Do you believe in spontaneous human combustion?
493088
Not exactly spontaneaous but In case of certain baterial infection there has occurred that the temperature of the boddy got way  over 107 degree F and the person died really burning up.
268333
Apparently yes. Over the past 300 years, there have been more than 200 reports of persons burning to a crisp for no apparent reason. See link for details and examples.
431850
No.  A spark would require oxygen
747557
A reaction tends to be spontaneous if  it causes an increase in the entropy of the system, and/or a decrease in the enthalpy of the system \n\nBoth reactions are endothermic (increase in enthalpy) becuase of positive delta H values.\nBoth have an increase in entropy (positive delta S value for the first one, production of a gas for the second)\n\nSo I'd say statements ll and lll are true.
148948
nope but if it was true then people with the flue should worry about disapearing ha ha ha ....=D
493620
Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is the alleged process of a human body catching fire as a result of heat generated by internal chemical or nuclear action. While no one has ever witnessed SHC, several deaths involving fire have been attributed to SHC by investigators and storytellers
907112
Do you? Acurately so. The darwinian revolution faned the flame, and human repairs recalled the crimes on wrangler's tape. \n\nI an man. What liars. I dont' ask if there are experiments, but I ask, what higher life forms?
759884
yep.....\n\nhttp://www.killermovies.com/m/manonfire/articles/2123.html
612104
The explanations of fire in most standard reference works, not to put too fine a point on it, suck. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, takes the following ineffectual stab: "rapid burning of combustible material with the evolution of heat and usually accompanied by flame." No wonder people have lost faith in science. Time to let a professional show how it's done. We'll start by reviewing the defects of the EB definition.\n\n(1) Rapid burning. OK, fire burns rapidly. Slow combustion, also known as oxidation, includes such nonfiery processes as rusting and digestion. However, to say that fire involves burning is to embark on a circular definition: What is fire? When something burns. What is burning? When something is on fire. We need to address the matter in more basic terms.\n\n(2) Combustible materials. Redundant. If a material is capable of rapid burning, by definition it's combustible. Also, "materials" is needlessly vague. One specific material, oxygen, is always involved.\n\n(3) Evolution of heat. I don't know what this is supposed to mean either.\n\n(4) Usually accompanied by flame. "Usually accompanied by" my arse. Flame is the quintessential pyrolytic phenomenon, not a mere by-product.\n\nNow for a proper definition, devised by myself: "Fire is the rapid combination of oxygen with fuel in the presence of heat, typically characterized by flame, a body of incandescent gas that contains and sustains the reaction and emits light and heat." Let's go through this bit by bit:\n\n(1) Rapid combination of oxygen with fuel in the presence of heat. Oxygen, fuel, and heat are the essential ingredients of fire. \n\n(2) Typically characterized by flame. The pup qualifier "typically" allows me to sidestep the issue of apparently nonflaming fires, like you get with burning charcoal. I suspect charcoal fires do create flame--you just can't see it due to the lack of impurities or incompletely burned fuel in the plume. (You can't see a fuel fire at an Indy or CART race either, because the cars run on clean-burning methanol.) But that's a matter we can leave for another day.\n\n(3) Body of incandescent gas. Flame defined. Most encyclopedia and dictionary definitions blow past this entirely, allowing persons such as yourself to imagine that fire is "pure energy" or similar nonsense. We say "body" because the gas has a characteristic structure and composition. We say "incandescent" because (a) it sounds scientific, (b) it means "luminous with intense heat," precisely what we are attempting to convey, and (c) if the Teeming Millions are going to learn one vocabulary word today, by God "incandescent" should be it.\n\n(4) Contains and sustains the reaction. Flame isn't just the result of fire; it is the fire. What's more, without the flame's heat the fire would go out.\n\n(5) Emits light and heat. Duh. However, we mustn't overlook the obvious.  \n\n>>>why do things that are put in it come out totally destroyed?\n\nOf course most things that go into fire aren’t totally destroyed. Most metals, glass, ceramic and so forth all emerge unscathed from fire. Even wood and paper aren’t totally destroyed, they leave an ash and charcoal residue as well as fine particles that we can see as soot and smoke.\n\nFire will ‘destroy’ anything organic that can be completely oxidised at the temperature that it burns at, but that is simply because the oxidation process converts the organic material to carbon dioxide,  and water. IOW the material isn’t destroyed it is just converted to gas and that gas blows away.\n\n>>>>>what fuel does it need from say, paper,\n\nThe paper IS the fuel the fire needs. The fire converts the paper into gases and ash. Or more accurately fire is the process of converting paper into gases and ash.
