RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Guthrie <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 May 2005 08:04:03 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
<<I concur with other thoughts thus far and would provide another --
we're dealing with a couple of very distinct outcomes here -- a
crematorium intends to create an ash "outcome", as it were, for
delivery back to a relative or to a burial / interment location.
Burning paper means you want to completely destroy what is there beyond
any opportunity for reconstruction, but a mass of paper is going to
take a fair amount of energy to completely reduce to ash, with nothing
readable>> Patrick Cunningham, CRM

Interesting thread about burning paper here. At the risk of dating myself
once again, those who experienced the destruction of classified material in
the US military in the pre-1970 era may recall the term "Burn Run". This is
where all of the material from communications facilities and other units
that processed sensitive material was burned in a variety of facilities. At
Camp Pendleton and Marine Corps Air Station El Toro we used incinerator
facilities, and in Okinawa we used a converted crematorium. In Vietnam and
other small units we used 55 gallon drums and metal poles to stir the fire
and removable screens on top to contain the ashes.
In all cases, the amount of time necessary to completely reduce the material
to ash was considerable, as documents that were bound or in piles will only
burn one layer or sheet at a time (hence the need to stir the fire). Even
with the converted facility all the material would take multiple sessions in
the burner area to get even a modest amount of material disposed of,
overall, a very inefficient method of disposal.
The issue of cross contamination of the material and human residue might not
be probable, but the thought is enough so that most people would not want to
be anywhere near the ash, Like Patrick said "And you also have the issue of
how a relative would feel if they knew that the crematorium had a couple
purposes -- so how do they know that they got Uncle Harry back and not "Paid
Invoices, 1988-89?"

John Guthrie CDIA+
Records Manager
City of Oceanside, California
760-435-3024
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2