Ten Reasons to Throw Your Microwave Out

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Marg: Man-made products carry a certain risk, yes. But rather than throw it all out, I say just take it in moderation. Take everything in moderation and it'll all be okay. People just have a tendency to go to the extreme.

That is exactly my point when I made the comment, we are humans and as humans we all fall for the same in moderation theme, but do we really?

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:29 AM
Sure, this article is from another "alternative" source but the outcome seems the same. Not good for you! They talk about the technical aspects, as well as a couple of case studies in the aforementioned article.

I don't get it, aside from laziness, that people will not resist using that box!? When something becomes a way of life, a habit, people seem to get so routine about their lives, to not question alternatives! To each their own, I guess. . . .

[edit on 15-10-2007 by anhinga]

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by anhinga

Not laziness. Convenience. I only use it to reheat food that's been kept in the fridge. I'll cook on the stove in a clay pot. The microwave just can't make curry mee. And I mean REAL curry mee, not the fake ramen instant noodle junk from the supermarket.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by anhinga

I will say that you made Good point at that, we as human beings forget sometimes how vulnerable our delicate system is, our bodies are resilient but not when we abuse them with all kind of crap that is easily available to us in the name of convenience.

When we use the word in moderation we tend to take it as per personal habit or choice interpretation.

Nothing man made was mean to become a habit, but it has and we abuse it.

Do I am a microwave abuser or addict? no, because I don't even like the way food taste after been nuked in it, the same way that I do not like frozen microwaved meals or ready meals.

So do I have to worry about the microwave I got? yes I do whenever I stand in from of it warming my milk for my old fashioned made coffee.

I always wonder how much radiation I am actually getting while standing in from of it.

But I am told is safe right? Like I say before how safe, safe really means when it comes to profits and sells, right?

I don't think the microwave industry or related items will want to sell an item that is not safe for human consumption.

But as everything in this life everybody lies, right?

So I guess when I come down with some symptom that I never heard before I will have to chose from which modern convenience I got it from.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by anhinga
That's something not really worth arguing. . . .

No, because the next thing I'll bring up is that correlation is not causation, and that there are too many other factors to even correlate it properly.

Also, I'll have to disagree w/ you - "heat is heat"?? I won't accept or ever agree w/ that statement -- this seems a little different then fire heating:

Sorry - heat is heat. Let's look at what you posted, although I don't know if I'll have time to hit it all before we hit the lunch trail here. If not, I'll come back this evening and make another pass at it.

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic energy, like light waves or radio waves, and occupy a part of the electromagnetic spectrum of power, or energy. Microwaves are very short waves of electromagnetic energy that travel at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second). In our modern technological age, microwaves are used to relay long distance telephone signals, television programs, and computer information across the earth or to a satellite in space. But the microwave is most familiar to us as an energy source for cooking food.

Every microwave oven contains a magnetron, a tube in which electrons are affected by magnetic and electric fields in such a way as to produce micro wavelength radiation at about 2450 Mega Hertz (MHz) or 2.45 Giga Hertz (GHz). This microwave radiation interacts with the molecules in food. All wave energy changes polarity from positive to negative with each cycle of the wave. In microwaves, these polarity changes happen millions of times every second. Food molecules - especially the molecules of water - have a positive and negative end in the same way a magnet has a north and a south polarity.

Ok. This is all "bees smell fear" stuff. None of it's particularly germane - it's a technical sounding description of the process, albeit not particularly enlightening or entirely accurate. This is the part of the con job that's supposed to convince you that the author knows what he/she is talking about. From an engineering pov, it's the sort of thing a bright grade schooler could write, though.

Scientific evidence and facts

In Comparative Study of Food Prepared Conventionally and in the Microwave Oven, published by Raum & Zelt in 1992, at 3(2): 43, it states...

Ok - first off, this has apparently been misquoted forever. "Raum und Zeit" (not '& Zelt') is an "alternative science" magazine, sort of like "Infinite Energy" but with pretentions of accuracy. It has a lot of articles on things like "Climate Killer Cows" (this month's lead article) and their mission statement, if my horribly rusty German is still trustworthy, is something like "We document the actions of the ruthless (cruel?) corporations who profit at the expense of both man and nature, and expose the actions of the politicians who [count on public misunderstanding of] key technologies and science"

They're not exactly "Annalen der Physik."

