Severed Limbs

[rightwing401]

I just had this thought a few nights ago while watching day of the dead.
It's generally accepted that the reanimated dead decompose at a much slower rate (if at all) than regular dead bodies. However, I gathered from watching the beginning of day with the skeleton in the city that if the brain is destroyed, the zombie reverts back to a plain old corpse and will decay down to nothing but bones in a relatively short time. So the question that I have here is this.

If a zombie's arm or leg, maybe even the whole body, is severed from the head (brain), will the deconnected flesh beginning decomposing at a regular rate?

My vote is that it will. Sound off, I want to hear what some of you other zombie lovers out there think.

[krakenslayer]

Here's my theory, I've expressed it elsewhere on here too, but I can't find it now so I'll recap:

When a zombie revives, not only the brain but also the cardiovascular system begins to function again. Now the brain doesn't need a healthy blood supply to function, but just as it remembers basic programming such as the ability to walk and breathe (they must breathe since they make sounds), their hindbrain (which controls metabolism) automatically restarts the body's basic metabolic processes, albeit in a much reduced, inefficient capacity. This would explain several things: why zombies bleed profusely when shot, why they don't decay past a certain point, why they still have red blood, etc.

So according to my theory, if a zombie is shot in the heart or has its cardiovascular system severely compromised (e.g. by massive injury), it will continue to function in terms of walking around trying to eat people, but its body will begin to decay at a rate much faster rate (more like a regular corpse), so within a few months it will have decayed to the point that it can no longer move around. This explains why there are some zombies that have rotted away almost to nothing in Day and Land, and also means that severed limbs, disconnected from the blood supply, will rot normally too.

Of course, this is just a hypothesis, so feel free do discuss/tear it apart. :lol:

[Debbieangel]

ok, what about the recently deceased that have been embalmed? In any zombie movie I haven't seen anyone say those that have been embalmed didn't come back so, how would blood flow through veins that have been drained out by an embalmer and replaced by embalming fluid(flormadehyde)?

[krakenslayer]

ok, what about the recently deceased that have been embalmed? In any zombie movie I haven't seen anyone say those that have been embalmed didn't come back so, how would blood flow through veins that have been drained out by an embalmer and replaced by embalming fluid(flormadehyde)?

Good question.

I guess it wouldn't. Then again I'm not sure what effect embalming fluid would have in contact with the human brain. Likely it would interfere with electrical states in the brain, thus disabling the corpse. So it might be a moot point.

[Debbieangel]

Good question.

I guess it wouldn't. Then again I'm not sure what effect embalming fluid would have in contact with the human brain. Likely it would interfere with electrical states in the brain, thus disabling the corpse. So it might be a moot point.

Ok, but in Night '90 the corpse that escaped from his coffin visibly had had an autopsy performed on him and was embalmed. By law everyone has to be embalmed so the corpses that rose in Night '90 a lot of them had to have been embalmed. I am just saying.
I am also thinking of Barbara's mother she rose too. So, I am assuming just because the people were embalmed it didnt matter, they still got up and went for a bite to eat. So to speak! lol
I am thinking the basic feral instincts apply here...the need to feed!

[MaximusIncredulous]

If a corpse has been autopsied, wouldn't the brain have been removed for analysis?

[Yojimbo]

Ok, but in Night '90 the corpse that escaped from his coffin visibly had had an autopsy performed on him and was embalmed. By law everyone has to be embalmed so the corpses that rose in Night '90 a lot of them had to have been embalmed.


Perhaps the laws are different in your state, but I know that (at least in California) embalming is not a legal requirement, and is totally elective. Without embalming, human remains must be kept in a refrigerated unit untl burial or cremation, and because of the daily fees associated with this refrigeration (typically 125-150 per day) this often ends up being more costly than embalming (which is a flat fee of 200 to 225) which is why most families choose embalming (since the process of obtaining a permit allowing for cremation or a legal burial can take an average of three to five business days)

There are some religious and philosophical beliefs which prohibit embalming, and I think that any law requiring embalming would infringe on those constitutionally protected beliefs, so there would have to be exceptions to that rule if in fact embalming was considered compulsory.

