Talk:Promessa Organic

2012 comments
Susanne Wiigh-Mäsak has been talking to teams all over the world about building a 'Promator' as she calls the machine she has invented, however, there is still no independently verifiable evidence that the process works as described. Any evidence such as photos, video or data would be most welcome. There is a lot of positivity and interest in funeral circles in this technology as it could be an ethical alternative to cremation and normal burial, so evidence is important. John Cossham, York, UK 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Having talked to Wiigh-Mäsak, she is keen for people to not focus on the technology and engineering, which is why she has not published photos and other 'evidence' of the process working. She is hoping that when people think of Promession, they think of nature, trees and beautiful garden-like graveyards. John Cossham, York, UK 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncossham (talk • contribs)

Alternatives to burial and cremation are becoming more topical in England at the moment with the Law Commission potential project in England on "A modern framework for disposing of the dead" having been announced mid-December 2017.

Promession does not appear to have moved on beyond a concept (which is described differently in different sources and at different times) anywhere in the world so far as I can tell from extensive web searches in both English and Swedish. A constant in the description is that the corpse frozen to cryogenic temperatures is easily broken up to a dust. I can see no support for this notion in any published scientific papers nor on popular science and cookery type videos on Youtube which show various things being done to crack up liquid nitrogen frozen pieces of meat, legs of beef, turkeys etc.

It is hard to edit the article in a way acceptable to Wiki as it is difficult to provide links to things which do not exist --- one is just left with saying pretty much what Johncossham above did in 2012 and saying that any hard evidence that this process works as described is not available.

The hardest thing of all to comprehend is how a company, or its successors, keeps going for so long with no sales of the product it states it intends to sell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryeditor99 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines/terminology, but occasionally I see something to the effect of "article appears to be written like an advertisement" or "appears to be written by someone too close to the company/product" etc. I originally came to make a small edit to the sentence "This is indeed one of the most environmentally sound burial method." because if it's "one of" then "method" should be plural ("methods")... however it struck me that this sentence seems to be written by someone with English as a second language, and has aroused my suspicions. I wanted to add a [citation needed] or something similar to at least show a comparison of methods, or at very least something showing the environmental impacts of normal burial methods. I feel, otherwise, that "This is indeed" is superfluous, and "environmentally sound" is neither quantified or corroborated. Clearly if there is complete decomposition to soil and a tree is sustained, it would seem to follow that this is the most negligible "impact on the environment", however, if this is still on land reserved for a burial site, the area isn't exactly returned to nature, and most cemeteries seem to have plenty of trees and grass... unless there's some runoff from normal burials etc, thinking critically, I don't see how this is measurably better or worse than simply burying a body in a casket. The land isn't being reclaimed by nature any more than a normal cemetery? Not that this is a highly trafficked page I'm sure, but just some points I noticed. In any case, I'll make the grammatical change to the aforementioned sentence. Thanks. Enotdetcelfer (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)