🖨️ Print post
Does anyone in the United States not have a microwave oven? As of 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau reported “nearly universal” coverage—97 percent of U.S. households1—up from about one in four households in the mid-1980s and barely one percent in 1971.2 Apparently anticipating the growth trend that was to come, the Bureau of Labor Statistics added microwave ovens to the Consumer Price Index “basket of goods” over forty years ago.3
Defense contractor Raytheon introduced the first commercial microwave ovens just after World War II, repurposing magnetron tubes used during the war for short-range military radar.4 In fact, according to some historians, microwave radar was “the technology that won the war.”5 Seeking new peacetime applications, Raytheon developed and marketed its “massive” and expensive Radarange microwave ovens to restaurants and airlines beginning in 1946; by the mid-1950s, Raytheon was licensing its microwave technology to other companies.4 Relatively affordable consumer models began catching on in the late 1960s, and, as of 2017, North America’s nineteen billion dollar market share had made it the “numero uno region” for microwave oven sales.6
EARLY CONCERNS
Despite the microwave oven’s meteoric rise to prominence in the American marketplace, consumer groups raised concerns about the appliance’s safety early on. In 1974, with an estimated six hundred thousand microwave ovens in U.S. households, Consumers Union told the public to “beware the microwave oven,” warning that credible safety data were lacking.7 (Some consumers also remained unpersuaded about the newfangled ovens’ cooking abilities. A Connecticut woman stated, “Everything cooks so darn fast. You open the door and it’s not done. You leave it in another 30 seconds and it’s hard as a rock.”7)
Most of the initial health worries about microwave ovens focused on the potential for radiation leakage. Situating microwave ovens in the wider context of the electromagnetic spectrum, an expert tester of microwave ovens wrote in 2010 “In the electromagnetic spectrum there is nothing but a judgemental line of demarcation separating x-rays from microwaves.”8 The professional added, “Similar to an x-ray machine, a microwave oven has a tremendous potential for harm if something goes wrong. It belongs, not in a kitchen, but in a laboratory where it is subject to regulation.”8 Over time, critics began highlighting other issues as well, raising questions about flavor, leaching of plastics and, perhaps most critically, the altered nutritional and chemical properties of microwaved food.
COOKING FROM WITHIN
Contrary to conventional ovens, microwave ovens heat food “from the inside and not from the outside.”9 In a uniquely violent cooking process, microwave ovens bombard food with waves that primarily zero in on a food’s water molecules, bouncing “around and through an item being cooked”10 and generating frictional heat.
Microwave ovens operate at a frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (Ghz)—the same radio frequency used by pervasive in-home wireless technologies such as 4G Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth earpieces, cordless phones and baby monitors.11 What this means is that the electromagnetic waves from microwave ovens (and their fellow electronic devices) “whip every cell within range back-and-forth 2.45 billion times every second,” producing, as one writer refers to it, “Shaken Cell Syndrome.”12
Although companies and regulators generally are content to let consumers assume “that food from the microwave-oven is not better or worse than food cooked conventionally,” the contrary is true.13 In fact, those who have studied the microwave oven’s effects on food caution that the ovens not only produce heat but also “athermic” effects, “meaning interaction between microwave radiation and structures in living organisms not caused by frictional heat.”14 According to a widely disseminated article written in the mid-1990s, “There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time.”15 The result is “destruction and deformation of molecules of food, and. . . the formation of new compounds. . . unknown to man and nature.”15
In the early 1990s, Swiss scientists Hans Hertel and Bernard Blanc wondered what happens to people who eat microwaved food. They conducted a small study—self-financed because Switzerland’s National Fund argued that “there was no need for research in this particular field of science”14—which showed that microwave-prepared foods caused immediate “abnormal changes in the blood of test-persons indicating disorder.”13 Examining a variety of indicators, the research duo found that each one “point[ed] in a direction away from robust health and toward degeneration.”15 In calling attention to the “destructive properties of microwaves,” they also noted the potential for “an inductive transfer of radiation-energy. . . via irradiated food into living organisms.”13
Swiss industry did not take kindly to the results of the study, which raised serious doubts about microwave safety. As Dr. Hertel wrote in 1999, “strong economic interests are at stake which impede the discovery of the truth.”16 So great was the immediate industry pushback that Professor Blanc quickly and publicly distanced himself from his results, while privately admitting “that he feared consequences and that the safety of his family was more important to him than anything else.”14 Dr. Hertel stood firmer, despite aggressive attempts to tarnish his reputation. His compelling evidence in a 1992 television interview prompted the television host to tell viewers “to take their microwave ovens and put them in the cellar.”14 In 1993, a regional court in Switzerland took more decisive action to silence Dr. Hertel, prohibiting him—under penalty of steep fines and even imprisonment—from “declar[ing] that food prepared in microwave ovens is dangerous to health and may lead to pathological changes in the blood as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process.”17
