Preserved Bodies in Great Lakes?
Tim Tyler
--
Tim Tyler Internet: t...@umcc.umich.edu C$erve: Hooligan AOL: Hooligan
P.O. Box 443 Amateur Radio: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NOAM
Ypsilanti, MI
48197-0443 In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream.
Graham Dickson
I have heard that there are wrecks in the Great Lakes that still have
bodies inside and around the wreck that have been preserved due to the
cold temperature and lack of bacteria etc. Is this true?
Tim Tyler
Sorry about that! I'll try it again...
Yes.
WALKUP10
Oh come on, were they from last week these wrecks? Have you seen a human
or indeed any dead animal they has been immersed in water for longer than
a week? There may be few bacteria, but there are fish and crabs and there
is WATER (the best solvent known to man), so lets be realistic shall we?
Tim Tyler
In article <4nb25a$g...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com>,
You're talking out of sheer ignorance! I'm not talking about a body
that has been sitting at a 100' open bottom of the ocean, but a body that
is 210' deep, 30 or 40' back inside a shipwreck in fresh water that is 34
degrees!
There are several Great Lakes wrecks which still have bodies --not
just bones, but clothed bodies-- on them!
I think that most of the tech divers who hit these wrecks might see
them, but hopefully don't consider them to be a specific 'attraction,'
and I for one sure don't have any desire to go into great detail about
condition, etc.
But for experienced Great Lakes tech divers --as well as anyone who has
done some research, or remembers some of the recent media reports
concerning the Edmund Fitzgerald wreck-- it is neither a secret nor
suprise that certain old wrecks contain bodies.
Tim
Tom Cavitt
Pardon the ignorance, but why aren't the bodies recovered? Obviously if people
have seen them, they aren't beyond recovery.
Tom
Kim Dyer
>Pardon the ignorance, but why aren't the bodies recovered? Obviously if people
>have seen them, they aren't beyond recovery.
victims families wanted it.
Tim Tyler
My understanding with the older wrecks (late 1800s/early 1900s) is that
the technology wasn't really in place to recover the few bodies that
didn't eventually surface & work their way to shore. When the
technology was there & cost-effective, it was many decades later, no
agency opted to recover & bury the bodies.
In the 15 MAY 96 Ann Arbor (Michigan) News, there's an article about how
the Michigan legislature panel just passed a bill making it a felony (2
years in jail/$2000 fine) to photograph/videotape the image of human
remains from a Great Lakes shipwreck within Michigan. Exceptions are law
enforcement, scientific, or medical purposes, but it would still be
illegal to display any image of said object in public.
Of potential concern to divers is that the act would official
designate any Great Lakes wrecks/bottomlands with mortal remains as being
grave sites. There was no mention in the article if 'recreational
diving' on these grave sites would be permitted.
This act is was prompted by outcry concerning a creep (IMHO...) named
Fred Shannon, from Mount Morris, Michigan whose team found & photographed
the slightly decomposed body of a crewman in/near the Edmund Fitzgerald,
and will be including still & video images of that body (not showing the
face) in some publications.
The act has no effect on the Fitzgerald wreck, because it is generally
agreed that the Fitz is in Canadian waters.
This is just a bill now, but it passed the committee 9-0, and will now
go to the Michigan House of Representatives floor.
I'll contact the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Pat Gagliardi, and get more
info on it.
Donna Souza
In article <4nb25a$g...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com> WALKUP10 <WALK...@ford.com> writes:
>From: WALKUP10 <WALK...@ford.com>
>Subject: Re: Preserved Bodies in Great Lakes?
>Date: 14 May 1996 22:40:42 GMT
>Oh come on, were they from last week these wrecks? Have you seen a human
>or indeed any dead animal they has been immersed in water for longer than
>a week? There may be few bacteria, but there are fish and crabs and there
>is WATER (the best solvent known to man), so lets be realistic shall we?
There, in fact, three bodies still "residing" on the Kamloops which was lost
in 1927 in what is now Isle Royle National Park (ISRO). It's very deep, very
dark, and very cold and the water is fresh. The combination of these factors
has caused a type of preservation called saponification. The soft tissues
become white and develop a waxy look and texture. While I havn't dived this
wreck myself, the presence of the bodies was confirmed to me by a very close
friend that works for the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit (SCRU) of the
National Park Service. SCRU was there to document the wreck sites in the ISRO
National Park.
