Detrimental effects of microwaved cooked foods

[Guest guest]

Hi All

Some time ago I received an email with several pictures of 2 plants

that were used in an experiment to compare the effect of microwaved

water vis-a-vis boiled water.

The pictures show a dramatic demise of the plant watered with

microwaved water. I tried to replicate the experiment at home but do

not see the same kind of effect.

Here is what I did:

I bought 2 small potted plants from Walmart and kept them in the

living room. I heat water in a microwave & stove respectively to water

these plants. Even after a month I cannot see any negative effect on

the plant fed with microwaved water.

I am not comfortable boiling water in the microwave because I am

afraid of hot spots in the water and splashes etc - hence I end up

just heating the water in microwave instead of boiling.

I would like to know if any of you here have direct/first hand

experience of conducting a such a (or similar) experiment and what

were your findings.

I still believe that microwave is not good for us but it is difficult

for me to put forth any argument at my home in the face of the results

we obtained in this experiment.

Regards

Sanjay

[Guest guest]

I still boil water in the Microwave, AND I heat up my leftovers in it.

The report that I read several years ago said that the MW is safe up to about

4 minutes, but beyond that things get scrambled, so thats my rule of thumb now.

Anything under 4 minutes is relatively safe. Lets face it, there is nothing

left on this planet that is totally safe, its a matter of relativity. I

prefer not to live in fear and just do the best I can with what I have.

I doubt very much that MW water is terribly different from Boiled Water-

neither one is preferred for growing. Good ole Spring Water or Mineral Water

would be much better for our plants.

Huggs

zoe

Thursday, December 28, 2006, 9:54:01 AM, you wrote:

Hi All

Some time ago I received an email with several pictures of 2 plants

that were used in an experiment to compare the effect of microwaved

water vis-a-vis boiled water.

The pictures show a dramatic demise of the plant watered with

microwaved water. I tried to replicate the experiment at home but do

not see the same kind of effect.

Here is what I did:

I bought 2 small potted plants from Walmart and kept them in the

living room. I heat water in a microwave & stove respectively to water

these plants. Even after a month I cannot see any negative effect on

the plant fed with microwaved water.

I am not comfortable boiling water in the microwave because I am

afraid of hot spots in the water and splashes etc - hence I end up

just heating the water in microwave instead of boiling.

I would like to know if any of you here have direct/first hand

experience of conducting a such a (or similar) experiment and what

were your findings.

I still believe that microwave is not good for us but it is difficult

for me to put forth any argument at my home in the face of the results

we obtained in this experiment.

Regards

Sanjay

[Guest guest]

Sanjay,

> I still believe that microwave is not good for us but it is difficult

> for me to put forth any argument at my home in the face of the results

> we obtained in this experiment.

I saw the results of the experiment to which you were referring. If

those results were replicable, it would be pretty surprising and

certainly convince most people that microwaves are bad on an intuitive

level. But were I to try to replicate the experiment, it would be

mostly for its novelty and my curiosity. If I wanted to convince my

family not to use a microwave, I wouldn't bank on the results being

replicated and I wouldn't use that experiment, simply because it is

the absolute least likely thing to result in any negative effects.

Chemicals could leach from some plastics into the water that might be

poisonous to the plant, but it's pretty difficult to conceive of how

the water itself could be altered, whereas it is quite easy to

conceive of how food could be altered negatively. I would try feeding

a microwaved and non-microwaved diet to two animals or something like

that instead.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I would try feeding a microwaved and non-microwaved diet to two animals

> or something like that instead.

Sounds like a modernized Pottenger's cats study is in order.

PETA would go crazy.

<People for Eating Tasty Animals?>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for letting us know about your experiment. Your finding is

interesting and is in line with my hunch that microwaves, although

likely bad for cooking food, are fine for heating pure water. Water is

just water and I don't buy all the energy/weird molecular vibration

notion for a minute. However, it's certainly plausible that compounds

in food can be destroyed or altered more readily by microwaves than by

conventional heating, so I stick to heating hot water with my

microwave. The tea I make with microwaved water seems perfectly fine.

Haven't died yet.

Tom

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/06, Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

> Thank you for letting us know about your experiment. Your finding is

> interesting and is in line with my hunch that microwaves, although

> likely bad for cooking food, are fine for heating pure water.

Here's another negative finding, a little more rigorous:

http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp#exp3

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Am I out to lunch (sic), or is this a WAP group?