FOLLOW THE MILK
While the Swiss scientists focused on changes in the blood of humans who consumed microwaved food, other researchers, around the same time, began looking at what microwave heating does to food, and particularly to various forms of milk. This work—which highlighted the worrisome microwave-induced transformation of beneficial nutritional components into more toxic forms—provided further support for the Swiss scientists’ contention that microwaved food is a bad idea.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers showed that microwave warming of frozen human breast milk was “inappropriate” due to the technology’s effects on the content of the milk’s beneficial IgA antibodies,18 which protect breastfed babies from infection.19 A 1992 study by Stanford researchers confirmed that high-temperature microwaving of frozen breast milk not only “caused a marked decrease in activity of all the tested antiinfective factors” but also allowed undesirable E. coli bacteria to spread eighteen times faster compared to non-microwaved milk.20 Even lower-temperature microwaving accelerated E. coli growth by a factor of five. The Stanford authors concluded that their findings raised questions about microwave safety at any temperature.
In a 1989 letter to the editor of The Lancet, Austrian scientists summarized research showing that microwave treatment of milk formula produced hazardous changes in amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) that could lead to “structural, functional, and immunological changes”; they also reported the presence in microwaved milk formula of an altered form of the amino acid proline which, unlike normal proline, is toxic to the brain, liver and kidneys.21 In a press blurb that picked up on the Lancet letter, the eye-catching headline screamed, “Super-heated babies’ milk can lead to brain damage”; the article reported that “the timesaving ovens turn proteins in milk into poisons that attack vital organs. . . with possibly fatal results” [emphasis in original].22
In 2005, a Jordanian-based researcher compared various types of heat treatment (microwaving, boiling and pasteurization) for two types of milk (raw cow’s milk and reconstituted powdered milk). Looking at the milk’s cholesterol contents, the researcher determined that microwave heating was “highly detrimental to quality compared to the other heating method[s] due to its unique heating mechanism.”23 Microwave heating—far more than the other methods—caused a significant increase in the level of carcinogenic cholesterol oxidation products, putting “a big question mark on the use of microwave oven in food processing and preparation.” 23 (As a secondary finding, the researcher also noted the nutritional “unsuitability” of powdered milk.)
Milk is a rich source of microRNA (abbreviated as miRNA), which plays an important role in a variety of cell functions as well as immune response. Research has shown that “the deregulation of miRNA is associated with aberrant cell functions leading to cancers and other diseases.”24 Although miRNA in milk is generally stable, a 2018 study by Chinese investigators—using electron microscopy and other sophisticated laboratory methods—found that the “miRNA expression and total RNA content of the microwaved [cow’s] milk samples were lower when compared with untreated [cow’s] milk.”24 Noting other researchers’ belief that “microwaving not only destroys nutritional components, such as whey proteins, but also results in DNA damage,” the authors stated that they “could not exclude the possibility that microwaves directly damage RNA.”24
At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises American consumers never to thaw or heat breast milk in a microwave, stating that microwaving “can destroy nutrients. . . and create hot spots.”25 U.S. hospitals warn against microwaving formula or breast milk for the same reasons.26 However, researchers in countries such as Israel27 and Japan28 are now advocating “high-power” microwaving of human milk for the purpose of eradicating cytomegalovirus (CMV). Displaying scientific amnesia about the conclusive body of earlier research on the dangers of microwaved milk, these investigators are calling for new studies to assess the effect of microwave heating on breast milk’s bioactive properties.27,28
OTHER DANGERS
Several other lines of inquiry have prompted doubts about the virtues of microwave cooking, including early research demonstrating the ovens’ propensity to cook unevenly. As researchers noted years ago in The Lancet, uneven heating “and the presence of relatively cool regions” allows bacteria to survive even when “very high temperatures are recorded in other parts of a food.”29 In 1981, in a “setback” for pork lovers, the Los Angeles Times described how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suppressed evidence that microwaved pork—due to inconsistent cooking—could harbor the organism that causes trichinosis.10 According to the press report, the USDA kept the results of its study under wraps for months “for fear of alarming the public.”
