Talk:Spontaneous human combustion/Archive 1

High levels of H2O2 in blood?

I have noticed that in many cases the bodies burn mostly but not completely. Also flamable objects nearby do not combust. It has been reported that the burns found on "survivors" appeared to be chemical burns. My hypothesis is that in rare cases the victim has a liver "failure" in the sense that it is no longer properly disposing of the chemical H2O2(hydrogen peroxide) that can build up in the body. Long ago their was an aircraft that was propelled using H2O2 as the oxidizing agent, the trucks that contained this liquid had to be secured away from everything else because it was possible for it to react with and oxidize anything as well as human flesh as it was highly concentrated. So as the liver is not properly disposing of this chemical and levels begin to build up in the body when they hit the critical point it reacts with the tissue in the body and begins the deadly chain reaction we have described as spontaneous human combustion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.229.224 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! H2O2 denatures proteins on contact. High levels of it in the blood would be fatal long before it could serve as an oxidizer in combustion. Zaphraud (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Your thinking of it doesn't make it fact. What you are engaging in is conjecture, and there is no place for it here. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Same with you, sir. We do not deny or label things 'pseudoscience' due to lack of explanation. Science is growing and not everything is explained. --72.74.127.148 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2009 (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)

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.

First of all, he was only partly burned, not fully consumed, and secondly, there's evidence that he lied. In 1975, he stated, as part of a lawsuit, that the burns were caused by a water-heater explosion - which explains a great deal. Scalding will burn the body without igniting clothing. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.244.61 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

No, this is NPOV; it is defamatory in nature to bullshit, which can be used as fertilizer.Zaphraud (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2010 (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)

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)

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)

Agreed. The introduction needs reworking too - the book by Larry Arnold is far from 'a comprehensive review', more a loony conspiracy theorist tome. ----

I also think this article needs to be changed. I seriously doubt that Arnold can be considered as a reliable source. Looking for a biography doesn't yield much, only that he has an undergraduate major in mechanical engineering, published Ablaze and runs parascience.com, a page advertising his book.

Also, references 1,6 and 7 are the same, and don't even reference the book, but link to the amazon.com page.

I agree with Moonty that the "Discrediting by Association" section should be removed, but the "Possible Explanations" section is also troubling as it looks like OR. If it's not, then it should be (reliably) referenced, otherwise deleted. I disagree on the Quotes, the one by Liebig is probably the most scientific sentence in the whole article. Ahmazzi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's entirely fair about Arnold - he seems to be referenced a lot on websites that talk about SHC. I'd say his book is fairly representative of one side of the debate (i.e. the side that thinks it exists). CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Second line of intro

The second paragraph of the intro is one of the most non-POV, un-Enclycopaedic-looking things I've ever seen ('Don't read this page! Nasty lying skeptic types have ruined it! Read other stuff instead!') and I'm removing it. I'm posting this for posterity's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.93.29 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Arnold

An "arnold" is mentioned multiple times in this article. It appears to be vandalism, or some sort of joke. Am I wrong? 89.240.226.124 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with identifying an accurate explanation

I was going to tidy this section up, but then decided that there isn't any content in this section that can be kept - it's not sourced, and doesn't read like an encyclopaedia. (E.g. 'it is desirable that specally trained teams...') CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In fiction

This list is too long, and is simply a list of trivia for the most part. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss any additions to this section here first - it's already too long. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Time to remove them? Any yays/nays? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Survivors of static fires

What's the rationale for this section? They aren't potential shc cases - they are static fires - so they don't really have much relevance to the shc article. Remove?

Concur CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Case of SHC?

I watched the show Fringe yesterday and it had this woman spontaneously come up in fire after she left the bus. She was very much hyperventilating the whole time she was on the bus. The bus driver called 911 and the two main characters of Fringe found the body and the body had been a source as the person was burned from head to toe somehow.

Shall I add the Fringe episode to 'Fiction'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagemaru16 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I say no. There are enough fictional references in already; this article isn't a 'list of fictional references to shc'. If there is something very notable about a particular incident that is especially relevant to the article, then it can go in in place of one that's there already. 3/4 examples is definitely enough, and personally I think a reference to it being mentioned in fiction is probably sufficient. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I say yes, because there isn't enough fictional references in already; if we have more current references then that would be better. The more recent the reference, the better. Since Fringe is realistic-fiction this can be put in as Fiction. Since I really don't think Fringe is a true realistic show. But in all this reference is towards media. If we have an "In the Media" section then this could go in that, or a "In Popular Culture" section. I for one say that this shall go in either the fiction section or make another section that goes towards Media directly. And I have my reference to the episode of which it took place. --Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How many do you want? That section is already 1/3 of the article; it used to be nearer 1/2 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spontaneous_human_combustion&oldid=278614656 ). If you want a more recent example in I don't object, but I'd suggest taking out one of the other examples to do so. I don't think this article merits a separate 'in the media' section either (by which I presume you mean a 'fictional use in audio-visual media' section). If you think lots of examples of fictional use are noteworthy then start a separate article 'shc in fiction' or something. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are not noteworthy, and clearly this is becoming a dumping ground for every fanboy who wants to promote his/her favourite pop culture artifact. It's trivia, and it serves no legitimate purpose. A handful of examples will more than suffice to demonstrate that SHC has caught the public imagination insofar as it answers the need for a sensationalistic MacGuffin. Fictional instances do not have anything to do with resolving the controversy surrounding the subject of SHC. We should be spending greater effort where it is required: finding legitimate non-fiction sources to support the truth or fiction of SHC. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, leave the endless pop culture stuff out. There's a place for it, but the proposed reference to "Fringe" doesn't appear to be noteworthy under its own merits, or increase the reader's understanding of the article topic. There clearly has to be a limit on this kind of thing otherwise the article "Firearms" would have a "Firearms in popular culture" section stretching to infinity. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In Fiction (less is more)

