My first venture into this area came back in 2006, when someone on a forum told me that microwave ovens were dangerous and provided a website link full of scary claims for backup. I was worried because I had a microwave like just about everybody else.  So I wanted to find out whether the problem was really so bad that I had to give it up.  So I started researching the claims, and was utterly astonished at how baseless they were.  There was exactly one half of a fact in the whole thing, and the missing other half of that fact was highly relevant.  Since then I've investigated many more claims from the alternative community, and found that this high level of inaccuracy is typical.  It's rare to find a claim that's actually correct and backed up with a reasonable amount of credible evidence. 

The GHC article.

The scare-mongering article that was originally presented to me was called "The Proven Dangers of Microwave Ovens, and appeared on the Global Healing Center website, which I will call GHC from now on. That site is gone now and the link leads to a stored copy on Archive.org, but the article itself is still quite widespread on the internet. For example, there's a copy on the Herbal Healer Academy website that may be useful if Archive.org is running slow.

Bad science and wrong definitions

I was shocked at their erroneous definition of radiation, which is “Radiation, as defined by physics terminology, is 'the electromagnetic waves emitted by the atoms and molecules of a radioactive substance as a result of nuclear decay.'” This is WRONG. They have described radioactivity, which is a miniscule sub-type of radiation. The overwhelming source of radiation in the universe is nuclear fusion in stars, and our sun and all the other stars are gigantic nuclear reactors emitting radiation in all wavelengths. The only reason we survive, and came to exist in the first place, is because our atmosphere deflects most of the harmful high-frequency waves, while letting the beneficial lower-frequency radiation reach the surface of the Earth.

Radioactivity on the other hand is a type of spontaneous fission found in certain heavy elements like uranium. This is a very different process from fusion, and fission can expose us to harmful frequencies because this type of natural radiation is generated on the earth itself, so our atmosphere doesn’t protect us. Earth doesn’t have the right physical conditions for spontaneous fusion, and space doesn’t have the right conditions for spontaneous fission. Fortunately for us, the radioactive elements on Earth are rare so high levels of natural exposure are unlikely. The primary danger from radioactivity comes from man-made fission from atomic bombs and nuclear power plants that are poorly designed or maintained.

Microwave ovens use artificially generated low-frequency radiation. Neither fission nor fusion is involved, and if any atom-splitting (fission) accidentally occurred in a microwave oven there would be a significant explosion with E=mc² as the governing equation.

GHC continue their definition of radiation by saying “In simpler terms, a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food by the process of radiation.” This wouldn’t be accurate even if their definition of radiation was correct. Radioactivity is a decay process in the unstable atoms in the SOURCE of the radiation. When uranium decays, other life forms in the vicinity could be damaged by exposure to the high-frequency radiation that’s being emitted, but this is not the same as decay. Microwave ovens use low-frequency radiation which has no reasonable comparison to radioactive decay.

GHC defined amplitude incorrectly and did a poor job of defining wavelength, but that has no bearing on the current discussion.

The description of the microwave heating process as friction didn't sound right to me, so I looked into that. I found many sites that did in fact describe it as friction. However knowledgeable-sounding people at Yarchive and Sciforums say that there isn't any true friction involved at all, but the process is analogous. These sites are heavy on physics, and I suppose that the sites calling it friction simplified the description to make it easier to understand.

There's more information on the electromagnetic spectrum and how microwaves work in the Additional Notes section.

Torn-apart molecules?

GHC says "The friction also causes substantial damage to the surrounding molecules, often tearing them apart." This doesn't actually happen. Microwaves agitate molecules but don't tear them apart. When molecules are torn apart, they turn into a different substance. Water is the molecule that's most responsive to microwave ovens. It consists of two hydrogen atoms, and if it was torn apart it would break down into hydrogen and oxygen gas. This is a FAR different process than turning into steam, which doesn't change the water molecules at all.  If microwave ovens were molecule-splitters, they'd be used in laboratories and not in kitchens. If you could get them to split atoms too, you'd have a nuclear explosion on your hands.