Microwaving has also led to legitimate worries about leaching of plasticizers such as phthalates and bisphenol-A (BPA) into microwaved food. Again, this is not a new concern. The New York Times noted in 1989 that “before microwave ovens, foods were not exposed to plasticizers at temperatures so high that the plasticizers became part of the food.”30 Current research emphasizes the importance of considering the characteristics of the food being microwaved, and particularly its fat content, given that plasticizers such as phthalates are fat-loving.31
Although containers are now available that are promoted as “microwave-safe,” a 2014 study documented phthalate migration from microwavable polypropylene containers that were not supposed to contain plasticizers.31 Moreover, even when plastics are not involved, microwaving has the potential to trigger migration of other toxic substances, depending on the type of container or food packaging. A study of pre-1950s ceramic dishware found that the dishes leached “dangerously large amounts of lead” when used to microwave common foods.32 And in 2016, when researchers considered a novel food packaging material (nanosilver-coated low-density polyethylene), they found that microwave heating triggered silver nanoparticle migration that was “significantly higher when compared with oven heating for similar temperatures. . .and identical exposure times.”33
Microwave popcorn bags are lined with chemicals that break down into perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxin linked to infertility and cancer that is also found in Teflon pots and pans. As a result of microwaving, the PFOA migrates to the popcorn oil, where it produces concentrations that are “hundreds of times higher than the amount of PFOA that could migrate from nonstick cookware.”34 According to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “millions of unwitting consumers” may be ingesting PFOA from their microwaved popcorn; about ten bags of microwave popcorn a year could account for about 20 percent of the “average PFOA levels now measured in the blood of U.S. residents.”34
DECLINE OR BOOM?
The microwave oven industry is intent on increasing its market in other countries such as India and China, where consumers increasingly are inclined toward a “high outlay on first-rate kitchen appliances.”6 The microwave oven also has a long-established presence in Japan (home of leading microwave manufacturer Panasonic), where the average home size for a family of four is about eight hundred square feet. In that context, kitchens tend to be “quite compact”35 and may include just a two-burner cooktop and a combination microwave-convection oven.36 Online Japanese cooking courses promote “new and exciting recipes for fish which are cooked using a microwave,” extolling advantages such as “no greasy pans to clean after cooking.”37
U.S. market research tells conflicting stories about where the microwave oven is going from here. On the one hand, some are predicting the appliance’s “slow death,” arguing that Americans are tired of it and that microwaves “aren’t cool anymore.”38 To support these claims, observers cite growing interest in haute cuisine and the popularity of slow cookers and crock pots as well as the “negative stigma” arising from lingering concerns “about radiation emitted by the ovens and the possibility that they lower the nutritional value of foods.”38
On the other hand, sales of “premium” and built-in (as opposed to countertop) microwaves are booming.39 In addition, technocrats’ continued push for “smart” homes is expected to drive future demand for “smart” microwave ovens that “can be connected to the end-user’s smartphone and monitored remotely.”39 Other innovations—such as “advanced speed-cook modes, interactive recipe databases, and. . . colors that complement the kitchen decor”—may also help stave off the microwave’s demise, at least for a time.39
Judging by these market trends, the suppression of critical research has been successful, leaving the majority of American consumers still in the dark about microwaves’ negative effects on food and human health. As one writer put it, back in 1992, “A funny thing happened on the way to the bank with all that microwave oven revenue—nobody thought about the obvious. Well, nobody who had any clout thought about it. Only ’health nuts’ who are constantly aware of the value of quality nutrition, and the widespread ’denaturing’ of our sustenance.”40 Nonetheless, the fact is that the jury has long been in—and microwaves should be kicked out of every kitchen.
SIDEBARS
TRANSFER OF MICROWAVE ENERGY VIA FOOD INTO BLOOD
In his study, Dr. Hans Hertel asked the question, “Does the microwave energy accumulate in the food, and does it pass from the food into the blood?” The study’s results suggested that the answer is yes. Dr. Hertel wrote: The energy which allows a body to maintain and control its functions is derived from sunlight, and is absorbed directly from the sun’s rays as well as indirectly, i.e. by means of food. If this energy is changed, such as in the case of microwave radiation, then it retains its destructive quality in the food and consequently in the blood of the body that consumed it. The problem then lies not only in the fact that the destructive energy remains hazardous in the food, but also that it damages the body afterwards in the same way.14
RUSSIAN RESEARCH ON MICROWAVE OVENS
In contrast to the dearth of U.S. research on the microwave oven’s downsides, Soviet scientists conducted extensive research following World War II, having observed adverse effects from the radar technology that gave rise to microwave ovens. In 2000, the newsletter, What Doctors Don’t Tell You, provided a summary of this alarming body of research.41
First, Soviet scientists documented significant decreases in the nutritional value of microwaved foods—by some accounts, a 60 to 90 percent decline.42 This included notably decreased bioavailability (and absorption) of many vitamins and minerals, and lowering of metabolic activity of key substances in fruits and raw, cooked or frozen vegetables—even when microwaved for only a short time.
