by Gordon Simkin (Physicist, Electronic Engineer)

In this study, I will present as much information as I have found,
good or bad, true or false.  And there are many bad claims about
microwave ovens, but are they actually true?  My own belief will be
stated.  You need to consider the evidence and make up your own mind
as to your use or nonuse of microwave ovens.  Every bad thing that I
have read or heard is at least mentioned in this report.  If you have
any documented evidence (see below) on any of these claims that
contradicts my evidence, or any other new claim, I would still like
to have a copy of it.  Please note that this report has been over a
year in preparing, and I don't have time to edit completely.
Although I have read it may times, there are still, no doubt, many
places that are not too clear.  It is also not organized as logically
as I wish, but I just do not have time to reorganize the whole paper.
There is also some duplication and possibly some omissions of
something I said I would write about later.  If you don't find or
don't understand something that you feel is important, please call
1-800-447-5683 and leave a brief description of the problem. I will
call you back as soon as possible with a clarification.

First let me say that there are many things said about microwave
ovens that are absolutely untrue.  I can only guess where they come
from, but some things said just cannot be correct.  Other things said
are exaggerations of what someone else has said, but even the
original statement may not be accurate, and is usually undocumented.
It has been said that it often takes many sentences or even
paragraphs to untangle some single sentences of error, and this is
very true here.  Even IF some statements are true, there are so many
erroneous things said, that those, at least, must be corrected.

In this study, I will try to give documentation of my sources as
often as possible.  One source is the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia
2000 which comes with many computers today.  Since it has no page
numbers, I can only identify the fact that I have looked up this
data on this Encyclopedia.  I have marked these subjects with a
double asterisk (**) at the end of every statement so verified.  In
the Internet article, the single asterisk is used for local
definitions in the original article, and copied here.  All
underlining in quotations is supplied unless noted.  I will
use many terms that you may not understand.  Therefore, I have made a
list of terms and definitions (as I use them, remembering that most
terms have many meanings) in Appendix D.  A single asterisk "*" is
used after a word or phrase (the first time it is used) which is
defined in Appendix D.  Some definitions are given in the text, such
as in "What Is Documentation" next.


Documentation (as related to determining evidence by experiments conducted on humans) is a report made by a researcher who has done a deep study into a subject, scientifically analyzing something. Then a detailed report is written (in a book or in a magazine, etc., which can be readily found by others) with ALL the facts-not only the results, but also how the study was done. Even here, it is possible for a report to be: 1. biased by the researcher's preconceived belief, 2. biased by a bad motive for doing the study, 3. based on too few tests, and/or 4. a number of other factors which may make the report inaccurate. The less information that is reported about the study, the more one should doubt it, especially if it gives only the results. If it contradicts other known facts, it should also be doubted. Even a long report is not automatically right. An average person may not be able to determine if a report is right or wrong. Yet it seems that many Christians are ready to believe and teach anything that they hear or read, especially if it fits their preconceived idea or if it is sensational. So far, all claims that I have heard about the Russian weather control and the HAARP* mind control come from "Christians" (with the possible exception of T. E. Bearden, its foremost promoter). And most if not all of these are teaching their ideas as fact without any real evidence. Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), especially Historic SDA's should not fall into that trap on any subject. Unfortunately, on Bible subjects, many fall for the new and the exciting, which in reality are fanaticisms. The definition of documentation above is dealing with documentation by experiment, primarily by tests on people involving two or more different situations, diets, or other controllable factors. I need to point out that documentation also includes scientific research of fundamental facts, not involving experiments on humans. Such research is just basic scientific fact. No testing on humans can be done to determine what an oxygen atom* or water molecule* is. But basic scientific research does learn these facts. What is believable, and what should be taken with a "grain of salt", and what should be ignored? It has often been said that you can believe only half of what you see (in newspapers, magazines, etc.). Most people are well aware that newspaper stories are written to sell papers, not just to tell the truth. The same is true of the supermarket "tabloids", which have so little truth that Christians should ignore most if not all of them totally. News magazines, radio* and TV news, and information on radio "talk shows", should all be considered as having much misinformation, and be taken with a grain of salt. Even a scientific magazine article or book, without real documentation, is not to be considered as truth. I could write a good looking article, and with a little persistence, get it published in some magazines. I could write all I want, and publish it in a book if I have the money to spend on doing that. There is one source today, which is unfortunately believed by most people, and yet it is probably the least accurate source for truth, and that is the Internet. The Internet? Yes. Just think a minute. I can buy an Internet address and put absolutely anything that I want on that site. I could make up a million lies and list them as though they were true. And anyone in the world could come to my site and read what I said. Even if I had a million hits a day, that would not make one of my lies into truth. Even if a million people were to copy my "information" (lies) and modify or exaggerate them, and then put them on a million different Internet sites, that still would not make them true. Only if a report on the Internet gives the original source(s) of the information, where anyone can go to those original source and read the researchers report, is there any real validity to the information on the Internet. Even then, the information is only as valid as the original research--which can still be faulty. Basically, Internet reports must be considered as pure gossip, unless they are documented correctly. HOME


Ever since I was in college in 1950, I have heard about microwave energy and its effects. Microwave ovens were not generally available until around 1958 or so. Over the years, especially recently, I have heard many claims that microwave ovens do all kinds of bad things to any food placed in them and therefore food heated in them can harm your health. Such reports come from some reputable sources, and seem authoritative; but most have no documentation, no evidence as to their truthfulness. I have read various reports about problems supposedly caused by them. There is at least one "clinical" report that claims to show that using microwave ovens causes changes in your blood. Are all these claims true, or are they just misunderstandings, etc.? There are many people who believe what they read, even though there is absolutely no evidence that the claims are even based on fact. There are many who have removed their microwave ovens from their kitchens and no longer use them. What are these bad claims, and what is the evidence that they are based on? I will list 14 specific claims or claim sources, and analyze each one in depth. HOME


Let me give you a brief history of my training and work in these areas. God gave me a mind that functions best in science and physics. Don't credit me for that. I was using algebra in grade school, fixing radios by 8th grade, and took over a radio service shop while the owner went on vacation in my early academy years. I took academy algebra, geometry, biology, physics, and chemistry. In college (at La Sierra College) I majored in physics, minored in math, took more chemistry, and all the electronics related classes that were offered. For details on my work history, see Appendix W (Work). In my academy and college days, there was little (too little) concern about radio energy and safety. High power microwave* energy* was not available to me. But as part of physics experiments, I did such things as fry eggs in an aluminum pan held on a 1/2 inch stack of newspapers (which did not get hot), pop popcorn in a glass beaker with high power VHF* radio waves, light a 60 watt* light bulb to full brilliance in my hands (without any wires) with the same high power radio energy, and light a 4-foot fluorescent light bulb held in my hands from this radio energy in my body. For most of these experiments, I was using a 500 watt, 40 Megahertz* (MHz) transmitter*, and with the use of diathermy* pads, I was able to apply most of that power into my body. The only known effect was a slight heating of my body. Yes, I kept the length of time that any of these experiments were done to a minimum. As far as I know, I have never suffered any side effects from these experiments, which were usually done in front of an audience. I demonstrated the same effects in private where ever there was a diathermy machine available and people interested. Remember that diathermy was the intentional heating of the body with radio waves (20 or 40 MHz) to produce internal heat which aided in healing certain medical problems. Throughout its decades of use, I never heard of any harmful side effect. It could, of course, be misused and cause problems. HOME P ALIGN="CENTER">MICROWAVE RADIATION*!

The general idea of the hazard of using food cooked in a microwave oven is that microwaves change the chemical structure of your food, rendering it of less value or even hazardous. What are the claims as to the mechanism for this to happen? You always hear them say it is microwave radiation. RADIATION is the culprit. One report even stated that microwave radiation is very close to X-ray* radiation, and that is why it is so dangerous; but that is absolutely not true because there is a huge gap between microwave radiation and X-ray radiation. This gap includes many more microwave bands, all of the infrared* radiation, all of light radiation, and two types of (long and short) ultraviolet* radiation.** HOME


An Internet report (from lawgiver.org) says: "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 *'. Radiation causes ionization*, which is what occurs when a neutral atom gains or loses electrons. In simpler terms, a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food by the process of radiation." (Italics mine, underlining his.) This concept is exactly where the whole erroneous idea comes from (that microwave ovens are dangerous). As I said at first-the confusion is about RADIATION. These definitions quoted here are totally and only applying to nuclearradiation*, which is even farther away from microwaves than X-rays.** Microwave energy, infrared energy, and even visible light energy (which are ALL radiation AND vibration) DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IONIZE* ONE ATOM, EVER, ANYWHERE!** And higher power cannot change that fact, except as it makes heat. If any radiation generates an extreme amount of heat (as hot as the arc in electric welding-hotter than an incandescent light, 2,000 degrees or so), that heat then generates ultraviolet light radiation, and that ultraviolet light can cause ionization.** But microwave ovens cook food at only a few hundred degrees at most, far below the temperature needed to make ultraviolet light. Also, merely because nuclear radiation "changes the molecular structure of the food", it does not automatically follow that other radiation can do the same thing. The above quoted statement that "a microwave oven decays . . . the food", is completely false. Nuclear "decay" is when the atom is changed making a new element*, and this cannot happen from any other radiation except nuclear radiation. You can see how easy these non-scientists get their information mixed up, trying to apply nuclear radiation effects to microwaves. HOME


Radiation is a general term applying to any form of energy, which can travel through the vacuum of space, whether electromagnetic (which includes microwaves) or particles, such as alpha* and beta* particles or rays.** The fact that ultraviolet, X-ray, and nuclear radiation is dangerous, causes many people, who are not fully informed, to class ALL radiation as equally dangerous. But they forget or did not know that ALL light is radiation, and ALL heat is radiation (whether from a red hot stove top or from a flame). Even our bodies give off infrared radiation. Your body heat, even if covered in cloth, can be "seen" from FLIR (Forward-Looking infrared) scanners on aircraft, because of the infrared radiation your body always transmits into space. That is, your body transmits radiation as heat, which is lost from your body. Yes, a coat reduces the amount of radiation transmitted, which is why a coat keeps you warmer, but it does not stop all heat loss. HOME


In my work history, I used radio frequency* power (radiation) many times; and in my last government employment (until 1993), I used radio transmitters on microwave frequencies very close to that of microwave ovens, near 2.5 billions of cycles* per second (2.5 Gigahertz* or 2.5 GHz). Safety was of great concern by all those working with these low power (30 watt) transmitters. Yet microwave ovens (700 to 1000 watts) were commonly used in that work-place by highly trained, technical people. None of these people considered that those ovens would produce any food damage or be a safety hazard to anyone using them. Why would all of these dozens of workers, who were so sensitive to proper safety with the low power transmitters, have no concern about the use of high power microwave ovens to cook their food? HOME


Yet today there are many who have removed their microwaves from their kitchens and no longer use them. What do these reports say, and what facts are they based on? Here is a summary of the most significant claims of harmful effects that I have heard or read about microwave ovens: 1. Food may be damaged because the microwave energy forces violent polarity* reversals of atoms 1-100 billion times a second. 2. Blood heated in a microwave oven, and then used for a transfusion, killed the recipient. 3. Microwaving may be bad because it is not natural. 4. Persons eating food cooked in microwaves have modified blood which may lead toward poorer health (and many related claims). 5. Baby's milk warmed in a microwave may be damaged. 6. Serum from people who have eaten microwaved food causes more "luminous power" in certain bacteria. 7. Microwaving forms "new compounds* . . . unknown to man and nature". 8. Any food placed into microwave ovens may be damaged and produce bad effects on the human body. This is somewhat like #1, but is from a different papers and is studied in depth separately. 9. The fats cooked in microwave ovens may be chemically modified, making them potentially harmful. 10. Food may be damaged because micro-wave energy vibrates the food molecules vigorously, causing frictional heating. Like #1, but nearer to the truth and is studied separately. 11. Food cooked in a microwave oven glows in your stomach. 12. Microwave ovens damage water. 13. Microwave radiation may leak out of the oven, harming people in the same room with the oven, or even farther away. 14. Other related claims from the Internet. It will take a lengthy report to cover it all. As stated above, it may take many paragraphs to correct an error given in a single sentence. This is very true here, as you will see. Let's look at each claim and see what we can learn. HOME


The first seven claims all come from one article in a publication called Sample Issue...Search for Health (no date, ellipse in title, P. O. Box 75545, St. Paul, MN 55175) about an experiment done by a Dr. Hertel This article, on pages 11-21, was written by Tom Valentine (all page numbers listed alone in this paper are referring to this article). See Appendix S (Sources) for more details on other reprints and exaggerations of this report. Another report was sent to me which has absolutely no author, publisher, nor any real documentation as to sources. It makes the most extreme claims of anything that I have ever read. It is titled: "Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking". This two page article claims that the information presented comes from German research done in 1942-43 "at the Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin", and from Russia research done "at the Institute of Radio Technology" between 1957 and the present. Claim #8 is details of this article with many statements claiming to summarize the work of those German and Russian researchers. Another paper with these claims and more besides lists its source as "The Effects of Microwave Apparatus on Food and Humans" by William P. Kopp. It does not say if this is a book or an article, and I have been unable to find any books or articles by William P. Kopp, either in the University of Florida Science Library computer listings, or in a public library index, or even the Internet book seller, "amazon.com". In a book listing technical authors, I did find many articles by a W. Kopp, but none of these were even closely related to food or microwaves. That does not prove this article does not exist, it is just not readily available, partly, because of poor documentation. These claims are also on the Internet. HOME



Tom Valentine, quoting Dr. Hertel, states: "'Atoms, molecules, and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation [microwaves] are forced to reverse polarity 1-100 billion times [cycles] a second [GHz]"' (Page 15). First, what does he mean by "hard"? In context he could mean manmade or high power. But there are several flaws in this statement. Since he is talking about the supposed effect of microwave ovens, he should mention only 2.45 GHz (to be exact), not the whole microwave spectrum* (1-100 GHz). Next, it is a basic physical law that uncharged objects (which by definition have no polarity, that is why they are uncharged) can not have the polarity they don't have changed by anything. It should be obvious that an atom or molecule that is not already polarized (uncharged), cannot reverse the polarity it does not have. Atoms and molecules can be ionized, and then they will have polarity, but all microwave energy is well known to be "non-ionizing radiation"**. See also claim #14, for a different view on this subject.


