Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Danger of Microwave Ovens

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well said. Yet again.

Honestly, anyone with a little ability to think analytically should have some serious doubts about some of that info. It is, however, completely true that microwaves heat by making the molecules vibrate faster. In fact, that's what heating is! I would argue that less nutrients are degraded as microwaves tend to have less temperature extremes than other cooking methods (think burning hot frypan).

I know this isn't exactly a rock solid source but a Google search immediately brought up this.
wiki.answers.com...

Denying ignorance is supposed to be about thinking for yourself and not blindly following the word of another. Instead we won't even spend 5 min to do some quick checks of our own?
edit on 11-2-2012 by OZtracized because: Move changed to vibrate




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


what say you to the WHO warning against cellphones, and links with cancer?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by OZtracized
 


what say you to the WHO warning against cellphones, and links with cancer?


a recent IEEE article answers it quite nicely.

IARC operates under a very clearly defined and rigid set of rules, based mostly on epidemiology data. These are statistical studies of human health, as related to some kind of exposure. At this point, there are dozens of epidemiology studies. The most famous ones are those of the Interphone series, mostly conducted in Europe. And these studies generally are negative. In fact, they're quite solidly negative except that some exposure conditions — namely people who use cellphones for more than ten years — seem to suggest a barely detectable increase in the likelihood of a couple rare kinds of tumor: gliomas (a malignant tumor) and acoustic neuromas (a benign tumor). IARC made their decision mostly on this basis. They don't look at the basic biophysics, and they look at animal studies, but only in a secondary way. And again, they didn't say that these fields do cause cancer, they say that the epidemiology is suggestive that something might be there, but the evidence falls short of actually demonstrating that fields do cause cancer. This is very different, say, from smoking and lung caner, where the epidemiology is extremely strong, and the animal studies are extremely strong.


IEEE article



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


so your denying one source, that scientific, AND WITH MANY STUDIES BEHIND IT with a viewpoint. An article by an amateur, based on his views. AN OPINION PIECE????? IS that the BEST YOU CAN DO?
That seriously WEAK.
DENY IT SCIENTIFICALLY.
TAKE APART THE STUDIES!
kudos.
besides go into ANY serious medical college or SPORTS Program, preferably medicinal, and everyone already know cellphones are harmful.
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


I will give you 1 thing. Evidence is somewhat inclusive.
My guess is that some people based on genetics or whatever are more suspectible to cancer or other illness from radiation.
So I think the subject should be studied further to close on in at risk subjects.
But to say it is totally without risk is silly imo.
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


besides go into ANY serious medical college or SPORTS Program, preferably medicinal, and everyone already know cellphones are harmful.
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




would you care to enlighten me on that? I wasn't aware of that fact.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
You will never take my hot pockets away.....




I do remember when I was young microwaving tin foil, and just staring in Awe as my microwave produced electricity


I never microwave plastics! I think that a true cause for concern... because some plastic do cause cancer!



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


jif you can't go to a college or medical school to check up on this info, read tim ferris.
he is a writter (4 hour body, 4 hour workweek)....this may seem like flimsy evidence, but just read it.
he is in fact very scientific.
but i also spend time in medical circles, and it is pretty common knowledge.
or i will reframe that....
as mentioned above, the mechanisms are unclear, but it for sure has some side effects, especially with fertility. it is pretty common to recommend removal of cellphone, and viola sperm count goes dramatically up. this is not proof fro cancer off course, but observational (very strong observational proof) that it is not a clear cut case.
I found a link to a video: www.dailymotion.com...
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


jif you can't go to a college or medical school to check up on this info, read tim ferris.
he is a writter (4 hour body, 4 hour workweek)....this may seem like flimsy evidence, but just read it.
he is in fact very scientific.
but i also spend time in medical circles, and it is pretty common knowledge.
or i will reframe that....
as mentioned above, the mechanisms are unclear, but it for sure has some side effects, especially with fertility. it is pretty common to recommend removal of cellphone, and viola sperm count goes dramatically up. this is not proof fro cancer off course, but observational (very strong observational proof) that it is not a clear cut case.
I found a link to a video: www.dailymotion.com...
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


ahhh, ok. Now I just wonder why EVERY doctor uses a cell phone, even in theatre



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


that a good question thats why i said go to medical school, or sports medicine, where they have all the up to date info.
i would presume those doctors keep up to date with the latest techniques, not research.