Second, the scientists described how accelerated structural breakdown and changes in food chemistry resulted in the creation of toxic byproducts in microwaved food, including cancer-causing agents and destabilized protein compounds in meat; carcinogenic substances in milk and grain compounds; cancer-causing free radicals in some plant substances (especially raw root crops); and “a binding effect to radioactivity in the atmosphere.”
Third, in individuals who ingested microwaved foods, Soviet researchers documented:
• A higher percentage of cancer cells in the blood;
• Degeneration of the immune system and the body’s ability to protect itself from malignant tumors;
• Digestive system disorders and gradual destruction of the digestive and excretory systems;
• A statistically higher incidence of stomach and intestinal cancers.
Finally, Soviet researchers showed that the microwave field created by the ovens could cause health problems within a five-hundred-meter radius, including deformed composition of the blood and lymph areas, degeneration and destabilization of cell membranes, interference with the brain’s electrical nerve impulses, central and autonomic nervous system problems, and a cumulative loss of vital energy.
In 1976, this damning body of research prompted the Soviet Union to ban microwave ovens. Unfortunately, the ban was lifted in the 1990s after Perestroika “to promote free trade,”43 and use of microwave ovens became commonplace. Now, Russian scientists who dare to question microwave safety get attacked and vilified just as they do in the West (Natasha Campbell-McBride, personal communication).
AN EXPERIMENT
To assess assertions about microwave oven effects, you can conduct the following experiment (which made the rounds of online chat groups in the early 2000s):
1. Obtain two small house plants that are as similar as possible in all aspects (e.g., type, size, pot size/type, soil).
2. Label the two plants “A” and “B” and place them side by side so that their growing conditions (sunlight and temperature) are identical.
3. Label two glass water containers “A” and “B” to correspond to each plant.
4. Water the plants on the same schedule and using identical quantities of water. However, for plant “B” use water that you have previously microwaved for thirty to sixty seconds (in a microwave-safe container); be sure to allow the water to cool completely before using it for watering.
5. Document the plants’ health daily.
As summarized in a 1999 health newsletter (NATRENNews, March-April 1999), MIT scientist Dr. Chiu-Nan Lai conducted a similar experiment with wheat grass, described in her book, The Pursuit of Life.44 After ten days, wheat grass watered with microwaved water “grew only 60% in height and 50% in weight” compared to wheat grass watered with water warmed with electric heat.
REFERENCES
1. Liegey PR. Microwave oven regression model. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2001. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/qualityadjustment/microwave-ovens.htm.
2. Siebens J. Extended measures of well-being: Living conditions in the United States: 2011. United States Census Bureau; September 2013. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/sipp-data-appliances.pdf.
3. Lafrance A. A history of technology, via the Consumer Price Index. The Atlantic, April 5, 2016.
4. Ackerman E. A brief history of the microwave oven: where the “radar” in Raytheon’s Radarange came from. IEEE Spectrum, Sep. 30, 2016.
5. https://www.military.com/2018/01/16/tuxedo-park-how-microwave-radar-won-world-war-ii.html.
6. Transparency Market Research. Global microwave oven market: snapshot. https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/microwave-ovens-market.html.
7. Dullea G. Microwave ovens: amid some doubts, their popularity grows. The New York Times, March 19, 1974.
8. Ozark Water & Air Services. The great microwave coverup! July 6, 2010. http://ozarkwaterandair.org/articles/the-great-microwave-coverup.
9. Boston G. Cooking inside out: microwaves not nuclear, despite myth, and not hot. The Washington Times, March 6, 2003, pp. B1, B4.
10. Puzo DP. Setback for microwave pork dishes. Los Angeles Times, June 4, 1981.
11. Herman J. Why everything wireless is 2.4 GHz. Wired, Sep. 7, 2010.
12. Microwave ovens & health issues. https://www.helladelicious.com/our-food/food-facts/2011/02/microwave-ovens-health-issues/.
