nos.nl
Netherlands to Offer Eco-Friendly Water Cremation
Netherlands prepares to offer resomation, a water-based cremation method, as a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional burial and cremation, minimizing pollution and offering potential for natural fertilizer from bone ash.
- What are the specific environmental benefits of resomation and natural burial practices, and how do these compare with existing alternatives?
- Traditional burial and cremation methods have significant environmental drawbacks: cremation releases polluting gases, and burial uses land and often employs non-biodegradable materials. Resomation offers a solution with a smaller carbon footprint and the potential for bone ash to be used as natural fertilizer.
- What are the environmental implications of traditional burial and cremation methods, and how does the newly available resomation process compare?
- In the Netherlands, a new water cremation method, or resomation, is becoming available as a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional burial or cremation. This process dissolves the body in liquid, leaving behind bone fragments that are processed into a white powder for the family. The remaining water is neutralized and sent to a water treatment plant.
- What future trends in end-of-life practices are likely to emerge as a result of growing environmental concerns, and what societal and technological factors will influence their adoption?
- The rising interest in resomation reflects a growing awareness of the environmental impact of end-of-life practices. The availability of this method, coupled with increasing adoption of natural burials using biodegradable materials, may significantly reduce the environmental burden associated with death.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently emphasizes the environmental impact of traditional burial methods, highlighting negative aspects while presenting eco-friendly alternatives in a largely positive light. The headline and introduction immediately set this tone. For example, the opening lines focus on the environmental downsides of traditional methods, setting the stage for a preference toward the alternatives.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but terms like "flinke hoeveelheden vervuilende gassen" (significant amounts of polluting gases) and descriptions of traditional methods as "niet bepaald duurzaam" (not exactly sustainable) carry negative connotations that could subtly influence reader perception. More neutral phrasing could be used without losing impact.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on environmentally friendly burial options, neglecting discussion of the social and cultural implications surrounding death and burial practices. The economic aspects of different burial methods are also absent. While acknowledging space constraints, this omission might limit a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by contrasting traditional burials and cremations with eco-friendly alternatives, without adequately addressing the range of choices available within traditional methods or nuanced approaches to eco-friendly burials. It simplifies the complex considerations surrounding death and burial choices.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses environmentally friendly burial alternatives like resomation (water cremation), natural burials, and human composting, all of which aim to reduce the environmental impact of death care. These methods minimize resource use, reduce pollution from traditional cremation, and return nutrients to the ecosystem.