anyway, I was too harsh on you.
there is plenty of evidence either way, that cellphones cause cancer (you can find many studies on this), but also the opposite. it is inconclusive.
either way, my only input is that this should be studied further.
and if you have the opportunity put your cellphone is shielding case, very cheap and don't sleep next to it.
its an easy precaution to take.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


put it in a shielding case? That is the worst addvice you can give. Cell phones uses an adaptive power control, that means, the better the signal link between it and the base station, the lower is its power output. If you start shielding your cellphone, you are just telling your cellphone to put more power out.

All you need to do with cell-phones and microwave ovens is to use just a bit of common sense. I look at wonder with people walking with their cell-phones glued to their ears, and must spend at least half the day talking on their cell-phones. Just limit your cell-phone usage. If you work with high-power RF systems, you learn to limit your exposure time, the same as when you work with x-rays or radio-activity, but there is no reason to become totally paranoid about it.

The effect of RF on the human body has been fairly well studied, but it was limited studies. Now billions of people are exposed to RF fields from their cell-phones, and some people, instead of limiting their exposure, as logic would indicate, seem to spend like 20 hours a day glued to their cell-phones.


This article gives the international guidelines for RF exposure.
ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME‐VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 300 GHZ)
edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: added the ICNIRP guidelines for exposure to RF



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 

one thing i want to add.
when i reviewed this stuff, you have to know one thing.
all those studies saying no link between cell phones and cancer are large scale observational studies.
all those studies establishing links, are test animals actually subjected to radiation levels.
i think you can see that the 2 type of studies are not on the same level as it where.


and yes, common sense will also do, i don't keep my cellphone eon me, or sleep next to it, so i don't have a shield, which is why i am not fully in the know as it were, so thanks!
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Russia does allow microwave ovens. They were banned in Russia in 1976. But in 1986, Gorbachev’s program of economic and political restructuring overturned that ban. They are not very common however.

www.naturalnews.com...



Early warnings against microwaving mostly involved warming baby`s formula or stored mother`s breast milk. In 1992,Stanford research discovered that microwaving formula at low heat destroyed most of the nutrients. Furthermore, the researchers were shocked to find that over 90% of the disease protecting agents in mother`s breast milk were eliminated by microwave warming.

Russia`s Research

From 1957, Russia had conducted testing on radar microwave emissions and microwave oven cooking. The scientific conclusions resulted in emission restrictions for radar workers and a ban on microwave ovens in 1976.


cleanlivingclinic.wordpress.com...

This site has a lot of information on the negative uses of microwaving. IMO, best use your microwave as a place to grow organic mung bean and alfalfa sprouts.





•“Microwave cooking alters food enough to cause upon ingestion, structural, functional and immunological changes in the body.” “Microwaves transform the amino acid L-proline into D-proline, a proven toxin to the nervous system, liver and kidneys.” (The Lancet 1989)
•November 2003 – The Journal of Science and Food and Agriculture found that broccoli “zapped” lost up to 97% of the beneficial antioxidant chemicals it contains. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11% or less of it’s antioxidants.
•1992 “Comparative Study of Food Prepared Conventionally and in the Microwave Oven” Raum and Zelt – “Microwaved food contains molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire.” “Naturally occurring amino acids have been observed to undergo isomeric changes as well as transformation into toxic forms under the impact of microwaves produced in ovens.

To date, the most compelling evidence damning microwaves comes from a study done by a Swiss food scientist, Dr. Hans Ulrich Hertel. So compelling was it in fact, that he not only lost his job but he and his colleague, Dr. Blanc were issued with a gag order by the Swiss Association of Dealers of Electro-apparatuses for Households and Industries and threatened with prosecution. In 1998 the court gag order was removed and the European Court of Human Rights held that the order prohibiting Dr. Hertel from declaring microwaved food dangerous to health was contrary to the right of freedom of expression. Compensation was also paid to Dr. Hertel.

