP states verifiable fact. If it was unreferenced in the first place, who knows what it actually was about? *Was* it about 'burning' cows? The above-mentioned line doesn't mention burning at all. (Sigh, I'm adding to a three-year-old discussion...) Mfhulskemper (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not copyvio

On 16 November 2005 a copyvio tag was added to this article with the suggestion that the introduction of this article was copied from Crystal Links. A look through the Crystal Links website suggest that the opposite is in fact true--they have been copying material from wikipedia (compare for example [1] with [2]). Therefore I have removed the copyvio flag. JeremyA 03:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved section from article; please source

I have moved the following section here from the main article, because it contains a lot of unsourced factual information. Please find a source for this material before replacing it. This is a controversial area, and it's important that when writing encyclopedia articles we're careful to cite our information. Please see WP:CITE for more information. -- Creidieki 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A suspected case of fatal static flash fire

On 8 January 1985, in Widnes, Cheshire, a young girl called Jacqueline Fitzsimon caught fire with no apparent cause on a college staircase. She subsequently died, apparently of delayed shock.

Jacqueline Fitzsimons's death was subsequently ruled out as a case of SHC by the coroner and by independent investigators of supposedly 'paranormal' phenomenon - a rare instance of agreement in the SHC controversy.

The essential difference between the circumstances of the Fitzsimon case and 'classic' cases of alleged SHC is as follows:

• Fitzsimons's flesh was unburned except where it contacted her flammable clothing (the jumper).

• Ergo, the seat of the fire was the clothing, which ignited from an unknown source.

John E Heymer makes further tentative deductions:

• Since the flammable clothing (the jumper) ignited while being worn under non-flammable protective clothing (the catering jacket), the source of ignition probably did not ignite the jumper from outside. A source of ignition on or from Fitzsimons's own body seems probable.

• Flesh being non-flammable, this supposed source of ignition would only affect any flammable object in contact with Fitzsimons's flesh.

• The 'glowing light' witnessed over Fitzsimons's left shoulder may have been the first flickering discharge from the source of ignition (see the Motteshead case, above).

In the light of the cases discussed in the preceding section, it is suspected by Heymer that a static flash fire may have been responsible for a complete accident which the victim, Jacqueline Fitzsimons, could have survived had she not been wearing flammable clothing.

Curiously enough, I came across a case exactly like Fitzsimons' many years ago while reading back issues of the Chicago Tribune. The victim, an Afro-American girl of about fourteen, was walking home from school with two classmates when she complained of feeling ill and subsequently ignited much in the manner that Fitzsimons is described. If I remember correctly, she died on the spot. This took place between 1966 and 1968, since those are the years of the archive I was reading (for completely different material). --Bluejay Young 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oxygen and Water levels

I'd like to remind everyone of third-grade science class for a moment. Fire by definition requires oxygen, and is there a source of pure oxygen in the body which could support even a candle-sized fire for more than a couple of seconds? Also, most of the oxygen in the body is coupled with carbon dioxide, which is more lethal to fire than water. Speaking of water, doesn't it make up at least 3/4 of the human body by mass? How could anyone who made it through the third grade believe that SHC is possible? Captain Jackson 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, from what I have read on the subject. Every time a smoker is found dead from being bruned alive in bed or while fallen asleep on a couch there is some person who is certain that the fire was SHC, (rather than the obvious answer of course). Every one of the verifiable sources that I have found has had some caveat, eg: the subject was suicidal, or they were known to smoke in bed etc. The only story I found with a completely consumed body was one where the subject was suicidal and the police believed the combustant was gasoline. (The spooky thing being that he managed to burn without also igniting the floor or his desk.) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

-But, Captain Jackson, the "wick effect" explains how and why it is possible for human body fat to burn, and for hours on end at that. I don't think the dispute is on whether a human body can burn or not- it can. The point with "spontaneous" combustion is that it happens too quickly and with no apparent reason and nobody has come up with a plausible explanation of how that would work, exactly. The experiment on the BBC show cited in the article, for example, had to use "a bit" of accelerant to get things going and the fire lasted for hours, so the desired result was not quite reproduced. I expect, when a sober explanation is given, at some point, it will involve a high static charge (like, really high) and some biochemical mechanism that accelerates the "wick effect". For now, all I 've seen (and read) is either paranormalists insisting that something fishy is going on here (and the firemen are trying to cover it up), or smart assed skeptics out to earn some kudos for debunking another popular urban myth- you know, like ball lightning.

Btw, has anyone noticed how the BBC show did not in fact try to prove that human combustion is impossible, or that it is not happening at all? They just tried to explain it scientifically. So for the people who think this is all hearsay, think again.