Unsafe for baby's milk?

GHC has a section called “Microwaves unsafe for baby's milk.” Much of this is about the danger of overheating, which is obvious and doesn’t merit discussion. It also cites a quote from Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii reported in the December 9, 1989 Lancet, which is widely cited by other anti-microwave sources. It appears that the letter was very brief, and the text cited in the article is the whole thing: 

She's not discussed much by scientific sources, which don't seem to take her seriously. Csiro (the Australian national science agency) discusses this letter without naming the author and calls it irrelevant.

The unnamed Swiss report appears to be the Hertel study mentioned in the GHC article.

It's currently not recommended to microwave breast milk. But there are indications that it may be the reheating process itself that causes any problems, particularly when high temperatures are used, and not the type of device used to heat the milk.

Anti-microwave sources often cite a study at Stanford by Quan et al., which used microwaving to reheat frozen breast milk and found that high temperatures were problematic.  They weren't certain whether low temperatures were a problem or not.  They did not test any other heating method and the control consisted of milk that was frozen and then defrosted at room temperature without being subjected to heat at all. The final paragraph of the paper states that it is just a preliminary study and more investigation is needed to determine whether microwaves can be safely used for heating breast milk. So it's not justifiable to assume that it was the microwave process and not the heat that caused the changes they observed.

Here's some work that the anti-microwave sources don't tell you about. Oveson et al found that breast milk could be heated without significant losses as long as the final temperature was less than 60 C (that's 140 F - let it cool down before you give THAT to the baby!). There was no difference between microwave heating and conventional heating. Carbonare et al compared the effect of microwave radiation, pasteurization or lyophilization on human milk. They found no significant damage and no significant differences between the methods.

Microwaved blood

A second section on the GHC site is called “"Microwaved blood kills patient” and says

They don’t say how many patients received microwaved transfusions at this same hospital without incident, and whether this hospital is still microwaving blood. They don’t say what percentage of hospitals are currently using microwaved blood and how often they experience problems with it. They don’t say if there were any special circumstances in this particular case, such as overheating caused by human error or mechanical failure, or contamination of the blood prior to being microwaved.

The site doesn’t describe the cause of death or any autopsy results, and doesn’t say why they believe microwaving was to blame. Anyone who needs a blood transfusion is already in physical distress and in danger as a result. This article gives us no reason to believe that the microwaved blood was to blame.  And for good reason, because it didn't cause the patient's death.  According to the Museum of Hoaxes, the jury found that she was killed by an ordinary blood clot, not by blood heated in a microwave. The online case file at Wyoming State Law Library shows that not only did the plaintiffs lose the case, they were required to pay the defendants $200,000 in frivolous-lawsuit damages.

Dubious studies

GHC quotes a number of scientific-looking sources on the dangers of microwaving, including a long presentation on alleged research from the 1940s and 1950s showing it was carcinogenic. This looks impressive on the surface to a layman, but biased, bad-science "studies" are abundant when it comes to alternative topics, along with the common practice of twisting the results of more respectable studies. It's obvious that the studies cited by GHC did not convince real scientists.  As mentioned earlier, the Hertel study that GHC describes appears to be the Swiss study that was dismissed by the Australian national science agency Csiro. Skeptoid and Metabunk also present a skeptical view of Hertel's work.

They cite a 1992 study called "Comparative Study of Food Prepared Conventionally and in the Microwave Oven" which contains some obviously pseudoscientific statements about microwaved food containing unnatural energies. But what's most interesting about this study is that googling the title produces no results. Zero. More creative googling turns up a post on a Snopes messageboard indicating that this is related to the Hertel study, and was published in a low-quality magazine that doesn't hesitate to accept pseudoscience.

