[Debate] Can peopIe SpontaneousIy Combust?

[BlueSpike]

a person on a social forum told me how his aunt actually survived spontaneous human combustion
he said how he was there when he saw the flames appear on her and how her doctor then concluded it was coming from her cells and he diagnosed her with spontaneous combustion.
he said she didnt smoke, swears on the truth, and ended the thing with 'science doesnt explain everything' ...

he then said something about reactive gasses and chemicals building up in her from a bad diet caused her to start flaming up from the inside.
I recall that he mentioned the production of reactive chemicals or gasses.
i tried to question him , but then he questioned me if i had a PhD like the doctor who diagnosed her to challenge the diagnosis of flames from the inside out .
what do you think?

it seems that SHC is actually a valid medical diagnosis if doctors have diagnosed patients with burning from the inside out, on multiple occasions

there was a man in the news recently, named frank baker. he says he survived shc and his doctor confirmed it was cellular in source -- that he had not been burnt from an external source but an internal source. he was interviewed in a TV documentary a couple of months ago..

[John Cuthber]

"Can peopIe SpontaneousIy Combust?"

Probably not: too much water.

[Moontanman]

I would have to see something more than the assertion that X claims Y happened before even discussing this. There is an explanation for spontaneous human combustion which is not entirely accurate to call it spontaneous... Most of the time it's either murder or accidental...

 

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

 

Forensic investigation[edit]

An extensive two-year research project, involving thirty historical cases of alleged SHC, was conducted in 1984 by science investigatorJoe Nickell and forensic analyst John F. Fischer. Their lengthy, two-part report was published in the journal of the International Association of Arson Investigators,^[6]:3–11 as well as part of a book.^[7] Nickell has written frequently on the subject,^[6][7] appeared on television documentaries, conducted additional research, and lectured at the New York State Academy of Fire Science at Montour Falls, NY, as a guest instructor.

Nickell and Fischer's investigation, which looked at cases in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, showed that the burned bodies were near plausible sources for the ignition: candles, lamps, fireplaces, and so on. Sometimes these sources were left out of popular accounts of the alleged phenomenon while they were hyped as mysterious. The investigations also found that there was a correlation between alleged SHC deaths and victim's drunkenness or other incapacitation that could have caused them to be careless with fire and less able to respond properly to an accident. Where the destruction of the body was not extensive, the significant fuel source was the victim's clothing.

However, where the destruction was extensive, additional fuel sources were involved, such as chair stuffing, floor coverings, the flooring itself, and the like. The investigators described how such materials helped retain melted fat to burn and destroy more of the body, yielding still more liquified fat, in a cyclic process known as the "wick effect" (or "candle effect").

According to Nickell and Fischer's investigation, nearby objects often went undamaged because fire tends to burn upward, and it burns laterally with some difficulty. The fires in question are relatively small, achieving considerable destruction by the wick effect, and relatively nearby objects may not be close enough to catch fire themselves (much as one can get rather close to a modest campfire without burning). As with other mysteries, Nickell and Fischer cautioned against "single, simplistic explanation for all unusual burning deaths" but rather urged investigating "on an individual basis."^[7]:169

 

[BlueSpike]

That doesn't explain the case of Frank Baker. A man famous for surviving Spontaneous Combustion who was in the headlines a few months ago.

He (Frank) said the doctor said that he'd burnt from the inside out.

theres a news article in the Huffington Post on him.

according to a newer version of the documentary the commentor admitted that both he and his friend who witnessed it refused a polygraph test

Edited March 31, 2014 by BlueSpike

[John Cuthber]

I think this

"he and his friend who witnessed it refused a polygraph test"

pretty much

closes the debate.

[AdvRoboticsE529]

"Probably not: too much water."

 

Water in the human body is not designed to prevent combustion... further, much water in our body is not pure.

[CharonY]

Water is water, it is not designed for anything. Also what does purity has to do with it? Do you mean that fires can only be extinguished by double-distilled water...?

[AdvRoboticsE529]

There are no such system of water circulation for the prevention of combustion in our bodies, other organisms such as plants that possess xylem possess a superior form of water circulation. Water in the body is not designed for the prevention of combustion, but designed for maximum diffusion and the utilisation of water specifically in the process of hydrolysis.

 

Further, water molecules can be found in larger molecules hence different properties hence un-pure, the molar properties is quite important of course.