If so, here's one of many negative WAPF says about microwave cooking

(from webpage) This from the Lancet and, believe me, it's only the

tip of the iceburg. -Allan

Whatever form of gelatin is used, it should never be cooked or

reheated in the microwave. According to a letter published in The

Lancet, the common practice of microwaving converts l-proline to

d-proline. They write, " The conversion of trans to cis forms could be

hazardous because when cis-amino acids are incorporated into peptides

and proteins instead of their trans isomers, this can lead to

structural, functional and immunological changes. " They further note

that " d-proline is neurotoxic and we have reported nephrotoxic and

heptatotoxic effects of this compound. " 55 In other words, the gelatin

in homemade broth confers wonderous benefits, but if you heat it in

the microwave, it becomes toxic to the liver, kidneys and nervous

system.

[Guest guest]

Allan,

> Am I out to lunch (sic), or is this a WAP group?

Well I don't think organizational affiliations are going to determine

the results of homemade science experiments if one isn't cooking the

books, so to speak.

> If so, here's one of many negative WAPF says about microwave cooking

> (from webpage) This from the Lancet and, believe me, it's only the

> tip of the iceburg. -Allan

> Whatever form of gelatin is used, it should never be cooked or

> reheated in the microwave.

But, there's neither gelatin nor proline in water.

For the record, I couldn't carry out any of these experiments myself

because I don't even own a microwave.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

>> Some time ago I received an email with several pictures of 2

> plants that were used in an experiment to compare the effect of

>microwaved water vis-a-vis boiled water. The pictures show a

>dramatic demise of the plant watered with microwaved water.

Hello; I am visiting after being away from this forum for a long

time.

Sanjay, was the site you looked at this one?

http://www.execonn.com/sf/

After the grandfather initially posted his grandaughter's science

fair pictures on his website and they were linked to rense.com,

someone questioned the photos. He added the fact that some of the

pictures were enhanced with photoshop, and he added the original

photos at the bottom of the page. Now the website says that some of

the photos were created with photoshop.

It turns out that the information on the photography gets saved along

with each photo. The original photos listed as days one, three and

five were actually all taken at the same time on day five. ( " Day

five " is actually the first day shown.) The three microwaved water

plant pictures look different because they have been photoshopped.

The pictures of " day one " and " day three " are actually the " day five "

pictures with bits from the control plant pictures pasted on top of

the " day five " picture. So the pictures were faked.

[Guest guest]

>For the record, I couldn't carry out any of these experiments myself

>because I don't even own a microwave.

For the record, I was addressing the posters who feel that microwave

doesn't alter molecules, but only 'heats.' When considering

traditional diets, it's very important to keep in mind that using a

blender rather than a press to make vegetable juices, for example,

can make the difference between curing cancer with nutrition and not

curing cancer with nutrition. Centrifugal force has been proven to

cause enough change in the 'appearance' of molecules in juices to

change the way the body interprets or is able to " process " them and

thus diminish healing. This according to Sally.

The 'heat' is from molecular agitation. If something is in the

microwave long enough to get warm, it's been in there long enough to

be altered.

This is not a response to the boiled water experiment, but microwave

in general.

It's a slippery slope, fer damned sure. (I digress) It's frightening

how many people have already told me that only a ninny would think

there was any difference health-wise between a cloned animal and one

born of sperm and egg. Ever seen a cloned animal? YUCK!

Allan

[Guest guest]

Allan,

> For the record, I was addressing the posters who feel that microwave

> doesn't alter molecules, but only 'heats.'

Perhaps I missed these posts? The most ardently pro-microwave post

that I read was made by Tom, who said he only used the mcirowave for

heating up water and not food.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

it's neither here nor there.

Here's what prompted my 'warning':

At 11:34 AM -0800 12/28/06, zoe W wrote:

>I still boil water in the Microwave, AND I heat up my leftovers in

>it. The report that I read several years ago said that the MW is

>safe up to about 4 minutes, but beyond that things get scrambled, so

>thats my rule of thumb now. Anything under 4 minutes is relatively

>safe. Lets face it, there is nothing left on this planet that is

>totally safe, its a matter of relativity. I prefer not to live in

>fear and just do the best I can with what I have.

I offered the WAPF info in the spirit of 'doing the best we can with

what we have' from an informed perspective. More to the point,

though, I was trying to get clarification of the philosphy of this

list, which seems, on the whole, to be what I assumed it was. ThANKS!

-Allan

[Guest guest]

Allan,

> Here's what prompted my 'warning':

Ah, yes, now I see. (Had you quoted anything from the text to which

you were responding, it'd have saved us a little trouble.)