The bodies were never recovered because the technology to locate the wreck and
recover bodies at such depth did not exist in 1927. The wreck was explored and
the bodies found only a few decades ago. By that time, there were few living
relatives and those that were still around chose to leave the bodies where
they are as their final resting place. Most sailers would have it that way.
D.
Bert D. Dodds
In article <4nb25a$g...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com> WALKUP10 <WALK...@ford.com> writes:
>From: WALKUP10 <WALK...@ford.com>
>Subject: Re: Preserved Bodies in Great Lakes?
>Date: 14 May 1996 22:40:42 GMT
>Oh come on, were they from last week these wrecks? Have you seen a human
>or indeed any dead animal they has been immersed in water for longer than
>a week? There may be few bacteria, but there are fish and crabs and there
>is WATER (the best solvent known to man), so lets be realistic shall we?
And water that remains near freezing year round does a remarkable job at
preserving tissue....and tho you may never have been 100' down in Lake
Superior, good luck finding a fish. If bodies have been found on North
Atlantic u-boats, there is an even greater chance of their remaining intact
in Superior. We are being realistic, warm-water boy.
Michael McGuire
: My understanding with the older wrecks (late 1800s/early 1900s) is that
: Tim
While I agree that photographing bodies like that is a ghoulish thing to do,
I expect that the 1st amendment makes such a law unconstitutional.
Mike
--
Michael McGuire Hewlett Packard Laboratories
Internet: mcg...@hpl.hp.com P.0. Box 10490 (1501 Page Mill Rd.)
Phone: (415)-857-5491 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971
***************BE SURE TO DOUBLE CLUTCH WHEN YOU PARADIGM SHIFT.*************
Carl Harrington
>
> While I agree that photographing bodies like that is a ghoulish thing to do,
> I expect that the 1st amendment makes such a law unconstitutional.
>
> Mike
> --
This may fall under the laws against "tampering with human remains". If
you want pictures of waterlogged bodies, or other mutilations as your
perversity sees fit, check out back issues of the American Journal of
Forensic Pathology at your local biomedical library. See the deprevations
taht fellow humans can inflict on others.
Also, there are privacy laws that limit when a person (dead or alive?) may
be photographed, but I'm not sure where they work here.
Carl Heinzl
>While I agree that photographing bodies like that is a ghoulish thing to do,
>I expect that the 1st amendment makes such a law unconstitutional.
That doens't mean that someone won't have their gear and boat
confiscated and end up in JAIL with a HUGH legal bill because some
idiots now want to deteremine what you can take pictures of...
Unf**king believable, but, the best way to deal with this is to nip it
in the bud...
-Carl-
Carl Harrington
Nothing personal, you understand, but I'm going to try to make a point.
On 18 May 1996, Carl Heinzl wrote:
> That doens't mean that someone won't have their gear and boat
> confiscated and end up in JAIL with a HUGH legal bill because some
> idiots now want to deteremine what you can take pictures of...
>
> Unf**king believable, but, the best way to deal with this is to nip it
> in the bud...
>
> -Carl-
I've got a shovel and pick, you got any dead relatives in the neighborhood
I can excavate and take some photos of? Grandmother maybe? Father
recently deceased? I'm not too picky about condition, I just want to put
the scanned photos on the internet. While I'm there, I bet a cleaned
off skull would look real groovy on my mantle. Heck, I'll even paint it
with some day-glow paint for my Halloween parties. They won't really need
it anyway, and her relatives will never know, if they even care (I won't
bother to ask, don't want to invite trouble, ya know).
I will cease before going into things better suited to alt.tasteless.
It doesn't seem so nice if it's one of your relatives, is it?
Just cause I've got the tools doesn't make it my right.
Carl Heinzl
>Nothing personal, you understand, but I'm going to try to make a point.
Sure, go ahead :^)
>On 18 May 1996, Carl Heinzl wrote:
>> That doens't mean that someone won't have their gear and boat
>> confiscated and end up in JAIL with a HUGH legal bill because some
>> idiots now want to deteremine what you can take pictures of...
>> Unf**king believable, but, the best way to deal with this is to nip it
>> in the bud...
>> -Carl-
>I've got a shovel and pick, you got any dead relatives in the
>neighborhood I can excavate and take some photos of? Grandmother
>maybe? Father recently deceased? I'm not too picky about condition,
>I just want to put the scanned photos on the internet. While I'm
>there, I bet a cleaned off skull would look real groovy on my mantle.
I would NEVER say it's ok to actually TAKE things from there, but
there's a BIG BIG difference between taking PICTURES and taking BONES!
If you don't agree with this point, futher discussion is fruitless.