13. Blanc BH, Hertel HU. Comparative study about food prepared conventionally and in the microwave-oven. Raum & Zeit. 1992;3(2):43-48.
14. Are microwave ovens a source of danger? The Journal of Natural Science. 1998;1(2):2-6.
15. The proven dangers of microwaves. Available at https://www.mercola.com/article/microwave/hazards2.htm.
16. Hertel HU. Microwave ovens: a hazard to health. Alarming results of a scientific study. The Journal of Natural Science. 1999;2(4):7-10.
17. Schaller R. Are microwave ovens exempt from criticism? The Journal of Natural Science. 1999;2(4):10-11.
18. Sigman M, Burke KI, Swarner OW, Shavlik GW. Effects of microwaving human milk: changes in IgA content and bacterial count. J Am Diet Assoc. 1989;89(5):690-2.
19. Hanson LA, Söderström T. Human milk: defense against infection. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1981;61:147-59.
20. Quan R, Yang C, Rubinstein S et al. The effects of microwave radiation on anti-infective factors in human milk. Pediatrics. 1992;89(4 Pt. 1):667-9.
21. Lubec G, Wolf C, Bartosch B. Aminoacid isomerisation and microwave exposure. Lancet. 1989;2(8676):1392-3.
22. Super-heated babies’ milk can lead to brain damage. Examiner, Feb. 13, 1990, p. 21.
23. Herzallah SM. Influence of microwaving and conventional heating of milk on cholesterol contents and cholesterol oxides formation. Pak J Nutr. 2005;4(2):85-8.
24. Zhao Z, Yu S, Xu M, Li P. Effects of microwave on extracellular vesicles and microRNA in milk. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(4):2932-40.
25. Proper storage and preparation of breast milk. https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/recommendations/handling_breastmilk.htm.
26. Warming formula or breast milk. https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/w/warmformula.
27. Ben-Shoshan M, Mandel D, Lubetzky R et al. Eradication of cytomegalovirus from human milk by microwave irradiation: a pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2016;11:186-7.
28. Mikawa T, Mizuno K, Tanaka K et al. Microwave treatment of breast milk for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection. Pediatr Int. 2019 Jul 8.
29. Lund BM, Knox MR, Cole MB. Destruction of Listeria monocytogenes during microwave cooking. Lancet. 1989;1(8631):218.
30. Burros M. Eating well. The New York Times, Aug. 16, 1989.
31. Moreira MA, Andre LC, Cardeal ZL. Analysis of phthalate migration to food simulants in plastic containers during microwave operations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(1):507-26.
32. Sheets RW, Turpen SL, Hill P. Effect of microwave heating on leaching of lead from old ceramic dinnerware. Sci Total Environ. 1996;182(1-3):187-91.
33. Hannon JC, Kerry JP, Cruz-Romero M et al. Assessment of the migration potential of nanosilver from nanoparticle-coated low-density polyethylene food packaging into food simulants. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2016;33(1):167-78.
34. Renner R. It’s in the microwave popcorn, not the Teflon pan. Environmental Science & Technology, Jan. 1, 2006.
35. Otoh M. The mystery of the fish grill and the trials of baking. The Japan Times, Aug. 26, 2017.
36. A super-efficient Japanese kitchen. http://www.justhungry.com/super-efficient-japanesekitchen.
37. Simple and easy Japanese fish recipes cooked in a microwave. https://www.udemy.com/course/simple-and-easy-japanese-fish-recipes-cooked-in-a-microwave/.
38. Ferdman RA. The slow death of the microwave. Quartz, Mar. 19, 2014.
39. Top 3 trends impacting the microwave oven market in the US through 2020: Technavio. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160901005022/en/Top-3-Trends-Impacting-Microwave-Oven-Market.
40. Valentine T. What happens when Americans consume tons of microwaved foods? Search for Health, Sept/Oct 1992, pp. 2-13.
41. Best S. Microwave ovens: a recipe for cancer. What Doctors Don’t Tell You. 2000;10(12):1-4.
42. Mercola J. Why you should avoid microwave cooking. Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, June 2001, pp. 128-9.
43. This is why microwave ovens banned in Russia. http://www.thehealthconsciousness.com/microwave-ovens-banned-russia/.
44. Lai C-N. The Pursuit of Life. Lapis Lazuli Light; 1993.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Fall 2019
🖨️ Print post
What are some safe Microwave alternatives? Especially for reheating liquids? Thank you.
A very effective alternative device is called a “Stove.”