Anyway, if you ask me, South Park has it.Stassa 22:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may be right, except for one point you made: ball lightning does in fact exist and is not refuted scientifically. :D Mfhulskemper (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New organization

Go to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers for more. Martial Law 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)

References

Can someone, anyone even, provide an official reference to an instance in which this has happened. Be it a police blotter or medical report. Every place where the article states 'usually the victim' or 'in some instances' needs to have a reference, without references we are just repeating urban legends. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Can someone, anyone even ..." -- no, I personally can't. Which is, sort of, the whole point of the article. I think you'll find several wikipedia articles like that, in which phenomena subject to dispute are discussed. The nearest anyone has got is the case of Jack Angel in which a man was burned amid untouched bedclothes in a motorhome: his motorhome was dismantled during a subsequent compensation case and it was found that there was no way in which it could have caused his burns. So here, you have a court-proven case of a man burning with no external cause of ignition. That obviously doesn't prove SHC but it does leave the door rather more than ajar. There are several well-documented cases of individuals burning in similar circumstances, linked to in the article, and none of them are urban legends.

Proposal for Merger <- Spontaneous human combustion controversy

For discussion, see the talk section of the article to be merged, here.

Proposal for merger from George I. Mott

Pl see Talk:George I. Mott Pan Dan 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Katie Hryn

"This event had happened 3 times to date, and she is now slightly charred around the edges (when describing Katie Hryn)." I really think this is inappropriate and I am removing this description. Sakrotac 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This page closly resembles this link http://www.crystalinks.com/shc.html

This is disturbing

On the discovery channel, this one lady, by the name of Helen Conway, combusted in her chair. Her legs were the only things not burned. They were poised out, the toes stretched into a position. Disgustion, eh? --66.218.18.232 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio problems in this article

I believe that these problems should be fixed immediately.

• 'was found totally incinerated in the cab of his truck. The London Daily Telegraph reported: "Police witnesses testified they had found the petrol tank full and unharmed by fire, the doors of the cab opened easily, but the interior was a 'veritable furnace'. The coroner's jury declared they were unable to determine how the incident occurred."'
• "the tragic death of a west London man who, while walking along the street, 'appeared to explode. His clothes burned fiercely, his hair was burned off, and the rubber-soled boots melted on his feet'."

Possible copyvio from [3] and [4]. These pages cite Strange Stories, Amazing Facts (ISBN 0895770288) as the original source, which makes me think that WP is the violating party and not vice versa.

• "19-year-old secretary, dancing with her boyfriend in a London discotheque"
• "As though driven by an inner storm, fire burst furiously from her back and chest, enveloping her head and igniting her hair, turning her in seconds to a human torch, and was dead before her horrified companion and other people on the dance floor could beat out the flames."

Copyvio from source cited on this page. Although some phrases are slightly altered it is clear that this violates copyright, as other phrases are entirely intact.

N Shar 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit

Can I just blank large portions of the article and put 'bullshit removed?' 69.161.80.217 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We bow before your superior powers of reasoning. Garrick92 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Step 1:

Someone's best friend, User:Eric Herboso would like me to announce to this Talk Page that I wish to delete the comment above, titled "Bull*hit"

It's obviously not contributing anything, I suppose it was funny at some point in history, but it isn't now and serves no purpose but to take up space. --le petite robot 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess I'm somebody's 'best friend' now. (c; Makes me feel wanted.

Editing others' comments on talk pages is done, but every time a policy page on when deletion of such text is appropriate has been attempted, neither side has garnered consensus. Obviously the above 'Bullshit' section is pointless, and I have no particular reason to defend its place on this talk page. But simply deleting it without some form of announcing it first seems unwikipedia-like. WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments suggests striking out offensive words, or in serious circumstances, replacing individual words with milder words. Actual deletion is recommended only in cases where offensive content is directed at a specific person or user. WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text recommends that removal even of personal attacks should only be used sparingly, and only under strict deviations from official policy. Since this is not a personal attack, it does not even meet those strict standards.

In short, I guess what I am saying is that if this content should be removed, there should at least be a notice put up, and if a single user argues for its continued presence on this talk page, I would be inclined to agree with that user.

May I suggest an alternative? This page is getting long anyway. Why not just archive the whole thing? — Eric Herboso 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive sounds ok to me.

Joe Besser

He's listed as a victim of SHC, yet his page said he died of heart failure. Can we get a source for his SHC case? Looks like someone just put his name up on a whim. 211.18.204.250 07:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please remove anything that's not referenced Corpx 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of the "Televised Experiment"

It seems to me the article on SHC is very long. As a step toward a shorter article, I propose removing the section "A Televised Experiment" as it seems irrelevant.

In brief, the experiment was: 1) a dead pig was wrapped in a blanket ...2) petrol (gasoline) was poured on the blanket ... 3) the thing was ignited.

The combustion was neither human nor spontaneous.

Feedback would be appreciated. Wanderer57 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This comment has gone six weeks without a reply. Will anyone complain if the section "a televised experiment" is deleted? Please advise. Thanks Wanderer57 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistency please

In the section "A Televised Experiment", I read "The wick effect, while a real phenomenon, is a slow "smoldering" process with gentle lapping flames and thus very at odds with the reported rapidity and ferocity of SHC."

Yet the earlier section of the article, "Characteristics of SHC", makes NO MENTION of the "rapidity and ferocity of SHC."

With such a fuzzy, myth-ridden topic as I believe SHC to be, it is doubly important and doubly difficult to be consistent (personal opinion).

