logo
Scrub Hub: What is a 'green' burial? (Hint, it involves decomposing into the earth)

Scrub Hub: What is a 'green' burial? (Hint, it involves decomposing into the earth)

Yahoo03-03-2025

Hoosiers may soon be able to choose a "water burial" after at least a decade of lawmakers trying to add it to the options funeral services may offer.
Rep. Mark Genda, R-Frankfort, once again introduced a bill that would legalize alkaline hydrolysis, a "green" form of cremation promoted as more environmentally friendly than other options. House Bill 1044 would mandate the state to create rules for the process before January 1, 2026.
Efforts to add water cremations to the list of funeral services for Hoosiers have been underway since at least 2015. Genda's bill this year has passed through the house and is awaiting a hearing with a Senate committee.
Alkaline hydrolysis has been used in the U.S. since 2003 and is available in roughly half of states across the country. The process does not involve the burning of fossil fuels nor produce the pollution that traditional cremation does. It does, however, use a significant amount of water.
The process involves dissolving a human's remains in a chemical mixture using heat and water. This, much like traditional cremation, leaves behind bone remains that can be memorialized.
Alkaline hydrolysis is not the only form of a green, or eco-friendly burial, there are other sustainable options Hoosiers can choose.
Green burial can mean different things to different people — to some, it means a very specific form of disposition, but to others it encompasses the broader umbrella of sustainable options for after-death care.
The Green Burial Council talks about 'any form of disposition that reduces impact on the environment,' said Sam Perry, president of the national group. 'We want to conserve land, protect natural resources and protect worker health, too.'
Perry, who also is a licensed funeral director in Indiana and Illinois, said the group also is working to change the term from green to natural burial, noting there can be negative connotations with use of the term 'green.' It also better represents what these options are and what they provide for families, he said.
Scrub Hub: Where can Hoosiers get help identifying, eradicating invasive plants?
Still, the GBC works with a particular definition of green or natural burial. For their organization, a natural burial focuses on three key elements that differ from the conventional version.
The first factor is how the body is prepared. In a traditional burial, bodies are often embalmed with a mixture of chemicals such as formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and other solvents. In a natural burial, that doesn't happen and bodies typically are not embalmed, Perry said.
The second element of a natural burial is the container in which the body is buried. Usually, bodies are buried in a metal casket or one that is wood but lacquered and treated with other chemicals. These materials do not easily or readily break down.
With natural burials, bodies are placed in containers that will biodegrade. Perry said that can include caskets made from wicker or bamboo, for example, or even a simple pine box that is untreated.
The last aspect that makes for a natural burial is where the bodies are buried. Many cemeteries bury their caskets in vaults or liners, often made of concrete, which are meant to be protective receptacles. That very characteristic, however, goes against allowing bodies to decompose as part of a natural burial.
It's these elements — the lack of chemicals, non-biodegradable materials, as well as minimal carbon footprint as compared to cremation — that explain why natural burials are considered an environmentally-friendly option.
Environmental bill: 'Water cremation' could be coming to Indiana. What is it and why is new option important.
According to Perry, green burials are allowed in every state, including Indiana. That said, there are still accessibility issues for such services across the country.
In recent years, Perry has seen significant growth in both public interest and demand in natural burials and other sustainable disposition options. In response, he also is seeing more funeral homes and cemeteries wanting to learn more in how to offer natural services.
'People who come to natural burial usually are more comfortable with that natural decomposition and the breakdown of the body and going back to nature,' Perry said. 'It's the idea that we aren't separate from nature, but we are part of it.'
There are other types of sustainable after-death options that also are becoming more popular. These include the water cremation IndyStar previously wrote about or another process called human composting. While still a better alternative to traditional burial or cremation, Perry said, both of these options also have their drawbacks — such as water and energy usage.
If you have any more questions about green burials or any other sustainable alternatives, please ask us! You can submit a question to the Scrub Hub through the Google form below.
Call IndyStar reporter Sarah Bowman at 317-444-6129 or email at sarah.bowman@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook: @IndyStarSarah. Connect with IndyStar's environmental reporters: Join The Scrub on Facebook.
IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: 'Green' burials grow in popularity as people want sustainable options

