Microwave & Cancer Risk: Is Heating Food/Fluids Dangerous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiRsq
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cancer Microwave
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential link between microwave cooking and cancer risk. Participants argue that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting the claim that microwaving food increases cancer risk. They highlight that cancer results from genetic defects, which microwaves lack the energy to induce. The consensus is that microwaves do not create harmful free radicals or carcinogens in food, unlike other cooking methods, such as grilling. Concerns about microwaves often stem from misunderstandings about radiation and its effects. While some participants acknowledge the need for ongoing research into food safety and potential chemical leaching from plastic containers, they emphasize that the current scientific understanding does not support a direct link between microwave use and cancer. Overall, the discussion reflects a strong confidence in the safety of microwaved food based on existing studies and knowledge.
PiRsq
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
Is is true that heating food/fluids using microwaves leads to a higher risk of cancer?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Proof?
 
Originally posted by PiRsq
Proof?
Proof that it does NOT? No such thing. Negatives are inherrently unprovable. I can assure you however that no one has ever shown even a tenuous statistical link between microwave ovens and cancer- either directly or through food, much less an explanation of how it could even be possible. And there are plenty of good reasons why it can't:

First, cancer comes from genetic defects. How eactly would food cause a genetic defect? Maybe if it was radioactive... This argument is not unlike the common misconceptions about genetically engineered food.

The microwaves themselves aren't even energetic engouh to damage dna. The usual old-wive's tale is that if you watch your popcorn pop, you'll go blind. Thats not bad (that much energy could burn your retina), but microwave ovens use screens that reflect microwaves. So very little gets out and they can't damage your eyes.
 
Originally posted by russ_watters
Proof that it does NOT? No such thing. Negatives are inherrently unprovable. I can assure you however that no one has ever shown even a tenuous statistical link between microwave ovens and cancer- either directly or through food, much less an explanation of how it could even be possible. And there are plenty of good reasons why it can't:

Have any long term studies been done?

First, cancer comes from genetic defects. How eactly would food cause a genetic defect?

Then smoking must not cause cancer either.

Maybe if it was radioactive... This argument is not unlike the common misconceptions about genetically engineered food.

Of course you have the long term studies to clear up these misconceptions...whatever they are?

The microwaves themselves aren't even energetic engouh to damage dna.

Which is why we spent millions of dollars to determine if radio waves could do damage to cells when used in the application of NMR [MRI]. Non-ionizing does not guarantee no damage.

Is is true that heating food/fluids using microwaves leads to a higher risk of cancer?

I think the proper answer is that we have no reason to believe that any relationship exists here. It is also difficult to imagine how any relationship could exist.
 
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Have any long term studies been done?

Then smoking must not cause cancer either.

Last time i checked, smoking did cause genetic defects, in that it damages DNA.

I thought microwaves work by emitting electromagnetic waves (radiation ) of the same frequency of water molecules to pass on energy, so it shouldn't be more dangerous than a heater.
 
Originally posted by Jikx
Last time i checked, smoking did cause genetic defects, in that it damages DNA.

Yes. Could other damage occur from yet unidentified sources? I don't think our understanding of cancer is complete.

I thought microwaves work by emitting electromagnetic waves (radiation ) of the same frequency of water molecules to pass on energy, so it shouldn't be more dangerous than a heater.

You are correct in how it works; however I don't think you would want to warm yourself in the microwave would you? Though it is likely inconsequential within the context of this question, there is a difference. My objection is the claim of certainty where only confidence prevails. I worked on MRI units [in the very early days of MR] for about 7 years. Even though we only use RF to "vibrate" the water molecules in tissue, which in turn causes the molecules to release a sympathetic RF signal, a great deal of study was done to verify that no cellular damage was occurring. This continued for many years. The fact is, even though this radiation is much lower in energy than microwaves, we weren’t sure what effects this may have tissue.
 
First, do you know how microwaves work?

It is a wavelight energy which is equal to the resonating frequency of water, only water molecules are affected by the radiation. DNA has a different resonating frequency and will thus not be affected.

If you are asking whether microwave FOOD can cause cancer, you should find your answer in the question: does microwave radiation cause the formation of free radicals (as smoking does)?
 
And BTW, I would be carefull in what you heat your food. I have heard about reports that some plastic molecules might become 'loose' and leak into your food, but I don't have anything to back that up..
 
Originally posted by Monique
First, do you know how microwaves work?

It is a wavelight energy which is equal to the resonating frequency of water, only water molecules are affected by the radiation. DNA has a different resonating frequency and will thus not be affected.

This only means that water molecules are most affected. Also, we could see harmonics come into play. Isn't it interesting that the medical community was concerned about cellular damage from RF?

If you are asking whether microwave FOOD can cause cancer, you should find your answer in the question: does microwave radiation cause the formation of free radicals (as smoking does)?

I agree. Within the the context of our present understanding of the mechanism of cancer this is the signficant question. However, might our understanding ever change?

As I said,
I think the proper answer is that we have no reason to believe that any relationship exists here. It is also difficult to imagine how any relationship could exist.

Is it remotely possible that microwaves could affect some other substance? For example, perhaps microwaves could cause damage to certain cells or that are somehow critical to the absorbtion of anti-oxidents?

Is the theory of cancer complete?

Could the seals on microwave doors start to leak after time thus exposing the popcorn watchers to radiation on a daily basis?

I am not agruing against the popular notions of science; I am arguing that in most scientific contexts, one should never say never. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Have any long term studies been done?

How long have we use the microwave oven? Any increase on the number of cancer related to intesnital track organs that are not due to better diagnostic? Food have eradiated for over 50 years. The process damage DNA of the bacteria and unicellular organism but not of the food itself because the cell are more complex. Also the food does not become radioactive. So we can extrapolate from that. Does microvawe can penetrate animal and plant nuclei and damage DNA signifanctly. As monique, it there any free radical create or any other subtance that is mutagenic.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Isn't it interesting that the medical community was concerned about cellular damage from RF?

