Why are microwaves still legal in the USA?? How can we justify feeding radioactive food to our kids?
Microwaves are proven to make our food so much worse for us than natural cooking methods, and they have been linked to increased rates of cancer and (surprise) obesity.
It's so hard to find unbiased info on this topic because of the radiation lobby: http://www.rense.com/general2/dangers.htm
>>8076033
Bull-fucking-shit.
Nice sources
>http://www.rense.com
shit, is that webpage what's going on in a tinfoil's head ?
>>8076053
>>8076052
MAYBE if you actually evaluated the source information and used your head for once to think about something new. The simple facts of the matter show that microwaves cant possibly be healthy to cook with.
If you aren't willing to accept that what you have been taught may be wrong, you WILL fuck yourself later down the road.
>>8076033
>microwaves in a cavity create thrust
>people use it to "cook" food
ENOUGH
>>8076058
This isn't something new, this shit is a topic since the dwn of microwaves.
But you just stumbled upon it as the 18 year old fuckwit you are.
>>8076060
OK anons I know this looks like tin foil hat kookery, but I think there could be a case here. I'm merely a dirty undergrad, but I want to see if I could get some chemfags to sound off about this:
I know we tune the wavelengths to match the vibrational frequency of water, but hear me out -- there's a whole bunch of wacky reactions you can drive using microwave radiation. And there's an unfathomably large variety of different substrates present in your food.
Who's to say you're not potentially driving a reaction to create something nasty in your food, if the energy gap happens to match coincidentally to produce an undesirable product?
>>8076077
The same than would happen when heating it the conventional way. Both processes just give more energy to the systems. The way of supplying the energy is different.
>>8076077
>there's a whole bunch of wacky reactions you can drive using microwave radiation. And there's an unfathomably large variety of different substrates present in your food.
but the same could be said for conventional heating to cook food
>>8076057
If you're susceptible to one kind of bullshit, you're likely to be susceptible to all of them. The mechanism that failed to filter the first is also absent for the rest.
>>8076033
>pic
>6. They hold a treasure trove of great DIY parts you can harvest to make your own tools and cool sciencey tech stuff.
Which is really my only interest in Microwaves at all. They are just a counter top waste of space and consumerism money sink.
>tfw I have like 10 MOTs and related guts.
>>8076083
>>8076084
But don't microwave reactions proceed through free radical mechanisms? What if you end up ingesting radicals? People have looked into products formed during conventional heating (I.e. maillard reactions) and that's how we know not to eat overcooked food. Shouldn't we be taking similar iniatives with the microwave?
>>8076090
>>8076057
It is similar to the same switch that gets flipped "ON" for people who collect one theme of thing.
>>8076102
I would say microwaving is safer because it doesn't require such long times to heat things up thus reducing the effects related to chemical changes in our food.
>>8076033
5 facts about microwaves
They're machines.
And electric
I love them!
MICROWAVES!
>>8076102
>But don't microwave reactions proceed through free radical mechanisms?
no
microwaves are not ionizing radiation, they do not supply enough energy to produce free radicals
microwave reactions occur because your molecules are able to tumble around faster and find each other more efficiently so they can react.
>>8076125
source?
>>8076110
Microwave ovens could have a different class of chemical changes associated with them than conventional heating, so it doesn't matter if you compare heating duration because they're probably doing different things anyway
There's a million and one new papers every week about a "novel microwave-assisted synthesis of X", and the whole schtick is that it only happens if you blast microwaves at it instead of simply heating it
>>8076125
Oh I see, that clarifies it
Thanks anon
>>8076129
I'm amazed someone saved my crappy meme from way back.
Just heating water in a microwave is only about 50-55% energy efficient. Anything you heat up that has less than 100% water will be less energy efficient of course. We'd be better off using modified cooking vessels and modified combustion cooking methods. Simply adding thermal insulation to most cooking vessels and cooking devices can get them over 55% energy efficiency.
>tfw I can make a 3 cups of cooked rice with only about 8mins of standard gas top stove heating by using a DIY thermal mass cooker.