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill
New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill

Jun. 10—ALBANY — The New York state legislature has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a program supporters are calling "medical aid in dying." On Monday evening, with just a few days left for voting for the scheduled legislative session, the state Senate voted to pass its copy of the legislation. The state Assembly passed it earlier this year, and the bill now awaits Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul's decision to sign, veto or amend the legislation. Under the terms of the bill, people with a terminal illness who have an estimated six months or less before their disease will kill them can ask their physician for a prescription for life-ending drugs, which they can take home and consume on their own. The legislation has some protections, requiring a physician to evaluate the patient's ability to make decisions and refer them for psychiatric evaluation if there are questions over capacity. Patients have to make an oral and written request for the life-ending drugs, and the request be witnessed by two adults who are not closely related to the patient or likely to benefit after their death. It also permits medical professionals to recuse themselves from requests for medically assisted suicide, ordering them to refer requests they refuse to other doctors. Supporters of the bill say it will give New Yorkers suffering from terminal illnesses a safe, humane way to end their lives. They point to cases where terminally ill people have chosen to stop eating or drinking or chosen to end their lives in other, not legally sanctioned ways. Opponents of the bill raise concerns over the message it sends to sick people, that they should choose death rather than fight for their health, as well as practical concerns over whether the medication that would be prescribed could be a health hazard if not properly stored. They also expressed concerns over the bill's approach to how the death will be recorded. Under the bill's terms, someone who takes advantage of the program would have their cause of death listed as their terminal illness, not the ingestion of life-ending drugs. They also raised concerns over the lack of post-dispensation tracking for the lethal drugs, raising concerns they could be misused. The bill has circulated in Albany for nearly a decade, going most years without a floor vote in either chamber. Just last year, it lacked majority support in the Senate, but a successful lobbying effort this year pushed it to approval in the Assembly and now in the Senate. Debate stretched into Monday evening, with detractors in the Senate expressing concern. Sen. Steven D. Rhoads, R-Nassau, questioned why the bill doesn't include a specific requirement that doctors review a patient's medical records before prescribing the medication. "There is nothing in the bill that requires that," he said during floor debate. But proponents of the bill said it's a meaningful step towards medical autonomy and the right to choose — Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said that some identified gaps in the bill will be filled in the regulation-crafting process with the state Department of Health, which will be tasked with overseeing the implementation and authorization necessary to allow New York doctors and pharmacies to dispense these lethal medications. The lobbying isn't over yet. A major opponent of the bill, the New York State Catholic Conference, took to the halls of the Capitol on Monday in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill's chances in the Senate. Their effort was unsuccessful, but they've continued to push the governor to reject the bill. Sen. Mark C. Walczyk, R-Sackets Harbor, said in a statement that he was sad to see the bill pass. "I have tremendous sympathy for those with terminal illnesses and respect families who face end-of-life decisions," Walczyk said in a statement. "This legislation lacks critical protections for the vulnerable, structurally incentivizes suicide, and devalues human life. We need only look at the examples of states and nations that have promoted this policy. Instead of providing an option for individuals to end their lives, we should focus on improving health care for the vulnerable and enhancing hospice and palliative care for the terminally ill to ensure that every New Yorker has access to compassionate support during their most vulnerable moments, rather than offering a misguided solution that encourages despair."

RFK Jr fires entire US vaccine committee
RFK Jr fires entire US vaccine committee

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr fires entire US vaccine committee