In contrast to GHC's scare-mongering, look at what Csiro and Health Canada (which belongs to a federal department of the Canadian government) have to say about microwave safety. As far as I know neither Australia nor Canada has a domestic microwave-manufacturing industry to protect, and they probably don’t allow the disgraceful lobbying activities that we in the US are forced to endure. So they are not expected to have a pre-existing bias in favor of the microwave industry. If anything, I’d expect a pro-safety bias since health care is publicly funded in both countries, and if microwaves were dangerous the government would have to pick up the tab for the treatment of microwave-induced illness.

Even in the US, the insurance industry has a strong interest in NOT allowing microwave dangers to be covered up, and they're one of the most powerful special interest groups in the country. The appliance makers stand to lose one of many product lines, while the insurance companies would have to pick up a major portion of the medical expenses from microwave-induced illness and would also have a huge exposure to business liability claims when the truth inevitably came out. They'd probably out-lobby General Electric if they thought there was a potential problem.

The Australian Csiro site has already been quoted as saying microwave cooking does not cause chemical changes in food, and that reports of such changes are ‘isolated’. They also have a section on nutrient retention that’s too long to reprint here but can be seen on the site. It’s favorable overall to microwaving but does point out items with insufficient information or slight benefits.

The Canadian site says “Microwaves do not change the chemical components of in food and so the formation of new compounds, like carcinogens, is not expected. Some studies have been conducted to investigate any possible negative health effects of microwaving foods. These studies, which have been reviewed by Health Canada scientists, have found no evidence of toxicity or carcinogenicity.

In general, the health and safety concerns associated with microwave cooking are similar to the issues involved with other cooking methods, such as conventional ovens, stove-top cooking and grilling. For example, all cooking methods have some effect on the nutrients in food. The effect is worse if you over-cook the food. Microwave cooking tends to be less harsh on nutrients than conventional cooking methods, because the cooking times are shorter and less water is used. To help preserve nutrients when microwaving food, use techniques that promote the even distribution of heat. This will help prevent the formation of "hot spots" where portions of the food could be over-cooked.”

Banned in the USSR! Not really.

Near the beginning of the article, GHC asks "Why did the Soviet Union ban the use of microwave ovens in 1976?

According to Snopes it does not appear that the Soviet Union ever banned microwave ovens. They started manufacturing them for domestic use in the 1970s. Microwaves were still being actively manufactured in 1981, supposedly in the middle of the ban, and are still being produced now. The story on the alleged ban came from a bizarre article in a strange Oregon-based publication that only had one issue.  It was allegedly written by an American with dubious credentials who may not actually exist, who subsequently changed his name and dropped out of sight due to fear of the microwave lobby.

The fake Nazi connection

Another question asked near the beginning of the article is "Who invented microwave ovens, and why?”

Reputable sources say it was Percy Spencer, an American engineer who discovered the process by accident while working on a military radar project for Raytheon during World War II. He noticed that the candy bar in his pocket melted when he stood close to a particular piece of equipment. Raytheon filed a patent for the process in October 1945 (Wikipedia, Business Insider). 

But GHC claims it was the Nazis, and that after the war the relevant documents were taken by the US War Department and classified for reference and "further scientific investigation." If true, it’s conceivable that these documents could have been given to Raytheon, which produces a variety of defense hardware including missiles. However, it’s hard to believe that Raytheon could have applied for a patent in October 1945 on the basis of classified information – it usually takes decades for the government to declassify anything, and it would take years for a thorough investigation of the military potential (something the Pentagon would most definitely want).

RationalWiki dumps cold water all over the idea that the Nazis had anything to do with it. Snopes says the Nazi claim came from the same bizarre publication that reported the bogus Russian microwave ban. But even if a Nazi connection actually existed, so what? Rocket science and the Volkswagen automobile were developed by the Nazis, and nobody stigmatizes these things because of it.

