Are microwaves bad for you?

[stevec67]

well my microwave sponge and custard didn't kill me, in fact I think my cold is a tad better. This proves that microwaved food is not only healthy but has curative properties.

Ah, you say that but I know better. The other night I came in knackered and wanted cheese on toast. I fished some bread out of the freezer and put it in the combination microwave grill to grill. I then grated some cheese. Sadly I had failed to notice that I had asked for "C" meaning "combination" and not "G" meaning "grill". It then proceeded to irradiate my frozen bread with dangerous microwaves. So dangerous in fact that it completely burnt it to a crisp and f*ed it. In the process it filled my kitchen with carcinogenic smoke. I can therefore prove that not only does a microwave destroy food and render it inedible, it fills your kitchen with carcinogens.* I would have been better off at McDo.


(* Only really if you are an idiot or just knackered, hungry and not paying attention.)

 

[stevec67]

Safe enough. More details tomorrow when I'm not knackered and can think about chemistry. Oh, and an air fryer thingy is more accurately termed 'an oven'.

Back now. There are a few legal definitions in manufactured foods.
Fried = cooked in hot oil, either on a flat surface in a film of oil (shallow) or immersed in oil (deep).
Baked = cooked in hot air.
Roast = cooked in hot air with the addition of oil.
Boiled, steamed, poached - you know what's coming. No surprise Sherlock. What is interesting is that these are defined in law. There are only a very few exceptions, for example "roasted" peanuts are actually fried. Always. "Dry roasted" are the only peanuts that are "really" roasted and these are so dull they have to be coated in whatever dreck makes them tasty. Exceptions are based on historical precedence, people have always bought fried peanuts but called roast, and to change now would confuse people. Same goes for "salad cream", which does not and never has contained cream. If you launched salad cream today, without historical precedent, it would be illegal to call it "cream".

I digress. Either way your device is a small oven. Nothing wrong with that. The food is roasted and if I designed a similar process in a factory I would be obliged to call it "roasted".

Roasting and frying generate acrylamide, which is a "probable carcinogen" and as such is to be avoided. It is the result of chemical reactions between amino acids (from protein) and sugars cooked at high temperatures, and food manufactuers go to great lengths to avoid it, for example variety selecting potatoes for lower sugar if they are destined for crisp manufacture. The chemistry is complex, you need sugars. You can cook a peanut for as long as you like, you won't generate acrylamide.

Acrylamide is deemed to be enough of a hazard in home-cooked food that the UK Food Stds Agency has some guidance on it:
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/acrylamide-0
In manufactured food the snack food manufacturers (and others) have industry groups working together to reduce levels, and voluntary limits. I encountered this working for a European snack manufacturer,

There is no guidance from the FSA about microwaves, and they may be used in manufacturing, catering and the home without restriction. Nobody in the food industry is concerned about microwaves. while they are (see above) acrylamide. This should tell you something about the relative risks from acrylamide and microwaves. If you still choose to avoid microwaved food, that's up to you. I hope that you also avoid fried, roasted and grilled foods, and all alcohol.

 

[eguth]

“…This should tell you something about the relative risks from acrylamide and microwaves…”.

What it tells me is something about the commercially oriented standpoints of the food industry.

Further information:
“…You might not be aware of this, but microwave ovens operate on gigahertz frequencies very similar to most 4G cellular networks. So, the danger AND the justifications why are identical. Conventional science and industry are clinging to the concept that these microwaves from your cell phones, portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters and wireless computers and tablets are not harmful because they do not cause any thermal damage.

New research3,4,5,6 from Professor Emeritus Martin Pall, Ph.D., has provided us with the mechanism of how this low level nonthermal microwave exposure causes biological harm. It has to do with voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) that are embedded in the cell membranes. He determined this by evaluating over two dozen studies showing you can radically reduce biological microwave damage using calcium channel blockers.

This explains why the argument that the microwave radiation is not high enough to cause thermal damage is fatally flawed. The statement is partially correct, as the radiation does not cause thermal damage. However, it causes massive biological damage. Pall has compiled a list of 123 studies and papers documenting the various non-thermal health effects of EMFs for those who want to take a deep-dive into the research. The safety standards that have been established are off by a factor of over 7 million…”

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Further information:
“…You might not be aware of this, but microwave ovens operate on gigahertz frequencies very similar to most 4G cellular networks. So, the danger AND the justifications why are identical. ”

Your idea of "further information" which followed might be better titled as "further disinformation".

Yes, I've been well aware for many years that mobile devices and microwave ovens use "GHz frequencies". It is however rubbish to spout from that the assertion that you then add. The two cases are very different.

The 4G UHF band is at about 1GHz. Microwave ovens > 2GHz.

A mobile phone is used up against the ear. People rarely stick their head inside a microwave oven in normal use.