Robert F Kennedy Jr has dismissed all current members of a key federal vaccine advisory panel, accusing them of conflicts of interest. The removal of all 17 experts of the advisory committee on immunisation practices was revealed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and an official press release. Mr Kennedy, the US health secretary, who has spent two decades amplifying vaccine misinformation, cast the move as essential to restoring public trust, claiming the committee had been compromised by financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. 'Today we are prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro or anti-vaccine agenda,' he said in a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services. 'The public must know that unbiased science – evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest – guides the recommendations of our health agencies.' In his op-ed, Mr Kennedy claimed the panel was 'plagued with persistent conflicts of interest' and had become 'little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine'. He added that new members were being considered to replace those ousted, all of whom were appointed under Joe Biden, the former president. Committee members are chosen for their recognised expertise and are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. 'RFK Jr and the Trump administration are taking a wrecking ball to the programs that keep Americans safe and healthy,' Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said in response. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor who expressed concern about Mr Kennedy's track record during his Senate nomination but ultimately voted in his favour, wrote on X: 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' The decision drew sharp criticism from Paul Offit, a paediatrician and leading expert on virology and immunology, who served on the panel from 1998 to 2003. 'He believes that anybody who speaks well of vaccines, or recommends vaccines, must be deeply in the pocket of industry,' Mr Offit told AFP. 'He's fixing a problem that doesn't exist.' 'We are witnessing an escalating effort by the administration to silence independent medical expertise and stoke distrust in life-saving vaccines,' added Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Paediatrics, in a statement. Once a celebrated environmental lawyer, Kennedy pivoted to public health from the mid-2000s, chairing a non-profit that discouraged routine childhood immunisations and amplified false claims, including the long-debunked theory that the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. Since taking office, he has curtailed access to Covid shots and continued to raise fears around the MMR vaccine even as the US faces its worst measles outbreak in years, with three reported deaths and more than 1,100 confirmed cases. Experts have warned that the true case count is likely to be far higher. 'How can this country have confidence that the people RFK Jr. wants on the advisory committee on immunisation practices are people we can trust?' asked Mr Offit. He recalled that during Donald Trump's first term as US president, several states formed independent vaccine advisory panels after the administration pressured federal health agencies to prematurely approve Covid vaccines ahead of the 2020 election. He warned that kind of fragmentation could happen again. The advisory committee on immunisation practices is scheduled to hold its next meeting at the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta from June 25 to June 27. Vaccines for anthrax, Covid, human papillomavirus, influenza, Lyme disease, respiratory syncytial virus, and more are on the agenda. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

1 in 10 Hoosiers over 65 has Alzheimer's
1 in 10 Hoosiers over 65 has Alzheimer's

Axios

time3 hours ago

  • Axios

1 in 10 Hoosiers over 65 has Alzheimer's

Nearly 11% of Hoosiers over 65 are living with Alzheimer's — more than 121,300 people — according to 2020 data shared in a new Alzheimer's Association report. Why it matters: More than 7 million American seniors now live with Alzheimer's, the highest number ever recorded, but addressing cognitive decline early can help stave off the disease. By the numbers: Almost two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer's are women, per data cited in the report. Risk increases with age: 5.1% of people ages 65–74 have it, while a third of people 85 and older have it, per the report. Zoom in: Indiana's elderly population is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years, according to projections from the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. One in every five Hoosiers (over 966,000 people) will be 65 or older by 2030. Marion County skews a bit younger. The elderly population percentage is here is poised to reach 16.2% in 2030. Stunning stat: The research center says the number of people 65 and up in Indiana will surpass 1.5 million by 2050, a 57% increase from 2015. Threat level: Nearly 18% of Hoosiers 45 and older already have subjective cognitive decline, according to the Alzheimer's Association. And the burden of care is often thrust onto family members. The Alzheimer's Association estimates about 219,000 Indiana caregivers provide unpaid care valued at $6.9 billion for loved ones with the disease. Zoom out: The highest rates of seniors with Alzheimer's are in D.C. (16.8%) and Maryland (12.9%). The lowest is in Alaska (8.8%). What they're saying: "It doesn't surprise me" that Alzheimer's incidence has increased, because the population is aging and "we're becoming more sophisticated in our options for diagnosing and testing for Alzheimer's disease," Lakelyn Eichenberger, a gerontologist and caregiving advocate at Home Instead, tells Axios. With cases climbing and age a key risk factor, early action is critical for managing the disease and accessing new treatments, Eichenberger says. Warning signs to watch for in high-risk age groups: Trouble finding the right word. Difficulty judging distances. Misplacing things and struggling to retrace steps. Between the lines: "If you're seeing patterns of these types of signs over an extended period of time," that could mean it's time to see a doctor about cognitive decline, Eichenberger says.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store