507629
Yes I believe it is true.  The extreme heat generated by the initial detonation was sufficient to vaporise organic matter such as people.  A prompt blast wave accompanying this immense 'fireball' would typically blast down most structures.  However, I did hear rumours that at the point of vaporisation these vapours were absorbed into walls, etc.. This would give the impression of a 'shadow' effect when really its not a shadow.. its vaporised people / organic matter.  \n\nSuch a topic is a little sensative (clearly) so be careful where you ask on this one.  The effective range at which this would happen is in close proximity to ground zero.  Beyond this people would combust due to the heat before being blasted by the shockwave (which can flatten buildings).  Outside this I heard reports of peoples eyes melting out of their sockets which makes sense due to the soft tissue nature of them.\n\nOf cause theres also the radioactive fallout which is pretty nasty in the way of being a big time carcinogen.\n\nAll in all Nuclear bombs aint so pretty.  You might also like to look into the neutron bomb which I think was a varient of the typical fission bomb.  I believe it was designed to maximise casualties and minimise structural damage to buildings but I'm not sure..
924793
Yes ... but based on a misunderstanding of circumstances.  A lot of the early victims were obese alcoholics who fell asleep either smoking, or next to a fire, or both, and inadvertantly set themselves on fire.  The fire burned hot (the victim being obese and full of liquor), but often the chair or floor weren't --- not due to anything supernatural, just the materials:  hardwood floors and chair coverings with a high combustion temperature.  If the fumes coming from the alcoholic were ignited by the fire in the fireplace, and they were close enough to it, it might jump across without burning the floor, leading investigators to think the victim burned from within (as fire followed the fumes of alcohol back into the victim).  Just a thought.
358368
I don't know how odd this is but almost 20 years ago I worked as the night manager at a convenience store.  \n\nWhile handing a lady her change I glanced outside at the gas pumps, there was maybe 3 people out there pumping gas.  I did a quick once over and noticed one guy next to his truck smoking a cigar while pumping his gas.  Immediately I went over to the mic to yell at him, and in the seconds it took me to move towards the mic, the top of the hose he was using cracked and started spraying gasoline all over him and his truck!  \n\nI screamed, and threw myself at the kill switches and in that eternal moment it dawned on me that I was about to die.\n\nBut I hit the kill switch, nothing caught on fire, there wasn't any explosion, and after removing the diamonds I just created in my a$$, I went outside and enjoyed the world's largest tirade against the now drenched cigar smoker.\n\nSo, how's that for an "odd" moment?
719893
Yes. We also have a fire extinguisher that believe it or not, we actually used. We were at a highway rest stop and a pickup pulled up beside us. It was obviously overheating and when the owner popped the hood, smoke came pouring out and we saw flames. My husband quickly emptied the trunk to get the extinguisher and was able to put out the fire. Look, the cost of a first aid kit is very small and if you never use it--no harm done. But you never know when it might come in handy, and then you'll be glad you had it.
1029391
The answer to your question is both.\n\nMan made:\n\n ~exhaust fumes from cars, factories\n ~aerosols\n ~CFCs\n\nNature\n\n ~clouds\n ~volcanic eruptions\n\n\nyeah, so nature is actually suffering a lot already, and then man comes in to add fuel to the fire.
848828
no, but it would burn like hell -try it
327143
absolutely yes. Think of it. a person burns an inanimate piece of colored cloth, and half the population goes ballistic; basically because of their insecurities. You want to burn a piece of cloth - what the hell do I care. to react any differently is to give you control over me, and I ain't about to do that. But most of you knee-jerk americans can be controlled in this way, because you do not have the gift of independent thought.
899050
It does NOT occur spontaneously.  If it did, you wouldn't need a pilot light in your gas stove of heater!  Combustion takes place by the mechanism of free radicals.  And CH4 won't form any at room temperature.  Once some free radicals are created (by high temp.) the reaction is self-sustaining.\n\nComment on the mention of Pt below:  Yes they DO still do that; but they use either Pt mesh or wire.  That's the way pilotless gas burners work.