It's not peer-reviewed, it's not a scientific publication. It's like Popular Science meets Weekly World News as interpreted by Greenpeace, you get them at the magazine rack in the train station along with Stern. So the fact that the author of your external is quoting them (this is an old old cut and paste that everyone passes around) as if they were a scientific reference is a big laugh right off the bat.

See, I bet you didn't bother to check. That's not a knock on you personally, but a lot of people see this sort of quote and assume it's a legitimate source of information. Hell, no one's ever even gotten the magazine title right as far as I could find.

"A basic hypothesis of natural medicine states that the introduction into the human body of molecules and energies, to which it is not accustomed, is much more likely to cause harm than good.

Ok. Right off the bat, you'll notice the warning sign: "natural medicine". You won't see that in a scientific publication. This tells you where the author is coming from. It's going to be all homeopathy and roots, with not much in the science department.

You'll note they don't say what sort of energy. They actually got it almost right in the first part which probably means they stole it from wikipedia or something. Microwaves are electromagnetic energy like light. It doesn't "get in the food" and hang around. So "energies to which it is not accustomed" is bogus right off the bat. What energies? It's nothing but heat at that point. Oh, and I hate to tell you this - when you hold your hand up near the food and feel the warmth? GASP that's electromagnetic waves!!11! Only they're primarily in the IR band.

YOU emit these evil waves all the time. And worse, you also emit low levels of microwaves - it's how microwave radiometers measure temperature.

So, there being no residual energy from the microwave oven, again, what different energies is the author talking about? There's nothing there but heat. It shows you they don't know crap about the subject, sadly, but from R&Z you'd expect this sort of slop.

Next - what molecules? I assume they'll explain that at some point.

Microwaved food contains both molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire.

A restatement of the last sentence. And it's still crap for the same reasons.

Microwave energy from the sun and other stars is direct current based. Artificially produced microwaves, including those in ovens, are produced from alternating current and force a billion or more polarity reversals per second in every food molecule they hit. Production of unnatural molecules is inevitable.

Ok, now this is just amazing. I wish I could lend you some understanding of radio theory and physics like on Matrix so you could see how stupid this sounds. A microwave is a radio wave. Period. You can't tell how it was made.

It's a bone stock radio wave, with the usual E and H fields oscillating at right angles to each other.

Now - this paragraph tries to tell you that "natural microwave energy", whatever THAT might be - is DC. WHAT? This is pure crap. The "microwavyness" of it IS that it has a certain wavelength/frequency. If it's DC, it's not a radio wave, and it's surely not a microwave.

I can't even come up with a good analogy of how amazingly wrong this paragraph is, so I'll just say - There is no such thing as a DC microwave. The two words are contradictions. Seeing the guy try to say there are DC microwaves and AC microwaves, you should walk away laughing.

The rest of the statement is just as inaccurate. What happens is that water molecules (not "every food molecule" ...and what's a food molecule btw?) have a quantum spin coupling at 2.45GHz. That means that they're both polar, and have a quantum of momentum that absorbs the radio waves at that wavelength with a fair amount of efficiency, causing them to rotate. And that's it. If you don't have a polar molecule, and if it's not got a mechanical quantum coupling of some sort in that frequency range, then the only heating you'll get from the microwave is by Maxwellian dissipation losses.

Other "food molecules", in other words, are pretty much transparent to the microwaves in your oven, although they may be heated by the Maxwellian losses that will happen if the food's conductive due to having salt or some other electrolyte in it.

And if you remember your grade school science, motion is heat. The energy that the water molecules absorb is transferred to the other molecules in the food by various mechanisms, probably most of it by elastic collision.

This "polarity reversal" stuff is meant to sound eerie and demented. It's also wrong, like the final sentence "production of unnatural molecules is inevitable". What's an "unnatural molecule"? If it exists in nature, it's natural.
But at any rate, the only molecules are the ones there to begin with, plus the ones that are altered normally by heat of that temperature range. But you'd get that same set of changes with ANY heat source.

