Skip to main content
View expanded cover

Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics pp 87–101Cite as

Environmental Considerations for Common Burial Site Selection After Pandemic Events

  • Chapter

In light of the increasing threat of an avian flu pandemic in the UK, the Home Office have been investigating a range of methods for managing the potential problem of excess deaths that could exceed the capabilities of existing burial and funeral facilities. There is currently unprecedented pressure on the Government to find an environmentally, ethically, socially and economically sound solution to the problem of disposal of bodies. The use of common burials or mass interments has been mentioned as a possible means for disposal of the ‘excess deaths’ that may be manifest. This chapter examines the potential environmental considerations and consequences of the development and utilisation of such mass burials in both the short and long term. Structured risk management approaches, including source-pathway-receptor analysis of the potential hazards, are reviewed. Such research is informed by previous incidents such as the UK Foot and Mouth Crisis of 2001, where large numbers of animal carcasses were buried in mass graves that would be analogous to those after a human pandemic in terms of environmental impact. It also draws from previous environmental waste management research and strategies that are in place to mitigate the environmental impact of other large waste disposal mechanisms, such as landfill sites. Factors which should be considered when selecting a site for the purpose of constructing large common burial pits such as body decomposition, soil characteristics, the potential for groundwater contamination, vegetation and ecology, and the practicality of implementing contingency or mitigation measures are reviewed. Some recommendations are given for common grave site selection through analysis of soil characteristics, the application of soil databases, and how existing taphonomic knowledge may inform these issues.

Keywords

  • Landfill Site
  • Burial Site
  • Mass Grave
  • Groundwater Vulnerability
  • Burial Ground

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9204-6_7
  • Chapter length: 15 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4020-9204-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson I (Ed.) (2002). Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons To Be Learned Inquiry Report. The Stationery Office, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagchi A (2004). Design of Landfills and Integrated Solid Waste Management. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwer H (1978). Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Geological Survey (2007). Digital Geological Map of Great Britain 1:50,000 Scale (DiGMapGB-50) Data Version 4.16. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss S, Herbert A, Morgan P and Thornton S (2003). Review of ammonium attenuation in soil and groundwater. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 37:347–359.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Content (2008). Rotting Corpses Forces Doomsday Group Out of Cave. 20 May 2008. http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/rotting-corpses-forces-doomsday-group-cave_913. html. Accessed 17/07/2008.

  • Carver SM (2003). The Protection of Ecology on Landfill Sites. In: Land Reclamation: Extending the Boundaries — Proceedings of the 7th International Conference (Eds. H Moore, H Fox and S Elliott). AA Balkema, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (1985). Soil Map of the European Communities, 1:1,000,000. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruikshank JG (Ed.) (1997). Soil and Environment: Northern Ireland. Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland and Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent BB (2005). Vulnerability and the unsaturated zone — the case for cemeteries. In: Proceedings “Where Waters Meet”, Joint Conference of the New Zealand Hydrological Society, International Association of Hydrogeologists Australian Chapter and New Zealand Soil Science Society, Auckland, 30 November—2 December, paper A13. Dent BB and Knight MJK (1998). Cemeteries: A special kind of landfill. The context of their sustainable management. In: Groundwater: Sustainable Solutions, pp. 451—456. International Groundwater Conference, International Association of Hydrogeologists, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drummond RD (1999). Notifiable Disease Preparedness within the State Veterinary Service. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Agency (2007). www.environment-agency.gov.uk. Accessed 04/12/2007.

  • FAO-UNESCO-ISRIC (1990). FAO-UNESCO Soil Map of the World: Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report 60. FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman R and Fleming R (2003). Water Quality Impacts of Burying Livestock Mortalities. Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2001). Foot-and-Mouth Crisis: Army Digs Mass Grave to Bury 500,000. The Independent, 26 March 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haglund W and Sorg M (1996). Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamer G (2003). Solid waste treatment and disposal: effects on public health and environmental safety. Biotechnology Advances 22:71–79.

    PubMed  CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hart A (2005). Ammonia shadow of my former self. Land Contamination and Reclamation 13(3):239–245.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Heineke HJ, Eckelmann W, Thomasson AJ, Jones RJA, Montanarella L and Buckley B (Eds.) (1998). Land Information Systems: Developments for Planning the Sustainable Use of Land Resources. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 4, EUR 17729 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (2007). Planning for a Possible Influenza Pandemic: A Framework for Planners Preparing to Manage Deaths. Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter J and Cox M (2005). Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter J, Roberts C and Martin A (1996). Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janaway RC (1997). The decay of buried human remains and their associated materials. In: Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology (Eds. J Hunter, C Roberts and A Martin), pp. 58–85, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim KH, Hall ML, Hart A and Pollard SJT (2008). A survey of green burial sites in England and Wales and an assessment of the feasibility of a groundwater vulnerability tool. Environmental Technology 29(1):1–12.