Then he (Dr. Hertel) states that "'There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic* system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts* [mW]'" (Page 15). First, since even living systems (people included) have no hazard from long term microwave energy at 10 mW per square centimeter (mW/cm²)** (and many other sources), it is certain that no harm can come to dead organic systems (plants, food) at that level, for any length of time. By the way, if the front of your whole body were exposed to microwave energy at 10 mW/cm², how much power do you think it would take? If a 5 foot tall man has an average width of one foot, he would have a five square foot area exposed. That would be over 4600 square centimeters and at 10 mW/cm², there would be 46 watts! Next, let's assume for this study that some organic molecule was ionized, and therefore polarized. By the way, there is no such thing as an organic atom! When one speaks of "organic carbon", they are speaking of carbon atoms contained in an organic compound, not a different variety of free carbon, or carbon atoms alone. An organic compound is one that has carbon and one or more atoms of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, or sulfur, often with other atoms**. Would the polarity of an ionized molecule be reversed by any microwave energy? What does it mean to reverse polarity? It means to change from negatively charged to positively charged. How do you do that? Only by adding or subtracting electrons--making the molecule have too many or too few electrons. This is, by definition, ionization. An ion is an atom or molecule (organic or not doesn't matter) which has too many or too few electrons. Ionization is the process of making ions*. So only ionizing radiation can in fact do this, and even if a molecule started in an ionized state, microwaves cannot reverse its polarity even once! since microwaves are non-ionizing radiation**. But even if it could ionize a molecule, it would not add extra electrons, then remove those extra electrons and more besides, add, remove, etc., at 2.5 billion times a second. But even if it could do so, this would not be "violent" in any sense. A different paper claims that molecules are already "polar" See the Internet study, in claim #14 below on that. HOME


So what evidence is there that the effect of this microwave energy is "violent, destructive power"? None. These words are added from obvious ignorance, to try to teach a reason why microwaves damage food. He forgets that when atomic* events take place, they always happen extremely fast. And one more thing, infrared radiation--all heat, is also vibrations, at a much faster rate than microwaves. More on the subject of vibrations and heat is given below in claim #10. Atomic distance are very small, extremely fast movement of electrons or other atomic particles is perfectly natural. Electricity itself is the movement of electrons usually in wires, but can be anywhere. The velocity of electrons inside the vacuum of your TV picture tube move at over 90% the speed of light. They go from stopped to this velocity in a few inches (accelerated by 25,000 volts*--25 kv), but they are stopped in much less than a thousandth of an inch when they hit the screen. Now going from over 150,000 miles per second (that is over 500 million miles an hour) to dead still in much less than a thousandth of an inch--even that is not violent in the atomic world. Oh, it does release enough energy to cause the powders on the TV or computer screen to fluoresce--give off light. But a TV picture tube can operate for thousands of hours with only slight "damage" to the screen, and even this damage may be just from the heat and soft X-rays such an impact of electrons produces. The glass in front of your screen is designed to limit the penetration of those X-rays to keep them at a safe level in your room. Further more, there are billions of these electrons that hit your screen every second. Even if the electron beam in your TV has only 1-millionth of an ampere* of current* flowing (and it usually much more than that), it would have over 6,000 billion (6 trillion) electrons per second hitting your screen!** This is still not violent. HOME


Remember that an organic compound is defined as a combination of carbon with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur atoms**, and other atoms, often into long chemical "chains". After talking about water being the most affected by microwaves (which is correct), he says: "'This is how microwave cooking heat is generated-friction from this violence in water molecules. Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed, called structural isomerism [defined as a rearranging of the organic chains, but not adding or subtracting any atoms**] and thus become impaired in quality'" (Page 16). Where does he get the data to call such frictional heating "violent"? Using this term, violence, certain makes it sound bad to the uninformed. Since heat is vibrations up to 138 thousand times faster than microwave ovens**, why is slower vibrations "violent" while much faster vibrations are normal and not "violent"? According to a document which I found in the Library of Congress, microwave energy does not have the possibility to break even the weakest chemical bond, (see below), to say nothing of resulting in causing "structures of molecules" to be "torn apart" or "deformed". Where is his evidence for this extreme statement? This is one of many statements which he makes without the slightest evidence for what he says. He wants you to think that because he did one (very poor) experiment on microwaved food (see Claim #4), that he has now become an informed expert on this subject. But obviously, he is not informed, not accurate, and apparently making statements based solely upon his opinion--maybe his wishful thinking? HOME


Tom continues to quote from his conversation with Dr. Hertel to further condemn microwave heating. He states: "'In addition to the violent frictional heat effects, called thermic effects, there are also athermic [non-heat] effects which have hardly ever been taken into account.'" (Page 16) He continues by claiming that these athermic effects "'can also deform the structures of molecules'" (Page 16). Again, no evidence as to where he gets this information or why he believes it to be a fact. He does give an example, that "'the weakening of cell membranes by microwaves is used in the field of gene altering technology'" (Page 16). But even this example is undocumented, and I could find nothing on this subject in the University of Florida Science Library. He says it, you should therefore believe it. How is it possible for this affect (which I have no data to prove or disprove) to be caused by non-heat affects? These cell membranes certainly have water and organic compounds in them which would be heated, so how can he say it is a non-heat affect when the heating is present? It does not make sense. Tom again quotes Dr. Hertel: "'These athermic effects are not presently measurable [O really, then how did he know that it affected the cell membranes?], but they can also deform the structures of molecules...[how does he know this if they "are not presently measurable"]'" (Page 16) How is it possible to honestly state what these athermic effects can do, when they "are not presently measurable"? This is so typical of those who are trying to condemn microwave ovens, just say it and you better believe it. And many people do just that. HOME


Later Tom, still quoting Dr. Hertel, makes a "factual" statement, again with no evidence: "'This radiation [microwaves] results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food and results in the formation of new compounds (called radiolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature.'" (Page 16). If this is true, a simple series of chemical tests done in any good chemical laboratory could analyze raw food, normally cooked food, and microwave cooked food. Here is where the research should have been done, to document the "destruction and deformation of molecules" and "the formation of new compounds". This is not a hard test to have done, certainly easier than an 8-week, 8-person experiment which is not really valid at all. See also Claim #7 below. So why haven't these researchers done this work? Then they could state exactly what these "new compounds . . . unknown to man and nature" are and describe all about them. This ought to be really exciting research to find a way to make "new compounds . . . unknown to man and nature"! If this has not been done, then the statement is pure conjecture, a wishful guess. Maybe they don't have the money (it is expensive, so I cannot afford to do it) or are they afraid they would not find the results they want? By the way, can you find me a chemist who can describe what a "deformed" molecule is? The only way to change the shape (form) of a molecule is to change its chemical structure, but then it may take a new form, but even this is not honestly called "deformed"! Is a round loaf of bread a deformed loaf of regular shaped bread? HOME


This article continues with other such undocumented statements--even after they stated that "no clinical studies [other than the one reported in this article] had been done on what microwaved food might do to human metabolism" (Page 12). Of course, they would not report any study that did not agree with their preconceived conclusion. In fact, they don't even say there are no such studies, they only say that no "clinical studies" were done. Any research is hazardous when one starts with a conclusion, and then tries to prove what he already believes, including my own study. Therefore, I am trying to give you both sides of the picture, despite my own view. HOME



One of the claims involves the use of a microwave oven to heat blood for a transfusion. It is said that the person died who received the blood thus heated. So far, I have been unable to prove or disprove this claim. A call to the University of Oklahoma Law Library revealed no record of any such case, but they admit that every case is not in their records. They deal mostly with cases that have some value in teaching law to the students. So there are cases that are not in their library. This claim may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the microwave energy itself. The uneven heating in a standard microwave oven causes some of the blood to be overheated, and it soon coagulates (solidifies) in the body's micro-capillaries (very small blood vessels, especially in the brain or heart), and that kills the person--plugged up blood vessels in critical places. This, heating your blood too hot, is the main if not the only mechanism that harms you if you are exposed directly to microwave energy (for example, a defective microwave oven that is still running while the door is open). Overheated blood is also likely to be damaged in other ways. It is certainly valid to forbid the use of heating blood for transfusion in a regular microwave oven!


After writing the previous paragraph, I went to the scientific library at the University of Florida in Gainesville where I found in the "Microwave Journal" of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers), for July, 1994, on page 24-32, an article titled "Microwave Heating of Physiological Fluids" by Kenneth L. Carr, Microwave Medical Systems, Inc., Littleton, Mass. This research was done with the support of the US Army Medical Research Acquisition Agency, the Letterman Army Institute of Research, and the staff of the Department of Surgery, New England Medical Center Hospitals, Boston, Mass. The article describes the problem of heating blood and other fluids for introduction into the body of a sick person. If the fluids are too cold, they can contribute to hypothermia (making the body too cold). Most trauma cases (accidents with severe injury and blood loss) which need blood transfusions are often already in a hypothermic state, and such additional cooling has resulted in death. So heating of fluids (any fluid including blood) to be introduced into the body is essential; yet previous methods have been cumbersome, slow, and not very accurate. This research project was to determine if microwaves in fact damage blood; and if not, how can they be used to provide rapid and proper heating of blood and other fluids for introduction into the body by IV (intravenous- directly into the blood stream), without ever over heating any of the fluids. On page 26 it says: "Blood components are normally stored at 4 degrees C [39 degrees F]. To warm blood and allow it to remain at ambient room temperature [typically 72 degrees F] may result in bacterial growth. Blood should remain refrigerated until the time of infusion [placing it into the body]. Pre-transfusion warming devices using microwave oven technology are no longer sold in the US. Unfortunately, as a result, the mention of a blood warmer using microwaves generates a strong negative reaction. Pre-transfusion microwave blood warmers were removed from the market in the 1970's after they were shown to damage blood due to hot spots. In response, it was reported that 'microwave devices damage red cells and should not be used for warming of blood.' The statement should have read, 'conventional microwave ovens damage red cells and should not be used for warming of blood.' [due to hot spots.] "Based upon the published results of tests, the statement has been modified to indicate that '...controlled microwave devices are not prohibited by Standards of the American Association of Blood Banks as long as the heating is in-line [between the cold blood and the patient, heated as it is introduced into the body], the blood is not warmed above 38 degrees C [100 degrees F] and a warning system is in place with a visible thermometer.' The published results prove that microwaves do not damage blood; excessive temperature damages blood." (All emphasis supplied.) After describing more tests, they say on page 31: "The results show no significant changes in blood component longevity between samples that were warmed with microwave energy vs. controlled samples. In addition, in vitro tests [see below] using blood bank blood were performed, and again, biochemistry and hematological analysis showed no significant changes in blood components of microwave-warmed blood vs. controlled samples. These tests results proved that microwaves do not damage blood; it is excessive heat that damages blood " And this same principle MUST apply to organic compounds which are less sensitive than blood (such as all food)! Genuine scientifically documented medical research shows that microwaves alone do not damage organic compounds, but (excessive) heat does. As I said before, heat has enough energy to change molecules (including blood), but microwaves do not. Even with heat, it is the temperature that is reached more than the presence of heat radiation that does the damage. Just remember, that every atom of your body is constantly being vibrated by the heat that your body maintains, around 98.6 degrees. Yes, some body parts are cooler, but even the coolest part of your normal body is being vibrated constantly. This heat energy is not only not damaging, but absolutely necessary for life. ("In vitro tests" are those "which use cell and tissue cultures in place of whole animals".**) HOME



On page 11 of Tom's main article, he says "The point of this feature is to produce evidence that microwave cooking is not natural and not healthful and is most likely more harmful that we might imagine." (Italics not supplied, underline supplied.) So this sets the stage for the whole article, and anything that he can find to support this goal will be included, fact or fiction. And we have already seen that a lot of it is fiction. You will note here again the disclaimer words "most likely", so that he cannot be sued if (and when) he is proven wrong. But what about the idea that "microwave cooking is not natural". What makes something natural or not natural? Is it that the cooking method occurs in nature? Where is any food cooked in nature? That would make all kinds of cooking "not natural". It must be that he means the source of the heat is not natural. That may be true, if you limit "natural" to heating on earth occurring in nature by this method. But microwave energy in the sun is there in extremely high power, continuously, and it certainly would heat anything that it could act upon. Let me ask Tom (and everyone who is hung up on that idea) a serious question? Where on earth, in nature, do you find anything that is heated by electricity traveling at the speed of light through a resistance material (which is also a form of "violent" friction, if any friction is violent), making the metal around it glow red hot? Yet that is exactly how an electric stove burner works! If there is any form of heating that is "not natural", it is most certainly electric heat. There is only one form of electric heat in nature that I have ever heard about, and that is lightening! No one would ever claim that lightening is a natural source of heat for cooking, now would they! Yet, by inference, this statement is saying that microwaves--which are perfectly natural (existing in nature)--are not natural, while electric stove top (or oven) heaters--which have absolutely no counterpart in nature anywhere--are natural. You be the judge.



Many articles were based on one experiment, done in Switzerland in 1992 by a Dr. Hans Hertel, claiming to show blood changes in those using microwaved food. None of the reports are from Dr. Hertel himself. This study was done with "eight individuals who were strictly macrobiotic diet participants from the Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel, Switzerland" and a "Dr. Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute for Biochemistry and the University Institute for Biochemistry" (page 14) worked with Dr. Hertel. Of the 8 people selected for the tests, seven were in their 20's and 30's, while Dr. Hertel, who "not only conceived the study and carried it out,…was one of the eight participants." (page 14) My studies in statistics* in college and since, indicate that it is never a good idea for the experimenter to be a part of the experiment. This procedure already puts a cloud of uncertainty on the results.


It should be pointed out here how the Encarta Encyclopedia defines "macrobiotics". This is a primarily natural vegetarian diet, where the person already avoids all things "unnatural" including frozen foods, chemical additives, and artificial sweeteners.** They use a lot of Japanese foods and Far Eastern philosophies.** One thing they try to avoid already is all forms of electromagnetic radiation.** Such people would already have their minds preconditioned to fear microwaved food. The power of mind over body functions cannot be ignored, and again puts another cloud of uncertainty on this experiment. To be truly valid, he would have to use people who have no concerns about microwave ovens. HOME


Without giving any actual data, Tom Valentine states: "Significant changes were discovered in the blood of the volunteers in the sampling from intervals following the foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all hemoglobin values and cholesterol values, especially the HDL (good cholesterol) and its ratio to LDL (bad cholesterol). Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of the other variants." (page 15) However, no numbers are given to indicate the significance of the variations measured. This also tends to show marginal data. Any statistical report which claims to have the importance of this report, should have contained the real evidence, which includes the actual numbers obtained in the study, including exactly who received what diet, when they received it, the actual measurement data, and the expected accuracy of that data. HOME


A professional statistician that I knew told me that when it comes to people's health and statistical results, it is very difficult to get valid data. He also told me that there needed to be at least 10,000 people studied over a period of several years in order to believe that the results are statistically significant. I tried to verify this in the University of Florida Science Library, but the books there wanted me to use a complex formula with the number of input variables, such as the number of measurements to be taken, the number of inputs to be controlled, and other factors to be taken into consideration to calculate the number of people needed. I did not have data to put into the formula. It was obvious that the number needed would be much more than 8 people for a test with only one variable and only one measurement. See Appendix 1 for many examples of good studies. See Appendix X for more commentary on correlation statistics. But Dr. Herel's "clinical test" on microwaved food was done over only an 8 week period with only 8 people. These 8 participants were secluded in a hotel with controlled diets and blood samples taken immediately before eating special foods, and 1/4 hour and 2 hours after eating. Every two to five days, [why not every meal?] each participant was given one of the follow variations in his controlled diet: "(1) raw milk from a biofarm (organic farm); (2) the same milk conventionally cooked; (3) the same raw milk cooked in a microwave oven; (4) pasteurized milk from Intermilk Berne; (5) raw vegetables from an organic farm; (6) the same vegetables cooked conventionally; (7) the same vegetables frozen and defrosted in the microwave oven; and (8) the same vegetables cooked in the microwave oven" (page 15). HOME


Tom Valentine interviewed Dr. Hertel, and states that "Hertel admits that stress factors, from getting punctured for the blood samples so often each day for example, cannot be ruled out". (page 17) Not mentioned is whether or not the participants knew which type of food they were getting each time a variation was given, and whether or not the same person always got the same diet variation. If the same person always got food prepared the same way, the results could easily be from factors other than the food. But if one person got a variety of the different diets, they could easily tell if they had raw or pasteurized (cooked) milk, raw or cooked vegetables. So those getting the raw diet variations would already relax, knowing they were not getting microwaved food. This alone could cause a significant change in the outcome. If they always knew when they were getting microwaved foods, the entire experiment would be invalid, especially for those already on a macrobiotic diet, since a certain amount of mind control of our health is a known fact. Unfortunately, Mr. Valentine just reports what he wants you to read, and does not give enough facts (if he even knew the full story) to teach anything other than his desired conclusions. HOME