I'm off to lunch. I'll slice the rest of this into julienne strips this evening.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:04 PM
As far as I'm concerned microwaves are unreliable and useless. The only good thing microwaves are good for is heating the package meals up and there full of salt and all other sorts of things which me make me wince. I use my Microwave also sometimes to reheat stew, curry and Jacket potatoes. They really are horrible things and illustrates however far technology progresses the orignial method will always be the cheapest and healthiest.

Long live the housewife

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by paul76

MMM Bonfire night is my fave for jacket potatoes.
There's nothing like the taste of roasties done in the embers with a hint of gunpowder seasoning.

You just can't get that taste with a micro.

I tend to use them for beans/soups when the proper cookers rings are in use.
Makes fluffy scrambled eggs tho..

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:10 PM
Agreed on those points. Although, you could use the stovetop to re-heat said items just as easy and it won't change the molecular structure of your food!

Sorry to disagree w/ you Mr Bedlam, I see you know all the technical aspects of the microwave (what's your forte? Engineering, I assume), I just can't hang w/ them and refuse to try "nuking" food.... I grew up in a "raw foods" environment and like it that way, I've been around holistic doctors who swear against them and the few articles I provided are enough info personally.

Any web search of this topic will have the same, heated, two-sided debate. So, IMO, agree to disagree and the case remains open. . . .

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by AGENT_T

Yes I agree we used to wrap potatoes up in foil when we were kids and put them under the embers of a dieing fire, there is no better taste. I always get envious when I see films set in medieval England and they're having a massive feast and you see the pig going around and around on the spit with a apple his it's mouth and you got big hairy men ripping massive pieces of meat and gouging there faces like the poor pig was the day before. Todays comparison is pretty poor I think.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by anhinga

Agreed on those points. Although, you could use the stovetop to re-heat said items just as easy and it won't change the molecular structure of your food!

Let's see. Stove top takes about 15 minutes of burning natural gas to reheat my pot of curry mee straight from the fridge, plus I've got to sit there and stir it so that the tofu balls don't get burnt when it inevitably drops to the bottom.

Microwave takes 3 minutes. Probably doesn't use as much energy, too.

As for changing molecular structures... Tom Bedlam has explained it well enough, but here's my simplified version -- it's not much different to the stove. The stove (especially if you're using one of the new fancy flameless technologies) sends out energy rays in the form of infra-red while the microwave does so in a more compact, compressed format called microwaves (hence the name). Extra energy vibrates the water molecules more and causes heat in both systems.

If you really want to bring awareness to the potential dangers of reheating food in the microwave, look up plastic leaching and microwaves. I've a feeling there'll be something out there.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by paul76

I've still got a fixation for trying wild boar done in the same way after reading all the Asterix the Gaul books

MMMMMM Wild boar on a spit. arrgghhhh

Hey you can use your microwave to supply an indoor fireworks show too. just fill it with tin foil.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by AGENT_T

I once put a steak N kidney pie into the Microwave and it was still in it's foil case I was amazed when I returned to find that parts of the foil and actually combusted and just vanished. That didn't deter me from eating my lovely Pukka pie and as I took a bite out of the pie I recoiled in disgust, the pie tasted like the melted foil, it was disgusting. I've also got a lean machine non fat frying machine and I'm not to impressed with that either. If George wasn't so big and bad I might just ask him for a refund!!

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by paul76
I've also got a lean machine non fat frying machine and I'm not to impressed with that either. If George wasn't so big and bad I might just ask him for a refund!!

I love how they get fat guys to promote diet gizmos

Seriously. They don't compare to microwaves though.Mine's probably the most used kitchen gadget I,ve bought.
Sometimes I have to go work at 15-20 minutes notice and I can still make time to prepare steak,mushrooms,tomatoes and peppers in 10 minutes flat..Fairly fat reduced and ever so yummy

Just leave it to pre heat before slapping your bacon or steak on

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by AGENT_T

Ha that's what it probably is, My food has been pretty tasteless. I think we've hijacked the thread with our food fetishes! I'm hungry it's teatime all this talk of steak n pies has my stomach grumbling.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by Tom Bedlam

I'm glad you're breaking out the heavy artillery in defense of the Microwave ovens... I agree that heat is heat all of that but after 115 degrees fahrenheit all foods lose a majority of nutrients. Losing more nutrients exponentially in correlation with temperature increase.