>Heck, I'll even paint it with some day-glow paint for my Halloween
>parties. They won't really need it anyway, and her relatives will
>never know, if they even care (I won't bother to ask, don't want to
>invite trouble, ya know).
There is inherently a difference between DIGGING UP people and simply
taking a picture of them underwater. *IF* I had a relative, even a a
close one on one of those ships, my attitude would be sure, go ahead,
just be sure to give ME a copy !
>>I will cease before going into things better suited to alt.tasteless.
Doesn't bother ME one bit.
>>It doesn't seem so nice if it's one of your relatives, is it?
>>Just cause I've got the tools doesn't make it my right.
All of this is simply attached to the societies fascination with death
and dying. To me it's no big deal. Actually, my parents are BOTH
deal and I would STILL like to see what they look like.
You picked the WRONG person to argue this with as my priniples are
consistent.
-Carl-
Russell Malesovas
I've been following this thread with a kind of morbid curiosity. Then
this past Sunday in the travel section of the Dallas Morning News, an
article appeared concerning lake Superior diving. I thought you might
find it interesting. Reprinted here without permission.
Shipwrecks Off Isle Royale form a Superior 'museum'
By Mike Steere
Universal Press Syndicate
ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK, Mich. - Lake Superior never gives up its dead,
Gordon Lightfoot siang in "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald."
The balladeer's line is about the hundreds of bodies from Superior's
shipwrecks that have never been recovered, among them the men of the
Fitzgerald, an ore carrier that went down with all 29 hands in a 1975
storm.
But the words apply just as well to the vessels on the lake's bottom.
The largest of the Great Lakes never surrenders its sunken ships to the
decay, corrosion and encrustation that, over time, obliterate man-made
objects in saltwater.
After a 1980 cruise of Lake Superior, Jen-Michel Cousteau, son of
legendary undersea explorer Jacques Cousteau, spoke wonderingly of
finding a wooden sailing that had been on the bottom for decades. It
was sitting intact, upright and fully rigged, as if ready to sail.
Deep freeze
The Cousteau team was finding out what Superior's cadre of skilled
cold-water scuba divers already knew; Because its depths are fresh,
perpetually cold and near-sterile, the Great Lakes' most notorious
ship-killer also is one of the world's best preservers of artifacts.
The descent from the surface to one of Superior's wrecks is a trip
into the past, to the day the ship went down.
"You swim into the stateroom on a 70-year-old wreck and see the shoes
under the bunks. It's really easy to relate to the panic" of sinking,
says Daniel Lenihan, an underwater archaeologist for the National Park
Service.
He likens the lak's depths to a "waterlogged deep freeze."
10 wrecks to explore
Buffs agree Superior's best collection of shipwrecks that can be dived
is a group of 10 major vessels near Isle Royale National Park, Mich.
The island is a 45-mile-long slice of boreal wilderness about 20 miles
off Minnesota's north shore and near the U.S.-Canada border.
Isle Royale, a favorite of wilderness backpackers, has long been a
magnet for marine catastrophe. Its often-foggy near-shore waters,
just off shipping lanes, are studded with rocks. With hundreds of
miles of open lake to the east, Superior's murderous winds and storm
waves hit the island full force.
This isn't Bonaire or Palau, but it's nicely set up for divers, at
least by the standards of the remote, northernmost Great Lakes.
Four small charter companies operating out of Minnesota ports are
liscensed to do live-abourd dive adventures and day trips around Isle
Royale. National Park Service rangers keep an eye on divers and
underwater artifacts. Removal of any part of these wrecks, however
small, is punichable with hefty fines.
With visibility of 30 to 100 feet and good wrecks well within the
140-foot-deep limit for recreational scuba diving, you've got a
noteworthy site. But Isle Royale is rated near the top by shipwreck
connoisseurs because of the variety and quality of its wrecks.
If the lake is a preservation expert, the island has been a curator.
Assembled is a collection of historically significant examples of
Great Lakes ships that went down between the 1870s and 1947, years
that bracket the heyday of lakes shipping.
"They [Isle Royale's wrecks] are probably better preserved, and will
be 1,000 years from now, than if you'd taken them up and put them in
a museum," Mr. Lenihan says.
Painted woodwork sunk more than a half-century ago is still bright,
covered only with a thin layer of algae. Lettering on signs and even
wrapper-labels still can be read. Faucets still turn on the America,
a 183-foot passenger steamer that went down after hitting a reef in 1928.