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> I offered the WAPF info in the spirit of 'doing the best we can with

> what we have' from an informed perspective. More to the point,

> though, I was trying to get clarification of the philosphy of this

> list, which seems, on the whole, to be what I assumed it was. ThANKS!

> -Allan

>

I was just remembering (on another NT list I'm on) that people are all

over the spectrum on these lists. Some are trying to live as close to

WAP/NT principles as possible whereas others take their regular diet

and tweak it somewhat with those principles - escpecially when they

get started. And, of course, there are people somewhere in between,

maybe in the process of becoming more " die hard. "

So there are some of us who wouldn't even boil water in a microwave

(an electric tea kettle is just as fast and is what Europeans tend to

use for that purpose), and there are some that may be using a

microwave for all kinds of food.

:-)

[Guest guest]

Yes, these were the pictures I received in the email.

So these turn out of be tampered pictures. I am still hoping to find a

simple experiment that can be conducted at home in order to convince

my better half.

Thanks

Sanjay

> >

> >> Some time ago I received an email with several pictures of 2

> > plants that were used in an experiment to compare the effect of

> >microwaved water vis-a-vis boiled water. The pictures show a

> >dramatic demise of the plant watered with microwaved water.

>

> Hello; I am visiting after being away from this forum for a long

> time.

>

> Sanjay, was the site you looked at this one?

> http://www.execonn.com/sf/

>

> After the grandfather initially posted his grandaughter's science

> fair pictures on his website and they were linked to rense.com,

> someone questioned the photos. He added the fact that some of the

> pictures were enhanced with photoshop, and he added the original

> photos at the bottom of the page. Now the website says that some of

> the photos were created with photoshop.

>

> It turns out that the information on the photography gets saved along

> with each photo. The original photos listed as days one, three and

> five were actually all taken at the same time on day five. ( " Day

> five " is actually the first day shown.) The three microwaved water

> plant pictures look different because they have been photoshopped.

> The pictures of " day one " and " day three " are actually the " day five "

> pictures with bits from the control plant pictures pasted on top of

> the " day five " picture. So the pictures were faked.

>

[Guest guest]

And our bodies are 70% water.

Sanjay

>

> Allan,

>

> > For the record, I was addressing the posters who feel that microwave

> > doesn't alter molecules, but only 'heats.'

>

> Perhaps I missed these posts? The most ardently pro-microwave post

> that I read was made by Tom, who said he only used the mcirowave for

> heating up water and not food.

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

[Guest guest]

Sanjay,

[i wrote:]

> > Perhaps I missed these posts? The most ardently pro-microwave post

> > that I read was made by Tom, who said he only used the mcirowave for

> > heating up water and not food.

[sanjay responded:]

> And our bodies are 70% water.

I don't understand. What bearing does that have on the discussion?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Chris-

It is difficult for me to believe that microwaves have detrimental

effect on food but not on water.

So if we assume that there is negative effect on water - using it for

heating water does not make sense as our bodies (as well as most food

we partake) are mostly water.

Sorry - if I was not clear earlier.

Regards

Sanjay

]

> > > Perhaps I missed these posts? The most ardently pro-microwave post

> > > that I read was made by Tom, who said he only used the mcirowave for

> > > heating up water and not food.

>

> [sanjay responded:]

> > And our bodies are 70% water.

>

> I don't understand. What bearing does that have on the discussion?

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

[Guest guest]

Sanjay,

> It is difficult for me to believe that microwaves have detrimental

> effect on food but not on water.

While I would not consider it impossible for microwaves to have a

detrimental effect on water, I do consider it vastly more plausible

that microwaves do not have a detrimental effect on water than that

they do.

Consider, for example, the information that Allan posted. This

information indicated that microwaves induced the isomerization of

proline. It is completely and incontrovertibly impossible for

microwaves to do the same to water, because water does not have a)

double carbon-carbond bonds that allow it to differentiate into

geometrical isomers or chiral centers that allow it to

differentiate into steroisomers.

Since water does not exist in as an isomer, it simply isn't possible

for anything to induce it to exist as a different isomer.

If someone is going to suggest microwaves have a detrimental effect on

water, they have to at least offer some type of plausible explanation

of how they could do this, and preferably offer some type of evidence

that they actually do.

> So if we assume that there is negative effect on water -

Which is, as yet, implausible, as so far no one has offered an

explanation of how it could occur --

> using it for

> heating water does not make sense as our bodies (as well as most food

> we partake) are mostly water.

