, Kingston, NH

My Opinion

March 13, 2014

My Opinion: March 13, 2014


“This bill HB-1577, as far as I can see, only mentions the pea soup in 325-B:3 (f) where it says, it can not be discharged into a septic system. But it has to be put into a holding tank that is periodically pumped and transported to a sewage treatment facility. Still going to the treatment pond to swim with the others there. Most NH towns don’t have sewage systems, making an extra cost to the facility and the family for a holding tank and transporting it to the sewage treatment facility.

“Some of the other problems I see with this bill include:

“1. The idea in both cremation and resomation is to reduce human remains to unidentifiable bone fragments. In both processes they are ground down by the exact same process. So, why in RSA 325-A are these pieces of bones called fragments, but now in RSA 325-B they are called powdering?

“2. In Definitions XIV, why the word “pouch”? According to Webster’s Dictionary a pouch is a small “pocket” or “packet” That’s not nearly the size needed to put a grown person in?

“3. In Definitions XX, in the case of resomation you have two different remains, you have the bone fragments and you have the 15 gallons of the pea soup. So then why isn’t the pea soup mentioned in Definitions, or really anywhere else?

“4. In RSA 325-B:18 I, doesn’t the 48 hour delay violate some religious practices?

“5. In RSA 325-B:19 III, facility refusing a leaking body. How about someone that was shot, stabbed, in an accident, burned, died on the operating table, or just have open wounds? What difference does it make, they’re going to be cooked anyway?

“6. In RSA 325-B:20 II, it talks about more than one body being cooked at the same time, but doesn’t mention anything about each body having to be in a separate bag. How about bone fragment identification after the process?

Text Only
My Opinion

US Politics