Mind control, microwave sickness and the Cold War

The GHC site talks about the Soviet use of microwaves for mind control, as well as a neurasthenic syndrome, aka “microwave sickness”. Soviet researchers did find some problems, and this is the half of a fact that I mentioned earlier. A 1974 American scientific paper by Justesen called “Microwaves and Behavior” discusses the issue. It says that the Soviets and the US Department of Defense both studied the issue in the 1950’s but the two nations came to different conclusions.  The US military research found nothing and abandoned the project in the early 60’s. That's the other half of the fact, which GHC left out of their article. This was the absolute height of the Cold War (Cuban missile crisis era), and you couldn't ask for better proof that the US researchers found no adverse effect on human health or behavior. In fact I'm stunned that the US would give up looking into ANYTHING that the Russkies had a military interest in, no matter how useless it seemed. The US effort has been revived a couple of times since then, but nothing new came out of it and the discrepancies between the US and Soviet results have not been resolved.

Author credentials

At the very bottom of the GHC site, it says that the authors are Anthony Wayne and Lawrence Newell of The Christian Law Institute & Fellowship Assembly. Christian organizations aren’t noted for the high quality of their scientific research.

*******************
(Back to Top)

The Natural Society article

Natural Society repeats a lot of the same nonsense from the GHC article but adds some new twists.  They say that non-ionizing radiation (wavelengths below the far ultraviolet portion of the spectrum) can harm you, and cites damage to eyes and skin from sunlight as an example.  Sun damage comes from ultraviolet rays, which are technically non-ionizing but can have effects similar to ionizing radiation (Wikipedia). All wavelengths below the ultraviolet are considered safe and microwaves are several classification categories below the ultraviolet, so this is a meaningless comparison.

Immediately after that, they say that "Other forms of ionizing radiation are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, and waves emitted from televisions, cell phones, and electric blankets."

It's true that the far ultraviolet (UVC) is ionizing, but the rest of it is wrong. Maybe this is a typo and they meant to say "non-ionizing", but if that's the case it's decidedly odd that they lump visible light and infrared (also known as heat) in with several modern devices whose emissions are feared in certain quarters.  Life on earth couldn't even exist if visible light and infrared was dangerous, and the light bulbs and electric heaters in our homes (including conventional ovens) would be death machines. Night vision goggles work by "seeing" the infrared radiation (body heat) that we naturally emit as part of the life process. 

Microwave ovens use a much lower frequency than the emissions from light bulbs, conventional ovens, and the bodies of warm-blooded organisms.  Low frequency radiation is safe. It's the high frequencies that are dangerous.

They say that "humankind has conducted study after study concluding that no amount of radiation is safe". Sunlight is pure radiation. We produce radiation in our bodies. We are in deep doo-doo.

They say "microwave frequencies are very similar to the frequencies of your brain. The effects microwaves have on your brain are greater than those same waves on any other part of the body."  That's right, the brain is producing electromagnetic radiation too. The frequency of brain waves is 10 to 100 cycles per second (MIT). That's at the bottom end of the electromagnetic spectrum, in the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) section.   Home microwaves operate at 2450 MHz - that's 2,450,000,000 cycles per second. That's in the microwave part of the EM spectrum, and I'd say that it's pretty far removed from the frequency of the brain.

This article introduced me to a new type of woo-woo that I hadn't heard of before: biophotons!

This quote has taken the baseless claims made about food enzymes and substituted biophotons for enzymes. Notice how they start out by claiming that you get these biophotons in food that hasn't been processed or cooked. But then they single out microwave cooking as the villain who destroys those precious biophotons, while letting all other types of cooking off the hook.

I'm not sure why we would want these biophotons anyway, since they're full of solar radiation and this article says that all radiation is dangerous. But their biophoton claims are all nonsense, so it's a moot point. 

It's not clear whether biophotons actually exist.  But if they do, they are part of the natural electromagnetic emissions that living tissue produces as part of its biological functioning, like body heat and brain waves.  It's the effect of an active process, not something that is stored in the tissue. The only energy stored in biological tissues comes in the form of fats, carbohydrates, and protein - calories, in other words, which can be burned by performing physical functions. So if you want biophotons you have to generate them yourself, because it's not something that your food has been saving up for you.