>>8076033
>Microwaves are proven to make our food so much worse for us than natural cooking methods
Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.1585/abstract
Total flavonoid and individual hydroxycinnamoyl derivative (sinapic and caffeoyl-quinic acid derivative) contents were evaluated in the edible portions of freshly harvested broccoli (cv Marathon inflorescences) before and after cooking and in the cooking water. High-pressure boiling, low-pressure boiling (conventional), steaming and microwaving were the four domestic cooking processes used in this work. The predominant sinapic acid derivatives were identified as 1,2,2′-trisinapoylgentiobiose and 1,2′-disinapoyl-2-feruloylgentiobiose. In addition 1,2-diferuloylgentiobiose and 1-sinapoyl-2,2′-diferuloylgentiobiose were also identified in broccoli inflorescences. The results showed large differences among the four treatments in their influence on flavonoid and hydroxycinnamoyl derivative contents in broccoli. Clear disadvantages were detected when broccoli was microwaved, namely high losses of flavonoids (97%), sinapic acid derivatives (74%) and caffeoyl-quinic acid derivatives (87%). Conventional boiling led to a significant loss of flavonoids (66%) from fresh raw broccoli, while high-pressure boiling caused considerable leaching (47%) of caffeoyl-quinic acid derivatives into the cooking water. On the other hand, steaming had minimal effects, in terms of loss, on both flavonoid and hydroxycinnamoyl derivative contents. Therefore we can conclude that a greater quantity of phenolic compounds will be provided by consumption of steamed broccoli as compared with broccoli prepared by other cooking processes. Copyright © 2003 Society of Chemical Industry
>>8076128
any quantum chemistry textbook
ionization energies of molecules (for example, benzene in an ice matrix is 1.6E6 GHz) vs conventional microwave oven energy (2.45 GHz)
my chemical education as a chemistry PhD student
>>8076169
The tl;dr version is,
Microwaving = shit that destroys nutrients in food far more than anything else, by a wade margin.
Steaming has negligible affect on nutrient content of food.
>>8076176
>wade
Thank you autocorrect.
>>8076169
So I should place my fruits on a porcelain bowl with water then microwave it?
>>8076033
1. So? This says nothing about safety or risc
2. Non specific claim. No source.
3. Vague and non specific claim. No source.
4. Suggestive and non specific claim. No source.
5. Suggestive, vague and non specific claim. No source.
>>8076033
It's certainly possible, OP.
It's funny how /sci/ denies everything is bad for you but smoking. In starting to think there's a personal agenda against it, myself.
>>8076033
Microwaves - They use energy to create friction to a molecule, making a molecule hot (joule friction, LELLELELLE). It does not destroy nutrient value, just like posting that comment does not decrease your IQ.
Microwaves does not create carcinogenic compounds, it can only make them stronger (THC in marijuana) but it would be the same as heating marijuana.
Radiation is energy, Microwave is energy. The exposure to "Radiation" is in fact gamma rays, beta rays, and alpha rays, which is a different branch of radiation (It is a part of radiation).
Microwave can create severe health issues, so does a vending machine. Microwave only create severe health issues to a person who don't know how to operate them.
>>8076301
I question the integrity of /sci/ now. Too much plastics here. I only want to say one word, just one word, PLASTICS.
>>8076301
We know that microwave ovens heat things differently then conventional ovens. Only things with water and other molecules resonant at the microwave frequency will be heated. You can also see differences in mechanical properties of microwaved food from food heated conventionally. So saying that it's just heat isn't quite right and doesn't mean they're safe.
Is there a graph comparing microwave oven sales to the prevalence of autism yet?
>>8076454
They have different mechanical properties because things are heated from the inside out, while it's outside in for other methods, of course this is gonna change how things look/behave
>>8076243
Why the fuck would you heat fruits in the first place?
Nonesense
>>8076077
youre not "tuning" shit. molecules that have a dipole such as fucking water, will align themselves with the electric field passing through them. this happens something like (some number)x 10^(a lot) times per second. the resulting friction of all these vibrating water molecules against each other or the other food constituents causes heat, which in turn warms your food up.
the wacky reactions and nasty products you describe are common products of the Maillard reaction (or Maillard browning). this occurs when an amino acid and a reducing sugar undergo a condensation reaction, amadori rearragement, strecker degradation, cyclization (spelling?) or polymerization. these rxns have a relatively high energy of activation, and often times, it might be difficult for your food to reach that temp in a microwave oven, although yes its posssibe. See the pic.
>>8076084
yes this guy is a right. roasting, open fire grilling etc etc. most of the delicious aromas and flavors from browning your foods come from the Maillard reaction. some of these compounds are indeed carcinogens, but the risk of they affeciting you seriously is really really really fucking low. Just think how long have people been smoking, grilling, fire roasting their food (i.e. roasting coffe, making bread, grilling meat)
>>8076102
like some guys said, microwaves are non-ioninzing radiation. youre at a higher risk by standing in the fucking sunlight
>>8076110
yea something like that. theyre safe. period.
>>8076128
just look up ionizing radiation
>>8076129
no. you do understand how chemical reactions work
>>8076164
thats actually really neat anon, how you make it or what is it
>>8076033
Why are microwaves still legal in the USA??
why wouldn't they be?
How can we justify feeding radioactive food to our kids?
microwaves don't make food radioactive
Microwaves are proven to make our food so much worse for us than natural cooking methods, and they have been linked to increased rates of cancer and (surprise) obesity.
cute, but i'd love to see a source
>>8076058
>MAYBE if you actually evaluated the source information
what source information?