In Dr. Hertel’s 1991 study the effects of microwaved food on the blood and physiology of the human body were observed. Blood samples were taken from several groups of volunteers immediately before and immediately after ingesting milk and vegetables (some taken raw, some cooked conventionally and some cooked in a microwave oven). The scientific conclusion showed clearly that microwave cooking alters the nutrients in food and cause changes in the participants blood that result in deterioration of the body. The findings are as follows:

•increased cholesterol levels
•increased leukocytes or white blood cells which suggests pathogenic changes in the body such as poisoning and cell damage
•decreased numbers of red blood cells
•decreased haemoglobin levels indicating anaemic tendencies
•production of radiolytic compounds (compounds unknown in nature)






edit on 11-2-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


so your denying one source, that scientific, AND WITH MANY STUDIES BEHIND IT with a viewpoint. An article by an amateur, based on his views. AN OPINION PIECE????? IS that the BEST YOU CAN DO?
That seriously WEAK.
DENY IT SCIENTIFICALLY.
TAKE APART THE STUDIES!
kudos.
besides go into ANY serious medical college or SPORTS Program, preferably medicinal, and everyone already know cellphones are harmful.
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


I will give you 1 thing. Evidence is somewhat inclusive.
My guess is that some people based on genetics or whatever are more suspectible to cancer or other illness from radiation.
So I think the subject should be studied further to close on in at risk subjects.
But to say it is totally without risk is silly imo.
edit on 11-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


IEEE: Institute of Electrial and Electronics Engineers is hardly an "individual", their studies are hardly amateur: on the contrary they are highly scientific.

IEEE defines what things electrical and electronic are and how the should work; they create the "standards" such things should adhere to.

Yep, they're amateurs.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glargod

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by ignant


would a geiger counter detect how much radiation we're exposed to? they should be cheap and readily available now that radiation is in most every household at least thru mwaves and cf bulbs


A geiger counter does not measure microwave radiation, which is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. A geiger counter measures particles emitted by radioactive decay, either alpha or beta or even gamma.. Microwave radiation is not ionizing, as are x-rays. So save your money.


Yes, and Ionizing radiation is also called Persistent Radiation. The likes of Nuclear Fallouts. The effect of which does not end after the radiation has gone through your body. for instance, Fukushima, is emitting Ionized radiation and it will pollute for centuries since the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years.

To correct you:
Ionizing radiation is any electromagnetic or particulate radiation that can remove electrons from an atom.
"Peristent Radiation" is radiation resulting from radioactive decay- specifically alpha, beta, gamma and neutron emission.
"Persitent Radiation" is ionizing radiation, but not all ionizing radiation is persistent, so the two are not synonymous.


Non Ionizing radiation such as your cellular phone radio waves(UHF from 824 MHz and end at 894 ), your microwaves (with a frequencies including the SHF band of 3GHz to 30 GHz), your satellite TV (receives from space frequencies of 11.2 GHz to 14.5 GHz) Can be damaging and "burn you" and kill off some of your body cells (your brain's neurons are bad ones to kill off, but eh, cell phones are kinda too popular to give up right?), but other than the internal scar tissue left behind, the effect ends once the switch is "turned off" and some cells will regenerate (not the brain cells duh) (Oh look, the satellite companies are blasting the continent with harmful radio waves for the sake of "entertaining", nice uh).
edit on 7-2-2012 by Glargod because: (no reason given)


Just to correct you...
.... on the cell phone thing....
1G (analog) / 2G (digital) phones typically operated in one frequency band. Most current phones operate at multiple frequencies dependent upon "technology" used and supported geographical regions. Here's a rough (as in incomplete) breakdown of frequencies, bands, and technologies using those band (numbers are in MHz)-- and this is mostly USA, though some could apply internationally:
824-849 and 869-894 - Original "cellular" band, used by GPRS / AMPS / CDMA / GSM / UMTS
806-824 and 851-869 - Modern "cellular" band, used by GPRS / CDMA / D-AMPS / GSM / UMTS
1850-1910 and 1930-1990 - "PCS" band- TDMA (2G) / CDMA / GSM / UMTS
698-806 - "700Mhz" band, used by 3G / 4G / LTE and other terrestrial services (MediaFlo [defunct] for instance)
1710–1755 and 2110–2155 - "AWS" band, used by 3G / 4G / UMTS / LTE
2496–2690 - "BRS"/"EBS" band, used by LTE

What was your point?