Over the last couple of months I've deleted a couple of paragraphs from the "In Fiction" section, largely on the basis that: (a) a person unexpectedly bursting into flames is not necessarily SHC as described in this article, particularly where it occurs as a result of a known, or in some cases explicitly magical cause, (b) if we were to list every case of someone bursting into flames in fiction it would be a very long and unhelpful list, and (c) they don't serve to illustrate popular perceptions (or misconceptions) about SHC and if anything only muddy the issue by confusing actual perceptions and depictions with, for example, magical fireballs or pyrokinesis. But I'm not particularly invested; feel free to revert if anyone feels I'm in the wrong. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

--The same,CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

what spontaneous combustion is

Spontaneous combustion is really kind of a scary thing when you really realise it. People are just blowing up for no aparent reason.No one has really figured out that these people every day are just drinking things that they don't even know what they are doing. They don't what they are drinking they don't really care all they know is that they are drinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.9 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cigarette dropping?

One thing that puzzled me is the reference to cigarettes. To me the interesting thing isn't whether a body will combust spontaneously, but whether it will combust at all. People don't usually, even if they do drop their cigarette. Presumably the cigarette or similar comes as part of the wick theory, i.e. victim dies from heart attack, cigarette ignites clothing, skin ruptures, and fat burns.

Oh, and the reference to Skeptical Inquirer doesn't work for me, but I was unable to locate it elsewhere.

kzm (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosing content

I prefer the version these two versions: one year ago and two years ago. The current artible has lost most of its previous content, I think that most of interesting content was deleted. --79.109.5.24 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (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!  !!!!

May I propose the addition of the account of SHC in Zola's novel "Le Docteur Pascal"? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any facts available?

Let's just pause for a moment and think. The article says there have been "about 200 cited cases" of spontaneous human combustion in the past 300 years. Yet the article can only list 8 of those cases, 5 of which have their own Wikipedia articles. On reading those 5 articles, I can see NO credible sources cited for any of them! If a person is found dead in any unexplained circumstances, there will be a police investigation, newspaper reports, a coroner's inquest, perhaps a court case. All of these events generate documents which end up in the public domain after a few years. Yet nowhere in Wikipedia can I find a reference to a single archival document which supports a case of spontaneous human combustion. My skeptical reading of all the evidence in Wikipedia leaves me believing that no credible case of spontaneous human combustion has ever occurred. Peter Bell (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But there are "reliable" sources.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What change to the article are you recommending, Peter? -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism

I think that the view that SHC doesn't exist is underrepresented. Aside from the initial explanation that most people "view the phenomenon with skepticism" (what exactly does this mean? "skepticism" merely means "questioning" or "doubting", not "reject", "repudiate" or "unbelieve"), nowhere does it say that a major viewpoint (probably the most predominant viewpoint, but I have no source for that) is that SHC simply does not exist. I think this viewpoint merits at least some representation. At the very least, it should be a bullet point in the "natural causes" section. Now I realize that most people contributing here probably have an interest in SHC because they believe in it, and I don't want to oppose your views, but I just think that the inverse viewpoint deserves representation here.J y p (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - this is totally ridiculous. If wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, it needs to cut WAY back on articles that read as fringe, or paranormal, and unsubstantiated articles. An article on SHC as a cultural phenomenon - like on Tooth fairy, or Santa Claus - or a believe system - like reincarnation - is warranted. But this read way too much as an article about a real phenomenon. W is big on citing reputable sources; so until a reputable source shows a reliable documented instance of SHC (as opposed to an reputable article about people believing in it, or making claims about it) the article should make it clear that we are talking about a belief system not a real phenomenon.

• Whoever wrote this is an idiot. The "Rational Skepticism" Wikiproject (Pseudoskepticism, more accurately) is one of the major reasons it's hard to take Wikipedia very seriously. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the introductory paragraph makes it crystal clear that SHC is most often not considered a real occurence. I would say it doesn't need any changing. And Chr, let's try to keep on point discussing article changes instead of pointless namecalling. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposing archive

I think the talk page has grown more than lengthy enough to merit an archive and I'd suggest setting it up to be done automatically by ClueBot. It's preferable to have some consensus before setting up the bot, so please add your opinions here. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And in the meantime I think I'm going to manually archive any topic that has had no responses within the last two years, unless someone objects. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind; the page was already set up to be archived by MiszaBot, but was not set up correctly. I believe I've fixed it now, but I've never set up a bot before, so we'll see how it goes. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Space

"* Another hypothesis suggests high-energy particles or gamma rays coupled with susceptibilities in the potential victim (e.g., increased alcohol in the blood) triggers the initial reaction. This process may use no external oxygen to spread throughout the body, since it may not be an oxidation-reduction reaction. However, no reaction mechanism has been proposed, nor has a source for the high-energy particles."

