Talk:Stench of rotting corpses drives Russian doomsday group from cave

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


No OR. I was thinking of putting in some educational background about Putrefaction, Putrescine and Cadaverine, and/or Cognitive dissonance and Disconfirmed expectancy - but just left it to info sourced to the sources in the Sources subsection. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I think the way this article is written adds to the misbelief that human corpses are dangerous. In the case of a bunch o people crammed in a cave I guess it could be dangerous to be constantly breathing rarefied air (due to the presence of other gases), but that doesn't make corpse stench more toxic than pure nitrogen. This is from Wikipedia -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

This is as per sourced info from secondary sources about this incident, for example AFP, Interfax, among others. Also, I note that the Wikipedia article you mentioned, w:Health risks from dead bodies, is not very well sourced except for 2 citations, and yes, the close proximity of the decomposition to the rotting bodies was most likely a factor that the authorities considered. Cirt (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Shortened title to w:Stench of rotting corpses drives Russian doomsday group from cave. Though the information in the article itself is still sourced to the sources mentioned above and other sources in the Sources subsection. Cirt (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, that was fast. I'm still not happy with the word "toxic", though. As I understand it, the concept refers to the effect a substance can have in an organism, not to its absence (oxygen in this case?). Hence, I don't think the air on top of the Everest is regarded as toxic. Of course, if its about some opinion that some guy said to the media, the word stays, but maybe the first (last?) of those sentences could end with "(although the WHO has stated that corpses pose little threat - citation blah blah -)" or something like that. Also, IMO the very first line of the article could do without "toxic", since its not a quote or anything. Anyway, just consider it, since you're the expert (I figured out just now that "signing" thingie --> ). 11:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Cadaverine: "It is noxious and toxic" - from Lewis' Dictionary of Toxicology, (1998) by Robert Alan Lewis, Page 212, ISBN:1566702232, CRC Press. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Putrescine: "Ornithine is converted by bowel bacteria into a toxic substance called putrescine, which in turn degrades into polyamines, such as spermadine, spermine, and cadaverine (literally meaning "the essence of dead cadavers")." - from Alternative Medicine Magazine's Definitive Guide to Weight Loss, (2007) by Ellen Kamhi, Ph.D., RN, HNC; Page 14, ISBN:1587612593, Celestial Arts. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I sure am in no position to defend one source above other. Could you add that to the Wikipedia article about dead bodies? Maybe some folks that know about this can reach a conclusion in that talk page (or at least include both opinions in the text). 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I added it to the articles about those toxic substances, will add to the article you mentioned as well. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, the Wikimedia system works! :D Thanks! 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added the info to that article as well. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Will list here below. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)