No indication of how these tests were done is given, but it was reported that "With only one round of test substances completed, the different effects between conventionally prepared food and microwaved food were marginal--although noticed as definite 'tendencies'. But, as the test continued the differences in the blood markers became 'statistically significant.' The changes noted are generally considered to be signs of stress on the body." Page 17. Note that "one round" (whatever that was) was not "statistically significant", but that more rounds were significant, according to him. This infers a "cumulative effect", which means that the longer a person is on one particular diet, the more significant the change appears to be. Yet if "one round" meant that everyone had each of the various diets once, then why would here be any differences to measure? In such a clinical test, one person should be on only one diet, and another on the next diet, etc. Further, each person must not know what diet they are on (it must be "blind"). Additionally, there must be some people on a control diet, which becomes the point of reference. But no such data is given for this test. Then he ends, describing the changes to be "signs of stress". But could there have been factors other than the food preparation method itself that caused stress? What about a preconceived belief that the microwaved food would cause a problem? Dr. Hertel already mentioned the stress from so many needles used to collect all the blood for these tests. What about other unnamed stress factors? If one person knew they were on microwaved food and believed that it was bad for them, would not that produce a stress unrelated to any chemical change in the food? And, as I said before, the person on raw foods would know it, and have no stress from their diet. HOME


In this report various statements place doubt on the results as being really "statistically significant": "The changes noted are generally considered to be signs of stress on the body" (Page 17). "'It appears that these marked increases were caused entirely by ingesting the microwaved substances'" (Page 17). " 'Such stress causing factors can apparently consist of foods which contain virtually no cholesterol--the microwaved vegetables'" (Page 17, 18). This author is careful to use qualifying words such as "generally", "appears", "apparently", and other such words. This is common in research when the results are not conclusive, and it is unsafe to make positive statements about the results. Here are segments of a number of other statements which show uncertainty: "microwave cooking...is most likely more harmful" (page 11), "...changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems." (page 14), "...the indication is clear....The apparently toxic effects of microwave cooking" (page 16), "These results show anemic tendencies" (many similar statements on this page-17), "tends to confirm", "newer scientific date (sic-data) that suggests...", "factors can apparently" (all page 17), and no doubt many I missed. At least he has enough honesty to leave a way out when (if) he is shown to be wrong. Yet he obviously wants you to believe the results as absolutely true, and most people do just that. HOME


It is stated that as Dr. Hertel started to publish the results of his study, "A powerful trade organization, the Swiss Association of Dealers for Electroapparatuses for Households and Industry, known as FEA, struck swiftly. They forced the President of the Court of Seftigen, Kanton Bern, to issue a 'gag order' against Drs. Hertel and Blanc" (page 18) Therefore, Dr. Hertel concludes that the reason the "hazard" from microwave ovens is not given as a warning to the public is because of the claimed fact that governments are controlled by big business. Now that sounds convincing. It does make it look like it is the industry that wants to stamp out the "truth" about microwaves. But is it possible that there is any other reason beside the industry controlling the courts and government, causing them to issue such a "gag order"? It is my belief that even if the Swiss government and its court was controlled by business, they probably knew the insignificance of Dr. Hertel's study, and obtained a "gag order" to prevent a meaningless study from scaring people about their use of the most convenient food and water heating tool available! But are there real dangers in using a microwave oven? No doubt most of you are aware of any number of unsafe food related products that our government does not given warnings about their lack of safety. Most of us already know that there is a lot of truth to the charge that governments do not do all they could protect its citizen's health. Why did it take so long to get an official warning about the hazards of cigarettes? And how much are we told about the hazards of alcohol, monosodium glutamate (MSG), preservatives, or even caffeine? And are you aware that the sugar substitutes are more dangerous to health than the white sugar they replace, for most people? Are we to trust our health solely to government reports? Of course not. But does that make everything the government says or does not say, false and controlled by big business? No. So we need to look at all the information available to us, and then make our own decisions. My goal here is to give you all the information that I already know or that I can find and give you the opportunity to make an intelligent choice based on more than one view. HOME



Before reporting this study by Dr. Hertel, Tom sets the stage for his conclusion with a report he heard on the radio in May, 1989 in St. Paul, Minnesota. He states that the report "was sponsored by Young Families, the Minnesota Extension Service of the University of Minnesota: "'Although microwaves heat food quickly, they are not recommended for heating baby's bottle. "'The bottle may seem cool to the touch, but the liquid inside may become extremely hot and could burn the baby's mouth and throat. Also, the buildup of steam in a closed container such as a baby bottle could cause it to explode. "'Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of some vitamins [from uneven and therefore excessive heat]. In expressed breast milk some protective properties may be destroyed. (emphasis mine [Tom's]).'" Underlining here is mine (Gordon's). There is certainly a valid warning that heating any baby bottle in a microwave oven may leave hot spots in the milk (or any liquid) much hotter than the average liquid heat or the bottle, causing pain or even injury to the baby, even if no harm is done to the milk by the hot spots. But is mother's milk with live cells in them more easily damaged by heat than pasteurized milk which already has been heated and has all living cells killed? Remember that milk is pasteurized--heated--for the sole purpose of killing any living, harmful bacteria. Would not the same heat tend to kill any living cells in mother's milk? Is it these living cells that produce the protective properties? And cannot heat alone "cause changes in the milk"? So is it the heat or the microwaves that do the damage? It should be obvious that it is the heat.


He does give a reference from another report on this same subject, a story in Science News of April 25, 1992. In summarizing that article, he says: "'A new study shows that microwaving human milk--even at low settings--can destroy some of its important disease- fighting capabilities'" (Page 20). Later he quotes that " 'Adverse changes at such low temperatures [33.5 degrees C, or 92.3 degrees F] suggest 'microwaving itself may in fact cause some injury to the milk above and beyond the heating"'" (Page 20). Then he continues by adding "'But Randall M. Goldblum of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston disagrees, saying: "I don't see any compelling evidence that the microwaves did any harm. It was the heating." Lysozyme and antibody degradation in the coolest samples may simply reflect the development of small hot spots--potentially 60 degrees C [140 degrees F] or above--during microwaving, notes Madeleine-Sigman-Grant, of Pennsylvania State University Park. And that's to be expected, she says, because microwave heating is inherently uneven'" (Page 20, 21). Both of these reports show that the small areas of he milk in a baby bottle may get very hot, even hot enough to boil and make steam which would be required to generate enough pressure to cause the bottle to explode. It has long been stated that cooking food causes a loss of some vitamins and other nutrients. It is commonly taught that all natural enzymes in our food are destroyed by temperatures of 130 degrees or so. This is why eating at least some raw foods is important. There is no reason to doubt that other food chemicals are changed markedly by boiling, and it is just as reasonable to conclude that heating baby's milk in a microwave oven can cause hot spots which in turn destroy vitamins and cause other changes in the milk. But it is only the heat, not the microwaves themselves! HOME



On page 15 Tom states: "Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from the test person who ate that food." The first valid question is where and when was this research done, how was it done, and how many tests were made? Why was not all the information provided? Dr. Hertel admits that "no clinical studies had been done on what microwaved food might do to human metabolism" (page 12), and yet some type of clinical study would have to be done to obtain the data he just claimed to know. Is he contradicting himself? But no data is given. Are we to believe everything someone says, just because they say it? NO. That is why I have tried to find documentation or at lest good evidence for as many things I have said as possible. This same basic statement is made by Jerry Hoover in his article in Natural Lifestyle and Your Health, Feb. '94, after repeating the above idea, he says "This process, based on physical principles, has already been confirmed in the literature". I have been unable to contact Mr. Hoover, but such a statement without any references is useless. Even if it had references, it would not be useful unless the references can be found, and the statements he made are indeed the same as what the references show, by genuine documented research. Jerry also calls microwaved food "irradiated food". This is another case where he is using microwave energy as if it were nuclear energy, which it is not! "Irradiated food" has the meaning of food being irradiated with nuclear energy, which might cause all of these unwanted effects. This again shows the confusion of the uneducated between various forms of radiation. If microwaves irradiate food, then you must also consider that all heat (infrared radiation) also irradiates food, especially since infrared heat is closer to nuclear radiation than microwaves are. As for my documentation of what I write, there are some statements that just cannot be documented by a single reference, as they are the combination of many known facts into one conclusion. I might have to document some of what I say by asking you to take all the schooling that I did and to work at all the jobs that I have worked at to gain the knowledge that I have. Some of the statements that I make are based on a combination of many facts, and may never before have been put together exactly as I have, so how could I find literal documentation? Again, review my education and work history in Appendix W. So far, I have been unable to determine even what is meant by most of this statement. If there is a "highly significant association", why did he not show what he means by that? Then he adds the phrase "microwave energy in the test foods". It does not matter how much microwave energy you have (or how high the power is), or what you place it into, when it is off, its off. There is no microwave energy left over after you take it out of the oven. So what does that phrase even mean?


There are compounds that easily amplify microwave energy. These are chemicals that have been purified, contained in a special tube, excited (provided with external energy) by electrical energy, and they can then and only then amplify microwaves. The devise is called a MASER, which stands for "Microwave Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation"**. A LASER is the same type of product changing the word "Microwave" to "Light"**. But these all require confinement of a gas and a significant amount of external power (except modern solid sate LASER's). Neither of these conditions can be met with food in a microwave oven to produce "microwave energy in the test foods". Then he mentions "luminous power of luminescent bacteria". The word, luminous, normally means to give off visible light. "Luminous power" might be the same as glowing power, which might mean how bright it glows. And what is the "serum" used? Is it blood serum? If so, where were the "clinical studies" done to allow this to be measured? But he says no other clinical studies have been done. If not, what else? If this is real data, why does he not give enough facts in plain statements to make it look like valid data? And why does he not reference the experiment that obtained the data? HOME


At this point it should be pointed out that Tom Valentine was apparently wanting to get evidence against microwave ovens. This is shown in his reporting by a statement of an unnamed health food deli-manager stating that "'Microwave is not the same as irradiated food [true]. They use completely different waves [wavelengths*] of energy and at different intensities [true]. No studies have proven microwaving techniques to be harmful [absolutely true], but we all know that the validity and intentions of studies can be limiting, and later proven inaccurate'" (page 12) This comment certainly applies to Dr. Hertel's "study". Tom further reports that a lady named Carole "intuitively distrusted the 'inside out' cooking". Then he says "Being a man who had come to respect his wife's [Carole's] wisdom, I joined the minority who believed that microwave cooking was nothing more than another additive to our denatured nutrition. Call it conviction without evidence" (Page 12). So now he is looking for that missing evidence, and anything, regardless of how insignificant or unproven it is, would be reported. Note also that the only reason for this conclusion is the slight evidence of an apparent correlation between what was eaten and the blood tests. This trivial apparent correlation is only the first step in true research, and without the follow-on research, it should not even be reported, much less trusted. Could this be the reason that the microwave makers wanted to stop this report? Could it be that they knew it is not scientifically valid? Could it even be that they knew of other research which contradicts this subjective study? Unless a cause for these changes can be documented, showing WHY it happens, and also showing WHAT the physical mechanism is that has damaged the food, the study is seriously flawed. HOME


Following this "research report", Tom continues to quote Dr. Hertel in statements the doctor reportedly made, without one solitary bit of documentation about what he then says, as though this previous study proves all the ideas that have come to him. Some of his statements are very exaggerated, if not just untrue. Let look at some of these now. HOME


On page 15 he quotes Dr. Hertel as saying "'There is extensive scientific literature concerning the hazardous effects of microwave radiation on living systems'" (Page 15), as though this proves it will damage nonliving systems or food. Can a "living system" be "cooked" in boiling water? or even in 130 degree water and survive? But all of our cooked food is so treated. The effects on living systems or cells cannot be honestly used as evidence to prove what happens on dead systems, cells, or just plain chemicals. But even here, is the health hazard as high as some would have us believe? In 1996 the National Academy of Science reviewed over 500 technical papers on the subject and concluded that there is no health hazard to people from microwave radiation at the specified safe levels** (of 10 mW per square centimeter). Further, a special study was done in 1997 by the National Cancer Institute studying the normal residential levels of microwave energy and childhood leukemia, and found no evidence that the microwave energy caused any increase in the disease.** HOME


For additional "proof" that microwave cooking is harmful, Tom also prints a number of other claims, which are undocumented. In another example, Mr. Valentine quotes Dr. Hertel as saying "'Technically produced [man made] microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current*.[A.C.]'" (Page 15). Then in answer to a question about microwaves from the sun, Dr. Hertel says: "'The microwaves from the sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current* [D.C.]. These rays create no frictional heat in organic substance'" (Page 16). Anyone should be able to recognize that microwave energy is the same regardless of how it is made, and the same power level at the same frequency will always produce the same results--heating of organic substances. This would be like someone saying that ultraviolet rays produced by the sun are harmless, but "technically produced" or man made ultraviolet rays are harmful. If the man made rays are more harmful, it is only because the intensity (power) is higher than the natural intensity of those from the sun. HOME


There is a difference between man-made and solar generated microwaves, but it is not in their effect. It is similar to the difference between the white light from an incandescent light and the white light on your color TV screen. Incandescent lights have light of every color at the same time, while the white on color TV has only three colors: red, green, and blue. When these are in the correct brightness ratio, they "look" white to us. Take a magnifying glass and look at the white on your color TV or computer screen. The blue may be hard to see, but its there. An even better comparison is the difference between incandescent white light and a laser light, which has only one "frequency" (color, often red) of light, not an entire spectrum or even three colors. The same principle applies to the difference between solar microwaves and "technically produced" (man made) microwaves. Solar microwaves have energy of all microwaves frequencies, 1 to 100 GHz, while your microwave oven has only one frequency (one "color"), at 2.45 GHz. If you could focus 1000 watts of solar microwaves inside your oven, it would not do the same heating because many of those frequencies do not penetrate the food, but reflect off of it. However, if you could filter out all but the 2.45 GHz solar microwaves, and still focus 1000 watts into your microwave oven, it would do exactly the same thing as the man-made microwave energy does to anything in it. It appears that the author is trying to make a distinction between solar and man made microwaves, especially since he tries to teach an extreme danger from man made microwave equipment even at very low powers. So he doesn't want to scare people about microwaves from the sun as being dangerous--and of course, they are not, but only because the power level on earth is low! HOME


His statement that "Technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current" (Page 15) and that "The microwaves from the sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current" (Page 16) are not accurate--not even clear as to what he means. Is he is talking about the power source making the microwave energy? Note that "alternating current" means that which goes alternately plus and minus. "Pulsed direct current" means one polarity switched on and off. Since "technically produced" (man made) microwave energy or radiation in ovens is made by a magnetron*, which works only on "pulsed direct current" or continuous direct current (not pulsed, but only one polarity), it cannot operate on "alternating current"! It is true that your microwave oven uses alternating current as the power source from the outlet in your kitchen. But that does not make the microwave energy "based on the principle of alternating current". That is just plain not true! Such an untrue statement certain places another level of suspicion on the accuracy or even of the honesty of all the information given. In reality a microwave oven uses alternating current from your wall plug, but it uses either only 1/2 of the alternating current cycle (rectified*, unfiltered), which is by definition "pulsed direct current", or from both halves of the cycle with one-half having the polarity reversed (full wave rectified), which is still "pulsed direct current", or with a filter capacitor* added which is then fairly constant direct current. In none of these cases can it honestly be said that "technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current" as far as the method of making microwave energy is concerned. HOME


Also, solar microwave energy is not generated by any kind of "tube", but is a natural by-product of the nuclear reactions which are going on continuously (these solar reactions also make the heat (infrared light), visible light, and ultraviolet light which we are more familiar with. No current, as we know it, is involved at all, neither "pulsed direct current" nor "alternating current". Certainly there are large quantities of electrons moving in the solar nuclear reactions, but there is no such thing as wires or tubes in the sun to contain and control the generation of the various waves. These are not based on "pulsed direct current". Or is he talking about the microwaves themselves? All microwaves, regardless of how they are made, are alternating waves. It is impossible to make microwaves which are themselves only "pulsed direct current". Even if I did pulse direct current on and off at 2.5 billion times a second (which can be done and would produce microwaves), it would immediately become alternating waves upon any kind of emission or transmission. The direct current portion cannot be transmitted. Such claims cannot be made to teach truth, but apparently to confuse the ignorant, and make it sound like the author knows what he is talking about. But in fact, he documents that he does not know what he is talking about. It is clear that he is giving a little truth and a lot of error to support his preconceived belief, rather than to be completely honest and leave a doubt in his test results. HOME



Tom makes the following statement: "This [microwave] radiation results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food and results in the formation of new compounds (called radliolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature." (page 16) The idea of "destruction and deformation of molecules" has already been dealt with. The next three phrases are what we'll look at here. The first says that "This radiation . . . results in the formation of new compounds". If it were possible for microwave energy to break chemical bonds, then this would be a believable statement.