They come from space. Like, all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.7.21 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

From the linked article: "Cosmic rays are stable particles that normally occur on Earth, like protons, atomic nuclei, or electrons." How do those then qualify as "high-engergy particles or gamma rays?" -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Unverified natural phenomena

Although highly entertaining this is the worst article I have ever seen on WP. I wish I had more time to clean it up. In the meantime I will remove the preposterous and unsubstantiated, paragraph of gobbledygook about mitochondria. Irassassin (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Cigarettes

Updated the section on natural explanations - previous editors seem to think cigarettes an unlikely source of ignition, but evidence shows that they're the number one cause of fatal house fires. In the UK there was even a tv advertising campaign showing how house fires are caused by cigarettes, and you should put them out! The Wick Effect theory seems to pretty much explain all the SHC evidence - it really should be given more prominence in this article. Gymnophoria (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

survivor section

I removed this section on survivors. There is no evidence that these people were experiencing spontaneous human combustion, no indication of medical evidence following up on these "stories". One girl had a "blue light" coming out of her that she thought was funny, her mother put her in the bath. The other story is about a woman wearing her PJ's in the kitchen when she caught on fire. So? The third reference is to someone mentioned but not cited. If someone would like to put these edits back in and can give a compelling reason why they should be in the article, then they are below for you to copy/paste. Sgerbic (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

===Survivors===

Two examples of people surviving static flash events are given in a book on SHC. Author John Heymer claims that the two subjects, Debbie Clark and Susan Motteshead, speaking independently and with no knowledge of each other, give similar histories.

• In September 1985, Debbie Clark was walking home when she noticed an occasional flash of blue light. As she claimed, "It was me. I was lighting up the driveway every couple of steps. As we got into the garden I thought it was funny at that point. I was walking around in circles saying, 'Look at this, mum, look!' She started screaming and my brother came to the door and started screaming and shouting 'Have you never heard of spontaneous human combustion?'" Her mother, Dianne Clark, responded, "I screamed at her to get her shoes off and it [the flashes] kept going so I hassled her through and got her into the bath. I thought that the bath is wired to earth. It was a blue light, you know, what they call electric blue. She thought it was fun, she was laughing."
• In winter 1980, Cheshire, England, resident Susan Motteshead was standing in her kitchen, wearing flame-resistant pajamas, when she was suddenly engulfed in a short-lived fire that seemed to have ignited the fluff on her clothing but burned out before it could set anything properly alight.

In addition, Jack Angel claims to have survived an SHC-like event.

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.

I see where you are coming from, but I believe this is referring to the more (at least to the general public) common definition, such as the saying, "Well, that's your theory.", meaning an idea, or, as you said, Hypothesis. I do believe that in a more scientific article, your definition of "Theory" would definitely be more appropriate, however it is not so much a problem in a more didactic page. This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

medieval times

The "spontaneous human combustion" Suggestion is a Myth, or a Rumor, leading people to Believe they might combust or explode. it is an uncommon fact that it was a murder in the medieval times, and a way of covering it up, was called "sponticulas cunstubstion". They wrapped the victim up in cotton from head to toe and lit the cotton. this heated the body, burning it faster than the cotton. this caused the body to explode. It is rare that that EVER happend but, a good way of living for the murderer and a great way of hiding evidence! However, not an alive person would explode. 78.145.54.239

Can you provide evidence of this? I have Google'd this but I can not find anything about "Sponticulas Cunstubstion", however, from your suggestion I believe this would go under another page, such as Murder. This article is about an unexplained, seemingly random combustion where, in most cases, only certain parts of the body are destroyed and other things do not burn as would be in what you stated. Of course, I may be wrong, can you make sure you didn't misspell "sponticulas cunstubstion"? This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium phosphide

Why is there no mention of this at all? It is used to commit suicide with the pesticide it is used in.

One UK brand is Talunex http://www.talunex.co.uk/

Spontaneous ignition due to intentional acute aluminum phosphide poisoning. J Emerg Med. 2011 Feb;40(2):179-81. Epub 2009 Jul 21.

While that's a recent paper this has been known for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.125.74 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

...except for the fact that you're full of crap, and the Wick Effect doesn't explain ANYTHING. Experiments with the Wick Effect showed that even in tightly controlled experiments under perfect circumstances, Wick burns are absolutely nothing like SHC burns. SHC burns are characterized by sudden flares of intense heat that have (in several highly documented cases) resulted in complete immolation of the body, with almost no damage to surrounding materials. Wick burns don't behave like that- they instead cause widespread damage to surrounding materials. It would be nice if people would stop spreading lies in the name of Science. I get that you're apparently upset that there are things in the universe that don't currently have an explanation, but that doesn't mean you get to make up ridiculous, disproven lies. Whatever causes SHC, it's NOT the Wick effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.34.2 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This entry SERIOUSLY sucks.