With its bow just below the surface and a maximum depth of about 80 feet,
the ship is well within the depth limits of intermediate divers. But,
as Mr. Lenihan, charter captains and park rangers warn, penetrating this
or any ship's interior is for experts only.
Serious diving
Underwater Isle Royale, in general, is not for the inexperienced,
experts agree.
Below surface layers, the water temperature never climbs much above
40 degrees. Cold and the special hazards of wreck diving in a reomote
area, where fitful weather can cut off outside help for days, make
diving here a serious sort of fun.
"It's nice to have people with at least 20 dives under their belts,"
says Bill Gardner, skipper of the 36-foot Royale Diver. "We don't
require advanced open-water certification, but we recommend it."
For the first time this year, park officials have authorized Mr.
Gardner to allow properly certivied and equipped divers to exceed the
140-foot limit.
Mr. Gardner will become the only operator permitted to let his clients
make deep descents, breathing mixed gases. Recent "technical" blends
of oxygen, nitrogen and other gases allow longer bottom times at much
greater depths than the compressed air used by most recreational divers.
The 140-foot limit still applies to charter clients using compressed air.
Hard-core experts aboard Royale Diver may now take the plunge to the
island's most eerily well-preserved treasures. Among them is the
Kamloops, a package freighter that sank in 1927. It lies about 240
feet below the surface at its deepest.
Inside Kamloops, underwater adventurers see one of the eeriest sights
in all of wreck diving. A body with flesh preserved by a sort of
ice-water mummification lies in the ship's engine room.
Here in dark and perpetually frigid depths, is one of the dead that
Lake Superior never gave up.
>More Information
For general information, regulations and permits for divers, as well
as a list of dive-charter operators, contact Isle Royale National Park,
800 E. Lakeshore Drive, Houghton, Mich. 49931; (906) 382-0984.
>Dive Charters
Lake Superior Excursions, P.O. Box 446, Mile 52, Highway 61, Beaver
Bay, Minn., 55601.
Royale Diver, 3444 White Bear Ave., White Bear Lake, Minn. 55110.
Superior Diver, P.O. Box 388, Grand Portage, Minn. 55605.
Superior Trips, 7348 Symphony St. N.E., Fridley, Minn. 55432.
>Background Reading
"Shipwrecks of Isle Royale National Park: The Archaeological Survey"
Daniel J. Lenihan, principal investigator; Lake Superior Port Cities Inc.,
P.O. Box 16417, Duluth, Minn. 55816; $34.95; plus $4.50 shipping.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
V
+-----------------+
Russell Malesovas | A L C A T E L | Richardson, TX
mal...@aud.alcatel.com +-----------------+ (214) 996-5869
NETWORK SYSTEMS
Std Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not
necessarily express those Alcatel Network Systems.
Chuck Narad
In article <Pine.A32.3.92a.96052...@homer24.u.washington.edu>, Carl Harrington <nai...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> Nothing personal, you understand, but I'm going to try to make a point.
>
> On 18 May 1996, Carl Heinzl wrote:
>
> > That doens't mean that someone won't have their gear and boat
> > confiscated and end up in JAIL with a HUGH legal bill because some
> > idiots now want to deteremine what you can take pictures of...
> >
> > Unf**king believable, but, the best way to deal with this is to nip it
> > in the bud...
> >
> > -Carl-
>
> I've got a shovel and pick, you got any dead relatives in the neighborhood
> I can excavate and take some photos of? Grandmother maybe? Father
> recently deceased? I'm not too picky about condition, I just want to put
> the scanned photos on the internet. While I'm there, I bet a cleaned
> off skull would look real groovy on my mantle. Heck, I'll even paint it
> with some day-glow paint for my Halloween parties. They won't really need
> it anyway, and her relatives will never know, if they even care (I won't
> bother to ask, don't want to invite trouble, ya know).
>
> I will cease before going into things better suited to alt.tasteless.
>
> It doesn't seem so nice if it's one of your relatives, is it?
> Just cause I've got the tools doesn't make it my right.
I've been following this thread with some interest, because I'm
not sure how I feel about the subject. yesterday something
triggered a few thoughts though...A 500-year-old mummified
girl was found fully preserved in a glacier in the Andes; in
addition to scientific study, there are pictures of the corpse
in National Geographic magazine, on the nightly news, and the
remains are on display in a museum.
I was trying to figure out (for myself) what the difference is
between this, and in photographing an in-situ corpse in a
wreck at the bottom of the great lakes. (a similar story already
existed with other mummified remains, but this one hit closer
to home since she is fully intact.)
