Cremation vs. Interment: A case of environmental prudence in the face of Ebola
By Morris T. Koffa, Sr., ABD 
There has been a contentious debate in Liberia and perhaps in Guinea and Sierra Leone, regarding the disposal of Ebola-infected corpses. The concerns have been about the preferred method of the traditional burial practice that takes place in most countries.
From an environmental perspective, however, research shows that cremation is preferable in the wake of the deadly Ebola virus that has devastated the West African countries of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.
The concept of cremation is not a common practice in Liberia, and perhaps in most, if not all African countries. This concept is new to the African culture and therefore needs adequate public education to ease public paranoid. Because of the spread of Ebola, traditional burial can no longer be an option for the sake of public health safety. One of the ways the Ebola epidemic is spreading rapidly in Liberia and other infected countries is by means of traditional burial practices where, according to medical experts, cultural rituals are performed on the deceased prior to burial.
The Ebola disease can easily be contracted from bodily secretions such as vomit, defecation diarrhea, urine or sweat of the victim. Therefore, medical and environmental experts urge communities and governments to engage in crematory practices of Ebola corpses.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), the Ebola virus is not airborne and cannot be contracted from water sources either, but by the corpses entering bodies of water so often used as drinking water source. This process can undoubtedly raise a serious sanitation problem and environmental concern.
While cremation is environmentally preferred, it is important that it is done consistent with contemporary sound environmental practices that include but not limited to identifying suitable designated areas, respecting the right of individual communities to receive the appropriate public education—particularly as it relates to disposing of the victims’ ashes.
This call resonates with the point Hon. Anyaa Vohiri, Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia (EPA-L) made in a 2014 FrontPageAfricaonline article. Hon. Vohiri addressed the agency’s concern about the manner in which the Liberian Crematorium Management headed by Hon. Ciatta Bishop cremated Ebola-infected corpses (1,700 bodies or more) in the Boys Town community in Marshall, Margibi County. The community complained that the open air crematory practices caused residents to at times abandon their homes because of the offensive odor from the process. The residents fear and justifiably so that such crematory practices will likely lead to serious environmental challenges, in terms of mercury deposits and possible fossil fuel emission from the smoke. We cannot trivialize issues of carbon footprint.
But that is not all. There have been mass burials of Ebola victims in shallow graves – in some instances, according to FPA, bodies are found in wetlands or are abandoned in some communities. Of equal concern is the fate of those who dwell in the rural communities where there are inaccessible roads, and health facilities are non-existent. These people are most at risk. With such a situation, communities are often left with no option but to bury Ebola victims through traditional practices. The environmental fear is that with such burials occurring in the midst of the raining season, the corpses can likely end up in numerous bodies of water during heavy rains. These environmental concerns are serious and are a critical threat to public health. They do have long term consequences, and therefore shouldn’t be ignored.
The Ebola outbreak have made Liberiams to alter their burial practices for the sake of public safety. In addition, the emergence of the Ebola outbreak in Liberia has left environmentally challenged communities with concerns related to medically hazardous materials generated from infected patients. Such materials should be incinerated to reduce the spread of diseases like Ebola. Instead, most of the medical wastes are dumped on beaches, in wetlands, and other isolated areas.
As has been seen, Liberia’s traditional burial practices and the increasing disposal of medical wastes without great care are not environmentally friendly. Thus, it is important to educate various stakeholders on the need to strike a balance between the safe cremation of Ebola-infected victims and the careful disposal of medical wastes.
Of course, the nation’s Environmental Protection Agency cannot be left out of those issues related to cremation and the careful disposal of medical wastes. Particularly as it relates to cremation, The EPA of Liberia should have been involved in establishing the crematorium and fashioning or purchasing the appropriate equipment; agreeing on the minimum operating temperatures/air retention time; emissions standards; the maximum usage time (e.g., the number of hours a year the crematorium should be run at its licensed capacity); what cremation containers are used; training of the crematorium operators; and the maintaining of a log on the use of the operable equipment.
Such focus would lead to initiating regulations and protocols necessary for human cremation and pet cremation. From what has been gathered so far, the EPA-L was not involved in the multiple arrangements leading to the crematory practices in Liberia. Consequently, EPA-L has found it difficult, if not impossible, to help engage in the most suitable public education for the entire country.
Considering all that is known about Ebola and the public health risk, when it comes to cremation, entombment or natural burial is not a feasible practice for the safety of others and the prolonged protection of the environment. A traditional burial is an expensive process. It takes up needed land space which might pose a problem in the near future. Caskets used contain metal particles and release toxins from the embalmed bodies. Dental fillings and some implants contain metals that can produce mercury deposited in the soil. Mercury is very dangerous to the environment (soil and air), and can introduce elevated levels in fish. When humans consume the fish, the mercury may be deposited in the human body which can then damage the nervous system and harm childhood development.
In the case of cremation, the process is high-temperature burning, vaporization, and oxidation to reduce human or animal cadavers to basic chemical compound such as gas and mineral fragments. Cremation remains do not constitute a health risk and therefore is an eco-friendly practice.
However, there are few potential environmental concerns with respect to residual metal from dental filling and other metal implants that could introduce mercury into the environment. These items, however, can easily be removed from the body before cremation. Such removal can significantly reduce the risk of mercury deposits in the environment.
In most cases, when natural gas, propane, or diesel is used to generate energy for cremation, the emitted smoke is controlled through new technological practices. The adverse environmental impact under this scenario is quite minute and difficult to precisely calculate the carbon footprint. In substance, new technologies are available to mitigate the level of carbon emission related to cremation.
During periods ofhealth crises, cremation is more environmentally friendly than traditional disposal of bodies and medical wastes. Because cremation is new in the Liberian culture, public education is required, and the Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia should not be left out of the professional circle of stakeholders needed to bring literacy and sanity to the country.
240-417-2545
Category: Editorial, News Headlines