There are a lot of bad articles on WikiPedia, but this is one of the worst. It's filled with POV and flat-out lies from nearly top to bottom. For example, the article cites the so-called "wick effect" as an explanation for SHC, even though scientific tests under controlled circumstances have proven exactly the opposite: that the Wick Effect absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, duplicate the effects of known cases of SHC. Hell, you can find the videos of the Wick tests on You Tube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.34.2 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To fix it, you should bring your reliable sources (not YouTube links) here and we can see if they pass muster for inclusion on the page. New posts here go at the bottom. --John (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have to say that you aren't reading the article very carefully, IP user. The article repeatedly states that none of the explanations given have had much support in the scientific community and seem unlikely to be true. The wick effect is simply one hypothesis that is often put forth, which is why it's represented in the article. At no point does the article state that the wick effect is a likely cause of SHC phenomena. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, after rereading, I see that there was one sentence in the intro that seemed very much to imply that the wick effect was a tried and tested explanation. I've removed this sentence, since it obviously has serious flaws. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2011 (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)

Bias

• according to those that rely on current scientific understanding..., that sentence needs to be corrected.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Equilibrium

Many chemicals are contained in the human body that exist in a dynamic state of balance that stay that way so long as a membrane or other function remains intact. All it would take is for some potential reaction to become a kinetic reaction triggered by who knows what like exposing sodium or potassium metal to air. We live at the very apex of chemical evolution where an apparently slight change can bring the whole deck of stacked cards down. 71.100.23.199 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what change to the article are you suggesting? -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example of possible cause is what happens to a bunch of oily rags as the oil oxidizes and as the result heats up past the point of combustion. Another is the separation of alcohol from water just waiting for a flame or spark when salt becomes concentrated enough in the solution to form a saturated solution and cause the separation.

What I am suggesting is that the article does not explore any or all of the possible reactions just below the threshold of a trigger. The article should take leave to speculate so readers can speculate and explore possible answers to the question. 71.100.23.199 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research and speculation are very much not what Wikipedia is for. Any information added without a reliable source is subject to removal. There are plenty of places online where you can simply discuss SHC and possible causes of it, but not here. Here's a link if you want to read the policy on original research. -- Fyrefly (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Death of Michael Faherty

From the article Death of Michael Faherty:

The coroner subsequently made a statement to inquiry: "This fire was thoroughly investigated and I'm left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation."

The sources for this quote seems to be a newspaper. I don't see how we could responsibly not list this as a possible SHC case when the coroner himself made the same conclusion. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxygen

Several elderly people that I have visited have had some sort of oxygen producing apparatus in their room. None of the reports seem to mention extra oxygen in a room where spontaneous combustion has apparently happened, does this remain an additional factor that has simply been overlooked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Death list

The more I think about it the more I think we need to remove the list of deaths on this page. It is obvious that there is a better more likely conclusion that these deaths are from natural causes and not SHC. Also can we really verify a case that goes back to the 1400's? I mean really? Sgerbic (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While I wouldn't completely disagree with removing the list, I'd like to point out that it's labelled as a list of possible cases, not confirmed or verified cases. It's also not our job as editors to come to our own conclusions about the causes of these deaths, but to compile what reliable sources have already said. -- Fyrefly (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable? Just because a newspaper writes a story looking for sensational headlines, and never reports what experts say after they have had a chance to research the case, does not make it factual. And I have problems with the word "possible" anyway. Has there EVER been one case that was proved to be SHC? Just one? If not then how can we even state that SHC is possible? What if a meme starts saying these deaths were the result of creatures from Mars with death rays, and some newspapers state that as possible, then should we start a page on that? SHC is something that should be defined on Wikipedia. The history of the term and all the scientific possibilities of what probably is actually happening. We should not be sensationalizing this as something that is "possible". Sgerbic (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, well if you want to debate the policy that newspapers count as WP:RS, then you'll have to have that discussion in a completely different place than this page. -- Fyrefly (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be biting off more than I can chew. LOL Still I think that removing the Death Role would be a great improvement to the page.Sgerbic (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Its been 3 months. No one else has weighed in, so I'm removing the death list. If someone really really thinks it improves the article then please discuss here on Talk. In my opinion, I think the article is improved without it.Sgerbic (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In fiction

I think Captain Marryat also had a tale of SHC. Rather gruesome. But I cannot recall what story. Ditlev Petersen (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What of Meville's Redburn? 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What of Krook's SHC in Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" ?? Note too the introductory text by Dickens justifying the plot inclusion. 180.200.138.67 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Brian J. Ford: Ketosis

New Scientist 2012 August 18 has an article ([5]) by Brian J. Ford dismissing the wick theory and attributing SHC to accumulation of acetone due to ketosis, possibly caused by alcoholism or dieting. Sounds plausible, refers to a paper ([6]) in The Microscope/The Microscope Journal (http://www.mcri.org/home/section/71-72/the-microscope-journal) vol 60, p. 63.