It is possible that the autopsy zombie from NIGHT 90 might have been an unemblamed but cosmetized subject, though I think it more likely that he had been embalmed since that tends to be the most common thing to do in a case where there was going to be a viewing (and why would they cosmetize someone that was not going to be viewed)


If a corpse has been autopsied, wouldn't the brain have been removed for analysis?
In most circumstances this would be the case, but not always is the brain removed from the body. Additionally, we are assuming that because of the y incision that the dude had been autopsied, but he could have been a person who died in a hospital (from, say a heart attack) which would obviate the need for a coroner's inquest. The Y incision could have occured during surgery (removal of a mass in the chest, or open heart surgery, for example) or could have happened post mortem, such as in the case of an organ donor. That said, however, I think that Savini meant for this dude to have been an autopsied corpse, so maybe he was one that simply did not have the brain removed. Good spot, though! This had never occured to me and is a very good point.

[Debbieangel]

Perhaps the laws are different in your state, but I know that (at least in California) embalming is not a legal requirement, and is totally elective. Without embalming, human remains must be kept in a refrigerated unit untl burial or cremation, and because of the daily fees associated with this refrigeration (typically 125-150 per day) this often ends up being more costly than embalming (which is a flat fee of 200 to 225) which is why most families choose embalming (since the process of obtaining a permit allowing for cremation or a legal burial can take an average of three to five business days)

There are some religious and philosophical beliefs which prohibit embalming, and I think that any law requiring embalming would infringe on those constitutionally protected beliefs, so there would have to be exceptions to that rule if in fact embalming was considered compulsory.

It is possible that the autopsy zombie from NIGHT 90 might have been an unemblamed but cosmetized subject, though I think it more likely that he had been embalmed since that tends to be the most common thing to do in a case where there was going to be a viewing (and why would they cosmetize someone that was not going to be viewed)


In most circumstances this would be the case, but not always is the brain removed from the body. Additionally, we are assuming that because of the y incision that the dude had been autopsied, but he could have been a person who died in a hospital (from, say a heart attack) which would obviate the need for a coroner's inquest. The Y incision could have occured during surgery (removal of a mass in the chest, or open heart surgery, for example) or could have happened post mortem, such as in the case of an organ donor. That said, however, I think that Savini meant for this dude to have been an autopsied corpse, so maybe he was one that simply did not have the brain removed. Good spot, though! This had never occured to me and is a very good point.

Good point, not all are autopsied that have that Y incision tis true in some cases the viseral(guts) are removed then put back in the body for burial after embalming. So that would account for some of the Y incisions in some bodies.I am not sure how all embalmers do it.
Thank you on the correction on the laws about embalming and I looked it up and you are right it isnt the law that a body be embalmed, I was told wrong. I will look these things up for myself from now on.lol
But, what I found out is most funeral homes do traditionally embalm the bodies.

[krakenslayer]

By law everyone has to be embalmed

REALLY!?!? :eek: Why?

Here in the UK, almost no one is ever embalmed. Honestly, I met a funeral director in the pub once and he just laughed at me when I asked him about embalming. :)

[Yojimbo]

REALLY!?!? :eek: Why?

