Jim Falconer applying for permission for crematorium in Tramore

decies

According to WLR in Riverstown. Good idea?

deisemum

Great idea

deeks

Great idea. This is definitely going to become more "the norm" in the near future.

wellboytoo

Knowing the antis in Tramore this is bound for An Bord pleannalla

sparkling sea

It would be very handy and people won't have to go to Cork or Dublin, not what you really want to be doing when someone dies.

Cabaal

sure we can't fill the country with endless graveyards and many don't want to pay the costs or want to go with a graveyard plot

good idea, but yeah can see people objecting to it

dark crystal

About time, too.

If I had half a business brain and a bit of money behind me, I would have loved to do this myself. Ridiculous how a country of 4.6 million people have to make do with 4 crematoria (3 of which are in Dublin).

Fair play to him for bringing a much needed service to the South East. I hope there aren't too many blocks put in his path....

Sully

Moving to Waterford County

Psychedelic

That's good to hear, our family had to travel down to Cork for a cremation, would've been great to have it in our own town. This will bring business to Tramore, not just to Falconers, but to the local eateries etc where people from out of town attending a cremation will go to while they are here.

Finnbar01

Good idea.

People will be dying to get into it.

Max Powers

great idea, as previous poster, its gotta be cheaper than buying plots of land.

Guramoogah

http://eplan.waterfordcoco.ie/eplan41/FileRefDetails.aspx?file_number=13171&LASiteID=0

File Number: 13171 / Received Date: 09/05/2013 / Decision Due Date: 03/07/2013

Applicant Name: James Falcomer (sic)

Development Address: Falconer and Son Undertakers, Riverstown Industrial Estate, Tramore, Co. Waterford

Development Description:

for the erection of a building to the side and rear of the existing funeral parlour incorporating a cremator facility and associated accommodation, erection of a new front wall and access gates adjacent to the existing building to provide vehicular access to the proposed builidng, amenity area and asscoiated works

The county council planning department need to hire somebody who can type (or spell!)

robp

Cabaal wrote: »

sure we can't fill the country with endless graveyards and many don't want to pay the costs or want to go with a graveyard plot

good idea, but yeah can see people objecting to it

Well if the demand if there grand but environmentally I think burial is much better. Cremation has a huge carbon foot print.

Max Powers

robp wrote: »

Well if the demand if there grand but environmentally I think burial is much better. Cremation has a huge carbon foot print.

youre not serious, where did you get that info from. Is the human body full of toxic chemicals or something.

robp

Max Powers wrote: »

youre not serious, where did you get that info from. Is the human body full of toxic chemicals or something.

The human body isn't like a plank of wood. It doesn't burn easily. It requires lots of fuel. Something like 475 pounds of CO2 is released. Things like filings can release hazardous gases.

With really bugs me about cremations is they use a machine called a cremulator grind up the bones left over. Its like a huge food processor. It takes about 20 minutes for it to turn the burnt bones to ash. The ash you might have seen is not the natural result of cremation.

I am not saying the average burial is environmentally non significant as many bodies have preservative chemicals added. However without these chemicals I reckon it to have the lowest carbon foot print.

Max Powers

robp wrote: »

The human body isn't like a plank of wood. It doesn't burn easily. It requires lots of fuel. Something like 475 pounds of CO2 is released. Things like filings can release hazardous gases.

With really bugs me about cremations is they use a machine called a cremulator grind up the bones left over. Its like a huge food processor. It takes about 20 minutes for it to turn the burnt bones to ash. The ash you might have seen is not the natural result of cremation.

I am not saying the average burial is environmentally non significant as many bodies have preservative chemicals added. However without these chemicals I reckon it to have the lowest carbon foot print.

Oh come on, i dont buy this, first off 475pounds of CO2 sounds like nothing (if you believe CO2 is main cause of climate change in the first place). quick search says 1 gallon of diesel cause 10000+grams of CO2. you can safely knock CO2 from cremations as a completely insignificant factor.
Chemicals in fillings?, they are not radioactive, they would hardly be even classed as harmful, they would hardly be still putting them into our mouth if they thought that they were toxic or something so insignificant again i reckon.
Who cares about a giant food processor crushing bones (weird i know).