Over the previous 15 years, I've worked around ALL of these frequencies AT THE BASE STATION, and often in FRONT OF THE ANTENNAE, where ERP can be several orders of magnitude stronger than your cell phone produces, and I don't have cancer. If nothing else, I would be the perfect test case for PROVING cancer is caused by these, yet I don't prove anything other than gullible people are oft overcome with [FUD] fear, uncertainty and doubt, and don't have the desire to do anything but take what they are spoon-fed from those that hate.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I have worked for 20 years on high-power microwave systems, and yes, I have lost a number of peers to brain cancer, but before anybody goes into a panic. The max power output for a cell phone is about 2W for a GSM phone and 3W for an analogue model, but that power is normally a lot lower, depending on how good the link is between your cellphone and the base station. The typical power output for a cell-phone base-station is in the region of 60W ERP (if I am not mistaken). Your typical microwave oven is about 500-750W inside the oven, but the limits for leakage to the outside of the oven is less than 5mW/cm. The systems what I worked on was in the region of 1 000 000W, and at those levels it becomes a serious health-hazard. It is like the difference between touching an AA battery-cell with your fingers, and touching an HV-transmission line.

Yes, I have several scars from RF burns, but that was part of my job. Chances were a lot higher being electrocuted by touching a HV circuit, than being cooked by RF.
The biggest health-risk from exposure to RF fields is that in high-levels it heats up tissue. Our bodies form quite an efficient antenna at around 70MHz if I remember correctly, but we are a very inefficient antenna at cell-phone frequencies (around 800MHz). You can read more about exposure to very high RF fields here.
hps.org...

I have linked earlier to the standard safety guidelines, but those guidelines were more in line if you are exposed to high-level RF fields. The WHO article was based on another article, from which I include the conclusion. They studied one type of tumor, an acoustic neuroma which is a benign tumor. NOTE : Somewhere the MSM articles got it wrong, as an acoustic neuroma is NOT cancer, but a benign tumor. Many laymen confuse a benign tumor with a malign tumor (i.e. cancer)


An acoustic neuroma is a slow-growing tumor of the nerve that connects the ear to the brain. This nerve is called the vestibular cochlear nerve. It is behind the ear right under the brain. An acoustic neuroma is not cancerous (benign), which means it does not spread to other parts of the body. However, it can damage several important nerves as it grows.


from the original article :


CONCLUSIONS: There was no increase in risk of acoustic neuroma with ever regular use of a mobile phone or for users who began regular use 10 years or more before the reference date. Elevated odds ratios observed at the highest level of cumulative call time could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect. As acoustic neuroma is usually a slowly growing tumour, the interval between introduction of mobile phones and occurrence of the tumour might have been too short to observe an effect, if there is one.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: corrected my link



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I have worked for 20 years on high-power microwave systems, and yes, I have lost a number of peers to brain cancer, but before anybody goes into a panic. The max power output for a cell phone is about 2W for a GSM phone and 3W for an analogue model, but that power is normally a lot lower, depending on how good the link is between your cellphone and the base station. The typical power output for a cell-phone base-station is in the region of 60W ERP (if I am not mistaken). Your typical microwave oven is about 500-750W inside the oven, but the limits for leakage to the outside of the oven is less than 5mW/cm. The systems what I worked on was in the region of 1 000 000W, and at those levels it becomes a serious health-hazard. It is like the difference between touching an AA battery-cell with your fingers, and touching an HV-transmission line.

I seem to remember a cell phone can hit ~4W PEP on analog / AMPS / GPRS / 2G TDMA, 3W PEP with GSM / CDMA (PCS), 2W PEP on UMTS/HSPDA and LTE. ANY "spread spectrum" technology like CDMA and it's derivitaves (WB-CDMA, HSPDA, LTE, etc) inherently reduce emissions at any one frequency simply because they spread transmissions ACROSS multiple frequencies.