In the summer of 1999, I went to the Library of Congress, in Washington, D.C., where I spent some time on their computers to see what was available. There was no book dealing with microwave ovens and food, but there were several books concerning microwave energy and its biological effects on people, animals, and health. In these, there were warnings for direct exposure to power levels of many watts, but not for milliwatts (thousandths of a watt). Ten mW/sq-cm (which is 64 milliwatts per square inch, or over 9 watts per square foot) is safe for continuous exposure.** One of these books, (produced by the National Research Council of Canada by the NRC Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality; by H. M. Assenheim, D. A. Hill, E. Preston, and A. B. Cairnie; and edited by H. M. Assenheim, Division of Biological Sciences, NRC) states on page 53 that: "Microwave and lower frequency photons* [see below] carry so little energy per photon that for frequencies less than 10 GHz [microwave ovens are 2.45 GHz] they cannot disrupt the electronic structure of atoms nor the chemical bonds-not even of the weakest bond known, the hydrogen bond. In fact there is no known direct significant effect on atoms and molecules in solution" (emphasis supplied). This is also very strong evidence that microwave energy cannot change the chemical structure of food that is heated by it, because for there to be chemical structure changes, it is required that the chemical bonds be disrupted. And any chemical "in solution" is more easily changed than when it is not in solution**. This evidence is not based on "clinical studies", and does not need to be repeated. It is based on calculated scientific facts which don't really even need testing. This report along with the blood study, are in agreement with everything I have studied on this subject for decades. However, I no longer have the sources from my previous information, so I was glad to find these clear evidences of the facts. A "photon" may be viewed as a packet of energy. A higher power microwave oven does not produce any more power per photon, but only makes a greater quantity of photons per second. Hence, the amount of power in a microwave oven has no effect on the possible damage to any chemical, except as it heats that chemical hotter, and the heat itself does the damage, if any. Higher frequency photons do have more energy per photon, so an infrared photon (heat) is far more powerful then a microwave photon. This is an example of documentation by basic scientific research. There are some scientific facts that have surprising results when studied in depth-this is how "photons" were discovered. It was believed that when light got dimmer and dimmer, that it would get less and less energy, but the peak energy stayed the same, but occurred less often. So it was found that there had to be light photons that always have the same energy, just fewer and fewer photons. Once this fact became known, a whole new area of study opened up. This is the science that allows the theoretical scientists to calculate the energy of microwave photons, and of photons for a wide variety of frequencies, not just light. And chemists can calculate or measure the energy required to break chemical bonds. These types of scientific facts require no experiments on humans to become documentation. HOME


Another book examined many claims, but found almost no factual evidence of any problems. One of these was the claimed "Cardiovascular* Effects" of microwave radiation directly on the human living system (body). The conclusion is "No cardiovascular pathology has been noted in man or animals as a result of microwave exposure." Page 346. (Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Nonionizing Radiation, Edited by Martino Grandolfo, Superior Institute of Health, Rome, Italy; Sol M. Michaelson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York,; and Alessandro Rindi, National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati, Italy.) In other words, there is no direct effect upon the blood circulation from microwave exposure. It is the "hyperthermal" (heating) of your body, mostly the blood, that causes problems from microwaves to humans. Here again, as in the case of microwaved blood for a transfusion, if the blood in your body is heated very much, it can coagulate in your heart or brain and causing serious damage or death. But if the microwave energy does not heat you at all, there is no known problem listed in anything authoritative that I have read. HOME


To be as fair as possible, I sent a copy of the draft of my comments (the above 7 claims) on this Dr. Hertel experiment to all of the addresses given (See appendix S), and asked for their comment. The Webster, Florida and Sparta, Wisconsin addresses are no longer valid. But over a year after sending the draft to these places, including Tom Valentine, they have not responded or even acknowledged receipt of the mail. To me, this does not speak well for their confidence in what they have published. Why is it that so many people want to believe bad things about microwave ovens? and are ready to believe anything that is written, without any evidence as to the source or accuracy of what is written? HOME


There is a very powerful spiritual application here: we must never accept any teaching as gospel truth without checking it out from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy for ourselves. Just because it is in writing, on the Internet, broadcast on radio or TV, or preached from a pulpit, is not a reason to believe anything. Let us not only have spiritual discernment, but let us be discrete in that which we accept as truth in all areas of our lives. HOME



This is the most basic of all the claims about microwave ovens. But one paper has more claims all in a row than any other. The documentation provided in Claim #7 above, shows that this can't happen. Nuclear radiation might well be able to cause all of these effects claimed. Let's look at some of these claims anyway. These are from the two page article titled: "Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking" (which is itself undocumented without a single publication listed or one single person's name given, not even the compiler of this paper), and a similar paper called "Microwave Madness" (see below). The first thing this paper says is "Microwave cooking ovens were originally researched and developed by German scientist to support mobile operation during the invasion of the Soviet Union [during World War II]. Had they perfected electronic equipment to prepare meals on a mass scale, the Nazis could have eliminated all the logistical problems connected with cooking fuels while producing edible products in far less time." This is flawed for several reasons. First, the heating effects of microwave energy on food was not even known until early 1945, when Percy L. Spencer, a technician working for Raytheon on microwave radar equipment, discovered that when he stood beside a magnetron (a tube making microwave energy), that a candy bar in his pocket melted even though he felt no heat**. Raytheon developed this idea into the first microwave oven, called a "Radar Range" in about 1950**. I remember the advertisements for this oven. It was many more years before microwave ovens became common. See appendix R for more details. Next, this author never lived in a real front line world. Even in my dummy training, we used fossil fuels picked up where we were (in 1955) to cook some of our food. And they also forgot, that if you are going to operate a (lot of) microwave oven(s), you MUST have A LOT OF electricity, thousand watts of A.C. power. Such power was not so easy to come by then, and even if they had such a generator, they could not fuel it from dead trees, but they would have logistic problems to keep fuel for the generators. And lastly, have you ever tried to cook for 100 people with just one microwave oven? Although I can cook one large potato in 6 minutes, it would take maybe 10 hours to cook 100 large potatoes. And that would be only one potato each for 100 men, not even close to a full meal. So you would have to have dozens of microwave ovens, and a huge generator to operate them all at the same time with a lot of fuel for them. Such a statement is just not logical in any sense. After listing the claimed sources (Russia "at the Institute of Radio Technology" and Germany "at the Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin in 1942- 43"), it then lists these effects as if they were caused by microwave cooking. The Berlin University is still listed in the Encarta, but nothing similar to the Russian Institute could be found there. Isn't it interesting that so much "data" comes from Russia, where it is next to impossible for anyone to get any kind of evidence as to what was really done there. If Russian officials were afraid of microwave ovens for any reason, do you suppose that they could get false "research" reports to justify to their own people why microwave ovens were not being made available to them? But xcost and lack of electricity are the only reasons that I've been able to find as Here are these listed effects of microwave cooking. I've added line numbers for future reference, all emphasis here is in the original article. "Here are some of their findings:


1 "Meats: creates d-mitrosodiethanolamine, a well known cancer- causing agent. 2 "Proteins: Active-protein, biomolecular compounds are destabilized. 3 "Increase in Radioactivity: A 'binding effect' causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha and beta particle saturation in the food. 4 "Milk & Cereals: Cancer-causing agents are created in the protein-hydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal grains. 5 "Frozen Foods: When used to thaw frozen foods alter the catabolism (breakdown) of the glucoside and galatoside elements. 6 "Vegetables: Even extremely brief exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables to microwaves alter alkaloid catabolism. HOME


7 "Digestive System: Alters elemental food substances, causing disorders in the digestive system. 8 "Lymphatic System: Malfunctions occur in the lymphatic system, causing a degeneration of the body's ability to protect itself against certain forms of neoplastics (cancerous growths). 9 "Blood: A higher than normal percentage of cancerous cells in blood serum (cytomas) can be seen in subjects ingesting microwaved foods. 10 "Brain: Their residual magnetism effects can render the psychoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influence by artificially induced, microwave-radio-frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay networks. Wow! Folks, do you see the serious potential here for mind control? The Soviets outlawed all such microwave apparatus in 1976 for this reason [see "REAL FACTS" under Claim 14 below]. Soviet neuropsychologists at Uralyera and Novosibirsk have theorized the possibility of psychotelemetric influence (i.e., affecting human behavior by transmitting radio signals at controlled frequencies), causing subject to comply- involuntarily and subliminally-with commands received through microwave transmissions acting upon their psychological energy fields. HOME


11 "Vitamins and minerals made useless: In every food tested bioactivity of the following vital nutrients decreased: Vit. B complex, Vit. C & E, essential mineral and lipotropics. 12 "Vital-Energy Field Devastated: The vital-energy-field content of all tested foods dropped 60-90%, 13 "Digestibility of Fruits and Veggies Reduced: The metabolic behavior and integration-process capability of alkaloids, glucosides, alactosides and nitrilosides are lowered. 14 "Meat Proteins Worthless: It destroys the nutritive value of nucleoprotiens in meats. 15 "All Foods Damaged: It greatly accelerates the structural disintegration of all foods tested. 16 "There is also a long list of BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MICROWAVES but space does not permit sharing it. This is caused by exposure to microwave emissions without having to eat the food from it." Do you notice the use of all kinds of unfamiliar words? Is it possible that this is done to sound authentic? Read on. HOME


Then this article continues with a few paragraphs selected from the Tom Valentine article. It concludes with this paragraph: "Recent research shows that microwave oven-cooked food suffers severe molecular damage. When eaten, it causes abnormal changes in human blood and immune systems. Microwave ovens are a 'convenience' invented by mankind that is a very unnatural and harmful means of food preparation. God never intended for us to submit our food molecules to such a destructive force before putting them into our body/temple, but many people today are convinced this is a convenience they cannot live without. The choice is yours - man's way or God's way!" First I repeat, since God produces microwave energy in the sun continuously, and created nothing that produces electric heat (red-hot wires), which is "God's way" and which is "man's way"? This paragraph seems to be a short summary of all the bad one can find and exaggerate from Tom Valentine's article. But no research is yet been reported and documented to show any damage to any molecule, rather just the opposite, it is impossible for 2.5 GHz microwave energy to break the weakest bonds. Therefore, it cannot produce modified molecules to alter the blood or affect the immune system. By the way, many of the articles that are written based on Tom Valentines article also exaggerate what he said. This is a form of dishonesty. As for the claim that Russia outlawed microwave oven's in 1976, this is probably true only for use in hospitals for heating blood, as that is the time frame when they were "outlawed" in the U.S. for the same reason. See "claim 14" below for more on that. HOME


Another article was sent to me, titled "Microwave Madness". It was written by Debbie Allen, and was published in a newsletter titled "Royal Reporter", Volume 3, Issue 3. No date given, and no publisher listed. It is distributed by a multi-level sales distributor, and has a personal address as the only point of contact. The pages are not numbered, and are stapled together, and it could be that the last page was not originally connected with the first page. The following article is on this last page, which would be page 6 if numbered. This is obviously from the same source as the two page report called "Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking" (which had no source, author, or publisher listed). This article does skip the first few paragraphs that the other one has, but has more claims. All of the following is quoted from this one page report, except again I have added line numbers on each claim for further study. Most line numbers are the same through line number 16. HOME


"Significant German research on biological effects on microwaves was done at the Humbol-Universitat Zu Berlin in 1942-43. Beginning in 1957 and continuing to the present, the Russians have done the most diligent research into the biological effects of microwave ovens. In 1976 they outlawed their use [see "REAL FACTS" under Claim 14 below] and issued an international warning about the biological and environmental damage that can result from the use of microwave ovens. 'The Effects of Microwave Apparatus on Food & Humans' by William P. Kopp) [no beginning parentheses on original.]


1. " MEATS: Heating prepared meats sufficiently to ensure sanitary ingestion creates d-nitrodiethan-olamnie, a well-known cancer-causing agent. 2. " PROTEINS: Active-protein, biomolecular compounds are destabilized. 3. " INCREASE IN RADIOACTIVITY: A 'Binding effect' between microwaved food & and atmospheric radioactivity is created, causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha & beta particle saturation in the food. 4. " MILK AND CEREALS: Cancer-causing agents are created in the protein-hydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal grains. 5. " FROZEN FOODS: Microwaves used to thaw frozen foods alter the catabolism [breakdown] of the glucoside and galactoside.


6. " DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: The unstable breakdown of micro-waved food alters their elemental substance, causing disorders in the digestive system. 7. " LYMPHATIC SYSTEM: Due to chemical alterations within food substances, malfunction occur in the lymph system, causing degeneration of the body's ability to protect itself against certain forms of neoplastics [cancerous growths]. 8. " FREE RADICALS: Certain trace-mineral formations in plant substance-in particular raw root vegetables-form cancer-causing free radicals. 9. " INCREASED INCIDENCE OF STOMACH AND INTESTINAL CANCERS: A statistically higher percentage of cancerous growth result in the organs, plus a generalized breakdown of the peripheral cellular tissue and a gradual degeneration of digestive and excretory functions.


10. " SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN NUTRITIVE VALUE OF all foods studied. 11. " VITAMINS & MINERALS MADE USELESS: in every food tested, the bioavailability of vital nutrients decreased: vitamin B complex, vitamins C and E, essential minerals & lipotropics. 12. " VITAL ENERGY FIELDS DEVASTATED: all tested foods dropped 60-90%. 13. " DIGESTIBILITY OF FRUITS & VEGETABLES REDUCED: microwaves lower the metabolic behavior and integration-process of alkaloids, glucosides, alactrosides & liptropics. 14. " MEAT PROTEINS WORTHLESS: the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats is destroyed. 15. " ALL FOODS DAMAGED: microwaves greatly accelerates the structural disintegration of all foods tested.