All in all this sounds like some sort of green nonsense, how much CO2 does a digger give out working for an hour to dig a hole, how much CO2 is created by making that digger, its batteries etc. What about the headstone that needs to be quarried out of the ground, cut, shaped and marked?

ex_infantry

Robp what does it matter to you? as you live in saxony germany do you not!!!!

Big C

robp wrote: »

I am not saying the average burial is environmentally non significant as many bodies have preservative chemicals added. However without these chemicals I reckon it to have the lowest carbon foot print.

When I go into that flame behind the curtain dont think I will be leaving any footprint

looksee

A few moments of flame, or hours of beating on the roof of the coffin. Hang on, how long would air last in a coffin?

robp

As I said if there is demand grand. It is a perfectly legitimate way to go. Yet there is an idea its the green option but its really much more complicated. The idea of green burials with low impact coffins are taking off. That would be the top tier. There is already one in Wexford.

ex_infantry wrote: »

Robp what does it matter to you? as you live in saxony germany do you not!!!!

Saxony is where I live at the moment but its not my home.

Max Powers

robp wrote: »

As I said if there is demand grand. It is a perfectly legitimate way to go. Yet there is an idea its the green option but its really much more complicated. The idea of green burials with low impact coffins are taking off. That would be the top tier. There is already one in Wexford.


Saxony is where I live at the moment but its not my home.

green options to burials, this is just so minute it is completely irrelevant and nonsense. Maybe if we all hand dig graves and are buried naked, that might be great for the environment, never mind farm pollution, engine and industry polluntants, chemicals.

To bring carbon bull into this thread is plain silly.

robp

Max Powers wrote: »

green options to burials, this is just so minute it is completely irrelevant and nonsense. Maybe if we all hand dig graves and are buried naked, that might be great for the environment, never mind farm pollution, engine and industry polluntants, chemicals.

To bring carbon bull into this thread is plain silly.

Well the thread is discussing cremation and its implications. Carbon footprints are very much real. This science isn't in doubt. Reducing environmental impact is very much a concern for a lot people.

Max Powers

robp wrote: »

Well the thread is discussing cremation and its implications. Carbon footprints are very much real. This science isn't in doubt. Reducing environmental impact is very much a concern for a lot people.

the science is very much in doubt. however, what you brought up was the carbon footprint of cremations being an issue, i say its is completely ridiculous to talk about carbon footprint of cremations (chemicals in the body, fillings etc). Its talk like that that has people thinking the environment people are complete wack-jobs. You didnt respond to my points just gave some vague filler. you cited cremations as being environmentally problematic, whats the other option, burial? I already pointed out the so called potential env issues with that. What is the safest environmental body disposal, hand dig your own grave or natural decomposition.

robp

Max Powers wrote: »

the science is very much in doubt. however, what you brought up was the carbon footprint of cremations being an issue, i say its is completely ridiculous to talk about carbon footprint of cremations (chemicals in the body, fillings etc). Its talk like that that has people thinking the environment people are complete wack-jobs. You didnt respond to my points just gave some vague filler. you cited cremations as being environmentally problematic, whats the other option, burial? I already pointed out the so called potential env issues with that. What is the safest environmental body disposal, hand dig your own grave or natural decomposition.

As I said a traditional burial might not be very great but green burial exists and it is becoming more popular. It already exists formally in the SE. It would seem to me to be the least costly environmentally. A cremation fire is not like burning a bag of coal at home. It involves very very high temperatures. Although filings maybe be non toxic in the mouth once they oxidise in a fire they are non necessarily as safe. Crematoriums use filters to stop vaporised mercury fillings polluting the atmosphere.

I have heard of research which questions the pace of current climate change but there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.

Max Powers

robp wrote: »

As I said a traditional burial might not be very great but green burial exists and it is becoming more popular. It already exists formally in the SE. It would seem to me to be the least costly environmentally. A cremation fire is not like burning a bag of coal at home. It involves very very high temperatures. Although filings maybe be non toxic in the mouth once they oxidise in a fire they are non necessarily as safe. Crematoriums use filters to stop vaporised mercury fillings polluting the atmosphere.