Wanderer57 23:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mechanism of SHC Discovered and USed to cure cancer

As I am sure some of you have heard, salt water can be ignited in teh presence of certain additives owing to radio waves. Be afraid. Be very afraid. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIRI600&show_article=1. Mrdthree 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stan Laurel

Gillyweed: I notice you deleted the bit about Stan Laurel igniting his thumb. Seems to me that item is about as relevant to shc as others in the same section. It was convincing and funny on film. Wanderer57 14:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't an example of SCH. Gillyweed 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove all the original research unless it's fixed

This article violates the WP rules against OR. It's perfectly fine to discuss pseudoscientific hypotheses in an encyclopedia article, as long as they have published sources that are cited. However, in every section of this article there are WP editors "making sense" of the "facts" in what amounts to original research. It is unacceptable and needs to be changed. Aroundthewayboy 16:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually, points that are considered OR are marked as "citation needed". I don't see any of that here. What things seem to be OR? Thank you. Wanderer57 04:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Recoding section levels

I changed some section levels from === to == because it did not seem right to have Static flash fire and some other topics as subsections of Wick effect.

There is still an organization problem, I think. There are two sections about "survivors" and two that talk about 'The Entrancing Flame'. Wanderer57 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SHC in fiction

The section would be more informative if the fiction list included the years that these books were written, movies released, etc. Then they could be put in chronological order.

Has anyone sources for this stuff? Wanderer57 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Notice how well I avoided using the word nonsense.

OOPS!  !!!!

Read the article twice don understand a word of it

what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

maybe

We have come to a good deal of knowledge so that we can stand anything like this but I think that this is a test process for some biological and chemical weapons. Therefore, it is likely that these incidents as natural to impose this kind of tests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.200.124 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long and Rambling

This article is far too long and includes far too much superfluous detail. The aim is not to add as much information as one can, but rather to say only as much is requried to provide the reader with an understanding of the topic. Halogenated (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed it is too long. The question is what to remove. Can we discuss this?

• I'll start with my pet theory, which is that the remarkable aspect of SHC is its "spontaneity". IE, what starts the combustion? From this point of view, that major part of the article devoted to the "wick effect" is of secondary importance. The wick effect might explain how combustion, once started, could continue. It doesn't seem to explain how combustion might begin in the first place. I think in this article the significance of the wick effect could be covered in a short paragraph, especially as there is another article on the wick effect. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cigarettes. <eleland/talkedits> 04:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SHC Chemical Link?

As a kid I oftened played with spontaneous combustion on my front porch. Simply went to the drugstore back then, bought some glycerin & potassium permangate, made a little pile, poured on the glycerin, and viola....in a couple of minutes some bubbling, some smoke, and then fire. Now it seems to me that with vegetable oils containing around 10% glycerin, and plenty of potassium around, that a similar chemical combination could rather be simply the cause of SHC. Just be careful when putting the butter on the banana --Energymax (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

QED experiment

The text of the article states "At one point one of the characters replicates the QED experiment referred to above" but no QED article is referred to above. Maybe there used to be. The only mention is in the External links. Can I suggest somebody fix this. I don't want to do it as I am not an expert in this area (nor particularly interested in it). HairyWombat (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the external link, and it doesn't lead to an article about spontaneous human combustion. I will delete this link unless there are objections. HairyWombat (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seven days with no objections, so its zapped. HairyWombat (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Theory

Just wanted to point out that "Theory" refers to a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and proven accurate, and therefore is the best explanation we have of something. Think "theory of relativity", "theory of evolution" (which IS supported by a great deal of evidence, ranging from the emergence of pesticide resistant pests, drug-resistant bacterium, genetic analysis, and the fossil record), and other such examples. The explanations for SHC fall into the category of hypothesis. Please make use of the correct terminology, as the two are completely different in terms of how solidly tested they are.

Nuclear destabilization theory

Should it be mentioned that one of the leading theories is that some how an atom splits within the victim's body by pure chance. The released energy is enough to break all the molecular bonds within somebody to break, causing their body to disintegrate. Another one is that a chemical reaction within the body go hay wire, and the resulting reaction breaks the body down. The flames are caused not only be Hydrogen and oxygen within the body but also the potassium, sodium, magnesium, and calcium with in the body. --GMWhilhuffTarkin (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if a source was found to support such rubbish it could be included. It might be deleted by anyone with a physics degree though. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As a biochemist, I had a good laugh on the theory above. Even when an atom 'splits' (converts to pure energy according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2), you would not go up in smoke. If it were that easy to disintegrate molecular bonds by supplying a relatively small amount of energy, wouldn't you thinnk we'd have burning matter everywhere, especially with the relatively high oxygen content in the Earth's atmosphere? Mfhulskemper (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article presents a high degree of POV and requires some real improvement. I'd like to start by removing entirely or reworking the following sections:

• Discrediting SHC by Association

• In Fairness to the SHC Skeptics and Debunkers: One Facet of Motivation --

• Quotes -- presents nothing of informational or encyclopedic value to the article.

I'm presenting this here because I think the changes could prove controversial, and I'd hate to stir a boiling pot without good reason.

– moonty (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)