16. " Merely entering the energy field of microwaved foods causes harmful side-effects. The Soviets outlawed microwaves in 1976! (See "REAL FACTS" under Claim 14 below.) 17. " LIFE ENERGY FIELD BREAKDOWN: increases relative to length of exposure. 18. " Cellular energy decreases: The cellular-voltage* parallels of individuals using the apparatus degenerate - especially in their blood and lymphatic serums. 19. " Destabilized metabolism: The external-energy activated potentials of food utilization are both destabilized and degenerated. 20. " Cell damage: Internal cellular-membrane potentials during catabolic processes into the blood serum from the digestive process degenerate and destabilize. 21. " Brain circuitry destruction: Electrical impulses in the cerebrum degenerate and break down. 22. " Nervous System: Nerve / electrical circuits degenerate and breakdown while energy-field symmetry is lost in the nerve centers in both the front and rear of the central and autonomic nervous systems. 23. " Loss of bioelectric strength: The bioelectric strengths within the system which controls the function of walking, consciousness go out of balance and lose their proper circuiting. 24. " Loss of vital energies: Humans, animals and plants located within a 500-meter radius [1,640 feet - over 1/4 mile] of a microwave in operation suffer a long-term, cumulative loss of vital energies. 25. " Nervous and lymphatic Systems damaged Long lasting residual magnetic 'deposits' become located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system. 26. " Hormone imbalances: The production of hormones and the maintenance of hormonal balance in both males and females become destabilized and interrupted. 27. " Brainwave disruptions: Levels of disturbance in alpha, delta and theta wave signals patterns are markedly higher that normal. 28. " Psychological disorders: Because of the disarranged brain waves, negative psychological effects also result. These include loss of memory and ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes and interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range-emission field effects of microwave apparatus, from either cooking apparatus or transmission stations. Debbie Allen" For a comparison of these two articles and one from the Internet, see Appendix C. It also has additional comments on many of these claims.


Lines 1,2,4-9, 10, 11, 13-15 (and their parallel claims), all require that the microwaves are able to modify the molecular structure. Since this is impossible these will not be studied again here (except to look at the absurdity of lines 8, 11 and 14!). Lines 16 through 28 all seem to be claimed effects of microwave energy directly on the human body. HOME LINE 3 - Even before doing any research on this list of claims, it was obvious to me that some were impossible to be true. Take line 3 for example: "Increase in Radioactivity: A 'binding effect' causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha and beta particle saturation in the food." The second paper expands the phrase by saying "A 'binding effect' between microwaved food & any atmospheric radioactivity is created..." This statement is obviously made with no knowledge of the subject, and therefore must have been made up to "prove" that some problem exists. It is so fraught with error that it is hard to believe anyone who claims to understand what they are writing, would not know that every scientist out there who reads it would recognize its errors. And when one statement is obviously just plain "made-up", what confidence should anyone have about the rest of the statements made? It starts with "Increase in Radioactivity". What is that? Does it have anything to do with radio waves or microwaves? NO! Names were selected in the early days of modern science, and unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion to the non-scientist as to the true meaning of these similar terms used for totally different effects. Radioactivity is that characteristic of a natural elements (or man-made elements) which periodically "decay" (again nothing to do with the meaning of the word decay and food) by emitting an alpha or beta particle from its nucleus, which makes the atom into a new element, and/or the emission of gamma radiation**. Uranium and Radium are the best known of the natural radioactive elements. Plutonium is the best known of the man-made radioactive elements. There is no possibility that microwaves could ever produce any form of radioactivity. HOME


An alpha particle is the nucleus of a helium atom (which contain two protons and two neutrons**), and is always positively charged as it needs two more electrons. A beta particle or ray is a freed electron, and is therefore always negatively charged, both traveling at the very high speeds in free space**. When the radioactive atom "decays" or disintegrates, the alpha and/or beta particles come out near the speed of light and act just like rays, or radiation, hence the names which are used interchangeably: alpha (or beta) particles, alpha rays, or alpha radiation-it is all the same thing**. Even the electrons in an X-ray machine, which travel at up to 99% the speed of light, are not beta particles--they are still contain within the X-ray tube and do not come outside into space. The only thing that man can use to make a normal atom change is to bombard it with neutrons--which are the working particle, rays, or radiation that makes a nuclear (atomic) bomb or nuclear (atomic) reactors work. Microwaves just plain cannot generate or effect radioactivity at all. This statement is likely made up from the false belief that ALL RADIATION is the same, and since nuclear radiation can produce radioactivity, microwave energy (or radiation) must therefore also be able to produce radioactivity, but it can't. HOME


Then it says: "A 'binding effect' between microwaved food & any atmospheric radioactivity is created, causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha and beta particle saturation in the food." This "binding effect", by context, is claiming to make the microwaved food able to trap the alpha and beta particles which must be coming from "any atmospheric radioactivity". But even IF "atmospheric radioactivity" contained any alpha or beta particles (but it doesn't) these rays or particles cannot be trapped in the food or anything else. Why? They are only alpha or beta particles while they are moving at very high velocities. As soon as they hit something that stops them, they cease to be any form of radiation. Why are there no alpha or beta particles in "any atmospheric radioactivity"? Because alpha and beta particles are stopped by a few feet to a few hundred feet of air depending upon their initial velocity. The velocity of such particles is measured in terms of "electron volts". When a charged particle is influenced by a voltage, its speed is increased depending upon the type of particle, the voltage, and its polarity. The electrons in a standard color TV are accelerated by 25,000 volts. (25 Kev) The result is rather slow. An alpha particle must have a velocity of 7.5 MeV (million electron volts of velocity) to penetrate skin, which is only 0.07 millimeters (mm) thick.** Electrons have the same penetration at 70 KeV (thousand electron volts).** In air, electrons travel about 3.65 meters (12 feet) per MeV.** So you can see that in less than 1,000 feet they cease to exists.** Now there is "atmospheric radioactivity" in outer space no doubt, with many alpha and beta rays present. But not down here (where we microwave food) after miles of air for them to travel through. HOME


Oh yes, the physical particles still exist when they are stopped, but electrons and helium atoms at rest are harmless--there are billions of these electrons in everything, and in all food, raw or cooked, and helium becomes an inert (inactive) gas. It is also true that when these particles hit organic compounds, they can cause chemical changes in a compound, but not in an atom. Now irradiated food is usually treated with intense gamma rays (radiation), which certainly kills the germs and likely viruses (but not the prions). However, I found in the "Journal of Food Safety", Vol. 10, No 1, 1989 concerning gamma irradiation of certain foods that "Gamma irradiation was ineffective in controlling decay and surface molds, and injurious to physical quality by decreasing firmness, increasing fresh weight loss, membrane leakage and vein tracking browning." There were many articles on this subject that showed little or no safety in gamma irradiation of food. In some cases it may make it keep longer, but it is also true that gamma rays, being much more energetic than ultraviolet light and X-rays, have the very real potential to cause serious chemical changes in the food. Personally, I am very much against any gamma irradiating of our food for any reason. If I could find the original Russian books, I would expect to find that they deal with irradiated food, not microwaved food. Someone reading them, maybe in Russian (and not well translated), incorrectly applied "radiation" to microwaves. (I'm also against genetically engineered foods, as the evidence is that the effects on us is not good.) HOME


The last portion of this statement is that these microwaves cause "alpha and beta particle saturation in the food." What is saturation? There are many kinds of saturation. By context, this one deals with quantity of these particles in the food. Hence they are not talking about saturated fats (those with all possible hydrogen bonds made**), or other saturated organic compounds (those with no double or tipple bonds, only single bonds**). Nor is it talking about water saturation in air, which is known as 100% humidity. Saturation means all that it is possible to place into something has been placed there. When you dissolve salt into water, you can keep adding more and more for a long time. But a point comes when you can no longer dissolve any more salt into that water**. The water has been saturated with salt. Therefore, this statement would mean that so many alpha and beta particles have been added to the food that there cannot be more of these particles added to the food. Now I've never heard of any kind of radiation saturation. That is equivalent to saying that you can only get so bright a light, and then it can't get any brighter, even if you add more light bulbs and more power. You just cannot saturate radiation! The more power you have, the more the radiation. In other words, it is beyond me how it would be possible to saturate a piece of food with alpha or beta particles even in the core (the very center) of a 100 million watt nuclear reactor! Only if you could make every atom in the food radioactive, could you make a type of saturation, where its own radioactivity would be saturated, unable to produce more of its own radiation. This might happen in the middle of a 100 million watt nuclear reactor, if the food was left in there for an extended period of time. I have seen such a reactor operating at full power, shielded only by many feet of water. It is a sight that cannot be explained! It is most fascinating and beautiful. It was the Engineering Testing Reactor at the National Reactor Testing Station west of Idaho Falls, Idaho, where I once worked. I could have enjoyed watching it for hours. But that is a different story. LINE 8 - states: "Certain trace-mineral formations in plant substance - in particular raw root vegetables - form cancer-causing free radicals." The way this is stated, it does not really claim that the microwaves make the substance that forms free radicals, but that is the inference by the context. What is a free radical? It is defined as a molecule that has 2 or more unpaired (or free) electrons that do not interact with each other**. Hence, they are easily involved in other chemical reactions, which some believe to be harmful new chemicals. But if these free radicals did not exist naturally in the original food, microwaves cannot make them, as bonds must be broken to make free radials where they did not previously exists. But heat can do that--break chemical bonds, and therefore heat could make free radicals. LINE 10 - starts: "Brain: Their residual magnetism effects..." Here again, a concluding statement is made based on a "fact" that has no evidence of being true to begin with. It claims that there are "residual magnetism effects" in the food you eat that has been heated in a microwave oven. What is "residual magnetism"? It would have to be the left-over (residual) magnetism remaining after magnetizing and demagnetizing the food. When I magnetize something and then demagnetize it, but not quite perfectly, I leave a "residue" of magnetism. You have to be able to magnetize something, for it to ever have a "residual magnetism". And there is no food that can be magnetized, not even the highest iron content spinach you ever heard about, as most iron compounds (as iron exists in food) cannot be magnetized. And how do you magnetize something? With microwaves? Never! You have to have a stable, single polarity direct current (D.C.), strong magnetic field. I have used a "magnet charger", and it cannot use microwave energy. It uses high power D.C., not even A.C., despite the fact that it plugs into an A.C. outlet. Internally, it has to convert the A.C. to D.C. Oh, it is possible to magnetize very small magnetic particles (like that on the surface of magnetic audio or video tape) very rapidly. To do this, one must have an equally small magnetic field. The magnetizing head on a VCR for example, may have a gap (space between two electronically magnetized pieces of metal) of less than 20 millionth of an inch! As the head spins and the tape moves by, a microscopic particle of magnetic material is magnetized to the polarity and strength of the head at the moment it passes by. But these are particles that are specially designed to be easily and rapidly magnetized. But if you placed video tape in a microwave oven (don't try it, it may spark and start on fire), it would not magnetize it. If it did anything, it would erase (demagnetize) it. It is true that the speed of magnetizing a video tapes is several millions of cycles per seconds, but to do that with 2.5 GHz, the tape would have to move up to a thousand times faster, and the heads (which spin diagonally across the tape) would also have to spin a thousand times faster. Neither of these is close to possible today. HOME


What happens if I try to magnetize something stationary with A.C. current? I demagnetize it! That is exactly how your audio or video tape eraser (or degausser--gauss is a measure of magnetic strength) works. The magnetic field is reversing (on normal household A.C.) 120 times a second. It takes both polarities to make one cycle, which makes 60 cycle power. To erase a video tape, you must first magnetize it nearly as strong as the original, and then decrease the strength of the magnetism step by step. This is done by magnetizing the tape in first one polarity and then another. As you separate the eraser from the tape, each cycle gets weaker, leaving less and less magnetism in the tape. If you shut the eraser off next to the tape, it is possible to leave the tape so strongly magnetized, that the audio or video machine cannot erase it and re-record on it. Hence, the instructions to be sure to remove the eraser 2 or 3 feet from any tape before shutting it off. When I erase a video tape, I can sometimes see a small trace of video left over--residual magnetism, that which I did not get all of the old magnetism removed. By the way, all audio, video, and computer recording tapes; and the computer floppy and hard disks are done by magnetizing very small (microscopic) particles of magnetizable material on the surface of the tape. HOME


Line 10 states again "Their residual magnetism effects can render the psychoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influence by artificially induced, microwave-radio-frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay networks." It should be obvious that since there cannot be any residual magnetic effects on anything that cannot be magnetized in the first place, that this non-existence residual cannot "render the psychoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject" to anything. This whole statement is in the same Satanic ballpark as the idea that "Tesla technology" can do all kinds of fantastic things, including mind control from HAARP! We are told in 1T 301 "that Satan cannot control minds unless they are yielded to his control". Can you yield to Satan's control without some level of choice being involved? Then these theories of external, involuntary mind control are false. This person's ignorance is again displayed by the next phrase: "microwave-radio-frequency fields from transmission . . . TV relay net works." Yes, "TV relay networks" used microwave energy, but not very much power, and it is beamed by dish antennas* directly from remote location to the main station. Only the mobile trucks could easily aim their dish antennas at people on the ground, a few at a time, but remember the signal gets weaker every foot it travels in space. And since it is not high power to start with, it cannot do much, if anything, even to people near by. The writer does admit that Soviet neuropsychologists at Uralyera and Novosibirsk have "theorized the possibility" of mind control via this supposed left-over residual magnetic effect. Anytime something is proven, it is no longer called a theory. Even very strong evidence alone does not prove a theory to be true. Are these the same Russians who have been charged with controlling our weather? LINE 11 - says: "Vitamins and minerals made useless: In every food tested bioactivity of the following vital nutrients decreased: Vit. B complex, Vit. C & E, essential mineral and lipotropics." Please note the summary statement as compared with the rest of the statement: "Vitamins and minerals made useless"! Useless? Really? Then how would people live who cooked most of their food in a microwave? But then this person says: the "bioactivity of the following vital nutrients decreased". Oh, is "made useless" and "decreased" the same thing? Lets us assume that this decrease did occur. He does not state how much it decrease. One-tenth of one percent would be a decrease, but from his previous statement, it must have decreased 100%! These kinds of exaggerations are common in reporting this subject. I could point out many other exaggerations, especially when someone writes about someone else's report, making their own conclusion about its meaning. Are these exaggerations made to try to convince someone that they are true? or just to scare them away from microwave ovens? LINE 12 - says: "Vital-Energy Field Devastated: The vital-energy- field content of all tested foods dropped 60-90%." What is "vital-energy"? Searching the Encarta Encyclopedia, I found that phrase used three times only, in the following articles: Acupuncture, Oriental martial arts, and Aztec religions. Is not this something out of mythology and fiction? LINE 14 - says: "Meat Proteins Worthless: It destroys the nutritive value of nucleoprotiens in meats." Yet how many people in the U.S. alone eat microwaved meat as their primary protein source? Your guess is as good as mine, but it is certainly a lot of people. Yet how often do you hear of any American have any kind of protein deficiency? Have you ever heard of a medical problem from damaged protein? If it has been destroyed and becomes worthless, many people must be seriously protein deficient! LINES 16 to 28 - Many, if not all, of these claims are effects of microwaves directly on people, and it has been proven that there is no such effects on people. So again, I will not try to analyze each line, but only a couple that have obvious unfounded claims. Even on people, it is the heating, mostly of your blood that causes a problem. When microwaves heat the blood in your micro-capillaries, it can cause the blood there to coagulated, slowing or stopping the circulation in that area. That could be harmful, especially if it happens repeatedly at the same place without time for the body to heal itself between exposures. If enough of your blood circulation is thus stopped, it can kill you. LINE 24 - Says: "Loss of vital energies [see claim #12 below]: Humans, animals and plants located within a 500-meter radius [over 1,640 feet] of a microwave in operation suffer a long-term, cumulative loss of vital energies." This is similar to claim #12 and #13 below. The very best research on the safety of long term exposure to microwave energy shows that a power density of 10 mW/sq-cm of surface area is perfectly safe for long term continuous exposure**. The maximum allowed leakage from a microwave oven is one-half of that**. And microwave ovens have to be tested for this leakage, and very few of them ever get close to even 5 mW/sq-cm. The energy level decreases with the inverse square law. That means that you double the distance, the power per square centimeter is decrease by 4 times. So if you are a few feet from a microwave oven with a bad energy "leak", it won't affect you at all. Just for an example, if you had a microwave oven with a 8" by 12" door and 960 watts of evenly distributed output power, with the door wide open you would have a power density average of 10 watts per square inch (8x12=96, 960/96=10). And since there is over 6 square centimeter's per square inch, there would be less than 2 watts per sq-cm. A foot away from the opening, the energy would spread to at least twice the size of the door in each direction, or 4 times the area. So there would then be less than 500 mW/sq-cm. Going another 10 feet away the energy would be 1/100 as much, and would then be 5 mW/sq-cm. So even with the door open, everyone would be safe at distances of over 11 feet away (but in reality no microwave oven has power evenly distributed and inside a building, you could get reflection causing focusing, making hot spots, so don't try this!) The point is, nothing, absolutely nothing is going to be affected at 1640 feet away from an operating microwave, even with the door wide open. If you extend those calculations to about 1640 feet, you will find that there is less then 0.3 microwatts (3/10th of a millionth of a watt) of power per square centimeter, average, with the door wide open! Also, you can see that even if your microwave oven had a significant "leak", it would only be possible to be hazardous within a foot or two of the leaky place, which would most likely be a bad door seal. LINE 25 - says: "Nervous and lymphatic Systems damaged: Long lasting residual magnetic 'deposits' become located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system." If true, so what? What in the world are "magnetic 'deposits'"? If you ate powdered iron which had been magnetized, and it would deposit somewhere in your body, this would be half true. But how do you get powdered metal into your blood or lymph system? And what food has any form of magnetism? Take a magnet and see what food you can pick up. Can you find any? See also "Magnetic Therapy" in Appendix 1. LINE 28 - says: "Psychological disorders: Because of the disarranged brain waves, negative psychological effects also result. These include loss of memory and ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes and interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range-emission field effects of microwave apparatus, from either cooking apparatus or transmission stations." This last effect sounds like wishful thinking from Russia. Are you aware that for years the Russians transmitted microwaves through the US Embassy in Moscow? All of the workers there were exposed to microwave radiation during all of their working hours. Certainly, some parts of the building had higher levels than the other parts. But these people, who worked there for years, were exposed to continuous radiation during all of their working hours. When the U.S. learned that this was happening, they started a research project to study the health of all those Embassy employees for the total time of this exposure. The conclusion was that there was no evidence of any effect upon any of these worker during any of this time. Certainly if line 24 was true, these workers would have been affected and the research done on them would have shown the problems. But none were found. I read this report in a government document at the Library of Congress, and somehow I lost the documentation. But if you want to search for it, I'm sure you can find it. Low level microwave radiation is harmless to all of us and to all other plants Ad animals. HOME



