Is water incineration an environmentally friendly alternative we should consider?

As climate change becomes more prominent, there is a concerted effort to ensure environmental compatibility with, well, everything—including end-of-life processes. While traditional fire burning burns fossil fuels, known pollutants that can release harmful substances such as carbon monoxide, heavy metals and particulates, water burning is a cheaper and greener alternative.

What is burning water?

Water cremation, also known scientifically as alkaline hydrolysis or more colloquially, “aquamation,” involves placing the deceased’s body in a large steel container filled with 95 percent water and about 5 percent alkaline solution (potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or a a combination of both) and heating it to about 90 °C (194 °F) for about 10 hours, although the temperature and time vary.

Gentle circulation of water that never boils and alkalizes break down the body into its natural elements: amino acids, peptides, salts and sugars. Essentially, this process speeds up and mimics what naturally happens to a body when it is buried. All that is left after this process is the bone fragments (calcium phosphate), which are dried and cooled and then crushed into ashes and returned to the deceased’s survivors, just like a standard cremation.

However, cremation produces up to 30% more ash and the remains are effectively sterilized and in many cases safer to store than a dead body. Since the water left after desalination no longer contains alkali, it can be safely returned to the natural ecosystem.

Unlike traditional cremation, which requires a doctor to remove medical devices or implants that contain batteries, radiation, pressure, or silicone, with water cremation these remain in the body and remain after. They can be returned to the family along with the ashes. Proponents of water cremation see this as an extra layer of dignity and respect for the deceased.

Burning water: a brief history

Englishman Amos Herbert Hobson was granted a US patent in 1888 after discovering that alkaline hydrolysis was an excellent method of processing animal carcasses into vegetable manure. It wasn’t until 1994, when a subsequent patent was issued to Albany Medical College colleagues Gordon Kay and Peter Weber, that Hobson’s process helped safely dispose of animals used as research subjects. Kaye and Weber sold and installed more than 75 alkaline hydrolyzers—called “tissue digesters” when disposing of animal remains—over the next decade.

When their business folded in 2006, former president and CEO Joseph Wilson launched BioResponse Solutions, while Sandy Sullivan, head of European operations, formed Resomation in Scotland the following year. Jeff Edwards, an Ohio funeral director, asked Bio-Response to provide him with a device in 2010 and began offering Aquamation to his customers in early 2011. However, after 19 processes, state regulators stopped issuing Edwards’ license to dispose of bodies this way. Aquamation has since been taken off the table in Ohio. The legal status of dewatering elsewhere is discussed further in the next section.

Legal, religious and personal considerations

Cremation rates vary widely around the world, according to 2018-2019 data from the Cremation Society. Japan has the highest rate with 99.97%, Australia with 69.23% and England with 78.10%. In the United States, 54.59% of deceased persons are cremated, compared to 73.12% in Canada.

People may have their own personal reasons for preferring cremation to traditional burial. For example, a long and slow decomposition process may not appeal to them, or they may prefer an environmentally friendly approach. However, cultural and religious considerations strongly influence these data.

While Hinduism and Jainism prescribe cremation, Orthodox Judaism and the Eastern Orthodox Church forbid it, and Christians forbid cremation because they consider it a desecration of God’s image. These factors account for the low rates of cremation in the United Arab Emirates (1.25%), Greece (3.42%) and Ghana (6.41%). However, there are no figures on aquamation specifically.

Legally, alkaline hydrolysis is considered incineration. Currently, in the United States, 24 states allow dewatering as a method of final disposal of human remains, and laws are being considered in New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In Australia, only two companies offer alkaline hydrolysis: Aquamation in New South Wales and Alluvium Water Cremations in Tasmania. In July 2023, the BBC reported that water incineration was “coming to the UK soon”.

In 2022, water burning received a “public relations boost” when anti-apartheid archbishop Desmond Tutu requested and died at the age of 90. Friendship and burial space are becoming increasingly scarce.

Then the world’s aging population must be considered. According to British experts, it is expected that in 2034, those of the baby boomer generation will reach the peak of death. Given that the most common year of birth for people growing up is 1947, the average life expectancy for people growing up in the UK is approx. 87 years, although this varies between countries.

Australian government figures show that in 2022, 68% of deaths recorded in the country will be among people aged 75 and over. Although baby boomers are no longer the largest generational group in the U.S. — millennials will overtake them in 2023 — they still make up 70% of the population. So the time to have that end-of-life conversation, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, is now. This includes considering all options.

Is burning water environmentally friendly?

In 2011, Dutch researchers published a report on the environmental impact of four funeral techniques for the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). This report, prepared by Jordan Funeral Chain, is available as a PDF.

The researchers considered 11 environmental impact categories for each technique, including global warming, anthropogenic toxicity and land competition, burial, cremation, cryopreservation (freezing the body using liquid nitrogen and then crushing it) and They compared the burning of water. They reached the following conclusions regarding the overall environmental impacts of each technique for the average deceased person in the Netherlands:

• Freezing and burning water had the least environmental impact in all categories.
• Burial has the highest environmental impact in all impact categories.
• In all categories, incineration has an environmental impact that ranks among other options.
• The impact of water cremation is (probably) the least impactful of all funeral techniques.

These findings are consistent with the “green” claims of aquaculture companies. Resomation says the process uses five times less energy than fire and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 35 percent. “There are no direct emissions of harmful greenhouse gases or mercury into the atmosphere,” Alluvium Water Cremations says on its website. This process does not burn any fossil fuels. Very energy efficient – more than 90% energy savings compared to flame burning, with a 10% carbon footprint.

Compare this with the environmental costs of burial. According to a 2012 article in Berkeley Planning JournalEach year in the United States there are approximately 30 million board feet of hardwood, 2,700 tons of copper and bronze, 104,272 tons of steel, and 1,636,000 tons of reinforced concrete. This is in addition to the “approximately 827,060 gallons of embalming fluid, mostly formaldehyde,” that is pumped into the deceased person’s body and buried with them.

As for incineration, the article states that “the process releases carbon monoxide, fine soot, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals into the atmosphere. Mercury release from dental fillings is a particular concern. Furthermore, cremated remains are sterile, and therefore do not contribute nutrients to ecological cycles.

In the end, it comes down to how a person prefers to exit this world. When it comes to burning water, there’s an obvious “waste” factor. However, with the increasing cost of funeral techniques such as traditional burial and cremation, the lack of burial space, and the relative importance of environmental considerations, water cremation may be the preferred alternative. Regardless, it looks like it’s here to stay.