Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is the alleged process of a human body catching fire as a result of heat generated by internal chemical action. While no one has ever witnessed SHC, several deaths involving fire have been attributed to SHC by investigators and storytellers.

In the literature, spontaneous human combustion is almost exclusively reserved for corpses. One 17th century tale, however, claims that a German man self-ignited due to his having drunk an excessive amount of brandy. If drinking a great quantity of brandy caused self-combustion, there should be many more cases to study than this isolated report about one man.

Many of the SHC stories have originated with police investigators who have been perplexed by partially ignited corpses near unburnt rugs or furniture. "What else could it be?" they ask. Many of the allegedly spontaneously combusted corpses are of elderly people who may have been murdered or who may ignited themselves accidentally. Yet, self-ignition due to dropping a lit cigarette, or ignition due to another person are ruled out by the investigators as unlikely. Even when candles or fireplaces present a plausible explanation for the cause of a fire, investigators sometimes favor an explanation which requires belief in an event which has never been witnessed in all of human history and whose likelihood is extremely implausible.

physical possibility of SHC

The physical possibilities of spontaneous human combustion are remote. Not only is the body mostly water, but aside from fat tissue and methane gas, there isn't much that burns readily in a human body. To cremate a human body requires a temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit for about two hours."* To get a chemical reaction in a human body which would lead to ignition would require some doing. If the deceased had recently eaten an enormous amount of hay that was infested with bacteria, enough heat might be generated to ignite the hay, but not much besides the gut and intestines would probably burn. Or, if the deceased had been eating the newspaper and drunk some oil, and was left to rot for a couple of weeks in a well-heated room, his gut might ignite.

It is true that the ignition point of human fat is low, but to get the fire going would probably require an external source. Once ignited, however, some researchers think that a "wick effect" from the body's fat would burn hot enough in certain places to destroy even bones. To prove that a human being might burn like a candle, Dr. John de Haan of the California Criminalistic Institute wrapped a dead pig in a blanket, poured a small amount of gasoline on the blanket, and ignited it. Even the bones were destroyed after five hours of continuous burning. The fat content of a pig is very similar to the fat content of a human being. The damage to the pig, according to Dr. De Haan "is exactly the same as that from supposed spontaneous human combustion."

In their investigation of a number of SHC cases, Dr. Joe Nickell and Dr. John Fisher found that when the destruction of the body was minimal, the only significant fuel source was the individual's clothes, but where the destruction was considerable, additional fuel sources increased the combustion. Materials under the body help retain melted fat that flows from the body and serves to keep it burning.

source http://skepdic.com/shc.html

What are peoples view on this? answers on a postcard...

I think it is caused by some other chemical reaction.

I remember reading something once where they think it might have something to do with a liver disorder and depression. When someone who is depressed, cus the feel alone and begin to drink thier liver's produce a lean oil that combusts durring oxidation in the body. With the blood having a high alcohol content at the time and the body fat acting as another fuel source the body burns from the inside out.

I remember reading it may be caused by to much phosphorus. Which is used in fireworks do to its high combustibility.

lots of chemical reations cause heat... and if it can cause heat then it might be able to cause the object the reaction is happening it to combust... so why couldn't it happen in a person.....yeah last year some one in my science class did a project on the topic.. its quite an interesting idea

I've read about this too..and beleive its happened..

ya same here

They should have a none of the above option. I don't buy any of those theories. Also I'd observe the "wick theory" is bunk. It can work but it still takes a substantial ammount of time where eye witness accounts peg shc as taking place in a matter of minutes even seconds.

Are there any documented cases of SHC?

Hehe... There was a South Park episode about this...

Kenny spontaneously combusted, and the dad thought that the build-up of methane in the body caused it... So in effect the ozone layer was destroyed... And everyone got mad at him...

documented cases of shc

http://www.qsl.net/w5www/combustion.html

http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/off....com%2Fshc.html

http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/off....net%2Fspon.htm

enjoy

Thanks roswell man, those were very interesting.

The first account of SHC appeared in Acta Medica & Philosophica Hafniensia in 1673. Since then many cases of Spontaneous Human Combustion have occurred. It takes around 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit to char a body into dust. Which is hotter than a crematoria. Crematoria's usually are around 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, leaving bone fragments which have to be ground up by hand. Although there have been over 200 reports of SHC many people believe it to be a myth.