Quantum Bionet has an article with an informative section called "Skepticism regarding the theory of biophotons." Photonics Media provides more information on what a fringe 'science' this is.

*******************
(Back to Top)

Additional notes

Microwave ovens have been in widespread use worldwide for more than 40 years, and no one has identified any adverse health effects connected to their use, even though a variety of international health and science agencies have been on the lookout for adverse effects. This includes the World Health Organization, which says microwaves are safe.  There's no more reason to fear microwaves than there is to be afraid of conventional ovens.

Cooking DOES produce some chemical changes in food which generally means a loss of nutrients. But all indications are that conventional cooking methods cause greater changes than microwave cooking does, and the most damaging style of cooking is grilling not microwaving.

The electromagnetic spectrum. 

Radiation is not a bad word.  It just means energy that's traveling in a wavy line, which is the primary way that energy travels in this universe. It doesn't all travel at the same intensity, and the range of intensities at which it travels is called the electromagnetic spectrum.  Energy travels in waves of varying lengths (AmazonS3), ranging from Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves, whose length is measured in  kilometers (up to 100,000 of them, about the width of Saturn) (Wikipedia), to gamma rays, with a wavelength similar to the width of an electron (UIB, Magnetic Field Laboratory). The wavelength is the distance between the crest of one wave and the crest of the next, and the number of waves in a given time period is called the frequency. The frequency of EM radiation is usually measured in hertz (H) (one second), and related terms like megahertz (MHz) (a millionth of a second) and gigahertz (GHz) (a billionth of a second). All matter with a temperature above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation (Wikipedia).

MRI on the other hand uses microwave frequencies, which are lower than visible light. MRI is believed to be completely safe - you can have as many scans as you want. MRI machines operate at a frequency of 40-50 MHZ, with a wavelength of 5.5 - 187 meters (Hyperphysics).  That's a fairly low frequency. But power level and frequency are two different things, and the magnetic forces used in MRI are strong enough to make metal objects fly across the room. MRI equipment operators can't wear watches or metal belt buckles or have coins in their pockets. There's an MRI safety film that includes a scene where they put a screwdriver in a bucket and turn the machine on, and the screwdriver drills a hole in the side of the bucket. An MRI scan more or less microwaves people using high power at a frequency that doesn't produce heat. Yet we put our bodies inside these machines and live to tell the tale.

The magnetic forces in microwave ovens don't come anywhere close to the intense power level used in MRI. They use a much lower power level and a different frequency that produces heat instead of a readable signal. Home microwave ovens operate at 2450 MHz, which has a wavelength of about 12 cm (5 inches) (Hyperphysics). Commercial microwaves operate at 915 MHz (Wikipedia). There are many wireless devices that operate at the same frequency as a home microwave, including WiFi, and running a microwave oven can interfere with your WiFi signal (Gizmodo, How-To Geek).  The microwave puts more power into it ( Physics Stack Exchange), but the frequency is the same. You could theoretically cook food with WiFi if you had enough units and configured them right.

You wouldn't want to climb into a microwave oven and turn it on, for the same reason you wouldn't want to do this with a conventional oven - the heat would kill you, and the microwave would do it faster than the regular oven. If it wasn't for the heating effects, sticking your hand in a microwave wouldn't be any more dangerous than sticking it in the beam of a high-powered searchlight. Both are concentrated low-frequency radiation, with the light using a higher frequency than the microwave.

Cell phone transmissions vary from 800-2700 MHz, which includes the operating frequency for both home and commercial microwaves (WPS Antennas). These signals penetrate walls because that's part of making the devices work.  The presence of cell phone signals has become pretty pervasive and relentless in any area that has cell phone reception. So if you're in the area, you'll experience the bombardment. You don't even have to own a phone.

