Talk:Embalming chemicals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comments
AARDbalm is, according to their own literature, NOT an embalming product (given that the goal of embalming is commonly defined as the preservation, sanitation and restoration [or presentation] of human remains )in the strictest sense and the constant inclusion of repeated material concerning Biocides legislation smacks of product pushing, contrary to the idea of the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.240.217.248 (talk • contribs).
The information on AARDBalm not being an embalming fluid was added as someone keep adding the biocides information and the AARDBalm name and I wished to present the matter clearly rather than having to constantly delete the product-pushing for AARDbalm. Note that all references to it are now absent.
[edit] "wet"
Deleted for now: "This situation is further confused as "wet" or "fry" sometimes consists of cigarette or joints dipped in formaldehyde and cases of break-ins to funeral homes to obtain it are on record."
If they're on record, can you cite them? Also: how does formaldehyde-dipping change the pharmacology of cigarettes?
Found this, but can't get the full text http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9692385
--CKL
Changed title of section from "Other Uses" to "Confusion With PCP".
A careful study of reference #3 finds no evidence of embalming fluid use in 'wet' and related preparations (other than the word of the users themselves, one police officer, and an unidentified usenet post). The symptoms described are textbook PCP, as noted by the author (re. nystagmus). While the patients apparently don't all test positive for PCP, no claim of the expected reliability of the test(s) used is presented. Meanwhile, Formaldehyde mentions nothing about psychoactivity. It does say it's a gas at room temperature, which means that if you dip something in a formaldehyde solution and let it dry, it's probably all gone. Spector considers exotic explanations involving reactions with THC, and then notes that the observed symptoms are indistinguishable from PCP. Meanwhile, whatever reactions happen in the presence of THC are apparently no more significant than those that happen in the presence of duct tape. The only analysis of the preparation itself in the article names PCP and related compounds, and a couple of solvents.
No evidence of embalming fluid theft is presented either. What's reported is the creation of a protocol to store it more securely at funeral homes (classic drug-war paranoia) and a funeral home break-in involving the theft of a corpse's finger (which wasn't the object of the break-in, of course -- they were obviously looking for fluid and, finding none, took a finger out of spite!).
After all this, the author says, "In summary, it is unclear whether the practice of smoking marijuana soaked in embalming fluid...". Incredible! The final sentence of the section (which cites this reference) should be changed. --CKL