There is also a detective story by Michael Innes in which a port-pickled butler survives a fire. PJTraill (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added ketosis to the natural causes, but I suspect I have not done the citations optimally. PJTraill (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. (using {{Cite journal}}) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There are too many problems with his methodology to list here (dipping a rat in ethanol to simulate an alcoholic? Soaking pork in acetone to simulate a dieter?), but a glance at his Wiki article suggests that he is an autodidact with a history of, shall we say, profound claims that all the scientific journals are conspiring to suppress just like they did Galileo. The sourced articles are closer to "comical" than "plausible". However, they are proper sources, so I think it's more than generous to say that he "suggests" ketosis as a mechanism. Syd (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sims Comment

In the article, it says that this is present in 'several' sims games, as of now, there are only three, several means more than two, so this means that all sims games contain SHC, but the original does not contain SHC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.124.202 (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Acetone peroxide

While the acetone that results from ketosis cannot possibly ignite on its own unless heated to exceptionally high temperatures, acetone in general does have a tendency to slowly oxidize on its own, i.e. when left as a large, wide spill, forming highly explosive acetone peroxide when it does. While there is indeed no air exposure in the case of ketosis due to the human body's containing effects, one needs to take into account that reactive oxygen species do form in human body as a result of normal cellular respiration processes. Given that, A, from the lungs, the next destination for metabolic oxygen, when it first enters the body, before being transferred to other cells, is the blood, that's often where the most ROS are formed, and B, ketone bodies, including the waste acetone prior to its excretion by the kidneys, are also stored in the blood, wouldn't it make perfectly logical sense from a chemistry standpoint for the ROS to, in the case of unusually rapid ketosis, catalyze the peroxidization of acetone in the blood (leading to peroxyacetonemia, and, being poorly soluble in both water and blood, detonation by the shock and friction involved with movement through the blood stream, in turn igniting the rest of the acetone, and, eventually, the fat in the body)?

TATP, even when synthesized by chemists for fun (and terrorists for rather malicious use, i.e. in IEDs), is always, always synthesized in an acidic environment as well, and, well, the other two ketone bodies besides acetone ― acetoacetic acid and beta-Hydroxybuyric acid ― are indeed both acids, so that's indeed something else to consider here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCA6:8300:2D:91C0:23EC:D8AF (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Death or just burning ?

The 'Overview' section says

"Spontaneous human combustion" refers to the death from a fire originating without an apparent external source of ignition"

Does the term really necessarily refer to (real or ficticious) cases only which result(ed) in death, or is it not also used for just the spontaneous combustion, even when it is somehow extinguished (or stops itself) before it lead(s) to the demise of the victim? Sejtam (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Exploding Toads

Originally it was believed that alcohol consumption had something to do with this rare occurrence. We all know what alcohol can do to the liver. Is it possible at all, that the lack of liver function can lead to the explosion of the victim? I believe the "prolonged" idea of combustion is laughable. I've never heard of someone ever found with 3rd degree burns in their body (in bed) for no reason (in an event in which something like this would be avoided), or a person waking up to find themselves burning. Sorry, nothing is going to lead me to believe that it can happen over a period of time, since animal explosions are possible and real. For example in the case of the toads that kept exploding, their liver had been eaten by crows. No liver = explosion. Photo evidence of humans appears to show the upper body missing completely. When I cook a roast in my over, it doesn't dissolve; it burns but the matter stays there. So I do believe there is more to it that just an "external" fire source. There is really no evidence that suggest that all of the people that it happened to were smokers; and I've heard about this happening to children who do not smoke or drink (for the most part).

Other than that, there is also a small possibility the victims were dead already, which has been mentioned before. For historical and encyclopedic purposes all documented cases should be included in this article. I see that the name of the victims got removed, but I see no benefit on that. I've seen the name of victims of so many fatalities listed in wikipedia articles, this article is incomplete without that. More about toad explosions. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Spontaneous?

If external source of ignition is required, then is this truly "spontaneous"? I believe there is more anecdotes about truly spontaneous incidents that could be cited. A self-heating effect could be considered spontaneous, like oily rags or piles of mulch, but c'mon.--71.10.146.139 (talk)

Agreed. There's more to it than just that. Perhaps this might help everyone in future. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

History

What appears to be missing from this article, is more in depth information on the history of spontaneous human combustion. Jan Bondeson covers the history in his book "A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities", for example the Danish physician Thomas Bartholin had written about the subject hundreds of years ago. If I have time I may try and improve this side of the article. HealthyGirl (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting "Cultural References" on a diet?

DragonflySixtyseven recently eliminated "all Cultural References that are primary sources", an action that I had to wonder about. Is this a new policy? Is there something else going on?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible Hydrogen and Oxygen Implosion?

The symptoms of the burning suggest to me that somehow our body is producing both Hydrogen and Oxygen before they have spontaneously combustion? I have been researching Hydrogen for a alternative fuel supply and I was also a Aviation's Electronics Tech. in the US Navy. I ran across Stanley Meyer's method of breaking up water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. It requires high voltage but ideally no Amps. I was using Ambien for sleeping and it made my brain start arching like it was being fried by electricity and my whole body was going into electrical shocks and convulsing and I literally thought I was going to die and went to the ER for it.

My point is that if a medication can do that to you and cause a increased electrical activity in a person then why can't the body make it's own method of hydrogen and oxygen from the water in the body?

Think about it. When Hydrogen burns it is reactive to anything. It can melt rock or steel so how much more easily a body made of mostly water. And when it burns it implodes and explodes so if it started inside the body it would contain it inside the body till most the body is gone and when Hydrogen burns it actually burns cooler than gasoline. But at the same time the actual flame is hotter than gasoline? That doesn't make sense huh? In researching using HHO or Hydrogen and Oxygen as a fuel in combustion engines I found that it burns cooler in a engine than gasoline does. Stanley Meyer's use in a combustion engine found that the engines run cooler than when you use gasoline.