Most of us have been bombarded with emissions from radio and television broadcasts since the moment we were conceived. These signals also penetrate walls.  TV and radio transmissions are in the radio portion of the spectrum, which is a lower frequency than the microwave spectrum. They have a maximum frequency of 1600 MHz (Hyperphysics).  If you want to worry about low-frequency radiation, it seems like the relentless 24/7/365 nature of these emissions is more fear-worthy than using a microwave oven for a few minutes every day.

And what about those light bulbs?  They were invented for the sole purpose of emitting radiation and broadcasting it into our eyes, at a much higher frequency than microwave ovens, cell phones, and radio/TV broadcasts. Depending on the type of bulb, it may also produce infrared radiation (heat).  Why isn't anyone panicking over them?

The wattage of a device is an indicator of how much oomph it's putting into the production of radiation.  Most home microwaves are 800 to 1200 watts (Reference*).  The average WiFi router is about 6 watts, so even though it's the same frequency as a microwave it's putting out less (Energy Use Calculator).  An electric oven uses 1,000 to 5,000 watts, with an average of about 2,400 on medium to high heat (Energy Use Calculator).  It's not just putting out higher-frequency radiation than a microwave, it's cranking out more of it too. An MRI machine can use 9,000 watts in standby mode, and 20,000 when it's operating (Physics Stack Exchange).  

There's one particular device that comes in for a lot of criticism, by people who don't know this simple fact: all cooking methods use radiation, and it makes things happen to the molecules in the food that wouldn't otherwise be happening. Microwave ovens use lower-intensity radiation that has less effect on the food molecules than the radiation from conventional cooking does.

For cooking purposes, heat and infrared radiation are synonymous. As mentioned earlier, radiation just means energy that's traveling in a wavy line, which is the main thing that energy does in this universe. The radiation frequencies, in order of intensity from highest to lowest, are gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared (heat), microwaves, and radio waves. The highest frequencies (gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet) are generally damaging to living tissues. The frequencies below the ultraviolet are generally not damaging.

Sunlight is pure radiation, and we couldn't live without it.  Our bodies produce radiation, including our brain waves and body heat.  Our birds emit radiation.  And so does our food, whether it's warm or cold, cooked or raw. When we cook food, one way or another we're applying radiation to make the food get hotter.

Heat is the amount of energy an object has because of the movement of its atoms and molecules. All matter that has a temperature above absolute zero (minus 460F) has movement in its atoms and molecules, and as a result it emits radiation in the infrared part of the spectrum (Cool Cosmos, which is sponsored by Cal Tech in cooperation with NASA).  This heat is transferred from warmer objects to cooler objects until their temperature is equalized. There are several different ways that heat can be transferred (conduction, convection, radiation), but the energy that's emanating from the hotter object is electromagnetic radiation.

A stovetop burner transfers heat through conduction, where the heat source and the heated object are in direct contact with each other.  The heat touches the bottom of the pan, which touches the food, and the food gets warmer.  An oven transfers energy through convection (heat transfer through a circulating fluid, and air is counted as a fluid).  The heat source warms the air, which then touches the food on all sides not just the bottom of the pan. And finally there's radiation, which does not rely upon contact between the heat source and the heated object. It creates heat by exciting the molecules in the food with energy waves. (EDinformation)

Let's talk about what happens when you apply different frequencies of radiation.  Cool Cosmos  tells us that the high-frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (the far ultraviolet and x-rays, and presumably gamma rays too) can excite molecules to the point that they eject electrons.  This is called ionization.  Infrared (heat) radiation doesn't have that much power and can only excite vibrations in the molecules.  Microwave radiation is even less powerful; it can't excite the electrons to the ejection point and can't excite vibrations. It can only make the molecules rotate.  Microwave ovens are tuned to the frequency that makes water molecules rotate, and the resulting friction-like activity produces steam that heats the substance from within.