Another person told me that microwaves break down the long chains of organic chemicals, especially in fats (oils), and that these byproducts are harmful. But Canadian research (reported above) has proven that microwaves cannot break the weakest chemical bond. So if this problem exists, is also exists in all cooked foods, and especially in fried foods. It would be caused by the excessive heat, not from the microwave energy. No doubt, any time you heat fats hot enough to change colors, you have broken some of the long chemical chains.



It was also reported that damage is done to the food because the radiation "vibrates" the food. Although it is true that the heating is caused by vibration (which produces frictional heating, primarily of the water molecules), it is also true that all heat is vibration up to one-hundred and thirty thousand times faster than microwave energy.** By comparison, microwaves are very slow and do almost nothing. Since the heat is also vibrating the molecules very much faster (up to 340,000 billion vibrations per second**), the microwave vibrations cannot be violent if heat is not much more violent--and it isn't. However, heat does have enough energy per photon to cause molecular changes, but microwaves alone do not have any where near enough energy to change molecules. The words, "violent, destructive power", are used just to try to teach a reason why they think microwaves can damage food, but this idea is false. Atomic and molecular events can happen extremely fast with no harm to the atoms or molecules.


The facts are that ALL forms of electromagnetic vibrations are radiation, and that all radiation is electromagnetic energy, and is vibrating. This includes not only microwave energy, but also all kinds of radio and TV energy, all of infrared (heat), visible light, ultraviolet, X-ray, alpha, beta, gamma, and cosmic rays: known as the electromagnetic spectrum. The primary difference is how fast they vibrate. In fact, everything physical is in a constant state of vibration (even the atoms in steel). Only if it were possible to cool something down to absolute zero (459.69 degrees below zero F**) could all motion and vibration be stopped. Now for a more detailed description of the electromagnetic vibration (radiation) spectrum. Sound has a frequency (rate of vibrations per second, called Hertz* or Hz) from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The sound that we hear is mechanical vibrations in the air. But when sound is in electronic form (in an amplifier, radio, TV, or other sound device), it is electromagnetic energy, and can become electromagnetic radiation. This energy is difficult to transmit into space as radiation, but it can be done--I have heard a radio transmission around 10,000 cycles per second, with nothing but earphones connected to an "antenna"! (Earphones and loud speakers change audio frequency electromagnetic energy into sound energy.) At frequencies faster than sound, there are: almost 5 octaves (an octave* is a doubling of the frequency) of long wave radio radiation, over one octave of medium wave ("AM") radio radiation, over 4 octaves of short wave radio radiation, over 3 octaves of very high frequency radio radiation, another octave of ultra-high frequency radio radiation, and then microwave radio radiation (1-100 GHz), with microwave ovens operating more than 1 octave into the microwave band. Beyond microwave ovens there are over 5 octaves of other microwaves, then more than 11 octaves of infrared electromagnetic radiation (heat). And then we come to visible light--which is also electromagnetic radiation. All the different colors of light (each color is a different frequency) occupy about one octave. Then there are over 6 more octaves of ultraviolet light before we get to soft X-rays. Next there are over 4 octaves of soft X-rays and over 8 octaves of hard X-rays. Finally we come to nuclear radiation, with almost 16 octaves of alpha, beta, and gamma rays (rays = radiation); and then cosmic rays (radiation from space). (Whole paragraph**.) HOME


One other thing to note is that any one octave is as wide as all lower octaves combined! Microwave ovens operate on about 2.5 billion cycles (vibrations) per second (GHz). The octave above that goes to 5 GHz and is 2.5 GHz wide, while the combination of all the octaves below that is only 2.5 GHz wide. The width of the visible light that we see, is as wide as all the electromagnetic energy from sound, through radio, TV, microwaves, and infrared combined! This is why fiber optics* (fiber optics technology is in its infancy), which work on light radiation, can have so much information sent over them so very fast. So you can easily see that the "distance" between microwaves and X-rays (23 octaves) is enormous, and it is much more "distance" (12 octaves) before we get to nuclear radiation. (Whole paragraph **.) And please note, that since each octave is a doubling of the frequency of the vibrations, that 11 octaves (2 x 2 x 2...eleven times=2048) means the vibrations of infrared heat of your electric stove top is over 2,000 x 100 billion, or over 200,000 billion, or 200 trillion vibrations per second! Actually, infrared heat ends at about 340 trillion vibrations per second, where red visible light starts.** If 2.5 billion vibrations per second was "violent", what would you call 340 trillion vibrations per second produced by your stove??? In fact, even this 340 trillion vibrations per second is not violent, but mild. Only after another octave of increase, which covers visible light (to 700+ trillion vibrations per seconds), do we reach long ultraviolet light, where we begin to get radiation with "photons" capable of ionizing atoms and molecules.** This might honestly be called slightly violent. Most any technical encyclopedia has this data. By the way, this fastest cosmic ray vibration listed is one million, billion, billion vibrations per second. That is a one with 24 zeros after it, cycles per second! Now that is violent; and everyone of us (and our food) is hit with some cosmic rays like this from deep space every day. HOME


All radiation below ultraviolet light is called "non-ionizing" radiation, which means it does not produce ions** (which are atoms or molecules with either too few or to many electrons). It is true that when an atom or molecule is ionized, it is more likely to be involved in a chemical reaction. It is also true that it does not have to be ionized to be involved in a chemical reaction or change--which does make new molecules. Any chemical dissolved in water (or other liquid) can be more easily involved in a chemical reaction**, and chemical reactions can easily take place with or without any other factors, heat being a common factor which rapidly increases the chemical changes as the temperature gets hotter. This is why we refrigerate food, as the colder we make it, the slower such chemical changes occur. Cooling also slows the growth of bacteria and molds which also helps to preserve our food. See also "Overheated Hydrocarbons". HOME


None of all these radiations described above can produce nuclear changes, except for nuclear radiation itself. This includes alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, which have an effect on molecules (even these do not change the atoms**). Nuclear particles called neutrons, are probably the most dangerous of all nuclear radiation. It is neutrons that actually produce atomic power by changing the atoms themselves. Nuclear radiation can no doubt produce many if not all of the effects listed above that are claimed to be caused by microwave radiation. This again is the result of confusion by the non-scientist in thinking that all radiation is nuclear radiation, or like nuclear radiation. HOME


By the way, did you note that cooking by using the red-hot electric stove top is heating (in part) by infrared (near red) radiation? This radiation on most stoves is produce by hundreds of watts of electricity. And that this radiation is much closer to X-rays than are microwave ovens--by over 16 octaves, and the vibrations thus produced are over 200 thousand times faster than microwave ovens? An electric "burner" becomes visibly red on high, and a flame has radiation that is even closer to X-rays, maybe even some ultraviolet (beyond violet) radiation. Yet no one has ever been concerned that our electric or gas stoves should be eliminated because of the radiation that they produce! The reason? You almost never hear anyone anywhere call the heat they produce, "radiation". Yet you may have stood beside a campfire, fireplace, wood stove, or even a red-hot electric heater and said, "this radiant heat feels so good when I'm cold". You meant "this heat radiation feels so good when I'm cold". HOME


Even the light bulbs in your house generates a lot of radiation as visible light, and infrared light (heat), and some even produce ultraviolet light--all light is radiation. Further, fluorescent lights all work by generating ultraviolet light, sometimes called "black-light", and then a fluorescent powder on the inside surface of the glass tube converts that ultraviolet light into visible light. The glass used on most light bulbs does not allow the ultraviolet radiation to pass through it, hence you do not get a sunburn from normal lights. But there are both incandescent and fluorescent light bulbs manufactured to produce ultraviolet (UV) light (although UV fluorescent lights do not fluoresce, they are the bulb without the powder on the surface and with special glass to let the UV light out). These have to be used with great caution, as ultraviolet light is very near soft X-ray, and can damage your skin and especially your eyes if used incorrectly. HOME



One report stated that food cooked in a microwave oven glowed in your stomach! This story comes from a good friend of mine who just repeats what was reported as truth in all honesty. Here is the story: "In mid-1997, I met a woman . . . whose best friend, a nurse, was CAT scanned after eating breakfast. The X-ray technician was alarmed as her stomach was glowing. She told the technician that she had microwaved her breakfast and would no longer use a microwave." Unfortunately, this lady will not reply to a letter sent to her asking for the name of her friend or the hospital where this "glowing" was observed to try to learn what was really observed or what was really meant by the comment. I have absolutely no reason to question the honesty of the report of my friend, but I seriously question the accuracy of the original information provided. To check if my knowledge was correct, I called Loma Linda University Medical Center and talked with people in the "CAT scan" department. First, what is a CAT scan? It is Computer Axial Tomography (usually just CT or Computer Tomography today), which is the sophisticated use of X-rays to see more than usual detail of what ever area of the body is under study, and have the computer put it together in a 3-D (3 dimension) format. After repeating the story, I was told that those coming in for a CAT scan are always told not to eat prior to the scan. As I talked with a Mr. Keith, CT Technologist, who reads the CT scan data, he told me that it is impossible for anything to "glow" inside a person during a CT scan.


What do you think of when someone says something glows? Normally, you think of it as giving off visible light in the dark, like a fire fly or the hands of some clocks. But visible light could not penetrate the body from the stomach to be seen on the X-ray equipment, nor would visible light affect any form of X-rays. So it could not be talking about glowing of visible light. These visible light glows are caused by the item (fire flies or clock hands) actually generating their own light energy. So for something to be seen as "glowing" in an X-ray field, it would have to be generating its own X-rays. But X-rays are not easily generated or focused, and even if any organic material could generate its own X-rays (but they can't by themselves), the new X-rays would be sent in every direction, and could hardly be measured as originating in the stomach! The nearest comparison I can think of is a shadow picture. A simple X-ray is just that, a shadow picture primarily of your bones. If I hold my hand in front of a light and make a dog's head shadow, you would see a distinct outline of my hand shadow on a screen (or wall). Now make something glow in the palm of my hand so it shines on the screen. It would either have no effect, or if bright enough, it would begin to lighten the dark areas of the shadow of my hand, which in a photograph (or X-ray film) would be called fogging. Move that light around, and there is little change in its effect. There is no way to tell where the fogging is coming from. It is just as much of a physical impossibility for X-rays that were generated in the stomach to be identified as to the source--but of course, there cannot be anything in the stomach to generate X-rays. HOME


Someone might ask, how are X-rays made by man? The most common way is to accelerate electrons in a vacuum tube** up to 99% the speed of light, and then impact them onto a metal surface, where they are stopped in a millionth of an inch or so. The higher the speed of the electrons, the "harder" the X-rays (the faster the vibrations, or the shorter the wavelength). An X-ray technician trying to get a picture of a person must measure the thickness of the person where the X-ray picture is to be taken, and calculate what voltage to set on the machine--the higher the voltage, the faster the electrons move, the harder the X-rays are, and the more they will penetrate. Too low a voltage and the X-ray film is too light (underexposed), too high a voltage and the X-ray film is too dark (overexposed). In either case, the X-ray must be retaken. HOME


Other than actually "glowing", there are two other possible meanings: the X-ray technician may have meant that the food blocked the X-rays so that the data looked "bright", (X-ray data is normally presented as a negative), or that the data looked "dark", as if it was more transparent to the X-ray that normal. Is either of these possible? What does an X-ray "see"? X-rays are somewhat close to light (only long and short ultraviolet light between them), and you can get an (poor) idea by using a flashlight under your fingers in a dark room. Hold your fingers tight together, hold the flashlight tight under your them, and you can see (vaguely) the bones in your fingers. Mostly, you see the color of your blood, looking reddish, but you can get an idea of where your bones are located. If your fingers are not completely together, you will see the flashlight directly--much brighter, which could be called "glowing". Is it possible for food in your stomach cooked in different ways, or even raw, to either block the X-rays or to allow them to pass easier depending on how they were treated, making the appearance of any type of "glowing"? NO, and here is why. X-rays penetrate depending on the type of atoms and the thickness of the material. Metal atoms are relatively hard to penetrate, while non-metal atoms are relatively easy to penetrate. But the same atoms, in the same quantity, regardless of the compounds they are in, will have the same effect on the X-rays. So even if microwaved food had every compound in the food modified, the X-ray appearance would still be exactly the same, for the same food in the same quantity. Compounds that contain some of both metal and non-metal atoms, will be in between. Bones which have a lot of calcium atoms (a metal) will be dark or black on X-ray film, while all food and even blood itself will be nearly transparent or light on X-ray film. I can assure you with certainty, that no-one could ever tell anything about the food preparation by any type of X-ray analysis. So who was originating that story and why? We can only guess, but it is most likely a so called "practical joke" by the CT technician, who was ashamed to admit it, after seeing the reaction. Are you aware that true Christians should not be involved in any joking or jesting? Please read 1T 133.3, 304.0, 408.1, and many other places. HOME



Another claim was made that microwaves damage water. But unless you can affect the atomic structure (which can only be done by nuclear radiation), there is only one thing you can do to water to change it--and that is to make it into hydrogen and oxygen gas. This can be done with electricity, but not with microwaves or with just heat. Water is used in some nuclear reactors to transfer the heat from the core to where the heat is to be used. Although the water is made temporarily very radio active, even a 100 million watt nuclear reactor (which I have seen operating under water) does not damage the water! This is just one more of those many undocumented statements based on the idea that all radiation is nuclear radiation and causes damage tro anything exposed to it.