So in the case of Spontaneous Human Combustion I noticed that it was a extreme temperature but it was so fast that the body burned up quickly yet fabric in contact with the body did not burn? I once did a experiment with Coin cleaning acid that had hydrogen in it. Me and My friend, Randy Roundtree put a cup upside down and put the jar of acid underneath the cup then inserted a piece of zinc into the acid. We wanted to fill the cup with hydrogen and then light it. Instead it filled the whole roof of his living room with hydrogen all the way to the top of the door jams. We lit the cup and the whole ceiling flashed into a giant flame instantly and you could feel the heat but then it was all gone and not any singe or coloration to show it burned and nothing caught fire. In the body it gets so hot that the water in the body gets so hot it ignites. Combine HHO with a spark and I felt like my brain was sparking on medication so it is possible that medications and other agents created the spark?

But the burning sounds like Hydrogen and Oxygen burns. Does anyone out their think that is possible or know how it could be possible? And when HHO burns it's exhaust is also water vapors. I just thought I would through HHO into the mix. It burns so hot it will make hydrocarbons into inert gases. In fact if every jet airplane was set up to run on HHO the atmosphere would be cleaned of all the hydrocarbons in no time and our global warming would reverse. HHO cleans the air while it burns. But you will never get the government behind that. They work for the Oil and Chemical Manufacturers. They are bought and paid for already. So they will never make it so the Jets run on HHO.

Any way, I feel that these unique individuals somehow produced HHO inside their bodies and some electro chemical reaction caused it to implode inside them and they burns hot and fast without burning anything around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

SHC?

Who is using this abbreviation for spontaneous human combustion? Is that common that an acronym needs to be used? I suspect OR.

Kortoso (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nickell being promoted too much

Including the paper is a good idea, but this sentence reads like an item from Joe Nickell's resume: "Nickell has written frequently on the subject, appeared on television documentaries, conducted additional research, and lectured at the New York State Academy of Fire Science at Montour Falls, New York, as a guest instructor." What does it contribute to the article? I'd suggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.27.208 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

"Wick" used too many times in one sentence

This fat, once heated by the burning clothing, wicks into the clothing much as candle wax (which typically was originally made of animal fat) wicks into a lit candle wick to provide the fuel needed to keep the wick burning.

This sentence says "wick" entirely too many times, and is very confusing Smw23 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's both a noun (the piece of string in the center of a candle) and a verb (the effect of sucking up fluids in such a string). StuRat (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of King Tut

I mean, it’s obviously not a necessity but I feel like it’s oretty notable. So, @Martinevans123:? יבריב (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry I can't read your name. Yes, I agree, in itself it seems to be notable, although I really don't know if experts know if it was unique or not. The main problem I see is that the first sentence of this article defines the phenomenon like this: "term encompassing reported cases of the combustion of a living (or very recently deceased) human body". I'm not sure that Tutankhamun was very recently deceased, was he? It was certainly some time after he was buried. Do we know how long? I think not. The other problem is that his combustion seems to be quite unlike all the other events that are commonly described as "SHC", some of which appear in this article - I mean, it is at least explainable in terms of conventional chemistry? The third problem is the source you've provided - usatoday.com - Kate Seamons, Newser can't be regarded as an expert. The story is attributed to The Independent, of course, and Dr Chris Naunton, director of the Egypt Exploration Society, certainly can be regarded an expert. But he said only this: "The charring and possibility that a botched mummification led the body spontaneously combusting shortly after burial was entirely unexpected, something of a revelation." I'm not sure that is enough support for inclusion here. But other views welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it would have had to be shortly after he was interred (although this could have been quite some time after he died). If years had passed after he was interred, then any chemical energy converted to heat would have had a chance to dissipate. The only way there could have been a long delay is if the chemicals which reacted exothermically were physically seperated and later came into contact. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, although I suspect my knowledge of the relevant chemistry is not really adequate here. But I'd expect to see some supporting sources for that. Or would be straying into WP:OR if we had them? It might warrant inclusion somewhere on the basis of "associated phenomena" perhaps. Also note that "Spontaneous human combustion" is not mentioned or linked at Tutankhamun. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'm AGF-ing here Stu.

So where are we at, then? יבריב (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Awaiting a reliable source that describes the event inside Tutankhamun sarcophagus as definitely spontaneous human combustion? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A man bursts into flames in a London Street

Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-catches-fire-dies-london-street-haringey-john-nolan-70-age-police-appeal-metropolitan-a8111901.html

The details of this case are still unclear. The UK police are investigating this unexplained cause of death as the forensics could not find an accelerant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36B5:2400:E0BA:20ED:9433:DEA6 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed this yesterday since neither source explicitly mentions "Spontaneous human combustion." I don't think it should be included yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The words "bursts into flames" are not specifically supported by the reporting, which indicates he was already on fire when found by neighbors. While it is a candidate for SHC, that description would have to be applied by a reliable source after some further investigation. It can't be assumed to be a case, because of the circumstances, by WP editors.