There are numerous characteristics in most cases:
1. The Body is burnt so badly, to where you cannot identify it. Sometimes leaving only an arm or leg intact.
2. The materials around the person usually are left undamaged except for the exact spot where the victim ignited. Sheets, blankets, chairs etc are unburnt.
3. Any electrical appliances anywhere in the room are melted.
4. The temperature in which the body burns should destroy everything in the area.
5. No chemical accelerants are found.

It was first believed that alcoholism was the cause of SHC. Which since then has been proven wrong. They soaked the flesh of an animal in alcohol for over a year, then caught it on fire. It didn't burn at the rate of SHC, nor could it char the flesh to dust. This also debunks the perfume theory and other ignitable fluids we use.

My opinion is that it is caused by chemicals within that possibly interact with other forms of energy. (such as electrical appliances in the household) Since we also store energy in the body. phosphorous metabolism is one possible explanation for SHC. Under certain conditions, improperly manufactured polyphosphorous compounds in all the body cells can undergo an autocatalytic reaction. Which water cannot stop.

I heard something recently about the phosphorus
theory but I can't remember where. Water is the
last thing you'd want to put on phosphorus...

Merged the topics for ya.

Something happened to the people who have been found burned alive, with only a few limbs left, and hardly any burn pattern around them!





Taken from - Alternative Science website on Spontaneous Human Combustion

I think it has a spiritual meaning. This may sound corny, but maybe Satin is taking them to hell or something. If God were doing it, they would disapear, not burn to death.

Also, note, always the legs are left. What could that mean? maybe it isn't a pritiual meaning. if it was, the entire body would be found in ashes. BUT, Since fire burns up, they must have cought on fire somehow. SInce it is hard for fire to burn down, that is maybe the reason. im not sure.

It certainly occurs on rare occasions. Scientists haven't the faintest idea of how it works. As far as the pig burning thingy, as a farm boy lo those many years ago, we burned dead animals befory burying them, such as pigs, by pouring gasoline on the bodies and lighting them on fire. I never saw even one which kept burning after the gasoline burned off, and there was plenty of flesh left and no bones burned at all. Whatever happens, it isn't any normal chemistry . . . but it does happen. One strong clue . . . very little flammable material surrounding the remains is burned much at all . . . try lighting any fire of anything which burns hot enough to destroy bones, and see what happens to flammable materials in reasonably close proximity . . . it always burns . . . every time. With spontaneous human combustion it doesn't, and no one can explain why (from conventional scientific knowledge). How the body can be so consumed by obviously some kind of fire (or heat source) and the buildings they are in not be burned to the ground is a question which should be asked first. Mere candles falling over have burned buildings to the ground, but not ever from what must be a far greater heat of combustion.

I've seen this before.
From the same site...

I don't know whether or not this is the right board, but I was wondering if anyone had any links/theories on spontaneous human combustion and its possible causes.

Yes this is interesting this one guy survived it though.

But maybe if i can hook up the linky here.

www.crystalinks.com/shc.html

It is so awesome. But just imagine enduring it.

This is highly an unexplained topic and is another thing wrenching at us humans to figure out…I don’t have the slightest idea of how this could occur…

I definitely believe in this happening but am not sure yet what it can be attributed to - I lean towards chemcical reactions in the body. Interesting that women seem to be the victims more often than men...

are we more... uh ... HOT BLOODED????

I think this one has been suitably explained.

Apart from the human wick affect proving how a body would burn given the right circumstances people seem to ignore the obvious, namely all those who have died from "SHC" have had soemthing in common.

They have either been close to a fire, smoked or drank heavily. All three would give rise to the SHC phenomenon.

And ask yourself this question...why has nobody ever spontaneously combusted in public, in front of witnesses? The only one I ever came across that asked a question ended up showing the victim's lighter exploded in her pocket.

Think about it.

By the way, the link to the example is possibly the worst reference to SHC I have ever seen. Please tell me you saw the huge fireplace in the picture? Not only that but the only parts to survive are the extremeties of the body furthest away from the fireplace. Hardly rocket science is it.