People who panic at the idea of what microwaves do to the molecules should really be more concerned about what infrared heating does. Infrared heat pushes the molecules to a higher state of excitation than microwaving does, and the heat is usually applied for a longer period of time.  All the conventional cooking methods use infrared heat, generating small to large amounts of even higher-frequency visible radiation in the process. I haven't looked too deeply into how visible radiation excites molecules, but it should be something stronger than what infrared or microwave radiation does because it's a higher frequency. Physclips tells us that visible light can cause chemical reactions (like vision and photosynthesis) but usually does not.  Our conventional cooking methods are expected to produce other frequencies too, but heat and light are the most noticeable.

Now let's look at how different cooking devices generate radiation. 

Electricity itself is not radiation, although it can give rise to electromagnetic waves (Quora, Physics). An electric oven uses electricity to generate radiation, at frequencies that we mostly perceive as heat not as light.  But some visible radiation is produced too, which is why the heating element turns red when it's operating.

With a gas stove, we set fire to a dangerous gas to cause a chemical reaction that produces infrared radiation, along with visible radiation so intense that the flames are blue. The blue color of the flame isn't an indicator of temperature; the combustion process produces ionizing radiation, and the blue color is the radiation emitted as the electrons become de-excited and the radiation frequency drops down into the upper visual spectrum (Scienceforums).  Doesn't that sound a lot healthier than using a microwave?

When we cook over wood or charcoal, we're once again using fire in a chemical reaction that produces radiation in the visible and infrared portions of the  spectrum (Energy Quest, Science Forums). It's a different chemical reaction, and I have no information on whether this produces ionizing radiation like gas cooking does.  But I would guess that there is less of it at least, because the flame color is in the lower red-orange-yellow part of the visual spectrum, not the higher blue-purple part. The wood itself is usually nontoxic, but inhaling the smoke from its chemical reaction with fire can kill you if you don't have a good flow of oxygen going.  Inhaling the smoke also helps supply your lungs with particles that you can't get rid of.

Microwave ovens don't use infrared radiation.  They use electricity to produce lower-frequency radiation that makes the water molecules in the food spin, producing steam that cooks the food from within. The process doesn't produce any colors because the radiation frequency is much too low for that. This is not the case with conventional cooking, which generates frequencies so high that we can see some of it. The heat from conventional methods pounds the molecules in the food so hard with radiation that they vibrate; microwaving doesn't do this. Heating food with a microwave doesn't involve dangerous gases, chemical reactions, or air pollution. And it does a better job of conserving nutrients than conventional cooking because the cooking time is shorter. 

How microwave ovens work. Microtech doesn't address the safety of foods cooked in microwaves at all, but has some nice information on how microwave ovens work:

1. The section called " What Are Microwaves?" has a discussion of the difference between ionizing (high-frequency) radiation, which can change the molecular structure of matter, and non-ionizing (low-frequency) radiation, which does not have the same damaging and cumulative properties. However, the site's description of electromagnetic radiation as something that occurs when electric current flows through a conductor is extremely limited. EMR is primarily a natural energy that's generated by stars and certain natural elements and events, and we've figured out how to generate it for ourselves using wires and other materials. 

2. The section called "How Dangerous are Microwaves?" talks about direct exposure to microwaves rather than food that's been microwaved. But it does discuss the difference between US safety standards and European/Russian safety standards. It doesn't mention any Soviet ban on microwaves, but does say that Soviet/Russian standards are much stricter than ours.

3. The section called "How Do Microwaves Cook?" has a layman-oriented description using the friction model.

Microwave dangers parody

If you really want to be safe, you should also warn people to avoid the so-called 'conventional' cooking methods. Gas stoves and electric stoves are just as unnatural as microwave ovens, and their safety is just as unproven. The only truly conventional cooking method is to cook over a fire. Our ancestors did this for a VERY long time - estimates range from 200,000 to 1.5 million years - using natural fuels like wood and the dried dung of large hoofed mammals like cows and buffalo. Gas and electric stoves didn't come along until the 19th century, which is not enough time for us to adapt to them biologically. Fire cooking is the only method to which we are truly adapted, and to be really safe you need to use fuels from your own chemical-free trees or your own organically-fed animals. Who knows what might be in the stuff you get from other places?

