Which is the more environmentally friendly option: Cremation or Burial?

Question

Which is the more environmentally friendly option: Cremation or Burial?
By burial I refer not to anything elaborate but more so to being dumped coffin-less into the ground and have dirt thrown on you?

It seems to me that all cremation would result in would be that you would be turned into pollution (combustion of carbon, for one thing) and allergen causing particles. Burial, on the other hand, would give bacteria, worms, and fungi a chance to thrive as well as promote the life of a tree or something.

So which is the more environmentally friendly, a "paupers burial", or cremation?

Answer 1

I really had no intentions of answering this question, just observing, but now I must clear up some discrepancies. First of all, cremation is terrible for the environment. It releases large amounts of chemicals and toxins into the air (even though they are closely regulated by the EPA). Burial, too, has it's downfalls but is an overall better option.
Now, there were some answers that stated the CDC required cremation for anyone who dies of something contagious?! Um, no. Nearly everyone dies of something contagious. Andno, they are not cremated. The CDC has no idea what people die from, nor do they care, not to mention any information like that is protected by the HIPAA Prvacy Act. And a definite no to the comment that even poor people are buried in airtight containers? Absolutely not true. Most of the poor people cannot afford the airtight caskets and/or vaults. 90% of poor people are buried in non-sealing caskets and vaults.

Also note that people have been embalmed and buried for hundreds and hundreds of years and it has yet to adversely affect anyone or the eco-system. It is perfectly safe to bury (even embalmed bodies), it is the world's oldest method of disposing of the dead.

Answer 2

I can understand your thinking in the matter but I think it depends on where you live. If you'll remember, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, many people got sick and died due to the fact that the gases released from biodegrading corpses and the actual corpses had risen to the surface instead of staying underground where they belong. This infects drinking water as well as irrigation water. It is unhealthy and unsanitary, however, ash can be put into the ground and is very good for fertilyzing the growth of plants. and the carbon is also needed to help plants grow, I think either way is acceptable, depending upon where you live and what you would prefer!

Answer 3

This is an important question. Our rotting bodies have many nutrients that can be used to replenish the soil and surrounding vegetation. So a pauper's burial would be more responsible, as long as we do not seep into any local potable water sources.

Answer 4

Just throwing your carcass in the woods would be more environmentally friendly . You get recycled into things that much quicker, you don't consume resources in creating pollution to create & transport a casket ect.

Answer 5

burial would be more natural as well as environmentally friendly
but I'd prefere to be cremated

Answer 6

doestn matter if we rot away or are ashes who cares??
RELIGION HERE