Cremations and burials should be made illegal

The environmental problems with cremation: Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent's claim that cremation is a significant contributor to global warming is highly exaggerated. According to the EEA, human crematories account for around 0.2% of the global emissions of dioxins and furans worldwide+1. The study I have cited below also explains how such emissions can be further reduced through proper procedure during cremation and how the "huge amounts" of many of these chemicals are actually quite negligible. According to a study conducted in 2006 by the European Environment Agency+1: "The contribution of this activity to national emissions is comparatively small for all pollutants except for Heavy Metals, especially mercury, in certain countries. Hydrogen chloride emissions can be significant, although the emissions of HCl from individual crematorium can vary considerably…" The report also lists the emissions of the various toxins that my opponent has described; I will provide a few from the article: "Nitrogen oxide emissions from crematories are low and are not of major concern. Control of nitrogen oxides can be achieved through temperature control and burner design." "Sulphur dioxide is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels, container, and contents. The sulphur content of natural gas and human remains is low, but other fuels may contain a significant portion of sulphur." The section concludes: "Most contaminants except for the heavy metals, HF, and HCl can be minimized through the proper operation of the crematory in conjunction with adequate temperature and residence time in the secondary combustion chamber. Sulphur oxide may be minimized through the use of low sulphur fuels such as natural gas." The study also states: "Heavy metals except for mercury may be removed through particulate control devices." "Emissions may be further reduced through the use of different types of containers such as fiberboard and cloth covered fiberboard instead of the traditional finished wood." According to the report, the release of mercury and hydrogen chlorine/fluoride is considered problematic and difficult to control during the actual crematory process. I will illustrate why these chemicals are released during cremation and how the environmental contamination they cause can be avoided. Why hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride are emitted: Both hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride are produced when a certain type of chlorinated plastic is burned+2. The major contributors to such emissions are those who have at one time undergone surgery which requires the use of prostheses. Why mercury is emitted: Mercury is commonly used in conjunction with other metals during dental restoration. When teeth are burned along with the rest of the body, mercury is released into the surrounding environment+2. The limitation of environmental contamination through regulatory practices: Instead of outlawing cremation entirely as my opponent suggests, I propose that regulatory measures be presented that reduce emissions by: -preventing those with prosthetics or other surgical implantations from receiving cremations. -requiring the removal of all teeth before cremation. -restricting incineration to the body alone. -increasing emission standards for crematories. My opponent's basis for outlawing cremation due to harmful emissions is unwarranted because such emissions are highly reducible through proper procedure and regulatory enforcement as previously outlined. The environmental reasons against burying corpses: Since my opponent has provided no definition for bury, I will assume that it is +3 "to place in the ground." Burial alone simply does not cause the environmental distress that my opponent has proposed. In fact, ecologically minded people in the United States have started to again practice the age-old tradition of burying corpses without embalming or using coffins at all+4. I propose that burial should remain legal, but that the ecological issues that are associated with it be eliminated by: -illegalizing the practice of embalming. -illegalizing the production of coffins. -restricting burial to the carcass alone. As you can clearly see, burial does not need to be outlawed in order to end the environmental damages that are caused by coffins and embalming. The presented alternative: The alternative that my opponent has presented is neither efficient nor practical; here are my arguments: 1.) Animal meat and human meat are not easily distinguishable; human meat would undoubtedly enter the beef/meat market and contaminate foods meant for human consumption if carcasses were allowed to be slaughtered. Handling raw human flesh also increases the risk of contamination through open cuts or sores. The slaughtering of human carcasses presents issues that are usually negligible when methods are used that leave the body intact before disposal. 2.) Massive amounts of land are available which could easily contain human bodies (land can even be re-used as bodies decompose). Although crematories have a limited capacity, reaching such a capacity would not cause the accumulation of human carcasses if burial was to remain legal; bodies can be dealt with using the above methods even if death rates fluctuate dramatically. The system in which my opponent has proposed simply isn't flexible enough to be used to dispose of human bodies. Populations of carnivorous animals would increase or decrease according to the amount of available nourishment. Populations may become too large or dwindle away because of the death rate within a given society. A small population of animals would not be able to effectively dispose of a large sum of bodies. Conversely, a large sum of animals would starve if human deaths were to suddenly decrease after an extended period of high death rates. Variability in human deaths would pose a significant problem for maintaining the carnivorous population. The effectiveness of the system in which my opponents proposes would be severely decreased by fluctuations in human death rates. The hunger/health of the carnivores and a plethora of other factors would also reduce the rate at which bodies can be disposed of using this method. 3.) Burial grounds are extremely available; any area that is deep enough to contain human bodies can potentially be used as a burial ground. The massive construction of zoos, slaughterhouses and wildlife reserves is ridiculous when one considers that the minimum requirement for disposing of a human body is a hole that is deep enough to contain it. The infrastructures needed for cremation and burial are already available in a great enough quantity to effectively dispose of human bodies. Concluding statements: The environmental issues caused by cremations and burials are not significant enough to warrant the illegalization of such disposal techniques. Furthermore, I have presented alternative legal actions which almost entirely eliminate the environmental issues that my opponent has presented. Cremation and burial are very effective and established ways in which to dispose of human bodies. Burial is especially effective due to both its extreme availability and the minimalistic nature of the process. My opponent must present a justifiable reason for the illegalization of such techniques and he must also present an alternative method for the disposal of human bodies that is as effective and practical; neither has been given. Sources cited: +1 - http://www.eea.europa.eu...... +2 - http://www.pioneerburials.com...... +3 – (1)Bury - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... +4 - http://www.aarp.org...