Here's another report that explicitly raises the question. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "paranormal" is not used in the intro

Can the word "paranormal" be used in the intro? I think it's of vital importance to point out that it's an unscientific belief.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, although there is currently no mention of SHC at Paranormal? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ISI.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Merger <- Spontaneous human combustion controversy

For discussion, see the talk section of the article to be merged, here.I would just like to propose that HSC is a result of sodium.This is sabellmer@att.net.Thank you for allowing me to participate.May all of your thoughts be positively vibrational.Special thanks to Solfegio Fibonacci.Signed:Steven Allen Bellmer.

Spontaneous human combustion  : salpeter

AUTO-COMBUSTION (E252) Potassium nitrate or saltpeter. i can think that the phenomena of auto-combustion are caused by the nitrate of potassium and the sugar. This very harmful chemical was used very early to conserve the meat. The butchers to put too much of it by mistake then that people after eating the sweet dessert are ready to ignite like torches.

Potassium_nitrate Rocket propellant#Solid propellants

83.152.163.131 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)jito : 1 September 2017

Consuming something flammable doesn't make you flammable, because of all the water in the body. It's like dumping water on embers. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

then if we listen to your idea [sturat] the spontaneous combustion is not from inside the body

and it doesn't even exist.

you are not at all an expert but just someone offensive who makes a comment of denial about the general idea

that combustion is inside the body.

you do not even know if the body consumes whole or partially anyway, you never studied the subject and the water turns into steam except for the ignorant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire#Theories_on_composition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide#As_a_weapon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.152.163.131 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What an individual thinks is irrelevant. Spontaneous human combustion is an example of a myth and is regarded by the scientific community as an example of pseudoscience. The main article needs amendment. It is poorly written entries such as "Spontaneous Human Combustion" that undermine the reputation of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason P Jackson (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Murder is a possible explanation for death[citation needed]

Someone removed murder as a possible explanation, with their reason being that it was unsourced. Since when do we need a source for "murder is a possible cause of death"? and, if a source IS required, it's fairly obvious that literally millions of such sources are readily available. Why not source it with one of those instead of removing it entirely? Converesely, the only edit I've ever made to Wikipedia that was still intact 24 hours later was an intentional vandalism, a sex joke on an article that is STILL on the article 9 years later. Yep... According to my experience, vandalism is the ONLY type of edits that are allowed on Wikipedia. That's good to know. I'll remember that for future reference. 3:) (You can't ban me. I'm behind a proxy and that proxy can change.)68.53.153.55 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a source, BTW, that murder can cause death: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/ If you want one that proves fire can dispose of evidence, you're on your own. :P 68.53.153.55 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder could you provide just one of the "literally millions of such sources which are readily available" that links SHC with murder? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be the victim of a fallacy of the undistributed middle,i.e:

All murder causes death

All SHC causes death

Therefore, SHC is caused by murder.

Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that murder is a possible cause of death (duh!?) but your addition – One possible explanation is that the fire was intentionally set to destroy the evidence and cast doubt on a murder, however, whether this has actually happened is unknown. – was itself purely subjective opinion with no primary source to link fire deaths (specifically suspected to be caused by SHC) with covering up murder. Where did you get this information from? Provide a source with a direct quote (for example) and that would be fine. You might just as well add something like "Some people spontaneously set fire to themselves for a laugh but whether this is actually the case is still the subject of much debate." A speculative statement of opinion with nothing to back it up is just not the way we do things round here. Nothing personal. By the way, which article did you intentionally vandalise with a sex joke that's still there nine years later? Good work. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"You can't ban me. I'm behind a proxy and that proxy can change" doesn't really inspire much confidence either, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"Highly Questionable" requires no additional verification, because entire section is without cited references.

Guys, it's very clear that there are some people here who actually believe in this junk. However, it does live squarely in the realm of pseudoscience, and the introduction lives simply is a list of beliefs. There are in fact studies here and there, just as there are studies for anything, from bigfoot to alien abductions, but you simply cannot easily "prove a negative" in cases where such nonsense is so nearly impossible to find fully verifiable examples of. "Theories" do not lend credibility, and there is nothing in this article that shows anything substantial, in particular that introduction.

If you insist on undoing my edit which now puts in "pseudoscientific" and "highly questionable", then please explain how there is scientific reasoning that can account for it, and point to a valid journal for such phenomena. Otherwise, this will be yet another wikipedia page that tries to support the unsupportable through the magic of confirmation bias and spurious reasoning.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you use edit summaries for your edits to explain what your intentions are? And did you read WP:WEIGHT? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You realise that the lead section is just meant to summarise the entire article and does not need separate references? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect. A summary of items that uses words that imply added validity is fully in need of verifiability, intro or not. It's the phrasing I object to.

Further, I just love this tendency for wikipedians to throw out WP:(whatever) as if by doing so lends some tacit credibility for their arguments. There is *nothing* in WP:WEIGHT that supports the language that places implied credibility in the introduction. Have you read through the fringe theory guidelines?Tgm1024 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of this sentence: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." I think your introduction of the work "pseudoscience" contravened "prominence of placement". MOS:LEAD says this: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I don't think this "lends some tacit credibility for their arguments", it is the entire argument. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC) p.s. it seems you don't count yourself as "a wikipedian".