Voted "other chem reaction" because I think it's a real phenomenon but I just don't know what does it. I think it has something to do with an outside factor such as a beam or frequency to trigger... but could be depression/chem related... or something else.

So you don't think a fireplace has anything to do with the fact an individual burnt to death? Especially as in most cases the individual looks like they tried to do a Santa Claus and get up the chimney.

It's bad enough I never did get comfortable with having a gas stove. Worrying that I may spontaneously combust isn't helping.

From what I've seen, all cases of it had a plausible explanation. I think there was even a CSI episode about it.

If I even spontaneously combust, remember how paranoid I am about my gas stove. Considering the pilot constantly goes out and gas is always leaking around when it does, most likely I exploded myself.

I haven't read too much into it, but it always seemed to involve a spark inside the body.

I was just speaking to the topic in general but... where you asking me?

If so:

I do see the fireplace in the pic there, yes. I would think the pic would be just another accident scene if it was positively known that he was doing something with the fireplace, or it was on. I just don't know about that pic... so to me it's as good as a drawing of what it might look like. That's about it. Although I do wonder why the rest of the place isn't toast as well considering the condition the corpse is in...

A question about this:

Drinking heavily can cause SHC? I agree, to me it's possible, but I'm not sure your stance... how can drinking be equivalent to a fireplace or smoking in causeing a conflagration like this?

I remember a story within the last decade of a lady in FL who had her leg spontaneously ignite while driving a busy street, lots of witnesses... she survived. sure wish I could find that story. There's been a few incidents with witnesses.

If someone was a sloppy drinker I could see spilled booze being a factor. I also knew a couple who would try to catch their breath on fire when they were drinking. I never stuck around to watch.

I'd like to know more about the circumstances of the woman who was driving. In both of my cars, the fusebox and a lot of wiring is located under the steering wheel, right above my legs. It is conceivable that a spark ignited the clothing on her leg.

Personally, I think these instances of weirdo accidents with people igniting is much more entertaining than spontaneous human combustion.

spilled booze would need a source to ignite it though, unless that's what was meant? "all three" meaning at the same time instead of each independent? Not what was said but I could see that... *nodding head*

I wish I could find that story about the woman driving! It's kinda turning into one of those things where I doubt my sanity, like Jerry Garcia and 4:20... but I know I read it.

There were details that ruled what you're saying out, but again I can imagine a freak spark getting between fibers and catching the clothes from the inside right against the skin... just that's not what happened according to the story. Like the rest, it's not a glowing ember or even a tiny flame... it's a spouting kind of localized roaring conflagration.

I also agree that truth is more often than not stranger than fiction.

That’s a myth created during the Victorian Era in order to throw on a moral blanket. There have been many victims who did neither.


There have also been people who’ve spontaneously combusted in public. Jacqueline Fitzsimons SHC in the presence os several witness is perhaps the most famous example.
http://www.qsl.net/w5www/combustion.html

But for heavens sake, how much would one have to spill in order to burn a body to nothing???

Moral blanket?

Of the cases I've looked over alcohol, smoking and other sources of fire (fire places etc) have been a factor in those cases. Cold hard facts are not myth, far from it.

As for the example given, could it be anything to do with the fact she had just been cooking?

There is always a source of fire with these cases - always.



You seem to confuse ignition with fuel.

The alcohol merely acts as a catalyst, it begins the process by acting as the ignition. The body itself is the fuel and the clothing the wick. So the amount needed is irrelevant, it being present is enough is any quantity.

Read through the reported cases. The only case I ever came across that differed slightly involved a woman out driving. So how did hers start I hear you ask.

Well I think it had a lot do with the exploding gas lighter in her pocket. Even more amusing was the fact she forgot to mention it until an investigator travelled to meet her. He was a skeptic. The guy who believed in SHC never gained that information when he spoke to her - obviously.

And there lies the problem, when you believe in something you are biassed. In this case the skeptic solved the mystery. Her lighter exploded and ignited her trousers.

So before you guys start saying its real please help me out and point me to just one single case where there has been absolutely no fire source whatsoever.

Hmm you may be right phenomenon. But if the alcohol was the ignition, what stopped the person from putting out the fire that caught alight?

The same thing that allowed them to ignite in the first place - they were probably already dead or at least unconscious. That classic picture of someone half in and half out of a fireplace is a massive clue.