Both cases involve historic sites. Both involve very difficult
access. The lake bodies still have surviving relatives; probably
also true with the Andes mummy, but after 500 years nobody
has stepped up to claim kinship. So a question for Carl...um,
Carl H....um, Carl Harrington is, do you view the case of the
mummy differently? If yes, why? if no, why not?
thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
chuck/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chuck Narad -- diver/adventurer/engineer |
| |
| "The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for |
| our wits to grow sharper." |
| -- Eden Phillpotts |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Medical abortion, should you find it necessary, may be legally |
| obtained at a professional family planning clinic. Consult your |
| phone book. |
| |
| This .sig file, which explains how you can obtain an abortion, |
| is in direct violation of Section 1462 of Title 18, amended, of |
| Section 230(e)2 of the Communications Act of 1934, amended in |
| 1996. Consult your local representative or senator. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Harrington
On 23 May 1996, Chuck Narad wrote:
> Both cases involve historic sites. Both involve very difficult
> access. The lake bodies still have surviving relatives; probably
> also true with the Andes mummy, but after 500 years nobody
> has stepped up to claim kinship. So a question for Carl...um,
> Carl H....um, Carl Harrington is, do you view the case of the
> mummy differently? If yes, why? if no, why not?
>
Well, got me in a little fix, as I'm into archaeology as a academic
discipline (but not for a job, sigh) and I've fondled the dead myself once
or twice. I guess my point was just to kind of explain the "human
remains" laws, about the general public going to town on corpses, without
reason other than their own jollies. I'm not against research (forensic,
historical, heck even "art" I guess). On the other hand, some corpses are
in a touchy area because they are
fresh (i.e. Edmonds Fitz.) or religious (i.e. Native American Repatriation
Act). Heck, the Native Americans (now this deals more with land
archaeology and artifact hunting, but anyway) do claim kinship with
remains thousands of years old.
Sadly, photos are not enough for some people, and they just have to have a
souvenir.
And like I said, just because you had to work to find it, doen't mean it's
your's to play with. Diggin up graves isn't easy either, with those pesky
concrete sarcofigi they are using these days. Practically need a backhoe
to pull them off.
Thirdly, and finally, I just think you should consider the relatives (if
any) before you do whatever. Human remains to tell us alot, and we should
study them, but remember to afford them some respect for what they are
providing, and with any luck,
maybe we'll get the same (or not).
__
/ /\ Carl C. Harrington III -- (206)685-3151
/ / \ College of Forest Resources, University of Washington
/ / /\ \ Seattle WA 98195-2100
/ / /\ \ \ http://weber.u.washington.edu/~nailgun
/ /_/__\ \ \
/________\ \ \
\___________\/
Carl Harrington
Oh yeah, one other thing...
If you do find a diver's corpse badly burned after a
California/French/Spanish/Chinese/Sahara forest fire, who died of
deceleration trauma, I fully expect to see those on the internet!
Ray McAllister
I'd be willing to bet $100 that no one can give me a verifyable photo of a
body that has been underwater in the Great Lakes for more than a couple of
years (I'm being careful for my $100). There are prenty of carnivores in
icy cold water. The presrerved articfacts are usually wood, leather,
bones, etc. Flesh would be enticing as hell to fish, crabs, bacteria etc.
NO BODIES! If anyone has seen one, please post it here. I think this goes
with "bizarre story" and my favorite, the 6 platinum cannon supposed to be
in Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Caribbean, on Barbados and anywhere else that
someone can think of!!~!!!
Ray McAllister, Prof (Emeritus) Ocean Eng., FAU, Boca Raton, FL 33064
Diving Dinosaur, Geologist/Oceanographer/Ocean Engineer, 44 years SCUBA
mcal...@gate.net (954) 426-0808, Author Diving Locations, Boynton/Dania
Tim Tyler
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.960527...@hopi.gate.net>,
I'll be very succinct, and if I seem rude, I guess that's just an
added bonus.
You modestly list your diving credentials, and despite several people
--including Great Lakes tech divers-- stating the facts, and one person
even gently trying to explain saponification to you, you just don't
believe it.
Further, like an idiot, you post your little $100 challenge, which only
another idiot or ghoul would take you up on...
Please, Mr. Professor of "Ocean Engineering," do a little research!
Make a few phone calls! You claim that you'd plan on 'verifying' any
photo a ghoul sent you as coming from an older Great Lakes wreck ("Hello,
Mrs. Jones? Did you have a husband that died & as far as you know is
still entombed aboard the ____ [Emperor, Kamloops, Eddie Fitz, etc.]?
