Talk:Health risks from dead bodies

Shouldn't

Shouldn't the name of this artcle be Health risks from dead bodies ?

I think so.

Also, in paragraph 4 (b), "true fact" is redundant - but I see that the word "true" is there to contrast with "incorrect" in part (a). How can this be reworded to remove the redundancy, but not become ambiguous or more awkward?

A.

---

Title: in an index I would call it "dead bodies, health risks of", which is why I named it as I did when I created this entry. "True fact": what you say is true, and the tautologous usage is intended to add emphasis. The "true fact" version seems to read OK for me. But by all means change it. 213.208.107.91 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Macgyver's reference to Bazalgette certainly wasn't vandalism: Bazalgette built the London sewers with the intention of reducing the foul miasma believed to be the cause of cholera. Maybe it is irrelevant and should be removed (I have no strong feelings either way). I wrote the original version of this article, which obviously doesn't mean I have any rights over it, but I do know what I'm talking about.

I've reintroduced the reference, but if it's still thought better to remove it, that's fine by me. 213.208.107.91 7 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)

---

I've reverted a couple of points in the first paragraph:

After disasters with extensive loss of life {Reinserted: due to trauma}, much resource is often expended on burying the dead quickly, and applying disinfectant to bodies, to prevent disease {Deleted: spread of}.

The point of the article is that bodies broken by trauma are not dangerous, and do not cause diseases, let alone spread them. If reference to trauma is omitted, and spread of diseases is discussed, the whole article becomes false; after, say, an outbreak of smallpox (certainly a disaster), resource must definitely be expended on burial and disinfection to prevent spread.

Pol098 04:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

While, of course, research and evidence must override any commonsensical arguments, there is no logical reason for non-diseased corpses to generate and spread disease: micro-organisms do not come into being by spontaneous generation, any more than flies are generated spontaneously by rotting rubbish, rather than hatching eggs. Disease micro-organisms are not the same as those causing decay.

This sounds like original persuasive writing, and also somewhat shaky. (1) There's no a priori reason why one might not expect deadly microorganisms carried on dust particles in the air to find dead bodies to be a good place to reproduce. (2) Not to mention the fact that if you eat rotten flesh, you will get quite sick. I'm not arguing with the science that reportedly says that epidemics aren't caused by trauma victims, but I think it's pushing it to (3) argue that this should have been obvious. -- Beland 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Disease processes require living organisms. Decay processes generally affect dead organisms. (2) This isn't a fact. Certain organisms (salmonella, listeria, clostridium, etc.), if present, cause sickness (not disease) when ingested. But they don't produce the symptoms of decay; rotten flesh is not in itself dangerous. You might like to add a sentence warning that eating corpses is not recommended; but even then, in practice eating corpses killed by trauma has not caused disease, although they were usually fresh or refrigerated. (3) the argument isn't that this should have been obvious, but that there is not actually anything to support the "commonsense" view that corpses spread disease. I propose to reinstate the paragraph, changing "micro-organisms do not come into being by spontaneous generation" to something like "DISEASE micro-organisms do not come into being by spontaneous generation, nor do they multiply on dead bodies" - does anyone have comments? Pol098 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As a response to point 2, I would agree. It depends a lot on the conditions the flesh decomposes in, and what it is exposed to in the environment. The rugby team that crashed in the Andes ate rotten human flesh many times (reportedly it tastes like cheese), and never experienced anything worse than intermittent diarrhea. Eating moldy cheese would be a lot more likely to cause serious illness, on account of certain kinds of molds producing systemic (as opposed to merely gastrointestinal) toxicity when ingested. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lime

Why is lime thrown over corpses? Drutt 16:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's used here as a disinfectant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychological issues?

I think that discovering a dead body could affect mental health. Are there any reliable sources that talk about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on some changes I've reverted

The facts aren't controversial: all the evidence cited shows that bodies of those who have died of trauma do not cause disease. (Also those who die of some diseases, but the thrust of this article is natural disasters such as earthquakes). E.g.: "Time and time again, eminent and authoritative experts have pointed out that dead bodies do not constitute a health hazard," said Alexander." [1]

Form the same ref: "As far as public health professionals have been able to determine, this concern has never been substantiated,"

I have modified some of the text to bring it more in lone with the reference quoted. Pol098 (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (posted some weeks ago, forgot to sign)

Removed POV

I have removed the sentence "This is an inappropriate use of scarce resources and manpower." as that sentence is, without any source, POV. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Zombies?

isnt the dead becoming reanimated and violent a health risk?68.14.139.123 (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only in Haiti. 213.208.107.91 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)