Mobile phones radiate the order of a watt or few. Microwave ovens keep almost all their power internal.

etc.

To use a technical term of the kind learned academics would choose here: The idea that the two are "identical" is bollox.

BTW, why aren't you complaining that your neighbours all keep polluting your home with their nasty 'wifi' and 'bluetooth' radiation? Or campaigning for the closedown of broadcasting? Or even the use of headphones/earphones? Or even the electronics in computers (which *also* use GHz signals BTW). Maybe you should stand well away from your computer when writing comments onto this forum. It may be affecting your brain... 8-]

 

[gintonic]

tonight I will be microwaving soup and frying bread for garlic crouton

 

[timola]

“…This should tell you something about the relative risks from acrylamide and microwaves…”.
However, it causes massive biological damage. Pall has compiled a list of 123 studies and papers documenting the various non-thermal health effects of EMFs for those who want to take a deep-dive into the research. The safety standards that have been established are off by a factor of over 7 million…”

This might explain why the NHS is under so much pressure atm. Or it could be the makings of a super-weapon.

 

[stevec67]

“…This should tell you something about the relative risks from acrylamide and microwaves…”.

What it tells me is something about the commercially oriented standpoints of the food industry.
”

Oh, that old chestnut, a nice easy cheap shot. Never heard that one before. Vested interests of the food industry. If it's all about the food industry, why would we be talking about acrylamide? It's not in anyone's interest. We have to go to great lengths to avoid its formation, and it's a chore. Life would be a lot easier if it were not talked about and we just allowed low levels of a probable carcinogen to form in fried foods. However this would be irresponsible, so we don't. The FSA issues guidance and puts it on the internet. However the same body, the UK Food Standards Agency, which is a regulatory body, not an industry body, is deliberately avoiding talking about microwaves and how harmful they are, according to you. Of course they are. This is all the fault of the vested interests of the food industry, according to you. I as a food manufacturer stand to make a living out of fried foods (indeed I have), while I stand to gain or lose nothing whatsoever from whether you choose to have a microwave. I don't make microwaves and I don't care whether you warm your dinner up in a microwave, a pan, or on an open fire. So if it's all about vested interests, please explain to me why thye big bad food industry, via the FSA, warns the public about acrylamide but keeps quiet about microwaves.

 

[Mullardman]

“…This should tell you something about the relative risks from acrylamide and microwaves…”.

What it tells me is something about the commercially oriented standpoints of the food industry.

Further information:
“…You might not be aware of this, but microwave ovens operate on gigahertz frequencies very similar to most 4G cellular networks. So, the danger AND the justifications why are identical. Conventional science and industry are clinging to the concept that these microwaves from your cell phones, portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters and wireless computers and tablets are not harmful because they do not cause any thermal damage.

New research3,4,5,6 from Professor Emeritus Martin Pall, Ph.D., has provided us with the mechanism of how this low level nonthermal microwave exposure causes biological harm. It has to do with voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) that are embedded in the cell membranes. He determined this by evaluating over two dozen studies showing you can radically reduce biological microwave damage using calcium channel blockers.

This explains why the argument that the microwave radiation is not high enough to cause thermal damage is fatally flawed. The statement is partially correct, as the radiation does not cause thermal damage. However, it causes massive biological damage. Pall has compiled a list of 123 studies and papers documenting the various non-thermal health effects of EMFs for those who want to take a deep-dive into the research. The safety standards that have been established are off by a factor of over 7 million…”

Might I suggest that you wrap your entire home in aluminium foil to prevent the nasty wi-fi etc., getting to you?

 

[eguth]

Thanks for your suggestion, Mullardman. I've got a better way, but at least yours gave me a good laugh!

Jim Audiomisc
You say:"
"Yes, I've been well aware for many years that mobile devices and microwave ovens use "GHz frequencies". It is however rubbish to spout from that the assertion that you then add. The two cases are very different."...
"The 4G UHF band is at about 1GHz. Microwave ovens > 2GHz."

Depends, inter alia, on how we interpret 'very similar'.

Microwave ovens, according to many sources, operate at about 2.5GHz.

4G nets in the UK operate at 1.8 or 2.6 G Hz.

steve 67
You say: " please explain to me why the big bad food industry, via the FSA, warns the public about acrylamide but keeps quiet about microwaves."
I don't pretend to know why. At least you reveal that you have a vested interest in the questions (and therefore the answers). I can reveal that I have no such interest. It will not do for you to put words into my mouth. I never said that the food industry was 'bad'.

 

[stevec67]

"At least you reveal that you have a vested interest in the questions"
No I don't. You can stop putting words in my mouth.

You clearly have no interest in science either, preferring some ill informed and clearly biased website to the advice of the FSA. That's the non vested interest government body, the FSA.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Depends, inter alia, on how we interpret 'very similar'.