Edited March 31, 2014 by AdvRoboticsE529

[BlueSpike]

water doesn't matter. a radiator contains water (steam) on the inside but the heat is conducted to the metal, and the metal isn't covered with water so if you were to put paper on the radiator it would catch fire.

if a bunch of cells heated up to 500+ C and they were close to the skin, it would still set the skin and clothing alight, regardless of whether the heat originated underwater. this is especially true if the heat arose very suddenly and rapidly not giving enough time for the heat to be dispersed

 

Frank Baker did not mention feeling any heat before he combusted so this further supports the theory that the production of heat is so rapid it isn't felt before flames appear on the body.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BlueSpike

[AdvRoboticsE529]

My papers never caught fire on radiators... this is relative, and water does matter, as the moisture level can be important, always relative.

Drier climates especially of drier forests are more susceptible to wide-spread fire in contrast to wetter jungles, for example.

Also, heat does not guarantee combustion...

[John Cuthber]

When you have finished talking, water will still have a large latent heat of vapourisation, and a boiling point near 100C.

So, heating anything with a lot of water in it to a temperature much over 100C will still require that you supply enough energy to evaporate off the water.

 

Until you come up with a credible means for the supply of that energy there is no way that spontaneous combustion can take place.

 

So as I said.

 

"Can peopIe SpontaneousIy Combust?"
Probably not: too much water.

[rktpro]

For a moment, I thought of deltaG of a burning guy.

[BlueSpike]

Here's a scenario I would like your input on.

 

What if there was a mutation that meant the cell started producing an enzyme which converted phosphate (+ some substrate) into phosphine (a gas which could seep out the skin, and it spontaneously combusts, its a very unstable gas when exposed to air)? The phosphine-producing enzyme could be kept in the golgi apparatus, so numbers of it could build up there. For some reason the golgi apparatus breaks apart (happens for several reasons including cell division) and then these enzymes can then react with the phosphate and other molecule to produce phosphine. If there is also an abundance of the two needed chemicals then it would produce phosphine in high concentration very fast.

 

It is known that phosphine is produced by anerobic bacteria. Phosphine is one explanation for SHC that hasn't been looked into. I can't see any problems with that theory.

[Fuzzwood]

"Probably not: too much water."

 

Water in the human body is not designed to prevent combustion... further, much water in our body is not pure.

Your point is? Try putting a kettle on the fire next time and wonder why it takes so long for the water inside to boil.

[BlueSpike]

I just offered a scenario involving the production of phosphine from mutant enzymes, a gas which spontaneously combusts upon exposure to air and would ignite after diffusing out of a persons skin. I would like to hear your input on it.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BlueSpike

[AdvRoboticsE529]

The relative volume of water of the average human body is likely not sufficient, nor is there a sufficient circulation system, most water can also be found in vital organs such as in the ileum of the small intestine, this does not prevent combustion of the skin due to separation.

 

Further, there are more factors involved than just water, as mentioned the wicker effect.

 

Mammals do burn (such as with the case of Thich Quang Duc who set himself on fire), we don't know the cause for such so we should not assume why they should or should not burn.

Edited April 1, 2014 by AdvRoboticsE529

[CharonY]

The scenario with mutant cells is highly unlikely for various reasons. Not the least of it that even if you had an aberrant cell, the overall production would be low, considering the access to phosphate the cell has. Also the highly low amount of phosphine would only have limited access to oxygen etc.

 

Bacteria may release phosphine during certain catabolic activities, but it takes quite a lot of decaying matter to produce measureable amounts.

 

There is the hypothesis that acetone produced by ketosis could be a factor, but it is generally assumed that an external (if unknown) fire source is involved. Again, the main hypotheses are that there are burnable elements in the human body (be it body fat or some alcohol) that could be set on fire by some means. This does not generally happen in the absence of some accelerator as a body is mostly water and would require quite a lot of energy to combust.

 

And I should re-iterate that the to my knowledge all these cases were determined post-mortem and due to unusual fire patterns (i.e. body burnt but limited damage to surrounding). I.e. I found no reports of survivors which makes the claim in the OP highly unlikely. Also I am not sure what AdvRobotics tries to claim. It is a pretty well known fact that animals body do not burn well. They normally char under high temps as anyone who grilled a steak knows. And these pieces of meat are actually much drier than a live. People that set themselves to fire douse themselves with gasoline for a reason, btw.

[Moontanman]

They wick effect has been demonstrated with pig carcasses, they burn slowly after the initial flare up and result in a burn pattern very suggestive of SHC, in fact at least one body was found burning and the wick effect was confirmed, only a small smokey flame burned out of the body as it slowly consumed the body, it was murder...