(?)A lead can of course serve as a summary and yet (unfortunately) add credibility without citation. That's what's happened here. The thing you're stating is what a lead is. So what? "PS." No, I'm not. Over the many years, I believe "wikipedian" has earned a descriptor of a pejorative, and wikipedia has slowly turned into a joke, with the note that the punchline is far from funny.Tgm1024 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes some people probably do actually believe in this junk, but that's not necessarily the reason why we are interested in it, it's just an interesting subject, whether it's a true phenomenon or not! The fact remains that it is a phenomenon that lots of people are fascinated by, and hence notable enough to have a Wiki article. The lead section does not need to mention the term "pseudoscience" because the sidebar (RHS of lead) identifies it as part of a series on the Paranormal, which is described in its own lead section as "beyond normal experience or scientific explanation." It also states that paranormal arguments are based on "anecdote, testimony, and suspicion" rather than fact, and the term "pseudoscience" is in fact mentioned at the end of the lead. This can be considered as a cover-all for the paranormal subjects and there is no need to go beyond that. To poo poo the subject of SHC as "highly questionable" is purely a personal POV which contravenes WP:NPOV so should be avoided. We are not trying to "lend credibility" or give "added validity" to the subject, merely to explain it as a "phenomenon" and provide examples that may be considered in the wider context of researching the subject on its own merits. And the reason that Wikipedians throw out WP:(whatever) is because the encyclopaedia is based on a set of policies and guidelines that help us to aim for a common goal, and without that, such a huge undertaking would by nigh on impossible. Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"The fact remains that it is a phenomenon that lots of people are fascinated by, and hence notable enough to have a Wiki article."?? I'm sorry, but that's just not right on two counts. First of all, unless entirely within the realm of obscurity, popularity is no guiding criteria for a wikipedia page. Secondly, the term "phenomenon" is too loosely thrown around: you're intending to lend a sense that this nonsense actually happens. The Easter Bunny is not a phenomenon, no matter how many people believe in it. The belief in the Easter Bunny is a phenomenon. Same for spontaneous human combustion. That "a lot of people" believe in this is the phenomenon. Not the mythical explosion of people into flames. Just having this entry here is embarrassing.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you are going to propose WP:AfD for both Easter Bunny and this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Its seems to me that your beef is not with this particular article, but with the whole of Wikipedia itself, so maybe it would be best to take up your argument somewhere more appropriate like the administrators' noticeboard? If you object to SHC having an article because it is "embarrassing" (which, I might add, is your opinion, certainly not mine), then surely you object to the whole of the Paranormal suite, and anything else that's not firmly based on fact. Did you know that Easter Bunny has an article, as does Father Christmas... You really seem to have a fundamental rage against the machine, or maybe you just like to be inflammatory. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you think the degree of credibility mistakenly lent by the size of the lead section, or by the amount of detail it contains, could be reduced by some trimming, that might be an option. But your genuine concern here might lead other editors to see you as "a wikipedian". A joke you may have to risk, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

What in my words could possibly lead you to believe that I care if I'm viewed as a wikipedian or not by other editors? The mere fact that I call their reasoning directly into question should be evidence prima facie that I am not.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. You seemed to want to improve the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That you don't see my changes as improving the article is precisely the problem (please pay attention), and it's frankly scary. Congratulations: I'm out of here.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dr. John Emsley - diphosphane build up in the gut causing spontaneous ignition of hydrogen, methane, etc

I included an edit under the natural explanations header, regarding Dr. John Emsley's work on studying phosphorous. His book, the 13th Element, makes reference to how there are normally very small amounts of a self-combusting, unstable liquid, called diphosphane (P2H4) in the gut. He postulates that in very rare circumstances, the gut can over-produce this compound, which would act as the ignition source for the hydrogen, methane, and other flammable compounds in the gut.

The witnessed case I refer to is that of Robert Francis Bailey most notably. https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1034226

I am new to editing, so if someone could put that in the citations, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. 95.149.11.73 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that is a reliable source. Looks like it might be a hoax. If the date really was 1967, one might expect to be able to find numerous newspaper reports. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have found both birth/death records on Ancestry.com as well as a photo taken by the firemen who were at the scene which fully corroborates the report. I don't have access to newspaper archives, so I'd appreciate it if someone could uncover those. The photo of the victim, Robert F Bailey, is graphic, would such an image be allowed on this article? 95.149.11.73 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds interesting, although unfortunately your research at Ancestry.com probably counts as WP:OR. As for the photo, it's likely to have copyright in place, which would be problematic. The best thing to do is to share your sources and let other editors make a judgement as to whether it's a good candidate for inclusion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the pic, I found it from Google image searching this case in particular, and it was also on a documentary I saw on SHC. In the report it's said he was biting onto a wooden part of a staircase so it appears to be legit. NSFW warning. https://imgur.com/a/ZkCKZfQ 95.149.11.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dickens example

Probably the most famous literary treatment of "Spontaneous Human Combustion" is the explosion of Krook in Dickens' BLEAK HOUSE. Dickens dwells on the incident for two chapters. Descriptions of pollution and disease are frequrent in BLEAK HOUSE and Dickens probably considered this an extreme case. 2601:C2:202:3BC0:8861:3C44:DBE9:FDAF (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"both types"?

What are the two types referred to in the second sentence of the first paragraph? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:A40C:200C:2A:9CA7 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)