Just look at the differences between fire and other heat sources. Fire produces a variable, hard to control temperature range and natural byproducts in the form of fragrant smoke, airborne ash particles, and specific gas molecules. Gas and electric stoves produce an unnaturally even heat that is bound to change the food molecules in a way that's different from what fire does. Even microwave ovens are closer to nature than 'conventional' cooking, since they heat food unevenly if you don't rotate the container. Neither gas, electric, or microwave cooking produces the kind of smoke associated with fire cooking. We must be biologically adapted to this smoke, and who knows what kind of health benefits we have lost as a result of eliminating it.

And just think about the way the heat is generated. A gas stove burns so-called 'natural' gas, which will suffocate us in minutes if we turn the stove on without setting the gas on fire. To add insult to injury, it will also blow up our house if someone comes near with a lit cigarette or if they somehow create a spark. Setting gas on fire is the way we make our cars run, and I don't think anyone would want to eat food that was cooked in an automobile engine. Burning gas in a car produces toxic emissions, and who knows what kind of emissions are produced by burning natural gas in our homes. Yet the appliance industry has convinced us to use this process to cook our food, and there isn't a government in the world that's doing anything to investigate its safety or to warn the public about the potential dangers.

Electric stoves are just as bad. Electricity is just a name for artificially generated radiation that has been forced to travel through unnatural conductors (wire and heating elements) made of refined, processed metals. Since electric-stove cooking is slower than microwave cooking, your food is in close proximity to this radiation for an even longer period of time.

Many illnesses like cancer, heart disease, atherosclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease were on the rise before the introduction of microwave ovens, so we have to look for an alternative explanation. What WAS available when the rise began? 'Conventional' ovens, that's
what. A great-grandmother of mine had Alzheimer's before anyone had started calling it by that name, and before anyone had heard of microwave ovens either. She had a gas stove in her kitchen. Need I say more?

At least she got to live into her 80s. My father was only 53 when he died of throat cancer. At that point he'd been smoking for about 35 years, which isn't the smartest thing a person can do. But for FIFTY-THREE years he'd been living in houses with conventional stoves
and letting the food cooked with these stoves pass down his throat. He cooked on those stoves himself sometimes, and even when he wasn't the cook he probably leaned over the stove sometimes to smell the cooking food. During the last few years of his life (10 years or less) he also had a microwave in the house. It's no wonder he died young.

With fire cooking, the variable heat is applied to the bottom of the food. This raises the question: is oven cooking safe, since it applies heat on all sides of the food? That's a hard question to answer. Clay and mud-brick ovens heated with natural fuels have been in use for about 5,000 years, which is a pretty short time period evolution-wise. If you're willing to take a moderate risk you could build and use one of these. But it's best to stay away from the 'conventional' ovens. Besides the unnatural fuels, the lack of natural smoke, and the
unnatural evenness of the temperature, these ovens are built from synthetic man-made products like steel, aluminum, and artificial enamels. Until the modern age, none of our forebears cooked with these materials. Who knows what really happens when these materials are exposed to high heat, or how safe it is to eat food that's been exposed to the toxins they might be releasing.

Government-sponsored 'medical research' would have us believe that many of the ills of modern society are due to factors like increasing fat in the diet, increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and increasing life expectancies. But do you seriously expect them to tell you the
truth? If they're lying about microwave safety then surely they would also lie about the safety of conventional stoves, which are made by the same companies that make the microwaves. It isn't just the US government - there isn't a country in the world with the decency to pursue this issue. Many developing nations are just now achieving the
level of 'progress' that allows their citizens to have these convenient but unproven appliances, and they're actually ENCOURAGING the pernicious spread of modern technology. Wake up and smell the cooking, folks. It's up to you to protect yourselves since no government has the guts to do it for you.

*******************
(Back to Top)