Reheat in a saucepan with a little broth, or put things in a glass dish and heat in a toaster oven.
Dr Lai lists the best types of cookware on page 87 of “The Pursuit of Life”:
Best to Worst:
Gold, clay, ceramic, enamel, glass, copper,iron, stainless steel, aluminium (aka aluminum).
She high discourages the use of aluminum for utensils or cookware due its toxicity.
She received her doctorate in Chemistry from M.I.T.
Without commenting on the health concerns about microwave ovens, it should be pointed out that many of the things of concern also happen with stovetop heating, in particular, the conversion of benign nitrates into cancer-causing nitrites.
“Everything gives you cancer!” — Joe Jackson
Yes, exactly
What is the author’s PhD in? I can’t find evidence of a “Merinda Teller” existing outside of this website.
This is what we refer to as ad hominem. Defined as an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Did you read the article in full and reference the citations? What content don’t you agree with? We ask sincerely.
She’s trying to ascertain whether or not the author is a real person.
If the author or her credentials are fabricated, we would be pretty foolish to believe what were being told.
That’s a good question.
Ditched it 20 years ago!
we only re-heat food in our microwave.( 30 seconds to 1 min. , max.) we do not cook our food in the microwave. over the past 2 or 3 years, I’ve been re-heating more often with the stove or conventional oven. Is 30-45 seconds of re-heating in a microwave still as dangerous ?
Just asking but did anyone actually read any of the cited papers? Did anyone actually ask a physicist about what radiation is? I ask because there are some basic and fundamental errors in this article.
– “In the electromagnetic spectrum there is nothing but a judgemental line of demarcation separating x-rays from microwaves”. Yes there is, it’s called ionisation. Gamma rays and x-rays are ionising radiation which has enough energy to cause ionisation or stripping of electrons; radio waves and MWs are non-ionising radiation and cannot do this. Huge difference.
– MWs don’t “cook from the inside”. They can only penetrate 2-4 cm which cooks pretty well at the same speed. Thicker than that and stuff cooks by conduction, same as when roasting, baking or frying.
– molecular violence, “shaken cell syndrome”, ripping molecules apart etc. Scaremongering pseudoscientific rubbish. Heat =>motion and motion=>heat. Heat water up from an external source and it will boil and become violent without MWs being there, but it won’t rip anything apart. and neither will MWs. The change in food quality is because of the heat, remembering that MWs are non ionising so cannot form radiolytic compounds or indeed anything “not found in nature”.
– “The government says MWed food is safe – actually the contrary is true”. Er, really? Is there any substantial evidence for this (this article contains none once you drill down through the scaremongering and actually read the cited studies)?
– MW ovens are Big Business. They are – but the US imports 80% of its MW ovens and exports hardly any. Why would US business support a foreign dominated market? Wouldn’t they prefer that you buy US made products ? And retailers would love you to ditch that foreign made MW rubbish and buy something else – 2 bites at the profit cherry. That argument doesn’t stack up.
– Hans Hertel’s “study” – this forms the basis of most anti MW articles. Taken up by Wayne and Newell whose articles (The Proven Dangers/Hazards of MW cooking) forms the basis for Mercola’s article. Unfortunately it’s an appalling study. Just 8 subjects – including himself – of whom 7 were on macrobiotic vegetarian diets although no consideration was made for any lactose intolerance or chronic anaemia both of which are more common in this subject type, no blinds or double blinds (they all knew what they were eating), no controls due to multiple factors (raw vs cooked vegetables, raw vs pasteurised milk, frozen vs fresh, organic vs standard) before even introducing the MW factor, results were commented on before concluding, no peer review, not published in a reputable journal. Basically so poor that it should never, ever be cited. His colleague, Bernard Blanc, resigned because he was not involved in the conclusions which were not supported by the results. And 40 years later, we have not suffered a mass extinction as he suggested.
– Court case against Hertel – yes, true, there was one. But remember he was stating something as true for which he had no evidence. He stated that MWing led to cancer (still not proven nearly 40 years later). As the European Court of Justice found, he had the right to express an opinion and his article was published in a type of journal that was not of a nature to be believed as scientific and therefore should be seen only as opinion. Hence they found for Hertel and against the Swiss.
– Hans Herel’s sidebar – that MW energy accumulates in food and is passed onto the blood. Well, yes it does. In the form of heat. But his implication is that it is more akin to radioactive radiation, a catastrophically incorrect assumption that misses the fundamental concept of EM radiation. MWs cannot accumulate any more than light can. Turn off the light and it goes dark. Turn off a MW oven and there are no more MWs. Energy is conserved but in the form of heat (which in fact is another form of EM radiation).