A cell BTS can potentially hit ~100W PEP per sector, with most cells being 3 sectored, and a small portion being 2 or 4 sectored; sectorization depends on cell boundaries. Most cells operate at less than 50W PEP per sector due to cell density: adding more cells to increase coverage results in lower average output due to the smaller "footprint" an individual cell must cover; some locales limit output artificially- San Francisco, in many areas, limits a site to



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 

thanks for correcting me on the cell output powers, I could just vaguely remember the power levels for cell-phone systems


As to the leakage of microwave ovens, it is limited by law to less than 0.005W!!!! which is nothing (except if you want to receive very small signals in that range, lol). Before you are allowed to sell equipment like microwave ovens, you must submit it to an internationally recognized (and audited) testing house, that will do all sorts of tests on it, to make sure it is safe. (of course, I have heard stories of a guy running a fast-food shop, that bypassed the interlocks on his microwave oven, and removed the door, just to do things quicker, and he lost his hands, but if you do things like that, you do deserve it).

As a RF engineer, I know that exposure to high-level RF fields have very serious health-concerns, but at the levels normal people get exposed to RF fields, they have nothing to be worried about, but I am still concerned about the people that I see talking on their cell-phones continuously. But that is just a personal feeling, based on my experience. If I was a cell-phone regulator, I would have forced in a law governing the continous use of a cell phone, like max. conversation length 10 minutes, thereafter you bar the celphone from making any voice-calls for 10 minutes (unless the person uses a hands-free kit), but that is my own personal gut-feeling. Remember, that using a cell phone next to your ear, or next to your nuts, will heat up your body, and your body needs time to get rid of that heat. (If I can remember correctly, I have read studies of about 1C rise in your brain after using your cell-phone for 20 minutes or so).
edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by abecedarian
 

thanks for correcting me on the cell output powers, I could just vaguely remember the power levels for cell-phone systems


As to the leakage of microwave ovens, it is limited by law to less than 0.005W!!!! which is nothing (except if you want to receive very small signals in that range, lol). Before you are allowed to sell equipment like microwave ovens, you must submit it to an internationally recognized (and audited) testing house, that will do all sorts of tests on it, to make sure it is safe. (of course, I have hear stories of a guy running a fast-food shop, that bypassed the interlocks on his microwave oven, and removed the door, just to do things quicker, and he lost his hands, but if you do things like that, you do deserve it).

As a RF engineer, I know that exposure to high-level RF fields have very serious health-concerns, but at the levels normal people get exposed to RF fields, they have nothing to be worried about, but I am still concerned about the people that I see talking on their cell-phones continuously. But that is just a personal feeling, based on my experience. If I was a cell-phone regulator, I would have forced in a law governing the continous use of a cell phone, like max. conversation length 10 minutes, thereafter you bar the celphone from making any voice-calls for 10 minutes (unless the person uses a hands-free kit), but that is my own personal gut-feeling. Remember, that using a cell phone next to your ear, or next to your nuts, will heat up your body, and your body needs time to get rid of that heat. (If I can remember correctly, I have read studies of about 1C rise in your brain after using your cell-phone for 20 minutes or so).
edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)


I'm not going to comment about cell nuts and such.


I have done EME surveys and found that at comparable distances- 60 feet from the conductor / antenna, overhead powerlines exceed "safe" exposure level guidelines by 200-300%, compared to 25WPEP cell emissions in the PCS band being less than 50% of guidelines.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I fully agree with you on the power lines. I get scared on behalf of the occupants when I see a house right underneath (or next to HT lines), and you can hear the coronal discharge coming from the pylons...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


Granted overhead power lines span within the 10-250KVA range so it's no surprise they'd have such strong EM fields. The ones I mentioned above happen to be 100KVA, but there were also 3 of them.

What I haven't checked, is what are the EME levels eminating from standard household wiring at the typical 120/240VA range.

But anyhow, it's been proven that microwaved water does not affect plant growth, which contra-indicates the validity of the OP's post. One is more likely to contract cancer from walking about in the sunlight than one is to contract cancer from a cell phone or eating microwaved foodstuffs.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join