Dangers of microwave cooking

[iris66]

just thought I'd add a link here for info as I've just given it as reference on a another thread.

And I might as well say here: Mercola is a scary scary site. It is full a hodge-podge of new-age superstitions and conspiracy theories. And the site exists to sell his books and tests and so on.

NQC - whilst many may agree with you that it is a scary site, lets face it, most sites are trying to sell something these days aren't they? Whilst the link may not be the best in the world it does IMHO present the facts in an easily digestible form. All the search engines I've tried bring up the same data on different sites but trying to sell different things.

On a lighter note... just because something is labelled a conspiracy doesn't mean that it isn't! There would be significant economic impact resultingfrom any Govt led recommendation to get rid of microwaves!

Repeating what I said on the other thread, more or less:

Um, Mercola isn't science, or facts. His arguments against microwaves are:

• his mom doesn't like them
• a Lancet article from 1989 (only referred to briefly)
• microwaving blood before a transfusion is bad (duh. do they normally cook blood before transfusions? And yes, heating things, no matter how, changes them. That's chemistry for you.)
• some other stuff not published in peer-reviewed journals. I think the Journal Franz Weber is an ecology thing.
• microwaving people is bad (duh)
• And apparently microwaved food suffers: "A loss of 60-90% of the vital energy field content of all tested foods". Is that good? I don't think I want my food to have a "vital energy field". Is that like a force field, or what?

He really confuses matters and writes in a condescending and unhelpful way. If someone takes someone to court for publishing something, then that's proof it's true, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm not convinced microwaves are great, I only use mine for reheating, not cooking. But I am convinced Mercola is rubbish.

NQC - ever heard of kirlian photography ? It's a special technique that captures your "aura" on film (all organic matter emits energy - the higher the organism the greater the energy it emits). The more processed a food, the less "energy" it emits. Microwaved organic matter emits no energy.

I always wondered whether the increase in obesity is a direct result of all the processing/microwaving of food in the western world. Since, if the theory is correct that these have less "energy", your body would crave more food after a short time because it's "energy" needs were not being met so you'd eat more...vicious circle. Thoughts anyone? (after all, I've never met anyone who eats a predominantly non-processed/microwave diet who is overweight!)

Ok, I'll bite. What sort of "energy" is this?

I note that Kirlian photography seems to be associated with Uri Geller, which is not a good sign.

Ah, right. Ok. Found it:

Actually, what is recorded is due to quite natural phenomena such as pressure, electrical grounding, humidity and temperature. Changes in moisture (which may reflect changes in emotions), barometric pressure, and voltage, among other things, will produce different 'auras'.

So, no, no energy. Link .

Here's the other side link

Thanks Witchywizz - (am not v good at searching!)
NQC - you could call it your soul if youw ant or vital energy or Chi/Qi. Holistic therapists & healers connect with this energy to address imbalances. The energy is everywhere and everything is connected. have a read of this

I'm afraid I'm skeptical about these sorts of "energies". Ditto about souls, frankly, whether they're a human-only thing, or something food possesses.

I'm not sure what that last link shows - it's about the books written by a particular author?

Am seriously not trying to make you bite btw NQC. Just airing a point of view which I'm clearly not very good at explaining!

It may have more to do with the increase in grain consumption in the West. Figures from the US Dept 0f Agriculture show a 50% increase in grain consumption since 1970. Doesn't sound a problem in itself as grain is not a high fat food, but most of the grain products being eaten are made from white flour which is highly processed.

Pre-processed food is digested relatively fast by the body and more of it is needed to satiate hunger - this is one theory for the increase in obesity.

Interestingly, fat consumption has not increased dramatically, although more "bad fats" (hydrogenated) are being consumed.

High processed food has less fibre, which means it's digested very quickly, giving a sugar "high" followed by a sugar "crash" - at which point, you want more sugar or white carb. (Much as Atkins is unhealthy and unwise, it has a kernel of truth - carbs aren't necessarily good, particularly white carb.)

Also, high-fructose corn syrup came around in the 70s and made sugary foods a lot cheaper, which hasn't helped.

I don't think a highly processed diet is good. I think cooking food (by any means) destroys nutrients, and should be minimised.

I put the link in as it contains further links to both the author and her works. Her book "Living The Field" describes energy from a scientific (quantum physics) perspective that I thought you might find easier to digest.

I think we already have a pretty good scientific explanation for why homeopathy and spiritual healing work: the placebo effect.

(Seriously, they've done scientific studies of both of these, which doesn't involve showing why they work, just showing if they work better than placebos, and the answer is, no they don't.)

Isn't the placebo effect a form of healing though? Belief is a powerful thing - and can have a powerful physical effect (action follows thought)science is ill equipped to conduct studies on that.

if tis placebo effect why does it work on babies and animals ?

Um, my personal use of homeopathy was with an animal, and it resolutely didn't work.

I don't know whether people have done homeopathy etc studies on babies. I think that would be difficult from an ethical point of view. And I don't know if people have done tests with animals.

I just know, the studies have shown, no benefit greater than placebo. Placebos work pretty well, though.

could have had the wrong remedy?

It makes a difference?

I have a hard time being polite about homeopathy (more than any other alternative medicine). If it works for you, great.

Homeopathic remedies are tailored to the individual - even animals & babies have personality traits and constitutional types that pre-dispose them to specific aspects of an illness. The same illness in different individuals will often require different remedies. As you said though - each to our own

Oh, mercola has a great site. The lady selling mattress wrappers used it as a source for a reference. Total pants.

I'm with NQC here.

I came across the 'microwaves are dangerous' argument, and being an inqusitive bugger surfed the topic for several hours. Essentially, all the sites which bang on about the danger refer to just two or three information sources which are, sadly, totally lacking in credibility. If there was significant danger associated with them, articles in peer-reviewed journals would have explored whatever alleged radioactive / de-energised changes are claimed. There would be significant professional glory to any scientist who 'saved the world' (so to speak) by demonstrating the ill-effects on health etc.

Won't discuss some of the other things mentioned, but find this site , with an alphabetical index, to be a decent source of information.

why this assumption that microwaved food=processed food???

I steam my (fresh) vegetables using the microwave for 5 or 6 minutes, rather boiling the cr*p out of them for 20minutes+ (as I usually forget they're on ).