Going green

To be buried, burnt or dissolved. What’s the greenest way to go?

Last week an old discussion was reignited following the publication of a TNO report claiming that modern ways of decomposing bodies, such as freezing or chemical dissolving, were more environmentally-friendly than burial or cremation.

Funeral giant Yarden ordered the report, just like it ordered a similar report six years ago from TU Delft researcher, Dr Han Remmerswaal (faculty of Industrial Design Engineering), on the environmental aspects of various forms of body processing.

The funny thing is: the two reports are in contradiction. Dr Remmerswaal’s 2005 report concluded that burial, cremation, resomation (a chemical dissolving process) and cryomation (deep freezing followed by shaking to pieces) all had similar environmental impacts. The largest impact by far, according to Dr Remmerswaal’s analysis, is the kilometres driven before and during the funeral service.

The new report by TNO however heralds the two new techniques (resomation and cryomation) as more environmentally friendly than cremation and – even worse – burial. It does agree however with Dr Remmerswaal’s report that funeral-related transport represents the largest environmental burden (typically three quarters of the total).
So what’s going on? Except for Yarden’s apparent urge to innovate, that is. Well, to start with, the studies use different unities (Eco-indicator in 2005 versus compensation euros in the most recent study). Moreover, the two reports measure different aspects of the body processing and value them differently. Re-use of gold from teeth and steel from surgical implants, for example, hardly played a role in 2005, but the retrieval of raw materials counts as an eminent benefit in the TNO report. This is why resomation and cryomation are so highly valued.

Some technique, then. During resomation, a cadaver is in fact liquefied. The corpse is heated under pressure to 180 °C. Potassium hydroxide and water are also added. Three hours later and all that remains are some brittle bones, easily crushed, and a brown soup consisting of amino acids and peptides. Any metal implants can then easily be recovered, says the Glasgow-based developer of the resomation system. The first unit has been installed in Florida and should be operational in September.

Deep-freezing the remains and subsequently pulverizing them should also liberate any implanted material for a second life.

In the NRC newspaper article, Dr Remmerswaal, who has since retired from TU Delft, responds by saying that the TNO study too easily quotes data on material and energy use from foreign manufacturers, without those techniques having been tested in commercial practice.

TNO researcher Elisabeth Keijzer replied that she has used a broader scope than Dr Remmerswaal did before her. “In the case of burials and cremations, we included the coffin,” she says. “With the new techniques we didn’t include one, since we reckon it will then be reused up to 50 times. In the case of burials, we also included the maintenance of the grave, the occupation of the land and the often heavy headstones that may come from as far away as Asia.”

Dr Remmerswaal is not convinced by the new technologies: “I don’t believe in body processing with dangerous chemicals. Imagine how that would be in practice. People there will have to work in safety suits, while the family of the dear deceased is allowed to watch from behind a glass screen.”

Whichever way you may choose to go, remember that transport is the biggest environmental burden of any kind of funeral. Exceeded only, that is, by staying alive.