– Soviet research – mostly collated from an article by a “researcher” called William Kopp and taken into Wayne and Newell’s articles (and thence to Mercola). Unfortunately Kopp did not give any details as to his sources other than “Soviet studies”, no authors, no journal. And many of his conclusions just aren’t scientific. Given that Kopp has little formal scientific training (and neither to Wayne and Newell) we need to be very careful when reading his work.
– Soviet ban in 1976. Complete Myth. Every single article stating this can be traced ultimately to Kopp’s article. Various debunkers have looked through the Soviet era legal code for either the ban or its repeal and could find nothing. There have been bans on western goods (blue jeans, early CDs etc.) and the chances are that the any MW ban was actually of this nature.
– MWed water for plant growth. As a local district Science Fair judge, I see this most years. With nearing 1,000 plants tested, I have never seen results other than “no difference with other heated water”. Scopes also found this. Indeed, the only reliable reference to anything different is Dr Chiu’s and there are scores that have found nothing.
This article has taken as true comments in other articles which have misunderstood the science. Yet it no-one seems to have asked about the science, no physicists, chemists or biologists were consulted, an omission which has led to a very one sided argument. Errors are numerous enough and elemental enough to cast doubt on the whole article. A big pity because there are interesting elements. But as a whole, not reliable enough.
With so much info on the rebuffing of the article and how you made it seem some of the points were nonsensical, making it sound like the MW’s are safe to use, I noticed that you didn’t address any of the points about the human breast milk damage upon heating, or the plastics, & PFOA’s etc. mixed in with food after heating. Why? Do you believe these studies, which I did drill down on, to be fraudulent and false?
They seemed pretty well backed up to me, with sources and research and also some of our own Gov agencies.
Milk effects – True, I did not reference the milk issue. My mistake, it was getting long. But I had read it.
The most frequently cited paper is “Effects of Microwave Radiation on Anti-infective Factors in Human Milk” (Richard Quan et al, MD PEDIATRICS Vol. 89 No. 4 April 1992, pp. 667-669).
Their conclusion was that high levels of heating by MWs was to be discouraged and even at lower temperatures there might be questions. But they did not conclude that MW heating was any more dangerous than traditional heating if sufficient controls were in place – noting that controls need to be much stricter given the quicker heating. They also stated that heating on an stove to higher temperatures was also to be discouraged as it also “cooked” the blood
Many articles, particularly American, confuse the temperature scales. While milk heated to 95ºC nearly boils and loses much of its goodness, heated to 95ºF it is roughly body temperature. They conclude that body temperature MWed milk has no goodness! That was NOT in the paper.
Plastics – yes it is absolutely true that many plastics can leach noxious chemicals when heated. However this would happen in a normal oven too and is not specific to MW ovens. I wouldn’t use any plastic in a traditional oven but some plastics are considered MW resistant and do not leach at the lower temperatures of MW cooking.
Now in 2022, 40 years after the original articles were published, we still lack any real evidence of the dangers of MW cooking. 15 years ago, if you googled “dangers microwave cooking” you got lots of references to the same article by Anthony and Newell, today you would get far fewer with lots of others debunking the issue.
I stand by my comments having actually read all the references. For full disclosure, I have a B.Sc. (Hons) in Animal Sciences. I also had to study physics and chemistry to a reasonably high level, so I am not scientifically ignorant. This also gives me lots of background information, such as radiation and radio-activity are NOT the same (which is an ongoing misunderstanding in many articles, especially when it comes to “radiolytic compounds” and “chemicals unknown to Nature”).
Correction – I did not read ALL the references, just the ones I could access on line. This would therefore exclude all books or defunct websites.
You dont like the small study size, and lack of control group with Hans Hertel and Bernard Blanc’s study. OK I got it, now show me a study that has a larger amounts of participants, and a controll group that found the opposite. Can you?
Soviet ban, yah thats bunk…their have been pictures of Soviet Microwaves online…if it ever was “prohibited”, it was short lived.
“MW ovens are Big Business. They are – but the US imports 80% of its MW ovens and exports hardly any. Why would US business support a foreign dominated market? Wouldn’t they prefer that you buy US made products ? And retailers would love you to ditch that foreign made MW rubbish and buy something else – 2 bites at the profit cherry. That argument doesn’t stack up..”