Here in the UK, almost no one is ever embalmed. Honestly, I met a funeral director in the pub once and he just laughed at me when I asked him about embalming. :)

My guess is that the regulations governing burial in the UK are less restrictive than those in the US, and California in particular. In California, for example, there are so many hoops that we have to jump through in order to gain a permit that allows for cremation and burial. The paperwork here in California is very heavy - probably because we have more lawyers per capita and the industry is very liability concious. I know that other states in the US are less restricive - Hawaii, for example, has a process which does not take as long as California. So in my home state a funeral director would recommend embalming to a family because typically it is less costly than refrigeration fees (refrigeration being a legal requirement if remains are not embalmed)

I know that in Japan, it is not uncommon for a person to be able to get a permit for cremation on the same day that they passed away. So, the remains are cremated or buried within 24 hours. In California, this process of gaining a permit for cremation or burial - with some procedural exceptions - takes 3 to 5 business days and even this time frame hinges on the cooperation of a physician who is a intergral part of the process. Should the physician for any reason no be able or willing to sign within the three to 5 day process, it can in some circumstances take even longer, or require involving the coroner's office which can then add a day or so to the process.

But to sum up, embalming is neither necessary nor is it required by law. Many people may choose to embalm all the same as they are under the incorrect belief that embalming will preserve their loved one's remains forever - which some unethical funeral directors might lead them to believe so that they can increase their revenue. Your funeral director friend in the UK is right to laugh about embalming if the process there is streamlined enough to allow for a disposition in a timely fashion, however there are still some legitimate reasons why someone would choose embalming- to stem off decomposition to allow for relatives to make travel arrangements, to stabilize the remains for transport to another location, or in some cases in order to allow for extensive reconstruction to make the remains presentable to the loved ones for an open casket service or a viewing.

[krakenslayer]

My guess is that the regulations governing burial in the UK are less restrictive than those in the US, and California in particular. In California, for example, there are so many hoops that we have to jump through in order to gain a permit that allows for cremation and burial. The paperwork here in California is very heavy - probably because we have more lawyers per capita and the industry is very liability concious. I know that other states in the US are less restricive - Hawaii, for example, has a process which does not take as long as California. So in my home state a funeral director would recommend embalming to a family because typically it is less costly than refrigeration fees (refrigeration being a legal requirement if remains are not embalmed)

I know that in Japan, it is not uncommon for a person to be able to get a permit for cremation on the same day that they passed away. So, the remains are cremated or buried within 24 hours. In California, this process of gaining a permit for cremation or burial - with some procedural exceptions - takes 3 to 5 business days and even this time frame hinges on the cooperation of a physician who is a intergral part of the process. Should the physician for any reason no be able or willing to sign within the three to 5 day process, it can in some circumstances take even longer, or require involving the coroner's office which can then add a day or so to the process.

But to sum up, embalming is neither necessary nor is it required by law. Many people may choose to embalm all the same as they are under the incorrect belief that embalming will preserve their loved one's remains forever - which some unethical funeral directors might lead them to believe so that they can increase their revenue. Your funeral director friend in the UK is right to laugh about embalming if the process there is streamlined enough to allow for a disposition in a timely fashion, however there are still some legitimate reasons why someone would choose embalming- to stem off decomposition to allow for relatives to make travel arrangements, to stabilize the remains for transport to another location, or in some cases in order to allow for extensive reconstruction to make the remains presentable to the loved ones for an open casket service or a viewing.

Yeah, it's normally three-five days here too, but I think I've identified two reasons elsewhere in your post: 1) You never get open-casket funerals in the UK, ever (I guess there's just a lot less ostentation and ceremony involved in the grieving process over here) and 2) Our climate is a lot cooler than California anyway, so the bodies are less likely to decompose than they are over there.

[Debbieangel]

I corrected myself about the embalming kraken, years ago I was told it was the law that bodies had to be embalmed and I was mistaken and jimbo corrected me. So, I looked it up online and it isnt the law that a body HAS to be embalmed.
Here in the USI think its done so the bodies last longer without decomposing so fast. Years ago viewing I remember used to be more than 3 days,I cant remember exactly how long if memory serves me I can remember bodies being viewed 5 days. A very long sad time for grieving loved ones. Then they shortened to 3 days and now people are going with 1 night and day viewing. That is probably why embalming was used most of the time.
I can remember after 3 days you could see decomposition starting even under all the makeup, due I am sure of some bodies decompising faster than others.