Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: "Max Muir" <orb_at_cts_dot_com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jul 2006 13:15:54 -0700
Mel Rowing wrote:
Max Muir wrote:
British rivers provide drinking water for British
people, and we don't even want fluoride in our
water, never mind cremation ashes and Ganges
pollution.
If I understand your comment correctly you think
the pollutants will be innocuous due to the
genuine grief of the Hindu and Sikh mourners
in one case, but something akin to plutonium if I
did it. Have I misunderstood?
The pollutants would in one case be made innocuous
by the piety of the mourners and in the other remain
toxic because it was me?
I think the issue is the method of cremation which is proscribed in
this country by the 1930 Cremation Regulations.
Right. Cremating a body releases about 4g of lead, and also
dioxins, so they have be burnt in a furnace with a filter, not in
the open air.
However, the disposal of the ashes is quite another matter.
Yes, it is, but the thread is titled 'laws for us but not for them' so
I
thought I would mention the ashes in the river business too.
As far as I
know there are no restrictions beyond the Law of Trespass which places
constraints on the disposal of ashes.
http://www.barrowvoice.co.uk/winter_2004/features.html
"Before about two years ago, the Environment Agency routinely refused
permission apart from in tidal waters, on the grounds that so much
water is extracted for drinking from our rivers that there could be a
pollution implication."
Thus anyone is free to scatter
them virtually anywhere they have right of access.which includes into a
river or the sea.
Some of our drinking water comes from British rivers and
my feeling is that there are very specific limits on where you
can release ashes. E.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Dee_regulation_system
Our water supply seems a bit vulnerable to me yet it is
one of our most valuable assets.
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:14878136
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/10.php
Hindiuism allows burial at sea, or we could give Hindus a
grant to fly their ashes back to the Ganges or Yamuna.
The Ganges is sacred because of its place in the Hindus
holy text, the Vedas. There's no mention of the River Soar.
http://tinyurl.com/eazrw
We foster Hinduism with what to me seem substantial
grants; they now have their own faith school, with
perhaps more on the way; we apologised for offending
them with that Christmas stamp, we threw out the "Om
Dinna Dinna" tv advert, the Harrod's "Hindu Love Goddess"
underwear was shredded. Couldn't Hindus respect our
rivers? The British have a long and complex relationship
with our waterways, which, while it is not religious, is
certainly spiritual. If it was just the Soar then maybe
but they also want the the Aire, the Thames, the Wye
and the Calder.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Mel Rowing
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- References:
- laws for us but not for them
- From: tg
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Harry The Horse
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Hognoxious
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Harry The Horse
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Max Muir
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Harry The Horse
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: hwake
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Harry The Horse
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Max Muir
- Re: laws for us but not for them
- From: Mel Rowing
- laws for us but not for them
- Prev by Date: "You wanted open war. We will have open war. Then he says, believe me, we will reach Haifa, and beyond Haifa, and beyond beyond Haifa," -- Nasrallah also exulted over an Israeli warship that he said was hit by Hezbollah artillery
- Next by Date: France condemns Israel, Bush does damage control
- Previous by thread: Re: laws for us but not for them
- Next by thread: Re: laws for us but not for them
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|