If they going to used for medical purpose, they have to do research. It also a different issue than eating microwaved food.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by PiRsq
Is is true that heating food/fluids using microwaves leads to a higher risk of cancer?

Water that comes from a microwave is chemcially identical to water that is heated by other means. There are no more free radicals, or interchelating polyaromatic hydrocarbons (the main danger from smoking). Microwaves do not provide enough energy to cause chemical reactions to occur, the only cause water molecules to spin around faster. Which is what produces heat. The heat can then cause new reactions in food stuffs, but heat is produced in other kinds of cooking and cause the same reactions. Frankly cooking meat over coals is much more carcinogenic than microwaving it, since the former actually produces carcinogens, while the latter does not.

Look, radiation that's less energenic than UV doesn't cause cancer. Lightbulbs are literally a greater source of radiation than microwaves. And they're more energetic to boot. So why all the studys on rf and microwaves (they're pretty much the same thing, and microwave has been studied because of cell phone use)? Frankly, it's because people hear the word radiation and they freak out. That's why they had to change the name of NMR to MRI, because in the former the R stands for radiation, and patients refuse to get into it, even though they're the same machine.

I doubt any scientist has ever worried about harmful effects from rf and microwaves, the studies done have probably been done just to alleviate the fears of the ignorant public. And if there are people in the medical community who were worried about the outcome of the results; well, with all due respect to doctors, most don't know squat about chemistry and physics.

(And I should know, I've had many a would-be doctor not pass my O-chem classes, not that I'm worried, because I'd rather have my surgeon more familiar with anatomy than quantum mechanics.)
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Have any long term studies been done?
Yes. As a matter of fact though, the whole old-wives tale was started and perpetuated by a reporter without any basis in the first place. But it caught on and he made a bunch of money off of it. You can read about it in "Voodoo Science."
Of course you have the long term studies to clear up these misconceptions...whatever they are?
Yes. In its first incarnation, GM food has been around for centuries. We call it "hybridization." Direct manipulation of the genes has been around since the 60s and has been extensively studied. And GM food today is so widespread there likely isn't a person anywhere in the US who doesn't eat it - and most people don't even know it. Virtually all soybeans for example, are GM.
Yes. Could other damage occur from yet unidentified sources? I don't think our understanding of cancer is complete.
Our understanding of what causes genetic defects is pretty damn good. Its the killing of those cells that is tough.
My objection is the claim of certainty where only confidence prevails.
You know that word doesn't fit in a scientific discussion. I won't use it, though you imply that's what I mean. To use "confidence" though, our level of confidence is that we are confident about these things beyond any rational objection. Ie, these old wives tales are based on irrational fear of the unknown alone, not scientific data.
Isn't it interesting that the medical community was concerned about cellular damage from RF?
C'mon, Ivan. You first ask if something has been researched then use the fact that it has been researched to hint that that means there is a reason for concern. You can't have it both ways: and scientists research EVERYTHING, most especially things that people have irrational fears of - often (as Chemical- said) because they are directed to.
I am not agruing against the popular notions of science; I am arguing that in most scientific contexts, one should never say never.
Ivan, your arguements go beyond rational concern. To even THINK about such fears would leave you hiding in your closet, rocking back and forth in the fetal position out of fear of EVERYTHING killing you.

I have an aunt and uncle who used to drive to the airport together then get on separate flights so just in case one plane crashed there would still be one parent left to take care of the kids. Nevermind that the car ride to the airport was several orders of magnitude riskier than the plane flight - that's how irrational fears work.
 
  • #13
Obviously not everyone shares the opinions expressed here.

Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii reported in the December 9, 1989 Lancet:

"Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or trans-fatty acids, are not biologically active. Further, one of the amino acids, L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). It's bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving."

This led Dr. Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via eating microwaved food. According to Dr. Hertel, "Leukocytosis, which cannot be accounted for by normal daily deviations, is taken very seriously by hemotologists. Leukocytes are often signs of pathogenic effects on the living system, such as poisoning and cell damage. The increase of leukocytes with the microwaved foods were more pronounced than with all the other variants. It appears that these marked increases were caused entirely by ingesting the microwaved substances.

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lmicrowaveovens.htm

Carcinogens were formed in virtually all foods tested. No test food was subjected to more microwaving than necessary to accomplish the purpose, e.g., cooking or thawing or heating to insure sanitary ingestion. Here's a summary of some of the results:

Microwaving prepared meats sufficiently to insure sanitary ingestion caused formation of d-Nitrosodienthanolamines, a well known carcinogen.

Microwaving milk and cereal grains converted certain of their amino acids into carcinogens.

Thawing frozen fruits converted their glucoside- and galactoside- containing fractions into carcinogenic substances.

Extremely short exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables converted their plant alkaloids into carcinogens.

Carcinogenic free radicals were formed in microwaved plants, especially root vegetables.

http://ighawaii.com/naturally/newsletter/micro.html

Modern day microwave ovens are regulated as radiation-emitting electronic products by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the Health and Human Services Administration. The allowable leakage level (5 milliwatts per square centimeter at two-inches distance) for microwaves outside commercial microwave ovens is set at a low level generally believed to be safe for human exposure.

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1913.html



There was no clear conclusion drawn from the data. Although the data showed some association between appliance use and leukemia, there was no consistent pattern of increasing risk with increasing exposures. The scientists speculate that the magnetic fields from electrical appliances are unlikely to increase the risk of childhood ALL]

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_46.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Research has demonstrated that microwave ovens are not safe. They are a potential health hazard. Sales of microwaves and microwave related products amounts to more than a trillion dollars annually.The health hazard of microwave ovens has been known since the 1940's. The hazard is from direct exposure to microwave radiation and consuming foods prepared in these ovens.

http://www.netjournalist.com/mwovens.html


There is some scientific evidence to suggest that substances used to manufacture plastic products may leach out of the container and into the food it holds, and that some of them may be carcinogenic (cancer-causing).