I don't think it makes much of a difference. After all, the most

toxic things are those that we are not composed of in any significant

proportion, like benzene or led or whathaveyou.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> While I would not consider it impossible for microwaves to have a

> detrimental effect on water, I do consider it vastly more plausible

> that microwaves do not have a detrimental effect on water than that

> they do.

What about all the stuff in the water? Most " water " is not pure.

Typical drinking and cooking water will have all sorts of junk in it,

including chlorine and fluoride. I'm guessing there's probably some

organic matter as well as various minerals. Of course, what's in the

water will vary widely from place to place and maybe even over time at

the same place.

I'm disappointed that there haven't been more scientific studies on

what happens to food because of microwaving, especially in comparison

to steaming, baking, or grilling. One more thing our tax dollars

should be supporting instead of the huge volumes of junk science

receiving money now.

Cooking in general appears to be a double edged sword, with some

advantages and some disadvantages.

[Guest guest]

,

> What about all the stuff in the water? Most " water " is not pure.

It's true that water has other stuff in it, but for the most part its

just ions and so on that a microwave probably wouldn't (but

conceivably could) affect. There's certainly traces of organic

matter and even living organisms, at least depending on how it is

filtered I guess. I don't know what the toxicity is of abberant

isomers of proline, but I know that proline makes up about a third of

gelatin and that gelatin would be present in gram quantities in stock,

so it's really a whole 'nother ballgame than whatever traces of

non-water are in water.

So, I really think its a major stretch to think traces of organic

matter in some water (not sure if you'd find even that in quality

filtered water) are going to pose any significant threat in the

microwave.

That said, I don't really see the point. As Steph mentioned, an

electric tea kettle would work just as good, and it would certainly

save some space if heating water was the only think you used a

microwave for.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I had researched this subject briefly last year and the couple of

sites putting forth arguments against microwaving were mostly talking

about how it changes something in the water molecules - by

vibrating/or reversing polarity (or something) very rapidly (to the

order of thousands of times per second). And that this was very

unnatural. This was the main reason suggested for not using microwaves

either for warming/heating water or for warming/cooking food.

Warming/cooking of food is supposed to actually happen via heating the

molecules of water in the food.

Here are the links I had dug up then:

http://www.curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=112 & db=7 & C0=1

http://www.drninasilver.com/?contentID=716

http://chetday.com/microwave.html

Regards

Sanjay

>

> ,

>

> > What about all the stuff in the water? Most " water " is not pure.

>

> It's true that water has other stuff in it, but for the most part its

> just ions and so on that a microwave probably wouldn't (but

> conceivably could) affect. There's certainly traces of organic

> matter and even living organisms, at least depending on how it is

> filtered I guess. I don't know what the toxicity is of abberant

> isomers of proline, but I know that proline makes up about a third of

> gelatin and that gelatin would be present in gram quantities in stock,

> so it's really a whole 'nother ballgame than whatever traces of

> non-water are in water.

>

> So, I really think its a major stretch to think traces of organic

> matter in some water (not sure if you'd find even that in quality

> filtered water) are going to pose any significant threat in the

> microwave.

>

> That said, I don't really see the point. As Steph mentioned, an

> electric tea kettle would work just as good, and it would certainly

> save some space if heating water was the only think you used a

> microwave for.

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/1/07, sanjay5goel <sanjay5goel@...> wrote:

> I had researched this subject briefly last year and the couple of

> sites putting forth arguments against microwaving were mostly talking

> about how it changes something in the water molecules - by

> vibrating/or reversing polarity (or something) very rapidly (to the

> order of thousands of times per second). And that this was very

> unnatural.

> http://www.drninasilver.com/?contentID=716

The description of the effecto of microwaves on water in this link

conflicts with my understanding of chemistry and has no references

cited to support it. Where she does cite empirical evidence of

microwave-induced alterations of various foods, she does not include

any empirical evidence of such alterations to water.

The reversal of polarity and structural isomerism are too completely

different things. Reversal of polarity is something that all

molecules are constantly doing. I don't know to what effect

microwaving accentuates this phenomenon or makes it different. In any

case, this is a redistribution of electron density over the molecule

without a rearrangement of the atoms within it. Structural isomerism,

on the other hand, is a rearrangement of the atoms within the molecule

into a different conformations. It can occur in three types: chain

isomerism, position isomerism, or functional group isomerism. You can

read about these here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_isomerism. Since water does

not exist as a chain and does not have functional groups, it cannot

undergo structural isomerism.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com