Sunday, December 28, 2008

Human fat as fuel? Right or Wrong?

My sister sent me a link to this article about a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who is currently being investigated for turning human fat (medical waste from 7,000 liposuction procedures he performed) into bio-fuel. Yes, bio-fuel. Supposedly he fueled his Ford Explorer with it and his fiance's car. His clinic has been shut down, as has his internet site "lipodiesel.com." Apparently there is a law on the books in the United States which says that you cannot turn human medical waste into fuel. WOW. Who would have ever thought such a law would be necessary? And is that particular use of human fat a bad thing?

I can understand us never wanting to see life become like Logan's Run where the citizens thought they were eating fish, plankton and protein from the sea but really ended up eating the people who were killed off when their time clocks ran out:

Or Soylent Green where those little green wafers that everyone subsisted on were actually made from people:

Now if someone donates their excess fat to be turned into bio-fuel - what is the wrong in that? Fat *is* meant to provide energy. On your thighs or in your car, where would you rather have it? (Tongue firmly in cheek). As it is human "medical waste" gets appropriated to other uses whether we make that decision ourselves or not. For instance, when you have a baby many hospitals take the umbilical cord and sell it. They don't ask the mother and they certainly don't deduct the profit they receive from her bill. I remember when my daughter, Rhianna, was born - I was laying there during my C-section listening to the doctor and nurses have an interesting conversation about how long, thick and healthy her cord was and it would be "worth a lot." No one asked me!

Some women have to fight to keep their placenta - whether they want it to plant in their yard or to eat (some cultures believe this strengthens the mother). That should be the decision of the mother. It is a product of her body and I don't think anyone has any business making a law about it.

In Canada human aborted fetuses are used for the development of vaccinations. Now THAT is unethical. It is disgusting and horrible - and yet it happens. It is a wonder to me that a law can be on the books preventing excess human fat from being used to propel vehicles or warm houses, but the cells, lungs and other body parts of murdered babies can be used in research and development. Go figure. :(

I read an article the other day about people involved in the "Voluntary Simplicity" movement who felt strongly about using humanure to fertilize their gardens. They received some resistance from those who found it distasteful, but seriously - what is so different about using that as opposed to chicken manure?

So back to Dr. Craig Bittner, the doctor who was "recycling" human fat to run his automobiles... The Auto Blog says:
"We’re all for recycling, alternative fuels, and that general green kind of thing — but we draw the line at human waist waste, which is why we wonder whether he really did it. In other words, we’re flabbergasted by his outrageous story."
I wonder if they're as shocked by tissue from murdered human babies (we call them aborted fetuses to take some of the shock value off, I think) being used to develop vaccinations and beauty treatments?

What sort of twisted society do we live in, anyhow?

A horrifying piece by Dr. Olga Fairfax, PhD: 101 Uses for a Dead (or Live) Baby. She researched what happens to the bodies of aborted babies and has documentation to back it up. Her organization will supply that documentation upon request.

People donate their bodies "to science" and instead of being used for med students to practice upon, their bodies can wind up plasticized and on circus-like display --- or wind up being used as a crash test dummy.

~o~

Before this stuff weighed heavily on my brain, I did have a very nice Sunday. An excellent Sunday school class, a challenging sermon, leftover turkey-spinach baked zita (gluten-free with homemade tomato sauce that had none of Rhianna's allergens in it), a long, long nap. The beautiful little Layla to cuddle. Movies on the sofa with dh. (We watched "Thunderheart" which is an old favorite of ours). Today was a rest day, but I did catch up blogging my workouts on my sweat blog.


2 comments:

shadman said...

This was an excellent commentary on that story, G. Loved the ties into Soylent Green (is people - which was on TCM last night) and Logan's Run - I had missed this little fact in that movie somehow. It brought to mind how much I always marvel at the inconsistency of a pro-abortion / anti-death penalty stance of so many "enlightened" people. Your blog highlights the dirty little secret about abortion. The embryonic stem cell arguments (forced upon society) were much like that - "look at the great advances we can make." Still, to date, not a single cure or treatment from it (that I know of). All are still from adult stem cell research - two huge breakthroughs as I seem to remember.

So do we call it "humoline" now? Just wondering ... I've linked your blog on my facebook.

Glynis said...

I think he was calling it "lipdiesel," which doesn't evoke an image of clean burning in my mind!

In fact, for some reason, "The Cremation of Sam McGee" comes to mind. I recall Sam McGee letting off a "greasy smoke in an inky cloak."