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_369485__langId-en,00.html


"The only time for concern would be if the door (of the microwave oven) is broken or damaged, in which case the oven should not be used," said nuclear and radiological engineering expert David E. Hintenlang.

Any microwave oven should be used with caution. Don’t stand too close while it’s working. And maybe test the appliance for leaks.

"One sometimes hears about people (fast-food workers, for instance) getting headaches when exposed to leaking microwave ovens," Mueller said. If you work under similar conditions and experience headaches, ask your employer to confirm that there are no leaks, he said.

http://www.theacorn.com/News/2002/0912/Health_and_Wellness/077.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Note: I do not know the source of this information, but as soon as I can find it I will give proper credit for it. Ed


http://www.netjournalist.com/mwovens.html

It adds a lot of credibility to the article:wink:


Most of the website you gave us do not link their claim with a scientific article. It is hard to says that if their claim is credible because we don't see the results (i.e. there mutagenic coumpound but what is the concentration) and also we don't see the materials and methods. Also it would be interresting to compare food cooked with normal oven, microave oven and food defrosted with microave then cook with normal procedure. It also be interresting to see if the cooking pots and pans for the classic oven can leak by-product.
 
  • #16
I have heard of the admonitions against microwaving baby formula, though it is not a cancer issue. That microwaving can produce carcinogens is not that suprising. It is a question of how much risk it poses. Most likely, it is significantly less risk than cooking with conventional heat. All seared fat is significantly carcinogenic, microwaving avoids this (and all the yummy flavor only carcinogens can provide).

BTW, there are low energy wavelengths that can cause genetic damage. I worked in millimeter-wave radar a few years, and we were told to avoid exposing ourselves to it, because it tended to split DNA haphazardly. It's not nearly as dangerous as sunlight, but sometimes we worked with very high powers.

njorl
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Obviously not everyone shares the opinions expressed here.
No one of any scientific credibility disputes them. But there are ALWAYS crackpots.
It's bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving.
"Fake milk"? "Even more toxic"? You MUST see the bias in that person's statements. He's anti-forumla to begin with.
http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net[/QUOTE] C'mon, Ivan, credibilty. Check out the home page of that site. Its a catch-all conspiracy theory website. Not credible science.
http://www.netjournalist.com/mwovens.html : Brodeur
Yep, you found him. He's the one who created the myth. He tends to steer clear of scientists as they quickly and easily debunk him, but he does still sell a lot of books. Moral of the story: start a myth, scare a million people, sell a book, retire. Hmmm...

Your computer monitor is giving you cancer. Buy my book and I'll tell you all about it.
There is some scientific evidence to suggest that substances used to manufacture plastic products may leach out of the container and into the food it holds, and that some of them may be carcinogenic (cancer-causing).
Well, that one is true. And don't put plastic containers in the oven either. And don't boil or peel your vegetables, it sucks the nutrients out. Don't touch the stove. Be careful taking your food out of the microwave - it could burn you. Perspective, Ivan, perspective. Keep your eye on the ball here. These have nothing to do with INHERRENT risks of microwaves or microwave ovens besides the inherrent risks of HEAT. Hot things are dangerous. I think that's well known. Hell, if anything, microwaves are LESS risky because they aren't as hot as conventional ovens.
http://www.theacorn.com[/QUOTE] Obvious creidibility problem.

C'mon, Ivan. You're bette than this. At least a grainy photo of a lens flare could be mistaken for a flying saucer. There really is nothing at all on this one.

edit: Ivan, did you READ Brodeur's article? Its hilarious. I'd never read one before. It a mixture of equal parts gibberish, technobabble, lies, and misunderstandings of science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
microwaves invert the stereocenters of amino acids? Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by russ_watters
No one of any scientific credibility disputes them. But there are ALWAYS crackpots. "Fake milk"? "Even more toxic"? You MUST see the bias in that person's statements. He's anti-forumla to begin with. C'mon, Ivan, credibilty. Check out the home page of that site. Its a catch-all conspiracy theory website. Not credible science. Yep, you found him. He's the one who created the myth. He tends to steer clear of scientists as they quickly and easily debunk him, but he does still sell a lot of books. Moral of the story: start a myth, scare a million people, sell a book, retire. Hmmm...

Your computer monitor is giving you cancer. Buy my book and I'll tell you all about it. Well, that one is true. And don't put plastic containers in the oven either. And don't boil or peel your vegetables, it sucks the nutrients out. Don't touch the stove. Be careful taking your food out of the microwave - it could burn you. Perspective, Ivan, perspective. Keep your eye on the ball here. These have nothing to do with INHERRENT risks of microwaves or microwave ovens besides the inherrent risks of HEAT. Hot things are dangerous. I think that's well known. Hell, if anything, microwaves are LESS risky because they aren't as hot as conventional ovens. Obvious creidibility problem.

C'mon, Ivan. You're bette than this. At least a grainy photo of a lens flare could be mistaken for a flying saucer. There really is nothing at all on this one.

edit: Ivan, did you READ Brodeur's article? Its hilarious. I'd never read one before. It a mixture of equal parts gibberish, technobabble, lies, and misunderstandings of science.