I have heard of research which questions the pace of current climate change but there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.

yeah green burials lovely but your concerns with cremations: Pretty sure mercury isnt used anymore, yes there is still some floating around in older fillings but the amount of mercury, think about, so miniscule its ridiculous to say you have env. concerns about cremations. and as you said, filters exist to catch any tiny amounts of chemicals. You started about env. concerns about cremations and i dont think it holds any water whatsoever and you start talking about green burials etc which is not the point you first stated and didnt back up. Spouting off some env. hoodoo and not having anything to back it up is damaging to real env issues. Also, according to your consensus, the temperatures whether 'very very high' are not the big factor, would have thought its the CO2 and i have already pointed out that your figures for cremation CO2 compared with a litre of diesel is irrelevant also.

A quick search on internet/wiki etc says that cremations are becoming the preferable env option.I agree they are maybe not as env friendly as green burials if the green burial hole is dug by hand, no embalming done, buried with biodegradable clothes on and there is no gravestone. it just seems ridiculous in the grand scheme of things.

robp

Max Powers wrote: »

yeah green burials lovely but your concerns with cremations: Pretty sure mercury isnt used anymore, yes there is still some floating around in older fillings but the amount of mercury, think about, so miniscule its ridiculous to say you have env. concerns about cremations. and as you said, filters exist to catch any tiny amounts of chemicals. You started about env. concerns about cremations and i dont think it holds any water whatsoever and you start talking about green burials etc which is not the point you first stated and didnt back up. Spouting off some env. hoodoo and not having anything to back it up is damaging to real env issues. Also, according to your consensus, the temperatures whether 'very very high' are not the big factor, would have thought its the CO2 and i have already pointed out that your figures for cremation CO2 compared with a litre of diesel is irrelevant also.

A quick search on internet/wiki etc says that cremations are becoming the preferable env option.I agree they are maybe not as env friendly as green burials if the green burial hole is dug by hand, no embalming done, buried with biodegradable clothes on and there is no gravestone. it just seems ridiculous in the grand scheme of things.

Mercury is still used! The white fillings you may see around are non mercury but the silvery ones are a mercury alloy. A quick search on the internet will be open to any amount of biases and commercial adds. Some do cremations in beautiful new wooden coffins, imagine the waste! I think in Cork they use cardboard coffins. I think the only reason your defending cremation is that you question anthropogenic climate change. Mortuary ritual is really infused with symbolism and culture. Knowing it is green is a big deal for many people.

Max Powers

robp wrote: »

Mercury is still used! The white fillings you may see around are non mercury but the silvery ones are a mercury alloy. A quick search on the internet will be open to any amount of biases and commercial adds. Some do cremations in beautiful new wooden coffins, imagine the waste! I think in Cork they use cardboard coffins. I think the only reason your defending cremation is that you question anthropogenic climate change. Mortuary ritual is really infused with symbolism and culture. Knowing it is green is a big deal for many people.

no the only reason im defending cremation is because you think that its particularly bad for the environment, that was the original post. You started bringing in various tangents. My contention is that that it is no worse in general and probably better than 99.9% of all other getting rid of dead people methods (unusual language used there i know). Your reasons of mercury in the fillings (the horror!) and burning up bodies CO2 being of any significance at all just dont hold any water especially when compared to the other 99%.

Guramoogah

Conditional planning permission for the crematorium appears to have been granted by Waterford CoCo.

LiamD1977

Great news, IMHO. People wont have to travel to Cork or Dublin.

taytobreath

I live near this, will it be smelly? will there be smoke? I dont understand how these things works. I'll google it.

ex_infantry

taytobreath wrote: »

I live near this, will it be smelly? will there be smoke? I dont understand how these things works. I'll google it.

from bayview meself, it won't be smelly, everything will be filtered and ya won't even notice that its even there!!!

revisionist

In fairness it was always his burning ambition .....booooooooooommmmmmmm

PTH2009

it will be good for tourism for the tramore area eg hotels, restraunts etc

Sully

PTH2009 wrote: »

it will be good for tourism for the tramore area eg hotels, restraunts etc

I can't see it being that much, if any, boost to local tourism. Day trippers.

wellboytoo

Sully wrote: »

I can't see it being that much, if any, boost to local tourism. Day trippers.

But Sully at least one of every group will stay.

Sully

wellboytoo wrote: »

But Sully at least one of every grouo will stay.

I suppose, I didn't consider that.

danjo-xx

Has this idea died a death:D

wish it hadn't.

looksee

Permission was granted in Sept 2014 with 18 conditions, many of which looked as though they would need a good deal of further work. May be that some f these have not been granted.