People don't generally make a habit of lying down in an open fire. There is one common factor that causes it, they have either collapsed or simply fallen.

Take a look at the reported cases...fires, cigarettes, alcohol.....etc etc.

Hmmm - makes sense.

When someone shows me a case whereby the victim has spontaneously combusted and has NOT been near any source of ignition then I will be very interested.

Me too. Still though, I would have thought it would take a high degree of heat and very intense flame to burn to a crips? Or not?

Excerpt from the link:
had left the kitchen and was talking to classmates in the corrider when she suddenly burst into flames.

I find it hard to believe that her clothes caught fire and after minutes of speaking to her friends, she erupted into flames. This certainly doesn't seem to be a typical property of fire and that isn't even mentioning the fact that she was wearing flame resistant clothing. As well, all witness agree that there wasn't a single warning sign such as smoke or visible charring. Following this incident a chemist attempted an experiment using a jacket identical to the one she was wearing; it didn't ignite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Fitzsimon

It's also worth noting that the wick effect itself is inherently flawed. Samples from the remains of SHC victims show several bones other than the extremities being completely charred into ashes. Even in a crematorium the body can only be burnt into a collection of charred bones; they are only formed into ashes by grinding them afterwards. Wikipedia lists a fairly good list of the charataristics that seperate SHC from your average stove fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion

Depends on the proof. It's not like spilling a margarita would do it. Everclear and Bacardi 151 burns really well. I know people who drink it straight. Cotton clothing would burn very well, especially with a dash of vodka to get things moving.

I used to think its was when people got really mad and exploded into chunks of floating pieces of meat

One things for sure it carn't be to do with alcohol-alcohol burns at 61 degrees while human flesh burns at 150+. Source-inside human conbustion-sky one

Aero_dynamic, your assumption is very misleading.

The burning temperatures are irrelevant. What is relevant is ignition and fuel. You spill alcohol on a woolen jumper and light it I'm sure you know what would happen, the alcohol would not be the only thing to disappear rather rapidly.

As for the girl in the kitchen example, I'm sorry but as will all cases the dreaded cooker, firepalce scenario rears its ugly head once again.

We are told her OUTER layer was resistant to flames, but that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't smoulder for any given length of time. She leaves with a smouldering apron that eventually ignited her under garment, this is then worsened by the hair spray we are told she wore in abundance.

This undoubtadly led to the flash of flames, as we all know hair spray does not take kindly to naked flames.

I also fear this story has been exaggerated and added to by those closest to her and those who witnessed what they belive was soemthing other than a girl being set alight by a natural source.

We are told at one point she was engulfed in flames, yet only 18% of her was damaged. This kind of playing with words makes me feel as if those closest to it were possibly not that amazed by what happened and tried to dress it up.

Her death was due to delayed shock. It is quite rare for anyone with burns of that magnitutde to die of shock, generally speaking a larger amount of body would need to be burnt.

All I see here is an ignition source...the kitchen stoves and gas taps, fuel, namely her apron and ultimately her undergarment...and just in case that wasn't enough we had a mass of hair spray to aid the flames.

I see that some people think it has something to do with phousphorus, which i highly doubt because phousphorus is bonded with the calcium in a person's bones, but if you break those bonds it would release heat, but i don't know of anything that could do that without poisoning the person first. To catch the surounding tissue of fire the fire would need a lot of oxygen which it could get from blood, but the fire should cauterize the blood vessles and the fire would die out plus the amount of water in the human would extinguish the fire, but the caustic calcium metal that would result from the breaking in the bonds of the phosphorus and calcium would result in heat, but not enough to keep the fire alive.

As phenomenon said,what is relevant is ignition and fuel,but what i was talking about was the case of a homeless man,caught by S.H.C whaile sleeping on some stairs after drinking some alcohol.They surgested that the alcohol in his bladder caught alight some how,thust started burning human flesh and as i said before,alcohol burns at a low temperature.
Sorry for any confusion,the fault was on my beharve.

He must really metabolize alcohol poorly if there's that much in his bladder. Either that or he imbibed more alcohol than Belgium.

Perhaps he meant in the stomach, easy mistake.

Now THAT would be something to see.