Russ all that you offer as proof is your opinion. At least I post links. All that you do is argue. I think it has been shown that credible controversy exists. This is all that is needed to prove my point.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Russ all that you offer as proof is your opinion. At least I post links. All that you do is argue. I think it has been shown that credible controversy exists. This is all that is needed to prove my point.
Frankly Ivan, those sites are self-debunking and you should know it. No, there is no credible controversy. If its quotes you want (I'm sure in your search you turned up some sites debunking these things, but I'll give you some), the best I have is from "Voodoo Science". I doubt I'll be able to find it online (I'll try) but as long as you trust me, I'll type in some quotes. There is a chapter pretty much devoted entirely to Brodeur (p. 143-167) - he's also into power lines, I'm sure you heard that one too. Anyway, a few excerpts:
The biological effects of microwaves had been studied for thirty years and were the subject of hundreds of papers in the open literature.
The effect of all known cancer-inducing agents - ionizing radiation such as ultraviolet or X rays, chemical carcinogens such as tobacco smoke, and certain viruse - is to damage DNA. The damage consists of broken or altered chemical bonds, creating a mutant strand of DNA. Microwave photons can cause chemical bonds to stretch and bend but cannot come even close to severing the bonds.
Spurred by Brodeur, environmental activists embraced microwaves as a new cause. The immediate impact was to almost destroy the budding microwave oven market, but the problem didn't stop in the kitchen. Every microwave relay tower, ever air traffic control radar, was suddenly suspect. [next is a story of a weather radar that was scrapped due to this fear - nevermind that its purpose was to save lives and property damage by tracking hurricanes]
Over the next few years, however, most of the public seemed to gradually lose its fear of microwaves. New studies failed to confirm the link to cataracts or other health hazards...
By the spring of 1995, the American Physical Society had completed its on review of the EMF literature. Scientific societies are normally reluctant to give the appearance of deciding scientific truth, feeling that their job is to provide a forum for the exchange of scientific results and ideas. In the case of EMF [power lines, not microwaves - but same line of junk science], however, it was felt that the information coming from outside the scientific community, Paul Brodeur and Microwave News in particular, had given the public a seroiusly distorted view of the scientific facts. A statement released by the APS concluded that "conjectures relating cancer to power-line fields have not been scientifically substantiated."
And this one is great:
By now, the total cost of the power-line scare, including relocating power lines and loss of property values, was estimated by the White House Science Office to be in exceess of $25 billion.
Why Brodeur isn't in jail for MegaFraud is beyond me.

http://theai.net/cells.html is a link about Brodeur causing the cell phone antenna scare nonsense. That link contains more excerpts from "Voodoo Science".
http://www.electrowarmth.com/emf.htm one contains pretty much the whole EMF part of the Brodeur chapter.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/deptinfo/facilities/lecdem/honr228q/specialtopics/health.htm one has links about mostly power lines and cell phones - but also how to blow things up in your microwave.
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/publications/text/micro.html is a funny one from Hong Kong which essentially says don't stand too close to a leaky microwave oven or you could get cooked. It also says though that they don't cause cancer.
HERE is one that says plastic getting into your food via your microwave is an urban legend.
THIS one is hilarious - don't heat a grain-filled therapeutic pillow in the microwave or it might catch fire (hey, there IS a danger!

Moulder was right, Ivan - the truth is out there: Its not that hard to find this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Originally posted by russ_watters
Frankly Ivan, those sites are self-debunking and you should know it. No, there is no credible controversy.

In your opinion.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In your opinion.
Please read some of the provided info. It is light years from just being my opinion.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by russ_watters
Please read some of the provided info. It is light years from just being my opinion.

Not until you address all the information that I posted without simply making the opposite assertion as proof. Also, try using more than one source. So far you have only proven that we have controversy. You decided to pick on the weak references. What is questionable about Lancet? The cancer society? A radiation engineer…which by the way I loved this one: You pointed to the name of the link as obvious proof that the statement is bogus. Is this how you do research? It's a newspaper for crying out loud. How is the opinion of a nuclear and radiological engineering expert David E. Hintenlang automatically secondary to yours? This is not good science. I expected more from you Russ.

It is amazing to me that I even need to make this argument. We just don't have the kind of certitude that you think we enjoy; esp when it comes to biology. We can cite confidence; not certitude. This has been my only point all along. Do you think I am arguing otherwise?
 
  • #24
  • #25
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Not until you address all the information that I posted without simply making the opposite assertion as proof.
What I posted *IS* a direct refution (refutation? eh, whatever) of Brodeur. He's a very well established crackpot according to some of the most well respected scientists in the country, ie the American Physical Society. On the side of the issue you are arguing, he's it. He started the myth and all other work on that side of the issue (virtually none)is based on his.
You decided to pick on the weak references.
If you look a little closer, you will find ALL references on that side of this issue can be traced back to Brodeur: He's the one who started the myth.
Also, try using more than one source.
The source I provided is about the most credible source possible on the matter. They don't get any better. Again, I think you have trouble telling the difference.
It is amazing to me that I even need to make this argument. We just don't have the kind of certitude that you think we enjoy; esp when it comes to biology. We can cite confidence; not certitude. This has been my only point all along. Do you think I am arguing otherwise?
Yes, Ivan, I think you ARE arguing that you think microwaves are either a likely or probable health threat, ie. something worthy of attention. I've used several analogies on probabilities before, but you seem to equate one "possible" with another "possible" when in reality, one isn't even worth wasting time THINKING about. The probabilities we are talking about here are somewhere between winning the lottery twice and getting struck by a meteor. Do you seriously worry about getting struck by meteors in your every day life?

There is no such thing as "certitude" in science, only "confidence." I've said this before. You seem to take that to mean that anything is possible and therefore we should fear everything. Thats not what it means. You have to weigh the risks. The scientific community's level of confidence in this one is so high its a waste of time (and frankly just plain unhealthy) worrying about it.

Also, what you see as controversy is not - there is no controversy over this issue in the scientific community. The unprecidented steps taken by the APS should make that clear. What you think is controversy is a old-wive's-tale that won't die, largely because it continues to be exploited by a few crackpots interested only in fraud. Not the same thing.

I've said this before: I think you take (what you consider) open-mindedness too far. I also think you have trouble (heck, maybe you are doing it on purpose for the sake of arguing) telling the difference between a credible source and one that is not credible.
 
Last edited:
  • #26


Originally posted by kerimek
Energy of microwaves is not sufficient to any ionization damage. However is sufficient for large changes in food moleculs geometry.
Those two statements contradict each other.
Nicotine also is not radioactive and causes cancer...
Radiation and radioactive are not the same thing. Microwaves are radiation and have nothing to do with radioactivity (in this context). The substances in cigarettes that cause cancer are chemical carcinagins. It is certainly understood that radiation isn't the only thing that causes cancer.
 
  • #27
Things that can cause cancer:

ionizing radiation, virusses, repeated mechanical stresses, chemical substances, even hot water!

Yes, sorry for the sidetrack, I would like to point out that hot water can cause cancer.. I was told this by my Japanese colleague who is a MD (medical doctor), certain people in Japan eat their rice by throwing hot tea on it and eating it directly.. this irritation by heat eventually will cause mouth/throat/larynx cancers.

And for the microwave.. does anyone know specifications which range of wavelengths is used? And how they are generated?
 
  • #29


Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I doubt any scientist has ever worried about harmful effects from rf and microwaves, the studies done have probably been done just to alleviate the fears of the ignorant public.

For starters, molelcular heating. Can you imagine that we could cook the patient with enough RF? I knew some of the people doing this at Cedars Sinai Medical Center. They took their work most seriously; in spite of many opinons offered here.
 
  • #30
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, Ivan, I think you ARE arguing that you think microwaves are either a likely or probable health threat, ie. something worthy of attention.

Then you argue with ghosts. I never said this. I never implied this. I don't even think this. I own two microwaves and I nuke virtually all my food. This is just one of many examples of how you can't keep your facts straight. I said from the start that we can cite confidence, but not certitude.

I think I have made my position pretty clear:

I think the proper answer is that we have no reason to believe that any relationship exists here. It is also difficult to imagine how any relationship could exist.

Though it is likely inconsequential within the context of this question, there is a difference. My objection is the claim of certainty where only confidence prevails.

I am not arguing against the popular notions of science; I am arguing that in most scientific contexts, one should never say never.

Do you bother to read my posts? Unfortunately, you force me to make an argument that I don’t even agree with.

One of my objections was this:

Russ I can assure you however that no one has ever shown even a tenuous statistical link between microwave ovens and cancer.

You are in direct conflict with The National Cancer Institute.
There was no clear conclusion drawn from the data. Although the data showed some association between appliance use and leukemia, there was no consistent pattern of increasing risk with increasing exposures

There was little evidence of a relationship discovered between risk for ALL in children and exposure to magnetic fields. This study provides one of the largest comprehensive measures of magnetic field exposure in children's residencies

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_46.htm

Russ:The microwaves themselves aren't even energetic engouh to damage dna.

First, what is the bandwidth for a microwave oven – over the entire lifetime of the oven? I was only trying to imagine how some connection could exist. Also, I was pointing to the modification of chemicals that assist with anti-cancer processes in the body as another way that we might imagine a connection.

This argument is not unlike the common misconceptions about genetically engineered food.

Artificial methods of altering food are clearly untested in the long term. This was my only point. I asked you for your evidence. You never answered. Then you attacked the rest of my statements and took them out of context.

I've used several analogies on probabilities before, but you seem to equate one "possible" with another "possible" when in reality, one isn't even worth wasting time THINKING about. The probabilities we are talking about here are somewhere between winning the lottery twice and getting struck by a meteor. Do you seriously worry about getting struck by meteors in your every day life?

None of this worries me in the slightest. I am thinking about the implicit philosophy of the comments made; not the science of microwave ovens. You completely misunderstand the argument that I am making. You have made this an argument that has nothing to do with my position.

There is no such thing as "certitude" in science, only "confidence." I've said this before..

This has been my only point all along. I don’t understand why this is not clear.


Also, what you see as controversy is not - there is no controversy over this issue in the scientific community. The unprecidented steps taken by the APS should make that clear. What you think is controversy is a old-wive's-tale that won't die, largely because it continues to be exploited by a few crackpots interested only in fraud. Not the same thing.

I agree that this happens. I am not arguing for the crackpots. Also, I may have inadvertently linked one,; I don’t know about this Brodeur guy, and I am not interested in defending him. So if you will quit ignoring the other links, we can discuss those.

I've said this before: I think you take (what you consider) open-mindedness too far. I also think you have trouble (heck, maybe you are doing it on purpose for the sake of arguing) telling the difference between a credible source and one that is not credible.

Like I said, I can’t believe I even need to make this argument. You say science has no certitude. Where in this issue do you admit to a lack of certitude? How do we lack certitude in this issue?

You make blanket assertions that you can’t back up. I challenge you to post all bad links that I have used in argument in this forum. With your implication that I use them so regularly, let’s see them. You just don’t like my arguments. This is why you try to discredit them with vague accusations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
I went through the Lancet of Dec 9 1989 334 (8676) 1392-1393
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01406736

I never found the following quote by Dr. L. Lee

Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii reported in the December 9, 1989 Lancet:

"Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or trans-fatty acids, are not biologically active. Further, one of the amino acids, L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). It's bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving."

What I found is 3 researchers stating that milk heated in the microwave oven produce cis-stereosomers of hydroxyproline and cis -amino acid. It also produce d-proline. The concentration was estimated to be 1-2 mg/L. The researchers worried about the effect of the cis form because it could be incorporated in protein and change their configuration and immunoligical properties. Edit d-proline is can potential be a neurotoxin if injected into the brain of 2-5 days old chick. Therefore the researcher stated that effect should be investigated

this was critiqued in Lancet of Feb 4 335 (8697) 470, then Mar 31 335 (8692) 792 which had a mistake and was corrected on apr 7 335 (8693) 868 and was finally critiqued on Jul 7 336 (8706) 49.

The author of the research also stated that its was not to test the toxicity of microwave food but to have a model of the event of microwaving.

Ivan, there is nothing wrong the Lancet and that is probably why you source used it to support its claim. the problem is that it doe not appear in the lancet. All I can say is that somebody has done fraud. Edit I went through the sources of Ivan and Dr. Lee referred to the Lancet and add her comments. What the website did is just use the Lancet as Dr. Lee research.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
For starters, molelcular heating. Can you imagine that we could cook the patient with enough RF? I knew some of the people doing this at Cedars Sinai Medical Center. They took their work most seriously; in spite of many opinons offered here.

No, I can't. RF doesn't excite molecules, it's two long a wavelength. Microwaves are strong enough to cause rotation of bonds which can slowly produce heat. Infrared can excite to produce heat. Visible light can excite conjugated pi bonds. High energy UV can break bonds. X-rays can knock electrons out of atomic orbitals. But RF doesn't do a thing. I guess the good doctors at Cedars Sinai could use a good course in quantum mechanics.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by iansmith
I went through the Lancet of Dec 9 1989 334 (8676) 1392-1393
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01406736

I never found the following quote by Dr. L. Lee



What I found is 3 researchers stating that milk heated in the microwave oven produce cis-stereosomers of hydroxyproline and cis -amino acid. It also produce d-proline. The concentration was estimated to be 1-2 mg/L. The researchers worried about the effect of the cis form because it could be incorporated in protein and change their configuration and immunoligical properties. Edit d-proline is can potential be a neurotoxin if injected into the brain of 2-5 days old chick. Therefore the researcher stated that effect should be investigated

this was critiqued in Lancet of Feb 4 335 (8697) 470, then Mar 31 335 (8692) 792 which had a mistake and was corrected on apr 7 335 (8693) 868 and was finally critiqued on Jul 7 336 (8706) 49.

The author of the research also stated that its was not to test the toxicity of microwave food but to have a model of the event of microwaving.

Ivan, there is nothing wrong the Lancet and that is probably why you source used it to support its claim. the problem is that it doe not appear in the lancet. All I can say is that somebody has done fraud. Edit I went through the sources of Ivan and Dr. Lee referred to the Lancet and add her comments. What the website did is just use the Lancet as Dr. Lee research.


I can understand conformational changes and double bond isomerization. However, these are thermodynamic changes and occur when heat is applied. I'll bet you see the same thing happen when you heat it on a stove. The L- to D- change I don't believe for a second.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34


Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
No, I can't. RF doesn't excite molecules, it's two long a wavelength. Microwaves are strong enough to cause rotation of bonds which can slowly produce heat. Infrared can excite to produce heat. Visible light can excite conjugated pi bonds. High energy UV can break bonds. X-rays can knock electrons out of atomic orbitals. But RF doesn't do a thing. I guess the good doctors at Cedars Sinai could use a good course in quantum mechanics.

Considering that the RF is used to cause precession of Hydrogen atoms, I don't see the logic in your statements. This is added energy.
 
  • #35
Is the default position that we have absolute certainty that in no way can the use of microwaves increase the risk of cancer.

If not, then where do we lack certainty?
 
  • #36


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Considering that the RF is used to cause precession of Hydrogen atoms, I don't see the logic in your statements. This is added energy.

You can excite spin states of nuclei with RF. Never denied that. But switching spins states is a long way off from exciting a molecule. You can't do chemistry with an NMR.
 
  • #37
The thermal heating effect of microwaves is well understood and is the basis for the heating action of microwave ovens. Some studies have examined the possibility of a link between microwave exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between microwave exposure and cancer, other studies have been unable to replicate these findings. In fact other studies have failed to find evidence for a causal link to cancer or any related condition.
 
  • #38


Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
You can excite spin states of nuclei with RF. Never denied that. But switching spins states is a long way off from exciting a molecule. You can't do chemistry with an NMR.

We have a more energetic state. The concern was that some of this energy could transfer to the entire molecule. These studies went on for years. This was clearly recognized as good science. Most of the people doing this work were radiation physicists. To my knowledge, heating effects were observed but determined to be insignificant. This does not jive with your assertion that we could not have any energy transfer. I assume that these studies can be found. This was Cedars in Hollywood in about 1982. The NMR was a state of the art, 0.75T [edit: this could be 1.0T], GE scanner.

My point was that good scientists felt that emperical evidence was required. We can't rule these things out on theoretical arguments alone.

Again, I can only make my point by turning this whole thing around. I posted a possibly flakey link [I am taking Russ at this word on this] because I have never tried to argue this point before. I am arguing on a philosophical premise that we can't rule things out with absolute certitude. When I was surprised by objections to this statement, I was forced to scramble to defend an argument that I don't even agree with. So again, I ask you, do we have absolute certainty on these issues; including all aspects of the plastics used by food companies, intermittant arcing due to faulty magnetrons, defective seals from Taiwan, potential effects on complex molecules that have not been thouroughly studied in this context, unforseen effects from other circuitry, and whatever else we can and can't possibly imagine?

It we can't claim absolute certitude, then where does the uncertainty exist?
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Originally posted by iansmith
I went through the Lancet of Dec 9 1989 334 (8676) 1392-1393
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01406736

I never found the following quote by Dr. L. Lee



What I found is 3 researchers stating that milk heated in the microwave oven produce cis-stereosomers of hydroxyproline and cis -amino acid. It also produce d-proline. The concentration was estimated to be 1-2 mg/L. The researchers worried about the effect of the cis form because it could be incorporated in protein and change their configuration and immunoligical properties. Edit d-proline is can potential be a neurotoxin if injected into the brain of 2-5 days old chick. Therefore the researcher stated that effect should be investigated

this was critiqued in Lancet of Feb 4 335 (8697) 470, then Mar 31 335 (8692) 792 which had a mistake and was corrected on apr 7 335 (8693) 868 and was finally critiqued on Jul 7 336 (8706) 49.

The author of the research also stated that its was not to test the toxicity of microwave food but to have a model of the event of microwaving.

Ivan, there is nothing wrong the Lancet and that is probably why you source used it to support its claim. the problem is that it doe not appear in the lancet. All I can say is that somebody has done fraud. Edit I went through the sources of Ivan and Dr. Lee referred to the Lancet and add her comments. What the website did is just use the Lancet as Dr. Lee research.


I can see that there is a problem with the link given, but I don’t hear you saying that microwaves cannot affect complex molecules. If so, this still makes the point that I thought was legitimately made. It is not necessary to show that these changes would be toxic; the point was that changes can occur. Does this still appear to be true? If so, then one can easily imagine that as a randomly selected example pulled from the aether that some other change could in turn affect our resistance to cancer. Again, I was only looking for a potential mechanism to show that uncertainty could exist.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Then you argue with ghosts...

I think I have made my position pretty clear:

Do you bother to read my posts? Unfortunately, you force me to make an argument that I don’t even agree with.
Uh... yeah, clear. Arguing a position you don't agree with makes your real position anything but clear. But admitting you don't agree with the position you are arguing does clear things up a bit.

However: I have a bad memory, Ivan. I can't remember MY OWN posts from three days ago - if your position isn't completely clear, I won't remember the intricacies from the beginning of the thread.
You are in direct conflict with The National Cancer Institute.
[?] [?] The quote you posted said exactly what I said: no link. A "statistical association" is just that - a statistical association. It does NOT imply a link, hence "no conclusion" and "no consistent pattern." I think you're reading between the lines something that isn't there. We've had this conversation before.

I'm seeing a double standard from you here: On one hand, anything other than an unequivocal absolute in a scientific paper indicates to you there is a REAL possibility of the other side of the coin. But at the same time you trumpet the inability of science to give absolutes.
...we might imagine a connection...
I have a vivid imagination, Ivan. I can imagine a lot of things, but unless there is some evidence, its just my imagination.
Artificial methods of altering food are clearly untested in the long term. This was my only point. I asked you for your evidence. You never answered.
What do you define as long term? I most certainly did point out the timeframe we are dealing with here. Its one that I and most scientists DO consider "long term." I also pointed out that you have the burden of proof backwards: its pretty much impossible to prove a negative, which is of course a large part of the problem here. What kind of evidence are you looking for and what would it convince you of?
None of this worries me in the slightest.
Ehh, forget it. This argument is pointless then. I hate arguing against someone who is just playing devil's advocate.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Thank you guys for providing the most serious discussion on this topic I was able to find on the web. Google searches are littered with thousands of references to the same "scientific evidences" you quote here.

Since I have a science background (biochem) and use the microwave oven often, I need to know what is going on.

ALL these references cite some Dr. Hans Ulrich Hertel and a Dr. Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and University Institute for Biochemistry [sic].
ALL these web pages cite an article published by them, but NONE (NONE) provide a link to said article.

I've just spend several hours trying to track these guys (including searches on the actual official website of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, www.ethz.ch ) and here's what I found:
- Dr. Hans Ulrich Hertel apparently did graduate from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology circa 1974, in VETERINARY MEDICINE and HUSBANDRY.
- No references whatsoever on his supposed work on Food or Microwave on that site.
- Dr. Bernard H. Blanc is or was apparently related to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and from my poor knowledge of French I could gather his specialty to be in either dermatology, oncology and/or gynecology (sorry for not having the right answer maybe some of you can find it.) It does appear he does done research on cancer and research with microwave in scanning techniques on patients.
- The “University Institute for Biochemistry” doesn’t seem to exist at all, at least with that name (?).

It seems this references are BOGUS(!). Most of them all cite a “Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii” as having published an article on The Lancet (1998). The news is that a search on the Lancet for that year, yield no articles on that subject and author. NONE.

She (if she really exist, and if she really if a PhD) seems to have a website selling all kinds of vitamins, enzymes and other healthy stuff (?): www.litalee.com
A Google search yields this GEM of article from her (?): https://www.litalee.com/documents/Microwaves And Microwave Ovens.pdf
Read it for yourself(!) It cites: “Russian investigations published by the Atlantis Rising Educational Center in Portland, Oregon.”
Yeah, this sounds pretty serious, almost like the NIH.
(Try to find the website for the Atlantis Rising Educational Center in Portland, Oregon or the Atlantis Raising Educational Center in Portland, Oregon….and good luck ! )

It also cites work published on The Lancet on 1998 on microwaves and its adverse effect on health through food, but no title or author of such article. Search The Lancet for that year (www.thelancet.com ) and you will find NO article(s) on that subject. NONE
Pretty professional for a PhD, uh?

Finally, to all you physicists here please answer this question:
As some of you have correctly pointed out, the micro-waves excite the H2O particles hence releasing heat. These “scientific (!)” articles claim that microwave convert other molecules into something else. While all heat releasing processes can do this (e.g. heating food in a stove), do these claims sound outlandish to you too?
 
  • #42
I've read a lot of articles on the internet and it got me thinking. I want to pose a practical question of why people who know about potential effects of microwave cooking on health continue to use it.

Can someone please tell me any food or drink that can't be heated using heat from fire? It doesn't have to be cooked over an exposed flame. I don't understand with the POTENTIAL for carcinogens to be produced just stick to conventional method of cooking. There is a taste difference for me, and I SPECULATE that it's because nutrients are broken down or altered and over time we have evolved to find nutritious foods tastier, hence, less nutritious food doesn't taste as good. Taste is subjective but I have noticed a difference. Someone please enlighten me why the same food cooked in a microwave oven tastes blander.

Have any valid/conclusive available scientific studies been done on the effects of microwave cooking on foods and materials also put in the microwave oven?

I've wanted to find out the truth for over a year now and I typed up an experiment which I wanted to share with you guys.

1. My proposal is this: a large group of about 700 healthy participants from all ages, genders, nationalities, social class, etc. are put into 3 groups: control, all microwave food, and part microwave food. Each group is served the exact same foods, and EVERY meal (breakfast, lunch and dinner) consumed by the participants must be cooked using the microwave or conventional cooking methods depending on the participants group.

The duration spans for three months, where they are put on a healthy diet and continue their normal lifestyle. An objective analysis is made by regularly measuring body functions (blood tests, etc.) and state before and after, and a subjective analysis is made from introspection reports on perceived emotion, physical health, etc

2. The participants report themselves at 2 week intervals.

The experiment is a double blind, so all the participants have their food served with no discerning presentation which give away if they're part of the control or microwave group, and the people serving them and the people recording the data are not aware if the participants are control, or microwave food either.

This minimises any potential bias.

3. The group consuming only half of their diet as microwave food serves as a buffer.

The hypothesis is that if the group consuming all microwave food does report objective and subjective negative results, then the reports from the half microwave food group should still experience any subjective negative results but show less than the complete microwave good group.

4. It must be noted that this is only a measure of effects of ingested food, not direct radiation, which should be measured in a separate experiment. More importantly, an experiment of chemical analysis of the food before and after microwaving would yield more scientific results, however, I'm not certain how chemical analysis of so many different nutrient substances are done.

This experiment focuses on short term (carcinogens don't cause cancer overnight) physical and emotional effects of consolidated consumption of microwave food, which can be extrapolated to microwave cooking over a lifetime. I hypothesise that if there is no chemical alteration cooking food with microwaves, then the control and microwave food group shouldn't report any statistically significant differences. The proof is in the pudding.

A focus on emotion was placed as it is one of the dimensions of health and the advocates of avoiding microwave use make many claims of ill effects arising from microwave use, including emotional.

Help me modify the above experiment or design a scientifically valid experiment, it won't be carried out but who knows, one day it might. By the way, compared to I imagine most of the people on this forum I have very limited scientific background (high school), just thought I'd let you know.

I really wish someone could carry out a combined experiment which includes a complete and very thorough chemical analysis of the food before and after. It would be clarifying data as a significant amount of people in first world countries have and use a microwave oven to cook their food and heat drinks.

Which gets me thinking, why haven't they done experiments like this yet? How much would it cost to finance a study like this?
 
Last edited:
  • #43
visitor said:
Can someone please tell me any food or drink that can't be heated using heat from fire? It doesn't have to be cooked over an exposed flame. I don't understand with the POTENTIAL for carcinogens to be produced just stick to conventional method of cooking.

This is one of the most clueless statements I've read on this topic.
Fire causes an enormous amount of carcinogens to be formed when things are charred or exposed to smoke. Thousands upon thousands of carcinogens. This is the same for any burning/charring organic material. (Tobacco smoke is harmful primarily because it's smoke).

To begin with, you have the formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as pyrene, anthracene, bensopyrine, etc, which are known carcinogens, which are known to be formed by grilling food (and as a content in smoke) and have been repeatedly detected in food cooked that way.

I SPECULATE that it's because nutrients are broken down or altered and over time we have evolved to find nutritious foods tastier

Anti-freeze tastes sweet, therefore it must be healthy?
There's a huge number of toxic substances that taste quite pleasant, and quite a lot of nutritious substances that don't taste good, or nothing at all.

Someone please enlighten me why the same food cooked in a microwave oven tastes blander.

To begin with, microwave-heated food more often tends to be reheated and not fresh. It also tends to have a higher water-content, since it's not been dehydrated as much from cooking.

Have any valid/conclusive available scientific studies been done on the effects of microwave cooking on foods and materials alfromso put in the microwave oven?

Yes it's been extensively studied and there are no significant known risks of microwave cooking, apart from bacteria if the food is unevenly cooked. Nor any strong reason to believe that microwave cooking is harmful. Quite the opposite, for reasons mentioned in this thread:
1) Microwave radiation cannot easily break chemical bonds (unlike heat from a fire) and thus significantly alter the chemical composition of food, destroy nutrients, or create carcinogens.
2) Microwave cooking requires less total energy than conventional methods of cooking, which again, means less destruction of the food.

And it is certainly less harmful than fire.

You're saying we should avoid microwaves because it could 'POTENTIALLY' cause carcinogens to be formed - on the basis of what theory? And contrary to observation. Instead you're advocating we therefore change to a method of cooking which is KNOWN to produce carcinogens - both in theory and in practice.
 

Similar threads

Medical Is there any harm by using Microwave oven?
Replies
5
Views
5K
Medical Ultra-processed Food = Greater Cancer Risk
Replies
6
Views
2K
All or certain types of beef linked to cancer and cow milk
Replies
7
Views
3K
Cancer Risk and CT Scans: Understanding the Findings of a Data Linkage Study
Replies
24
Views
9K
Nutrition and Cancer: Finding Evidence of Direct Benefits
Replies
7
Views
4K
How ants can survive in a microwave
Replies
11
Views
6K
"Spontaneous" cancer development
Replies
21
Views
4K
MHB Probability of cancer because of microwaves
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mitochondrial uncoupling and cancer?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Considering a career as Radar technician: cancer risk?
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top