The reason we use microwave isn't to "cook" the food but to reheat pre-cooked food. The microwave may not be a "dangerous" or anything of the sort but the focus should be on the quality of food you're consuming if you have a tendency to eat food that is prepared in the mircrowave. Your argument for why the microwave is pretty much bulletproof given the sources but that doesn't matter in terms of the majority of food that you would re-heat with the microwave. The focal point of the argument on both sides so far is a little off base.

The way they prepare the food is the same way we all do. We steam vegetables and fry or broil our meat. They are then frozen, creating more stress on any living nutrients and anti-oxidents. They are packaged in plastics and kept frozen until they hit the store. You then take them home and microwave them hot and serve. Although the heat is created with radio waves, they still heat to a certain temperature further eliminating any nutritional value it may have had.

The foods we eat out of the microwave aren't dangerous and I personally don't agree with them causing cancerous mutations in our bodies or the food itself but the quality of food used by "cooking" it in a microwave makes for a poor argument for why you would even eat it. It may be perfectly safe but why would you eat something if it wasn't giving you any nutritional value what so ever? The reason microwaved foods are deemed dangerous because we gorge ourselves on empty foods providing little health value with the disadvantage of absorbing all of its caloric properties. Thus contributing to the obesity epidemic that's so popular in the media.

You all are acting like you get 10 ingredients, throw them in the mircrowave and create a meal. There's a huge grey area of the discussion we haven't gone over yet..

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:36 PM
For the record, the following is a description of how microwave ovens actually do their magic:

When the magnetron is switched on, the nuclear particles (protons and neutrons) in the molecules of yer food absorb the microwave energy. This causes the nuclear particles to “jump” up to higher energy levels.

In nature, “stuff” always try’s to move to their lowest energy state, so…

…when the magnetron switches off, the nuclear particles that are at higher energy levels start to collapse to lower energy states.

However, and this is the magic part, when they collapse to lower energy states, they re-radiate the absorbed energy at a different frequency than what it was when it was absorbed. Turns out the frequency it re-radiates at is infrared. The re-radiated infrared energy is what cooks the food.

And, as a side note, microwave energy only penetrates food to a depth of about ¼ to ½ an inch. This is why you need to stir yer food that’s being cooked.

Also, after the magnetron is turned off the last time, it can take a few minutes for the majority of the nuclear particles to collapse, releasing its infrared energy. This is why it’s wise to let “nuked” food sit a few before eating it.

Actually, you should wrap yer food in aluminum foil for about 10 minutes after you take it out of your microwave oven. This reflects the infrared energy back into the food as its being reradiated. Might as well use that infrared energy while it’s oozing from yer food.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:49 PM
I believe microwaves are unhealthy, but not to the point where I have stopped using them. Obviously they violently alter the food inside of them, but isn't that sort of the point?

Microwaves use radio waves, which are not cancer causing.

A microwave oven uses microwaves to heat food. Microwaves are radio waves. In the case of microwave ovens, the commonly used radio wave frequency is roughly 2,500 megahertz (2.5 gigahertz). Radio waves in this frequency range have an interesting property: they are absorbed by water, fats and sugars. When they are absorbed they are converted directly into atomic motion -- heat. Microwaves in this frequency range have another interesting property: they are not absorbed by most plastics, glass or ceramics. Metal reflects microwaves, which is why metal pans do not work well in a microwave oven.

In microwave cooking, the radio waves penetrate the food and excite water and fat molecules pretty much evenly throughout the food. No heat has to migrate toward the interior by conduction. There is heat everywhere all at once because the molecules are all excited together. There are limits, of course. Radio waves penetrate unevenly in thick pieces of food (they don't make it all the way to the middle), and there are also "hot spots" caused by wave interference, but you get the idea. The whole heating process is different because you are "exciting atoms" rather than "conducting heat."