Others have pointed out that there is some microwave energy that gets out of the oven, and if you are within a few feet, you are being affected. This is a half-truth. Some low-level energy does get out. There are electronic devises, such as (older) heart pace makers, which are affected by many radio waves. Low level radio energy can interfere with their normal operation. Hence, you will see signs on many eating establishments saying "Microwave in use". This is because the low-level energy which does leak from a microwave oven can (but does not always) affect the operation of a pace maker. But the energy level is too low to damage your blood circulation, unless the door seals are faulty. Be sure your door closes firmly and that all seals are tight. Never defeat the door-closed interlock, as an open door with the power on, lets higher levels microwave energy out, as described above.


But, you object, people have been killed by high power radar microwave energy. Yes. But the question is--HOW? The first effect of radio energy on your body is to generate heat. This is what diathermy does. Diathermy is a medical treatment used as a method of heating internal body parts. Such heating does a lot of good for many problems. The harm done is minimal, especially if one took only an occasional treatment. The use of short wave diathermy was very common years ago, and is still used, the last I knew. Short waves were used (first at 20 million cycles per second or 20 MHz, and later at 40 MHz). Those frequencies penetrate deep into the body. But microwaves do not penetrate as much. Everyone who uses a microwave oven knows that potatoes have to be turned and that food is heated unevenly. As the power level is increased into ones body, a point is reached where the heat in the micro-capillaries start to coagulate the blood. In other words, it plugs up those micro-capillaries. If enough of these are plugged, especially in the brain or heart, death will soon result. As far as I have been able to determine over the past 40 years, this is the only factor that makes radio energy (and microwave energy up to 10 GHz), dangerous to people Claims have been made that people who use a cell phone with only the built-in antenna get brain tumors near the location of the antenna. This is not impossible, but it would be from the blood circulation restriction, not chemical changes, that produce this effect. And note that cell phones use a frequency of about one/half octave to two octaves lower than microwave ovens use. A news report on December 18, 2000, reported that a 4 year study of over 800 people who used cell phones at least 2 hours a month, showed no trace of any problem. This is not a very significant study, but it shows the lack of any extremely dangerous situation. In a magazine called Bottom Line, for September 1, 2000, there was a note on page 3 that says: "New Cellular phone danger: Attached earphones, we hear from Timothy McCall, MD. The wire in the ear piece acts like an antenna and channels up to three times as much electromagnetic radiation to the head as does a cell phone held next to the ear. Few scientists believe that there is any danger from cell-phone radiation, but one recent study found a link between cell-phone use and brain tumors." But they gave no data on this study. While it is possible that some earphone wires could act like an antenna and concentrate the radiation toward the earphone, this is unlikely. Here's why I say that: 1. The cell phone's antenna is designed and tuned to radiate (send into the air) as much of the energy as possible. 2. An earphone wire is not designed nor tuned to receive the energy. 3. For the ear phone wire, (not designed to receive the energy) to have more energy than the antenna (that is designed to radiate energy), is next to impossible. 4. If the earphone wire were allowed to wrap around the antenna, it could pick up some (but not all) of the energy. 5. Even if the wire picked up some of the energy, the fact that it is not a straight wire (antennas are usually long, straight wires) would cause the energy to not follow the wire as much, further reducing the energy at the ear phone. 6. However, to be fair, the ear phone might be inside the ear, making it closer to the head than the antenna, which would cause more of the energy on the wire to get to the head. Earphones are more likely to be safe than holding the antenna next to your head, but neither may really be unsafe. My personal conclusion based on working with antennas and radio transmitters is that in a rare case, that might be so, but if you use an ear phone with a wire long enough to hang down some between the cell phone and the ear phone, it would be unlikely for this to be a problem. One more thing, digital cell phones use higher frequencies and shorter antennas. This would make the ear phone wire even less likely to concentrate any of that energy to the ear phone. Also, since it is heat that does the damage (not microwaves themselves), just feel the side of your head after using a cell phone for a long time. If you fell no heat on the surface, certainly the inside has not been heated either. HOME


There are some related facts that need to be presented. So here we will look at a few related subjects. HOME


Don't forget, that food in the presence of oxygen (which is 70% of the air we breath), especially hot food, can produce chemical change. Your apple or banana turns brown, other foods spoil, as a result of being in the air--exposed to oxygen, the hotter the food, the faster it changes. Today you find packaged salads of fresh greens which do not change much for days as a result of keeping the oxygen out of contact with the veggies. HOME


Make any organic chemical hot enough, and it will break down into gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor (H2O), and flammable gases, which if ignited (in a fire place for example) will also make CO2 and H2O. The primary solid remains of such heating is carbon, and other non-combustible minerals. This is why your fireplace ends up with charcoal (carbon) and ash, which is primarily non-organic residue. So it is not the slightest bit surprising that the cooking of foods results in chemical reactions that change the food. This is WHY we cook foods, for example: starches are very different raw and cooked. It should not be surprising then that microwave cooking will also make some chemical changes--but is it the heat or the microwaves themselves? It is my belief from all that I have studied, that it is the heat, especially the uneven heat, which causes some portions of the food to get hotter than it would if it were in a pan on the stove, or even in a 450 degree oven. HOME


But let's think a minute about related problems of cooking. Certainly you have heard that fried foods are more carcinogenic (cancer causing) than cooked or baked food. You also should have heard that burned food, especially chard fats, are dangerous. And you no doubt know that heating any food above about 130 degrees F causes a destruction of all the enzymes. Heat, especially excessive heat, damages all food. While doing research on microwaves and food at the University of Florida Science Library, I found that there were dozens of books on food and nutrition, and many journal and magazine articles on food and chemical changes caused by heat, freezing, time, bruising, and solution (placing into liquids, usually just water). I wrote down references from only one such article. It is in the Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal, Feb. 1989 Vol. 22 No. 1 P. 63-69. Often when wheat is harvested, it is too moist-contains too much water. So it is dried to reduce the water content so it will store longer without spoiling. The research shows that hard red spring wheat is damaged by hot air drying, which reduces the protein content by 0.1 to 1.4%. Even more dramatic was the results when this wheat was used to make bread, and it was found that all other things being equal, this hot air dried wheat decreases the size of the resulting loaf of bread by 30%! No research was reported showing why the smaller loaf size occurred. Note that this is from heat produce by hot air only. The same effect would certainly be present if the wheat was heated by microwave energy. Maybe even worse, because of the uneven heating. But if this research had been done only with microwaves, would it not have been reported as though it was the microwave radiation that caused the problem and not the heat? None of the above reports of food damage from microwave radiation have parallel studies of the same food heated to the same temperatures with non-microwave energy. Only if they could show that changes occurred with microwave energy and not with the same amount of heating (including the possible uneven heat) from non-microwave sources would they have any useful data. Again, none of these reports show any such data. Certainly everyone knows that when you cook food, the texture changes, the color often changes, and the flavor also changes. What is happening? The heat is changing the chemical compounds in the food. Sometime, it may be primarily the hydrating of foods (the addition of water, such as dried beans to soft, cooked beans) that changes the texture. But when you cook a potato in the oven, no moisture is added, but rather some moisture is evaporated. Yet the potato gets soft, and the flavor changes--based only on heat and time. Most people know that this cooking (heating) changes the starches from raw to cooked. I do not have the exact chemical changes that occur, but you can be sure that the difference is caused by chemical changes. And what about food that is heated until it browns, or even turns black? One of my sisters used to beg my mother to burn the (string) beans, as she enjoyed the new flavor of burned beans. My wife enjoys the flavor of burned pop-corn. As a child, I enjoyed the flavor of thinly sliced cheese, fried until crisp and dark. All of these color changes are the result of significant chemical changes. Usually, if not always, the darkening is the result of such serious disintegration of the organic food chemicals so as to separate the carbon (charcoal), water (boiled off), and other gases which are evaporated, leaving totally new chemicals not found in the original food. Frying foods is done for the purpose of changing the flavor, crispening the food, and making it taste different--better. But all of these extreme heat conditions cause serious food chemical changes, which may well be hazardous to our health. How many studies have you seen showing these facts? How many people are alarmed enough about overheated foods, to go out of their way to not use any food which is darkened in color by heat? HOME


So what is the problems, if any, with microwave ovens? Uneven or excessive heating. So if you cook a potato and do not turn it, one area will be very overcooked (overheated), while other areas may be poorly cooked. Be sure to use a turntable (and even put your food off-center on the turntable) or to turn your food yourself. Do not overcook any food in a microwave (or anywhere else). As stated above, excessive heat damages food, so if one small area of your potato gets overheated in a microwave oven, you can expect that it has produce new chemicals--but not new chemical never before known to man or nature. Is it possible that a potato in a microwave could be partly heated hotter than in an oven at 450 degrees? Yes, that is possible. If that happens, do you suppose that there might be new chemicals formed that were not formed in the oven? Yes, that is possible also. But it was the excess heat, not the microwave energy (radiation) that did the damage. Do you suppose that forest fires produce many new chemicals as well? No doubt. Just remember that all cooking changes the chemical structure of all food, and that is the reason why we cook, for the most part. So should we eat all raw foods? That is done a lot today, but Ellen White has a lot to say about cooked food, so there should not be any concern about using carefully cooked food. Fried foods of all types should be reduced or eliminated. And if you heat or cook in a microwave, use a turn-table, or stop it frequently and turn the food yourself, so that no single portion of the food is overheated. We have a microwave oven in both our trailer and our van, and use them as needed. Your sense of taste is a good chemical analysis tool, and if food tastes strange, something might be wrong with it, but if it tastes as good from a microwave as it does from a stove top, it likely has no damage produced by the microwave oven. Even an unusual taste may be from uneven heat, cooking with less water, or other non-hazardous factors--I'm sure you know cooked foods always taste different when cooked various ways, and cooked foods always taste different than the same food raw. HOME



Even though I do not put much trust in information on the Internet, I have two documents from the Internet that I wish to comment on. It seems to be that this author (unidentified) has taken all of the material I have already obtained, put it into one package with his own commentary added, and expanding upon what he has read. There is some possible documentation, but as of this writing, I do not have time to research any more of it. It is no doubt not easy to find, or I would have already found it. The following material is from "lawgiver.org". Use their search engine to search their own site for the subject of microwave ovens.


His article is titled: "Radiation Ovens - The Proven [?] Dangers of Microwaves". A few paragraphs down (the whole article is in one web page, so I cannot refer to any specific page number) he says: "In simpler terms, a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food by the process of radiation. Had the manufacturers accurately called them 'radiation ovens', it's doubtful they would have ever sold one, but that's exactly what a microwave oven is." (All emphasis supplied unless stated as in the original.) As true as it is to call a microwave oven, a "radiation oven", it is also correct to call an electric oven a "radiation oven". Although most of the heat in a gas oven (and part of the heat in an electric oven) is from "convection" (the flow of hot air), it is still true that even this hot air contains heat radiation. No one can honestly separate the much higher energy radiation of heat from the much lower energy radiation of microwaves (as already described). Basically, if one is to label a microwave oven as a "radiation oven", then it is far more important to label regular ovens as what they really are, "radiation ovens"! His statements that "a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food" is proven false as far as I have seen documentation, and as stated above, microwaves at 2.5 GHz do not have enough energy to break the weakest chemical bond. If that Canadian research is true (and it agrees with all the facts that I have learned over decades of study), this statement is totally false. In case you forgot, here is "this [false] statement" again: "a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food". HOME


The second half of his article title is "The Proven Dangers of Microwaves". He makes this a statement of documented fact, and yet, from my study, none of the documentation is reliable. However, if anyone can send me genuine documentation of a real proven danger, I will publish that also. He states that "The purpose of this report is to show proof - evidence - that microwave cooking is not natural, nor healthy, and is far more dangerous to the human body than anyone could imagine." Please note that "proof" and "evidence" is not one and the same thing. If proof were present in a court trial, the outcome is certain. But most such trials give evidence, and leave it with the jury or judge to decide if the evidence is sufficiently strong to make the conclusion of guilty or innocent. If less extreme statements were made, the evidence presented might be more believable. He should have never used the word "proof" or "proven", but only give his ideas and repeated reports as "evidence", and poor evidence at that. Also have you noticed that they use many "new" words? I tried to find some of them in a technical dictionary at the University of Florida science library, and most were not listed. Are these new words real? or are they just made up to sound official? I cannot prove either. Here again he uses extreme, unproven statements near the beginning of his article to try to convince people that he is right. He says "that microwave cooking is not natural, nor healthy, and is far more dangerous to the human body than anyone could imagine." Again, if the weakest chemical bond cannot be broken, then the food cooked in a microwave is just as healthy and safe as food cooked anywhere else. And I've already pointed out that microwaves are much more natural and red hot wires. HOME


Later he states that "Food molecules - especially the molecules of water - have a positive and negative end in the same way a magnet has a north and a south polarity." He continues with a statement that "microwaves . . . cause the polar molecules to rotate at the same frequency millions [billions] of times a second. All this agitation creates molecular friction, which heats up the food." Although this may be a stretching of the exact facts, it is generally true. One problem is that the molecules do not necessarily "rotate", but merely vibrate. A magnet in a rotating magnetic field is not forced to rotate. However, the 3-phase electric motor is designed to produce a rotating magnetic field (other special "synchronous" motors as well), which indeed does try to rotate the magnetic armature. But even this can be stopped. However, a microwave oven produces no organized rotating force, primarily a reversing force. At most, it might cause the "polar" molecules to line up with one polarity, but just reversing that polarity (of the microwave energy) would not automatically make it rotate. But even if it did, would rotation cause any damage? As state before, the size of molecules is extremely small, and vibration or even rotation at billions of times a second is very slow compared with heat energy. It can safely be stated that anything microwave energy can do to molecules, can be done with much greater frequency and violence (if you want to use that word) by infrared radiation, and all heat is infrared radiation. In other words, any damage done by microwaves (if it was even possible) would certainly be done far more often and with far greater total damage from heat alone. HOME


Many of the comments in this article are repeated more than once, and it also repeats claims that I have already examined, and will not be repeated here, except for special purposes. Three times this article repeats the total untruth that "microwaves from the sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current (DC) that don't create frictional heat; microwave ovens use alternating current (AC) creating frictional heat." He does describe the difference between solar and microwave oven energy correctly as follows: "A microwave oven produces a spiked [one 'color'] wavelength of energy with all the power going into only one narrow frequency of the energy spectrum. Energy from the sun operates in a wide frequency spectrum." But microwave energy at 2.45 GHz will produce the same effects whether from the sun or from a man-made tube. HOME


