English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

14 answers

Many people think that cremation is because the body is reduced to dust.

Many people choose cremation over burial because they think cremation is better for the environment. While it is true that cremation does not take up any space, it is also true that cremation creates a lot of air pollution. Think about it for a minute. A typical human body plus the cremation casket will weigh somewhere between 200 and 300 pounds. After cremation, just 1 or 2 pounds of ashes remain. Where did all the other material go? Well the answer is quite literally up in smoke.
Some of the pollutants found to come from the smokestacks of crematoria include heavy metals, hydrogen chloride, dioxins and furans. A few crematoria have installed scrubbers on their smokestacks, but most have not.

Nicholas Albery, Natural Death Centre director and an editor of The New Natural Death Handbook, writes, "Anyone with green pretensions should think twice about cremation," which pollutes the atmosphere "with dioxin, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide."
A portion of the air pollution created during cremation comes from the foam rubber mattress, polyester fabric, urethane finish and composite wood of conventional caskets. Because the Eco Casket is made from all natural materials, it is also a good environmental choice as a cremation casket. The handles of the Eco Casket are bolted on, and can easily be removed by funeral home personnel just before the actual cremation.

Then, there is the biodegradable cremation urn at
http://www.inthelighturns.com/biodegradable-cremation-urns.html

It looks to me that the one best for the environment depends on the container they are trying to sell you. Ha! ha!
My take is this... chances are that you are going to be interred somewhere, most likely in a cemetery. If this is the case, the land will most likely remain a cemetery for many decades to come and nothing else will be done with the land anyway. Eventually, we will all be dust- the difference is that with cremation it happens faster. People buried in a cemetery aren't doing anything detrimental to our environment so one can't say that one method of disposition is more environmentally friendly over the other.

2007-06-28 08:42:03 · answer #1 · answered by HSK's mama 6 · 1 0

I would say burial as your decomposition doesn't cause damage to the environment but burning gas to cremate a body does cause damage. Either way having a traditional casket can be bad for the environment.

2007-06-28 15:32:58 · answer #2 · answered by .... 2 · 0 0

Tricky one. Thought about it the other day. Buried probably because (eventually) the remains will recycle without the carbon emitted by burning. Although there is the issue of the land being used. It's going to upset some people but it is an issue that has to be addressed sooner or later.

2007-06-28 15:34:47 · answer #3 · answered by Del Piero 10 7 · 2 0

I think it's better to be buried.. if you're cremated, someone's dropping your ashes to the air.. that means you contaminate the environment!

2007-06-28 15:39:04 · answer #4 · answered by carloncha 3 · 0 0

Burial is better for the enviroment- from dust you were and to dust you will return. However there is a problem with space. Personally, as environmentally friendly as i love to be it has to be cremation- the thoughts of that dark ground and all them worms-huh.

2007-06-28 16:37:46 · answer #5 · answered by Ellie 6 · 0 0

Both have good and bad points, Cremation uses gas burial's need land, we could always compost our self's or even use a wormery, which is a bit like being interred anyway.

2007-06-28 17:18:01 · answer #6 · answered by Benthebus 6 · 0 0

well to answer your question....it goes both ways:
~ when you are buried a period of time comes before the coffin rots away the nutrients are returned to the soil but the time it takes is usually more than a year
~when your cremated you turn into a bunch of ashes, no nutrients no good soil but it saves space and time and money
either way i don't care which way I'm disposed of

2007-06-28 15:38:35 · answer #7 · answered by cuteinvisibleguy 1 · 0 0

Given the western (if that's what we're talking about) cultural practice of embalming, I'd have to say cremation. I have chosen that to also save space, since they don't allow composting.

2007-06-28 16:33:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would have thought being buried but that just takes up too much room. I have heard they are going to start reusing graves. Honestly. Ones over a certain age are going to have bodies placed on top of the body already inside. You can get green funerals, "cardboard coffin" etc.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1123752,00.html?=rss

2007-06-28 15:33:02 · answer #9 · answered by Louise 6 · 0 0

Being buried. The whole circle of life thing. We live off the land, then we go back and become the land, feeding bugs and things,

2007-06-28 15:32:38 · answer #10 · answered by magix151 7 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers