Are Microwave Ovens Really Safe?

I have mixed feeling about using microwave ovens. Yes, they are easy and convenient, but they do alter what is put in them. This includes the containers that hold the objects inside them, when it is anything other than glass. The unknowns are still to be discovered, and being a grandfather has changed my viewpoint. I want to know more, but the data still is not there, or suppressed by the very people that sell us those very items (tobacco, BHT, BPA, high fructose corn syrup, yellow #5, trans fats, aspartame, MSG, cyclamate, olestra, saccharin, nitrates and nitrites, etc. The list goes on.). In many cases, years, and even decades will pass before the truth comes out about things we felt were safe.

Educate yourself. Make it your business to know what is safe and what is hype. I make no claim to know, but my own education will continue until it is replaced with certainty.

To learn more about microwave oven radiation, go here.

"To Nuke or Not to Nuke"

By Mark Sisson on 06/25/2009

 

The verb itself suggests the unleashing of atomic destruction, but we wondered, “Is there a grain of truth behind the slang?” What’s the real story behind these boxes of convenience sitting in so many of our kitchens? Are microwaves a benign bastion of modern handiness or, as some claim, a sinister contributor to our physiological (at least nutritional) undoing?

It’s likely that we find ourselves in a variety of camps on this issue. Some of us swear them off. Others unapologetically swear by them to get through the normal course of a busy day. And then there are those of us in the dithering middle who routinely stare at each plate of leftovers or bowl of frozen vegetables, sometimes reaching for the pots and pans and other times giving into convenience but always questioning whether we’re paying for it.

Should we be plagued by these pangs of conscience? Are we emitting dangerous radiation into our homes or killing off the nutritional value of our unsuspecting food? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? What should we believe? Is there enough evidence to really tell either way?

We definitely know this much. Grok didn’t have a microwave. But, then again, he didn’t have a jet shower, Bose stereo system, or Hammacher Schlemmer thumper massager. (Trade-offs, you know…) As much as we love Grok and think his era has been unduly disparaged, we aren’t arguing that he had the best life possible or that anything he didn’t have isn’t worth having. Nonetheless, while it’s a naturalistic fallacy to assume that everything post-Paleo is an abomination, it’s both fair and reasonable to question the safety of today’s customary appliances.

Here’s what we found. First, to the question of transforming your home into a radiation zone… There is, not surprisingly, disagreement about this point. However, occasional home use of a fully functional microwave appliance is generally considered safe. Microwaves do, make no mistake, emit radiation, and the FDA has established what it considers “safe” levels for microwaves: over the machine’s “lifetime” the allowable level is “5 milliwatts of microwave radiation per square centimeter…approximately 2 inches from the oven surface.” Guidelines from the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) suggest overall radiation limits of 1 milliwatt per square centimeter “averaged over 6 minutes (0.1 h) period.” Unless you’re using your microwave on a perpetual basis, there’s little reason to worry.) Because the radiation diminishes quickly over distance, standing further away from the microwave during operation cuts your exposure even more significantly. (That instinct to not press your face against the glass door while your lunch was cooking turns out to be right after all…) Additionally, the FDA requires two interlock systems that effectively offer backup security as well as a monitoring system that shuts the microwave down if one of the systems isn’t working or if the door is opened during operation.

Common sense adds that you might want to make sure the microwave seal isn’t compromised by built up tomato sauce or other grime. (Hmmm…anyone?) And, of course, it’s a good idea to replace an old, dilapidated microwave even if it’s a great conversation piece. Safety versus vintage flare…

And now for the more common question. What about the nutrients? (We should mention quickly that microwaving of food isn’t the same as food irradiation, which involves a higher level of energy and is considered much more damaging in terms of “complex chemical changes … in food components.”) But how do nutrients fare behind the closed, latched, double interlock system door? Well, it varies. As we’ve reported in the past, cooking of any kind can sometimes reduce the nutritional value of food and occasionally enhance it. Slow and low are typically the way to go with cooking, as we’ve said. A pretty much universal concept for our friends, fruits and veggies: steaming or cooking/microwaving with small bits of water trumps boiling or deep frying. When it comes to microwaving itself, studies suggest some mixed reviews for individual vegetables or nutrients but indicate, overall, that microwaving generally preserves nutrient levels.

One study using Brassica vegetables found that microwaving resulted in comparable nutrient (glucosinolates, a possible cancer preventative compound) loss when compared to steaming or stir frying.  (Actually, shredding the vegetable ahead of time had more impact on nutritional value than the cooking method.) However, another study using broccoli suggests that antioxidants can be significantly depleted.  (Antioxidants, particularly water soluble vitamins, appear to be most at risk while minerals tend to be generally preserved in microwave preparation.) Yet another study review showed that microwaving with low power settings offered “equal or better retention of nutrients … as compared with conventional, reheated foods for thiamin, riboflavin, pyridoxine, folacin, and ascorbic acid.” University of Illinois research also showed that microwave blanching (brief exposure to high heat used for pre-freezing preparation to lengthen storage ability of frozen produce) was as or more successful in retaining nutritional value than conventional blanching methods. (Nonetheless, blanching does diminish nutrient levels.)

But how could microwaving actually preserve more nutrients in many cases? Not only do we generally use less liquid when cooking in the microwave, cooking times are typically shorter than those for conventional cooking. (As a side note, new ceramic cookware designed for microwave use shows promise to cut cook times further still, which can mean even greater nutrient preservation.)

Our best advice: nuke wisely. If the convenience of a microwave keeps you committed to PB eating, use it as you need to. (We’re all for leftovers, freezing fresh produce to save money, etc.) Nonetheless, thinking outside the micro box is likely a good idea as well. Invest in some small pans for single servings or small cooking jobs. (If it takes up less space in the dishwasher/sink, it seems like less of a chore.) And, of course, avoid heating (and especially reheating) whenever you can to retain the most nutrition. Heat only the ingredients you must to make a dish palatable, and keep water use, time and temp (power level) as low as possible. (Bonus: it helps you avoid those nasty steam burns from handling overheated dishes.)

Beware... pseudoscience is all around us.

What do you believe? How much of what is rolling around in your brain fact and how much is pseudoscience? Do you know the difference? You might be surprised at how much information that has been presented as good science is actually just so much bunk, myself included.

What is pseudoscience? Simply put, it is a set of ideas, exhibited as scientific, when in fact they are not. It masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy, which it would not otherwise be able to achieve.

I am particularly interested in the subject, but I must confess, I am truly just a rookie at it. I am intrigued by so many subject, that when given scrutiny don’t hold up, and in some ways, I still find some of them believable… or want to. That’s the unskeptical part of my brain still wanting to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. I suppose we have a little of that in all of us. Without it, there would be many less drugs, miracle cures, books, movies, television shows, and experts on the subject. Where would we be without the ghosts, UFOs, infomercials, astrologers, creationists, etc. in our lives. It might be a pretty boring place.

There is so much to know, and the availability of good and factual information, is difficult to decipher from what is presented as the truth, but is in fact anything but.

The following is a collection of facts, descriptions, and narratives collected on the subject, from multiple sources readily available to you. I find them thought provoking, and elevates my curiosity to know more and enhance the knowledge I do have. I hope you find some of some of the following information interesting and in finds a way to peak your own curiosity. Some you may not agree with, but that is part of what the scientific process is designed to do. As Fox Mulder so often repeated, “The truth is out there”. Find it for yourself, develop your own skills, but enjoy the ride, but above all, never stop asking questions or being satisfied with the status quo.

Pseudoscience has one or more of the following features:

Hostility towards scientific criticism

Science requires criticism. Bad ideas and methods get knocked down. Pseudoscientists can feel picked on by such criticism and cry conspiracy. Science provides a system for validating ideas and forces disconfirmation of wrong beliefs.

Ignorance is a virtue

Pseudoscientists can fancy themselves as being untainted by the scientific community and therefore able to think outside the box. Science thrives on creative thinking for problem solving and testing hypotheses to explain existing data.

Start with a conclusion and work backwards

Pseudoscientists can start with a "theory" and then retrofit or cherry pick evidence to fit the conclusion that they want. Creationists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature. Scientists modify or discard theories based on new evidence, granted that the process can be slow.

Unnecessary jargon

Pseudoscientists can use jargon to dazzle and obfuscate instead of illuminate. Scientists use jargon to increase precision and remove ambiguity. Scientologists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature.

Shift the burden of proof

Pseudoscientists can shift the burden of proof away from themselves and challenge others for disproof. But the burden of proof is on the claimant. And the more extraordinary the claim, the higher the bar of evidence.

Failure to consider all hypotheses

Pseudoscientists can prefer sensational hypotheses over more likely mundane ones, and they can even propose whole new laws of physics to explain phenomena instead of considering existing ones.

Reliance on anecdotes

Pseudoscientists can rely heavily on personal testimonies and anecdotes rather than well-documented studies. This is especially the case with health and medicine. And it's a red flag when fundemental principles are based on a single case, such as with chiropractic and iridology. Scientists count the misses, not just the hits.

Simple solutions to complex problems

Pseudoscientific solutions can range from a universal theory of everything to a single medicine, procedure or product that cures all ills. As to why such simple solutions have been overlooked all this time can be attributed to grand conspiracies.

What are the warning signs of bogus science?

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially.

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

Some pseudoscientific claims are based on an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation science devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such dogmas are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world. The main purpose of creationism and intelligent design is to defend a set of religious beliefs.

A scientific theory like the theory of natural selection is not based on a text. Creationists* distort the truth when they call evolution "Darwinism," as if the science were based on a belief in the infallible words found in Origin of Species or Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Natural selection is one of several mechanisms put forth by scientists to explain the fact of evolution. The various theories of evolution, i.e., mechanisms that explain how evolution occurs, are defended not by deference to texts but by empirical evidence from several scientific fields: embryology, the fossil record, homology, genetics, biogeography, molecular biology.

Pseudoscientists claim to base their ideas on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory or hypthesis that is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits"

Ockham’s Razor:

“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”

The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).

Simple is Best

One of the principal techniques, if not the primary technique of the practitioners of thought control and Deskeption, is the unethical use of Knowledge Filtering through Simplicity.  The core technique involves the mis-use of Ockham’s Razor in two ways:

1. as an application to filter out unwelcome DATA as not fitting my ‘simple’ truth.

2. as a way to enforce the ‘simplest’ explanation as already proven, when in fact, no science has been done to support it.

These are both practices of pseudoscience.

Ockham’s Razor, or the discernment of Plurality versus Singularity in terms of competing Hypotheses, is a useful tool in determining whether Science should be distracted by bunk theories which would potentially waste everyone’s time and resources. But it is an act of pseudoscience to apply Ockham’s Razor to data.

Data stands on its own.  Additionally, when found in abundance, and not eliminated one at a time by the false anecdotal application of “Occam’s” Razor Knowledge Filtering or through Plausible Deniability Extrapolation, can eventually be formulated into a construct, which then will vie for plurality under the real Ockham’s Razor, a useful science method principle. Data should not be dismissed for the sole reason that it does not fit or that one does not like it. This is pseudoscience.

The full text, along with other sources can be found with the following links:

http://debunkatron.com/Pseudoscience.html

http://mukto-mona.net/new_site/mukto-mona/Articles/randi/science_pseudoscience.htm

http://woofighters.org/2010/06/warning-signs-that-something-is-not-scientifi/

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

http://deskeption.wordpress.com/tag/occams-razor/