[BlueSpike]

But the mutant enzymes that do produce phosphine could accumulate in the Golgi, if there are no instructions to place it anywhere, since the enzyme is mutated so the Golgi may not recognize it's there. Then, the Golgi could break apart during cell division, and assuming we had a large over abundance of phosphate + (other substrate) we'd get a very sudden, high production of phosphine.

 

It only takes 1% concentration of phosphine for it to be explosive. (source Wikipedia)

 

Also, the Wick Effect cannot explain the recent case of Frank Baker, where his doctor had concluded it burnt from the inside out. He is a survivor of SHC, and has a witness. there is a documentary on his case.

The wick effect does not cause one to burn from the inside-out, as described in the case of Frank Baker.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BlueSpike

[CharonY]

It does not matter how much the enzyme would accumulate (realistically it would just be degraded) however the limiting factor is the total cellular amount of phosphate per cell. Even if all of the phosphate in a cell would be converted to phosphine (which would kill the cell way before a significant amount of phosphine is generated) you would have a tiny amount ). You will have essentially a highly aqueous environment with a tiny amount of oxygen and phosphine. There is no chance that something will happen under that circumstance (not even talking how unlikely the magic enzyme is going to pop up).

 

In the Frank Baker case I have not seen anything but an apparent interview (i.e. medical records that would establish what happened). Without it the report is not more reliable than that of UFO abduction victims.

[BlueSpike]

I'm not sure, if there were lots of enzymes then wouldn't the reaction just go by quicker? since there's a higher chance phosphate would collide with one of the enzymes if the enzyme were at a higher concentration.

there could be an over-abundance of phosphate limited to the mitochondria or some other organelle which has a membrane to prevent things from moving in and out.

or one of the two substrates needed for this enzyme to produce phosphate is locked away in the mitochondria only (phosphate + the other substrate) but the enzyme cannot get to that substrate combination because the mitochondrial membrane is in the way.

then the cell could enter apoptosis where the mitochondria and the golgi break apart so the enzyme can go and meet the substrate.

 

about 1% of the cell is phosphate. and that is the normal concentration, so it can be even higher. phosphine at 1% is sufficient to explode and cause an igniting spark if it seeped through the skin

Edited April 1, 2014 by BlueSpike

[John Cuthber]

I just offered a scenario involving the production of phosphine from mutant enzymes, a gas which spontaneously combusts upon exposure to air and would ignite after diffusing out of a persons skin. I would like to hear your input on it.

Sure, here's my input

In addition to being very flammable, phosphine is very poisonous.

Before anyone got round to producing enough of it to catch fire, they would die.

Perhaps more importantly, any cell that had that mutation would also die- before it had a chance to reproduce.

[CharonY]

You are misunderstanding what the 1% flammability limit means. The limits are expressed at atmospheric pressure (in air). I.e. for phosphine it means that in a given volume 1.8% of the gas has to be phosphine in order to produce a flash of fire with an ignition source). Even if all phosphate in a cell, which, btw. is less than 1% in weight per cell as much of the weight of phosphate is in bones and enamel, would be transformed to phosphine (which, to re-iterate, simply would not happen), you have a highly dilute phosphine solution in water, not phosphine gas in air.

It would not burn nor autoignite.

 

The point is that a) there is no way that phosphine production would happen in a living body and b) even if it did there would be no fire. Further speculation on that is quite meaningless as chemistry as well as biology tells us that it ain't gonna happen. You want an animal to produce something hot? Look at the bombardier beetle, which produces hydrogen peroxide and a hydroquinone. And nope, mutations will not allow us to do that.

Edited April 1, 2014 by CharonY

[BlueSpike]

but the substrates could be separated, eg. the phosphate AND the other substrate could be contained in the mitochondria, while these mutant enzymes remain in the Golgi, and build up.

This would mean the enzymes and the substrates would be separated from each other by the membranes.

 

If that cell were to undergo apoptosis then those organelles would break apart allowing those enzymes to suddenly meet the substrates and if there happens to be a high concentration of both enzyme + substrate it would be like putting magnesium metal into acid - you'd get phosphine very fast. enzymes work very very fast.

 

You could have as much phosphate as is possible if the proteins that transport phosphate into the cell and the organelles was messed up.

We are talking about mutant cells afterall.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BlueSpike

[CharonY]

Mutations are not magic. They do not allow cells suddenly to overcome biochemical limitations nor can they override biology (in the latter case you simply have dead cells).

 

Most of the things you describe are not how the cell actually works. Apoptosis is a coordinated degradation of cells, and not a sudden burst with uncontrolled release of intracellular content for example. I really do not think that these kinds of speculations are worthwhile, if the very basics of cellular functions are clearly so misunderstood.