So you are now trying to pretend you didn't say *IDENTICAL*. Nice try.

Problem remains that what you try to base on this still falls apart despite your attempt to side-step. Your real problem is that what you write makes clear to others that you don't really understand what you are writing about. Your failure to see that may be a part of your problem.

 

[dweezil]

It is worth bearing in mind that the "probably carcinogenic" rating is very mild.

Hot coffee and glyphosate are in this band, most processed meat is worse. Sunshine is totally forbidden.

My goat vindaloo and rice is in the microwave ready for lunch.

I agree it is the ultimate method for sponge pudding preparation. I used to have a very slick one egg treacle sponge pudding recipe until I became a bloater.

 

[eguth]

Jim Audiomisc
The quote was 'The FREQUENCIES' were 'very similar'.

It then stated that 'the DANGER and JUSTIFICATIONS WHY' are 'identical'.

A bit difficult to understand the difference- but if you try a bit harder you might succeed. 'Very similar' is not the same thing as 'identical'.

I won't comment further on your misunderstandings.

steve 67
What you revealed (though have not said) is that, as a food manufacturer, you have a relationship and a commercial vested interest with respect to the FSA.

I give you credit for revealing this voluntarily. The scientific research and sources I mentioned in my post(s) are just as independent as the FSA.

Your stance appears to be one of total rejection of this research and sources without (and before) considering them.

 

[stevec67]

steve 67
What you revealed (though have not said) is that, as a food manufacturer, you have a relationship and a commercial vested interest with respect to the FSA.

I have revealed nothing of the kind. The FSA is a regulatory body that regulates my industry. I don't have a commercial vested interest with a regulator, how could I?
I have no relationship with the FSA any more than I have a relationship with the police. I don't have a "commercial vested interest" with the police either, that's called "bribing a policeman" and it earns you prison time.

The scientific research and sources I mentioned in my post(s) are just as independent as the FSA.

No, they are non peer reviewed crap from someone with an axe to grind.

Your stance appears to be one of total rejection of this research and sources without (and before) considering them.

No, I have considered them in light of all the other research that has gone on. It's claptrap, like the rest of the pseudoscience around radiation that Jim has pointed out as bunkum.

If you believe this stuff, can I interest you in my elephant repellent? It's guaranteed 100% effective in the whole of the British Isles, and only £1000 for a year's supply. I can absolutely guarantee that your garden will not be troubled by elephants if you use this, with an absolute guarantee of your money back if elephants damage it at ANY time in the next year. As you said earlier, on the principle of precaution you should buy it. After all, nobody can guarantee that your lovely garden won't be decimated by elephants at some point, but I offer a guarantee.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I won't comment further on your misunderstandings.

Fair enough if you also cease exposing your own.

Jim

 

[eguth]

Steve 67

Your posts demonstrate that your strident assertions do not prove anything except your need to refute with verbiage what you have not and cannot refute by proof or evidence. They display a lack of impartiality that goes further than mere bias.

 

[Swamp Thing]

It is obvious (and supported by data) that there have been many more conspiracy theories since the internet became prevalent. Statistical correlation would therefore suggest that there are more conspiracies than prior to the internet. So to prevent these odious conspiracies against the public we should shut down the internet. We can then measure how many conspiracy theories there are (as an indicator of actual conspiracies) by looking on the internet. Indeed we know this will be successful as we have switched off the internet - so it will be zero.

Assuming the entrenched vested interests allow us to do this. Not being allowed to do it just proves my point as well.

Thus using data and logic, whatever the actions and outcome - I am right.

Got to dash to be interviewed on the Today Programme. Me vs a statistics professor with equal credability being given to our viewpoints.

 

[Barrymagrec]

When it comes to health I adopt the precautionary principle: IF IN DOUBT, DON'T. So far, at age 79 it has done me well.

Fair enough - for you.

My parents are both 93, bought their first microwave in 1978 and have used one regularly since.

In addition my Dad worked on microwave radar systems during and just after the war at a time when the genuine dangers were little understood.

I don`t think that blanket avoidance of any microwave device without taking account of how it is used and the power levels involved is a sensible stance.

 

[eguth]

Barrymagrec

Good post. I don't think that one example - your parents - will suffice to prove safety. There is evidence of risk and effects on health, and it has been linked with other disorders- I have seen references to cataracts and hypertension. This does not, of course, mean that one might get away with no ill effects. I remain a user of the precautionary principle- and though I sometimes compromise in need of convenience I try not to do so if there is a health risk or an avoidable possible one.

How do your parents use theirs?

 

[Barrymagrec]

They use it in what I would call a normal way - thaw out frozen food, warm up leftovers - occasionally re-heat a cup of cold coffee - that kind of thing.
It isn`t their main means of cooking but useful.

Obviously they don`t stick their heads right up to the door when it is in use but who does that?