    PubMed  CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • King D, Daroussin J and Tavernier R (1994). Development of a soil geographical database from the soil map of the European Communities. Catena 21:37–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Knight MJ and Dent BB (1998). Sustainability of waste and groundwater management systems. In: Groundwater: Sustainable Solutions, pp. 359–374. Proceedings of the Conference of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lelliot M (2002). Hydrogeology, pollution and cemeteries. Teaching Earth Sciences, 27:68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen HB and Jones RJA (1995). Soil profile analytical database for the European Union. Danish Journal of Geography 95:49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather JD (1989). The attenuation of the organic component of landfill leachate in the unsaturated zone: a review. Quarterly Journal of English Geology 22:241–6. Cited in Morgan O (2004).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan O (2004). Infectious disease risks from dead bodies following natural disasters. Pan American Journal of Public Health 15(5):307–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pachecho A, Mendes J, Martins T, Hassuda S and Kimmelmann A (1991). Cemeteries: A potential risk to groundwater. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association of Water Pollution 24(11):97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard SJT, Smith R, Longhurst PJ, Eduljee G and Hall D (2006). Recent developments in the application of risk analysis to waste technologies. Environment International 32:1010–1020.

    PubMed  CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard SJT, Hickman GAW, Irving P, Hough RL, Gauntlett DM, Howson S, Hart A, Gayford P and Gent N (2008). Exposure assessment of carcass disposal options in the event of a notifiable exotic animal disease – methodology and application to avian influenza virus. Environmental Science Technology 42(9):3145–3154.

    PubMed  CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Renou S, Givaudan JG, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F and Moulin P (2008). Landfill leachate treatment: Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous Materials 150:468–493.

    PubMed  CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Safety Officer in Physical Chemistry, University of Oxford (2005). Material Safety Data Sheet for 1,5-diaminopentane (cadaverine). http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/. Accessed 17/07/2008.

  • Santarsiero A, Minelli L, Cutilli D and Cappiello G (2000). Hygienic aspects related to burial. Microchemical Journal 67:135–139.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schraps W (1972). Die Bedeutung der Filtereigenschaften des Bodens fur die Anlage von Friedhofen. Mittcilungen Deutsche Bodenkundl. Gesellschaft, 16:225–259. Cited in Bouwer H (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigma-Aldrich (2007). http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Local/SA_Splash.html. Accessed 17/07/2008.

  • Soil Survey of Scotland (1984). Soil and Land Capability for Agriculture. Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Survey Staff (1983). The National Soil Map of England & Wales, 1:250,000 Scale (in Six Sheets). Ordnance Survey, Southampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spongberg A and Becks P (2000a). Organic contamination in soils associated with cemeteries. Journal of Soil Contamination 9(2):87–97.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spongberg A and Becks P (2000b). Inorganic soil contamination from cemetery leachate. Water Air and Soil Pollution117:313–27.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Üçisik A and Rushbrook P (1998). The Impact of Cemeteries on the Environment and Public Health: An Introductory Briefing. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Nancy Project Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velinni AA (2007). Landfill Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb B (2005). Guide for Burial Ground Managers. Department of Constitutional Affairs, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B and Robson J (2004). Cemeteries and Their Management. Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young CP, Blackmore KM, Reynolds P and Leavens A (1999). Pollution potential of cemeteries: Draft guidance. R&D Report, Environment Agency, Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience, Defence Academy of the UK, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA, UK

    Anna Williams & Tracey Temple

  2. Sustainable Systems Department, School of Applied Science, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK

    Simon J. Pollard

  3. National Soil Resources Institute, Natural Resources Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK

    Robert J. A. Jones & Karl Ritz

Authors
  1. Anna Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tracey Temple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon J. Pollard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert J. A. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karl Ritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Williams .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Soil Resources Institute Natural Resources Department, School of Applied Sciences Cranfi eld University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK

    Karl Ritz

  2. The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB 15 8QH, UK

    Lorna Dawson & David Miller & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Williams, A., Temple, T., Pollard, S.J., Jones, R.J.A., Ritz, K. (2009). Environmental Considerations for Common Burial Site Selection After Pandemic Events. In: Ritz, K., Dawson, L., Miller, D. (eds) Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9204-6_7

Download citation