Yes? Great! Oh, I mean sorry... Anyway, could you describe what your
husband looked like, and perhaps what clothes he was probably
wearing aboard the ship when it went down?
Please be very specific, as I have a $100 bet riding on this..."), so why
don't you do a modicum of research on your own to learn that what many of
us have tried to brielfy tell you, without going into morbid detail, is true!
Call the National Park Service dive unit, call Capt. Bill Gardner of
The Royale Diver, Inc. in WHite Bear Lake, MN, or any of a number of
Great Lakes area shipwreck Museums (such as the one in Whitefish Point,
MI), or simply get rid of your Floridian warm, salt-water mentality and
THINK about it!
In a few months I'll be diving on the Kamloops, off Isle Royale, in
Lake Superior. I don't particularly want to see the (saponified) body of
the crewmember on one of the rooms, but it is a possibility that I should
be physiologically prepared for.
If I do see it, I'll think of a certain old fool down in Florida, but
one thing I won't ever after seeing the body is describe it to others
except those with a 'need to know' -- most likely another diver who will
be diving on that wreck, because they (preserved bodies on wrecks) are
unfortunate, probably frightening realities on deep, freshwater wrecks,
not attractions!
Wow, in retrospect, this is really stupid. I'm embarrased that I've
wasted time trying to convince you about this type of thing...
Tim Tyler
Shadoaks
saponification: the conversion of an ester heated with an alkali into the
corresponding alcohol and acid salt; specif., this process carried out
with fats (glyceryl esters) to produce soap.
After reading the above definition of saponification......I still don't
get it. Please explain how a human body in the cold, cold Great Lakes
turns into soap? I'm not being snippy - you've got me scratching my head
over the exact chemistry of this reaction. Just curious.........
Barb
Dyer Crouch
In article <4of9oj$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, shad...@aol.com (Shadoaks)
writes:
*** SOME DELETED STUFF ***
|>
|> After reading the above definition of saponification......I still don't
|> get it. Please explain how a human body in the cold, cold Great Lakes
|> turns into soap? I'm not being snippy - you've got me scratching my
|> head
|> over the exact chemistry of this reaction. Just curious.........
|>
|> Barb
Barb -
Good for you. Not many people here look anything up.
I thought some of you reading this thread might find this interesting too,
so I put it on the net...
Saponification:
The process by which body fats are converted to a greasy soap-like
substance. See Adipocere.
Adipocere (Adipocire):
A white-gray wax-like substance formed when free fatty acids within the
body undergo hydrolysis in a moist environment. The presence of adipocere
inhibits further decomposition.
Source: The Glossary of terms, Encyclopedia of Underwater Investigations,
Robert G. Teather.
Adipose Tissue:
A fatty connective tisse, the matrix of which contains large, closly
packed, fat filled cells. Adipose tissue is important in energy storage,
occuring around the liver and kidneys, and where it occurs in the dermis of
the skin it insulates the body from heat loss.
Source: The Harper Collins Biology Dictionary.
I don't want to start copying paragraphs on the subject from the above
mentioned texts (I am a bit lazy) but to put it in a nutshell, yes bodies
can be preserved for very long periods of time in this manner. The layers
of fatty tissue below the surface of the skin saponify and preserve the
body. The adipocere is know to be rancid and is probably distateful to
predators. Though I have not seen a body in this condition outside of a
picture (nor do I wish to) I am sure there are bodies preserved in this
way in various locations and situations. If you are dying to see a picture
of a saponified body, the EUI does have one, but it is in bad condition due
to the circumstances surrounding that recovery.
Off the subject:
If you are an acting DM / SAR etc, I would highly recommend "The
Encyclopedia of Underwater Investigations" since it discusses the various
aspects of how bodies drop/travel from the surface when they drown/sink
etc, in different types of currents. How much current it takes to move a
body. *What to expect when you pull a freshly drowned victim to the
surface*. Search patterns and lots of other very useful information.
Some of the information really surprised me. I don't know all the available
sources but it is avaiable from Best. Here are some phone numbers since I
know I am going to get a bunch of e-mails requesting this.
USA: (800) 468-1055
Outside USA: (520) 527-1055
If you find another place that carries it, it may cost less since Best has
a reputation for being expensive.
Hope that helps...
Dyer
--
"There are two insults which no human will endure: The assertion that he
hasn't a sense of humor, and the doubly impertinent assertion that he has
never known trouble."
Sinclair Lewis