The lawsuit was brought in Switzerland ( not USA) against Hertel and Blanc by the “Swiss Association of Manufacturers and Suppliers of Household Electrical Appliances”
That includes importers, sales, middlemen, and retailers…not just manufactures…How many Microwaves were being made in Switzerland at the time…certainly not many!
https://jurinfo.jep.gov.co/normograma/compilacion/docs/pdf/CASE%20OF%20HERTEL%20v.%20SWITZERLAND.PDF
Yet they brought a court case…so profit motive here.
Also note in the above link. the case against Hertel and Balnc had more to do with the Journalist publishing an immage of a “grimm reaper” on every page of the article in “Journal Franz Weber.”
The Judgement never attacked the study itself in a scientific manor, just the publication of the journal that included such illistrations…”irrespective of whether the substance was true, overstepped the acceptable limits and has thus acted unnecessarily woundingly within the meaning of section 3(a) UCA.” ( See page 22 in above link)
Again: “irrespective of whether the substance was true…”
As far as I know there hasn’t been a study similar to Hertel’s but showing the opposite results. But then again, why would there be given the almost total lack of evidence to support Hertel’s suppositions. It should be noted that Hertel’s findings implied that cancerous preconditions were found, yet 40 years later we do not have cancer levels that can be attributed to MW cooking. None of Hertel’s supposed results have extrapolated to the population at large.
Soviet ban – this is simply bunk, not even “short lived”, it is simply not true at all.
Re Hans Hertel’s case – this was heard at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France (it is a Council of Europe court of which Switzerland is a member, not a European Union court of which Switzerland is not a member). Bernard Blanc had already retracted his participation based on not having been involved in the conclusions and disagreeing with them so the Swiss case was not against him but only Hertel and the Journal Franz Weber. The ECHR found that Hertel had not infringed of s.10 of the Swiss Unfair Competition Act (UCA). The UCA was set up to prohibit activities which hindered unfair competition and is aimed primarily at companies. S.10 of the UCA allows professional bodies to also come within the Act (see p26). Hertel argued that he wasn’t a professional body and that what he had published was “freedom of expression” (p .27) and the ECHR agreed (p 37). Essentially the case became one of freedom of expression not of proof of science.
Are you allowed to have and proclaim a whacky opinion – Yes.
Does it have to have substance – No. That was the bare bones decision.
Was there a financial concern by Swiss retailers, yes, I’ve never refuted that. But to say, as many do, “follow the money” when speaking of the US and I stand by my comments. The US does not build many MW ovens so why would they try to hide / ban MW danger stories. Answer – they don’t. The reason that no court case has happened is that the US Big Business is happy to have people scared of foreign made machines particularly if the alternative (toaster ovens) are made in the US or if retailers get a second bite at the profit apple.
Thank you for taking the time to debunk a lot of this crap.
The “shaken cell syndrome” stuff is hilarious. “Violent” heating. 😄
Look for the numerous studies done showing that non-ionizing radiation is harmful too, not just ionizing. There is a LOT of evidence of this.
In my opinion, having used MW ovens since 1965.
That they are completely safe if used correctly and if there is no damage to the door seal.
I will admit arfer read studies indicating possible problems with using a MW to heat milk… I would shy away from doing so.
As far as the leeching of compounds from plastic containers… I agree that could happen. I only use glass and only use MW for reheating.
Only for a short amount of time and never use a MW to cook food from a raw state. I only have a small amount of scientific training and my opinion is only based on my 58 years of experience .
thanks
As a layperson in this area, please do not delete the comments here. I find it helpful to both read the original article, and also assess the rebuttals to arrive at my own conclusion. I appreciate both sides, and I think having that balance assists in making an informed decision. Thank you!
I, too, appreciate everyone’s thoughtful comments. Tom Cowan is debunking a lot of heretofore ‘science’ because of lack of good studies. I appreciate that. I also embrace the idea that not everything will be ‘provable’ by that means.
It is obvious to all serious cooks that different methods of cooking and heating chemically change the food. Stove top, direct fire, roasting at high temperatures verses slow cooking at low ones. Additionally, food chemically reacts with the different vessels that it is held in or not. So it only makes sense that microwaves would change the chemicals in food in a novel way and we find that it does.
Our bodies, whether you believe we came from a Creator or Evolution were not designed or evolved to handle the unique changes that microwaves would make in our food. Furthermore, there are some people who eat out of a microwave daily and others might only use it 3x per week. Multiple that habit by a decade and you would find more solid evidence.