3 ms·

The public health aspect is definitely important. The country where I live has very strict limits about handling dead bodies - they can only be buried in offici

The public health aspect is definitely important. The country where I live has very strict limits about handling dead bodies - they can only be buried in official cemeteries. If you opt for cremation, the ashes must also be buried or spread in selected official locations where they don't pose a hazard. Keeping grandpa in a can on top of the fireplace is out of the question. While I don't value physical remains, I understand some people really do and their opinions must be respected. But it's similar to religious circumcision - when your customs start interfering with people's health, you lose absolute rights to always do what you want.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 11y ago
Are the hashes of dead people really any more dangerous than the ashes of coal or wood that every fireplace or BBQ produces? Sounds too heavy-handed an approach to me.
- kijin 11y ago
  Hashes of dead people sound like you took a SHA hash of each of them to remember the unique mark that they left on Earth forever. "Here lies John Doe, commit ID: 1b372d0e." On a more serious note, if the funeral director and crematory did their jobs properly, anything dangerous (such as dental fillings containing mercury) should have been removed, either before cremation or before grinding. My country is slightly more lenient. My grandparents' ashes are buried in my parents' back yard, and we had to do quite a bit of paperwork to make it legal. It's still illegal to scatter the ashes in any public land or body of water, and I can understand that because certain scenic locations would quickly become a big pile of ashes if it were allowed.
  - angdis 11y ago
    What people do with ashes is completely unenforceable. How can anyone stop somebody from putting remains wherever they like? How would anyone know? Technically, they're not "ashes" but "cremains" and are composed almost entirely calcium and salts which is very different from ash (the residue of a fire burning).
    - SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
      Correct, a huge amount is ground-up bone matter. For some reason though, society is more comfortable with the thought of grandma being incinerated than pulverised in a crusher, even though a cremation involves both, so it's not well known. ;)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 11y ago

Are the hashes of dead people really any more dangerous than the ashes of coal or wood that every fireplace or BBQ produces? Sounds too heavy-handed an approach to me.

kijin 11y ago
Hashes of dead people sound like you took a SHA hash of each of them to remember the unique mark that they left on Earth forever. "Here lies John Doe, commit ID: 1b372d0e." On a more serious note, if the funeral director and crematory did their jobs properly, anything dangerous (such as dental fillings containing mercury) should have been removed, either before cremation or before grinding. My country is slightly more lenient. My grandparents' ashes are buried in my parents' back yard, and we had to do quite a bit of paperwork to make it legal. It's still illegal to scatter the ashes in any public land or body of water, and I can understand that because certain scenic locations would quickly become a big pile of ashes if it were allowed.
- angdis 11y ago
  What people do with ashes is completely unenforceable. How can anyone stop somebody from putting remains wherever they like? How would anyone know? Technically, they're not "ashes" but "cremains" and are composed almost entirely calcium and salts which is very different from ash (the residue of a fire burning).
  - SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
    Correct, a huge amount is ground-up bone matter. For some reason though, society is more comfortable with the thought of grandma being incinerated than pulverised in a crusher, even though a cremation involves both, so it's not well known. ;)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]