>The simple facts of the matter show that microwaves cant possibly be healthy to cook with.
waiting on that source
>If you aren't willing to accept that what you have been taught may be wrong, you WILL fuck yourself later down the road.
agreed, can't wait for you to back your assertions up:)
>>8076169
>>8076176
>>8076243
nice abstract faggot
post the temperatures each one of those conventional heating methods reached. TEMPERATURE will induce degradation of phenolics. thats the bottom line. TEMPERATURE. in the boiling, of course youre going to have losses through leaching. if your grill a fucking broccoli or asparagus or whatever green, red, purple vegetable you bought, of course a considerable portion of those phenolics are going to degrade. just leaving cutting them and leaving them out in the countertop will induce polyphenol oxidase to degrade them.
the fact is, youre losing a marginal amount phytonutrients. if you want to steam your food, by all means do so. for me however, its not worth the loss of taste/flavor. id rather sautee my veggies or something. then, eat a plum to get all my anthocyanins and betalains thank you very much.
>>8076243
yea why the fuck are you microwaving fruit
>>8076454
this guy is right >>8076467
>>8076033
1) Sort of true, but it is a stretch of the truth. Microwaves (the waves) were well understood. The appliance
2) It is to a such a small degree that it is negligible
3) Never even heard of this
4) No they don't. Period. The "radiation" is minor and the appliance is more than shielded.
5) This isn't even a reason. Just a false statement.
this thread has convinced me that chem 101 needs to be mandatory for all degrees.
>>8076164
I've often wondered why pots don't have insulation on the sides.
>>8076058
>I just read my first articles and want to prove the world GMO and microwaves are a bad thing: The post
>>8076033
>1: Bogus.
>2: They denature enzymes, all cooking does. All digestion does, too. That has nothing to do with nutrition.
>3: *in the state of California.
>4: Bogus, all harmful radiation is shielded.
>5: ...such as? Also bogus.
>>8076033
Doesnt cooling things in conventional ways generally yield carcinogenic compounds anyways? I mean look at barbequeing.
What's with all the dumb shit conspiracy threads on /sci/? Don't /pol/ and /x/ exist for a reason?
>>8076911
>4: Bogus, all harmful radiation is shielded.
Wrong, some models do leak some radiations. Also there are reports of broken microwaves leaking even more radiations.
Electromagnetic waves above UV are the ones know to give you cancer. The lower you go, the less dangerous they are.
You are more likely to get cancer from food heated under a lamp than you are from microwaved food.
>>8077069
Microwaved food is less healthy than non-microwaved food. Microwaves still leak (some of them).
>>8077049
>Also there are reports of broken microwaves leaking even more radiations
no shit, it's fucking broken, don't use it
>>8077049
And a broken oven would probably burn your house down.
hey guess what
your router's frequency is the same as your microwave
we are being cooked slowly for our reptilian masters
>>8077018
It's all the same people. When /pol/ and /x/ types want to talk about something that's vaguely sciency, they come here to spew nonsense about how vaccines, GMOs, and now even microwave ovens are a Jewish plot to enslave humanity.
It's a lot quicker and easier to make shit. I guess if you're doing other things to maintain a somewhat healthy lifestyle, you should be fine?
>inb4 can't run away from cancer
>>8077155
I'm not saying that its a conspiracy, just that the microwave lobby doesnt want accurate studies to be done because they are afraid of the public backlash when people learn that their food is getting destroyed and irradiated
1.) Everything radiates radiation with the exception of hypothetical dark matter [hence it's name]
2.) Not all radiation is dangerous
3.) Microwaves are short bursts
Seriously, what is with all the /x/ tinfoil posts in the past few hours?
>Flat earth conspiracy
>Microwave conspiracy
>Buzz Aldrin conspiracy
>Blackhole conspiracy
>AI conspiracy
And:
>Anime unrelated OP pics
>Gorilla/Chimp Posts
>Vanity Posts
What the hell?
>>8077198
>go to a website for low-functioning welfare recipients and children who are too mentally ill to make accounts at forums
>be surprised when they have blatantly wrong thinking and beliefs
>>8077238
Yeah, but it didn't used to be this bad.
A lot of boards seem to have gone badly downhill in the last handful of months. There's almost no moderation going on too.
>>8077198
>Seriously, what is with all the /x/ tinfoil posts in the past few hours?
Most of it's probably just one or two shitters.
The gorilla posts have been going on for months now though. That the dipshit making them hasn't been banned is pretty astounding..
>>8077085
sure, because the magnetron doesn't uses over 20000V, needed to produce x rays
please dont bully the thinfoil heads their brains are already destroied by the radiation colected by their tinfoil
>>8076033
What has /sci/ become, responding to crap like this?