In a microwave oven, the air in the oven is at room temperture, so there is no way to form a crust. That is why microwavable pastries sometimes come with a little sleeve made out of foil and cardboard. You put the food in the sleeve and then microwave it. The sleeve reacts to microwave energy by becoming very hot. This exterior heat lets the crust become crispy as it would in a conventional oven.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by anhinga

as one of the three hundred million Healthy (I'll go as far as to say SKINNY) Americans; allow me to give you a piece of advice... Calling the people who disagree with you fat and ignorant is not a good path to begin a valid discussion of anything.

Let me suggest that you come back with something a little more validating than 'well if my info's not good enough you MUST be one of the FAT unhealthy ones'
Especially since I AM a skinny little man. with a skinny little family. and we eat all the processed b.s. that is available to us (and a little healthy from time to time)

anywho... I am in agreement with the other posters... while your goal is a good one, your arguments against microwaves are based off of easily refutable un-backed sources.

Once again I will state. Don't take offense and go on the offensive. Find reasonable sources before you post on ATS. Then Argue your case.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:16 PM
Here's a thought - Who CARES?

News flash: We're all going to die at some point.

I mean, what doesn't have the possibility of being contaminated or dangerous? Imagine the possibilities for a second:

The gas in your gas oven

The electrical heat of your electrical oven

Microwave heat

Wi-Fi signals

Cell phone signals

Satellite dish signals



DVD/CD reading lasers

Fluoridated water

Fluoridated tooth paste

Hand soaps

Dish soaps

Wall paint

Car paint

Car exhaust

Gasoline smells




All non-natural foods and beverages

And on and on and on..

Hell, what about eye cancer causing light bulbs?

Come on people. Face it. Just about EVERYTHING has the potential of being contaminated.

I'm not saying everything above IS contaminated or dangerous - I'm merely making the point that all of that is possible.

You people complaining about this stuff, what are you doing to stop it? Are you going to buy a farm, grow your own food, have no electronics, and cook on an open flame?

Better look out for what pesticides you use to keep the bugs off your crops.

It's all around. There's no escaping it unless you go out and kick it with the trees in some remote forest area of northern Canada or something, and hunt for your food, build your own shelter, and produce your own medicines.

I know, there are bad people with bad intentions in places of power and money that alter our products to dangerous levels that end up making us sick, only to put us in a hospital where we get altered medications to make us more sick. I know that's how it is, but WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO STOP IT?

You need to ask yourself that. I bet you aren't going to start riding your bike to work. I bet you aren't going to throw out your TV and computer. I bet you won't stop occasionally dropping by McDonalds. I bet you won't cook your meals on an open flame. All you'll do is complain on internet forums, gathering Wi-Fi radio signals in your head while you're doing it.

You live once. My approach to life is to do what I want, eat what I want, drink what I want, buy what I want, and go where I want, and what ever happens happens. Between crime, disease, war, poverty, starvation, slavery. torture, and greed, what are the odds that you won't be affected in some way by some one with more power and money than you, even if you take all the precautions?

Be skeptical. Be cautious. But don't bitch and moan about things you're not willing to change.

[edit on 10/15/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

We apologize for being concerned for ourselves, those around us, and the environment. Now that you say this, I just might give into everything that isn't right because you know? F# it. Genius.

Let's live in such a way that we throw caution to the wind and let the next generation clean up our party of a time just 20 years earlier. "Sorry, but we were carefree." Look at the energy crisis we have going on right now because of the same "Moderation? What's that? Oh, foowee!"

The questions shouldn't be "WHO CARES?" But "WHY DON'T WE CARE?"
We have a lot of lives on the line and our actions right this very moment will reflect that for years to come. We are passing on further responsibility to generations who'll have to face an ever increasing uphill battle because of our apathetic outlook on life. You think the welfare of future generations is a joke? Because I don't.

I want my brothers kids to go outside without a "hazardous air" warning. I want to see those kids grow up in an environment where they're not concerned with rapid temperature increases, and wars fought over natural resources. If you keep your gluttonous lifestyle, you'll regret it. You'll look back when it's too late and say "what could I have done to make their lives better?" And get this straight! Eating properly and making environmentally friendly choices will ensure a better future for those who follow.

Seriously. This isn't something you can just "wing." This is life, death and stress to future generations.

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in