Then he tries to define some terms, which, although not really wrong, are not too clear even to me! He defines the four terms: "wavelength, amplitude, cycle and frequency". He defines "Wavelength" by saying it "determines the type of radiation, i.e. radio, X-ray, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, etc." This is generally true, but it is usually said that the frequency determines the wavelength. He says that "Amplitude determines the extent of movement measured from the starting point." Again that is true, if you understand that he is talking about the departure from zero energy (or power) to some peak value. Then he makes the strangest statement, "Cycle determines the unit of frequency, such as cycles per second, Hertz, Hz, or cycles/second." Here he is confusing a definition with a labeling term. A cycle is one full repetitive action, such as a wheel turning one full turn (normally called one revolution), or in the case of electricity, a start from zero, going to a maximum positive voltage, back to zero, on to a maximum negative voltage, and then back to zero again (or from any one point back to the same point again). When he says "cycles per second" he is describing that a cycle has occurred so many times in one second, and not defining what a cycle is. Our A.C. power is called 60 cycles (per second). This means that the above variation pattern has occurred 60 times each and every second. This is kept very precise, and your clocks have either digital counters or synchronous motors, both of which depend on the precision of our power frequency to keep them accurate. Then he says that "Frequency determines the number of occurrences within a given time period (usually 1 second); The number of occurrences of a recurring process per unit of time, i.e. the number of repetitions of cycles per second." This is not too bad, but he is backwards. The number of occurrences in each second determines the frequency. HOME


Then he adds one more definition that is also not the best: "Radiation = spreading energy with electromagnetic waves". But worse than that is his next definition and statements following it: "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.' Radiation causes ionization, which is what occurs when a neutral atom gains or loses electrons [true]. In simpler terms, a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food by the process of radiation." This is absolutely untrue! This is exactly where this whole erroneous understanding of microwave danger comes from, as I said at first--it is RADIATION. This definition quoted above is totally and only applying to nuclear radiation, and as has already been shown (and can be documented from dozens of sources) microwave energy, infrared energy and even visible light energy DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IONIZE ONE ATOM, EVER, ANYWHERE! except as that radiation generated enough heat to also generate ultraviolet radiation. Only if he were talking solely about nuclear radiation and not microwave radiation, would these statements be true. You can see how easy these non-scientists get there information mixed up from a lack of complete knowledge. Then he mimics Tom Valentines intuition idea by stating that his mother's "Motherly instincts are right. . . . She didn't like the way the texture of the microwaved food changed either." As a long time microwave user, I have never found any change of the texture in any food that I have warmed or cooked in a microwave. (I often cook my own meal in a microwave.) Texture changes occur due to any cooking, and if you over cook something either way, it significantly changes the texture. Also, if you do not rotate food in a microwave oven frequently, it will be overcooked in one area before it is properly cooked elsewhere. This can make some strange texture variations. But this is the fault of the cook, not the microwave energy as such. HOME


He then gives a report from a Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii, that he says is "reported in the December 9, 1989 Lancet". As yet, I have not found this report. He claims it says: "Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or transfatty 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." I already discussed some of the hazards of microwaving any baby's milk. But these statements are more serious. The real question is, are these changes (if real) caused by the microwave energy, or from the uneven heating? And can these same problems (if real) be caused from any (over) heating of baby's milk? Until a comparative study proves that "normal" heating (which does have the energy to change chemical structure) is proven to not make these changes, while the microwave energy (that does not have enough energy to change molecules) still makes these changes by some unknown mechanism, I will not believe it. He continues with a few believable statements: "Because the body is electrochemical in nature, any force that disrupts or changes human electrochemical events will affect the physiology of the body. This is further described in Robert O. Becker's book, The Body Electric, and in Ellen Sugarman's book, Warning, the Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health." But I did not find any quotations from these books. He seems to list them with the idea that if such books exist, they must talk about the effect of microwaved food on the body. It is well known that our bodies operate with an electronic nervous system. Man has not even come close to duplicating the sophistication of our brain (computer), which operates on electro-chemical principles. It may be true that 60 cycle power, continuously applied to our systems, may have an effect on us. But the evidence for this is slim, and the problems--if any--are small. HOME


Next he once again starts a section with a positive statement: "Scientific evidence and facts". Maybe they are facts, but to call it evidence alone is better, until the information is truly documented. This is the only place I have seen any evidence of a comparative study between two different methods of cooking (other than Dr. Hertel's ill-fated experiment). He says "In Comparative Study of Food Prepared Conventionally and in the Microwave Oven, published by Raum & Zelt in 1992, at 3(2): 43, it states . . ." First, let me ask you, is this reference anything that you can find? He has two author's names, a date, and then the cryptic numbers "3(2): 43". These are not described as defining a magazine issue, a book, or what. Can you tell me what it means? I would not have the remotest idea how to find such a publication. But no actual comparative data is presented. Why? Then he quotes what is claimed to be in this--this, (I don't even know what to call it, article, book, or what?): "A basic hypothesis of natural medicine states that the introduction into the human body of molecules and energies, to which it is not accustomed, is much more likely to cause harm than good [no doubt true]. Microwaved food contains both molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire [not true--then comes the infamous false statement about solar and man-made microwave differences again]. Microwave energy from the sun and other stars is direct current based [not true, in that they are not based on current as such, but they are produced as a by-product of nuclear reactions]. Artificially produced microwaves, including those in ovens, are produced from alternating current [not true, only pulsed or constant direct current] and force a billion or more polarity reversals [not true] per second in every food molecule they hit [also not true, they effect water mostly, and have little effect on most other molecules, not even heating them much]. Production of unnatural molecules is inevitable [not true]. Naturally occurring amino acids have been observed [where?] to undergo isometric changes (changes in shape morphing) as well as transformation into toxic forms, under the impact of microwaves produced in ovens." How easy it is to make such statements, how hard it is to document their lack of being true. My comments, added in brackets, can be documented primarily from my own study (much of it reported above) and experience. HOME


Later he says: "In America, neither universities nor the federal government have conducted any tests concerning the effects on our bodies from eating microwaved foods. Isn't that a bit odd? They're more concerned with studies on what happens if the door on a microwave oven doesn't close properly. Once again, common sense tells us that their attention should be centered on what happens to food cooked inside a microwave oven [common sense tells me that there is already ample evidence that microwaves do essentially nothing to molecules, and that such studies are a pure waste of time and money]. Since people ingest this [un]altered food, shouldn't there be concern for how the same decayed molecules [what is a "decayed molecule"?] will affect our own human biological cell structure?" NO! Again, the answer is that no studies need to be done because the outcome of those studies is already known--2.45 GHz microwaves cannot break the weakest chemical bond, and it doesn't even damage blood being introduced directly into the body. And that study on pre-heating blood is a serious American study. True common sense tells us that our only concern is for the effects of excessive microwave energy directly on our bodies, where internal heating can cause blood damage, and other problems related to excessive internal heat. HOME


He then reports that "Not long ago, this decision [to keep Dr. Hertel quiet] was reversed in a judgment delivered in Strasbourg, Austria, on August 25, 1998. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Hertel's rights in the 1993 decision. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled that the 'gag order' issued by the Swiss court in 1992 against Dr. Hertel, prohibiting him from declaring that microwave ovens are dangerous to human health, was contrary to the right to freedom of expression [but not that his information was correct!]. In addition, Switzerland was ordered to pay Dr. Hertel compensation." I do not have the ability to document or deny this action, but it certainly says nothing about the value of Dr. Hertel's work, only his freedom to speak his own beliefs, which you and I still have now. Another portion of his article states that "In Dr. Lita Lee's book, Health Effects of Microwave Radiation - Microwave Ovens [this book was not in the library of congress--and who is the publisher?], and in the March and September 1991 issues of Earthletter [who prints this publication, why isn't a source given to find it and read it yourself?], she stated that every microwave oven leaks electro-magnetic radiation [true, but at a very low and safe level], harms food [just like every other kind of heat does], and converts substances cooked in it to dangerous organ-toxic and carcinogenic products [again, just like all heat, especially excessive heat, does]. Further research summarized in this article reveal that microwave ovens are far more harmful than previously imagined." But no other evidence is given, he said it, so it has to be true!?? Actual research shows that "microwave ovens are far more SAFE than previously imagined"!! HOME


Another statement is made saying that "The following is a summary of the Russian investigations published by the Atlantis Raising [Rising] Educational Center in Portland, Oregon. Carcinogens were formed in virtually all foods tested [and I have often heard of carcinogens that are formed in heating fats, especially in changing their color]. No test food was subjected to more microwaving than necessary to accomplish the purpose, i.e., cooking, thawing, or heating to insure sanitary ingestion. Here's a summary of some of the results: [a list is given claiming to show that everything in a microwave oven is changed into carcinogens!]." Unlike many other sources, this Atlantis Rising Center is still in existence. A phone call to them (503-235-2665) obtained these results: Many years ago they had an article which may have been published in a magazine. But the original copy of that article has long ago been lost, and they have no copy at present. It was not their research, but merely an article that had been passed on to them. However, as is typical, the lady I talked to had believed the article hook, line, and sinker, as authoritative, and she has not used a microwave for years. HOME


Then he repeats the claims that others have made that: "Russian researchers also reported a marked acceleration of structural degradation leading to a decreased food value of 60 to 90% in all foods tested. Among the changes observed were: "Deceased bio-availability of vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin E, essential minerals and lipotropics factors in all food tested. "Various kinds of damaged to many plant substances, such as alkaloids, glucosides, galactosides and nitrilosides. "The degradation of nucleo-proteins in meats." Then he starts a whole new claim: "Microwave sickness is discovered. "The Russians did research on thousands of workers who had been exposed to microwaves during the development of radar in the 1950's. Their research showed health problems so serious that the Russians set strict limits of 10 microwatts exposure for workers and one microwatt for civilians." So far I have not been able to prove or disprove this claim. Even if such a limit exists, that alone is not proof that such a low limit is needed. I can believe that in the 1950's, Russia could well have set an extremely low limit just to be safe. HOME


Then he refers to another source, with incomplete documentation: "In Robert O. Becker's book, The Body Electric, he described Russian research on the health effects of microwave radiation, which they called 'microwave sickness'. On page 314, Becker states: 'It's [Microwave sickness] first signs are low blood pressure and slow pulse. The later and most common manifestations are chronic excitation of the sympathetic nervous system [stress syndrome] and high blood pressure. This phase also often includes headache, dizziness, eye pain, sleeplessness, irritability, anxiety, stomach pain, nervous tension, inability to concentrate, hair loss, plus an increased incidence of appendicitis, cataracts, reproductive problems, and cancer. The chronic symptoms are eventually succeeded by crisis of adrenal exhaustion and ischemic heart disease [the blockage of coronary arteries and heart attacks].'" It looks like almost any medical problem could be blamed on microwaved food. And by the way, to gain all these "facts", it would take a very large amount of genuine research, but yet he stated above that there just isn't any research being done. Where was this research done, and why isn't that work reported in detail? Who's kidding who? By the way, there is a "radiation sickness", but it is from nuclear radiation only, not microwaves. HOME


Again he states that "According to Dr. Lee, changes are observed in the blood chemistries and the rates of certain diseases among consumers of microwaved foods. The symptoms above can easily be caused by the observations shown below. The following is a sample of these changes: "Lymphatic disorders were observed, leading to decreased ability to prevent certain types of cancers. "An increased rate of cancer cell formation was observed in the blood. "Increased rates of stomach and intestinal cancers were observed. "Higher rates of digestive disorders and a gradual breakdown of the systems of elimination were observed." Yet Dr. Hertel admits in his 1991 test that no other clinical test have been done. Certainly, one who wants to condemn microwave ovens as bad as he does, will research for other studies done in Europe at least, wouldn't he? Once again, research on ten's of thousands of people with all these different problems would have to be done to really show honest evidence (not even proof) of any such connection, yet there just is no such research reported anywhere. Why not? Only the supposed results are given. Even Dr. Hertel did a more honest job or reporting that these do here. HOME


Then he gives his "Microwave research conclusions. "The following were the most significant German and Russian research operations facilities concerning the biological effects of microwaves: "The initial research conducted by the Germans during the Barbarossa military campaign, at the Humbolt- Universitat zu Berlin (1942-1943); and, from 1957 and up to the present [until the end of the cold war], the Russian research operations were conducted at: the Institute of Radio Technology at Kinsk, Byelorussian Autonomous Region; and, at the Institute of Radio Technology at Rajasthan in the Rossiskaja Autonomous Region, both in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. "In most cases, the foods used for research analysis were exposed to microwave propagation at an energy potential of 100 kilowatts*/cm3/second, to the point considered acceptable for sanitary, normal ingestion." Before I write about this list, which is similar to other such list, lets look at that last paragraph just a little bit. There are two unexpected statements here. First he says that "foods used for research analysis were exposed to microwave propagation". Now radio and microwave propagation is one of my extra specialties. Propagation is how radio and microwave energy gets from here to some distant point. Never before have I heard this word used in connection with microwave energy in close proximity to its source! But then comes the real extreme surprise. He says that the microwave energy in these experiments was "at an energy potential of 100 kilowatts/cm3/second". Here again he has terms mixed up, "potential" is not normally used in this context. In would be expected to be used as energy that could become available (potential energy), that is potentially available, but not now present. A rock on top of a building has a potential energy, but it is not active until somebody drops that rock off the building and it hit you (or something) on the head. Potential is also applied to voltage, especially as "potential difference", because voltage alone delivers no power. Only when there is a connection between two points with different potentials (voltages), and a current (in amperes) flows, that there is actual power or energy. The voltage is there as a potential energy source, but only when the current flows is there any power produced. See Appendix P for more on potential difference. HOME


Then he gives an expression, which apparently should be power density, which is rather bizarre! "100 kilowatts/cm3/second". This is stated as "100 kilowatts" (100 KW) which is at least 100 times more than ever used in any home microwave oven for food I've ever seen or heard about. But then he has "/cm3" which means "per centimeter (cm) cubed", or "per cubic centimeter". This means that in each cubic centimeter (a cube one centimeter on each side) there would be 100 KW of power. Now our microwave oven in our trailer measures about 21 cm by 37 cm by 37 cm. That is over 28,000 cubic centimeters. To have that power density in our microwave oven, would require a power of (100 x 28,000 KW) 2,800,000 KW or 2,800,000,000 watts--nearly 3 billion watts!!!! Something is drastically wrong. As far as I know, there is no place on earth that can generate that much microwave power today. Such a power density (even if applied to only a faction of one cubic centimeter, would produce so much heat so fast, that the heat alone would certainly do dramatic things to anything to which it is applied! Unless this is a gross typographical error, it again shows the complete absurdity of the data given. Microwave energy is normally described either by the power of the source (be it a magnetron in a microwave oven--which usually have 700 watts or more, or any of a number of other methods used today), by the power per unit of area (square cm, not cubic cm), such as the safety limit of 10 mW/cm² on your skin, or in terms of field strength such as 100 microvolts per meter (100 millionth of a volt collected by a one meter long antenna) as a measure of the signal strength at an antenna to receive a microwave radio or TV station. Lastly, the final "/second" meaning "per second", seems to be extraneous. Is he trying to imply that the power is applied for only one second? But that is not what the expression normally would mean. It usually is used to change the meaning of the previous expression. If I have feet, that is a distance, but if I add "/second", saying feet/second, I now have velocity (or speed). Somehow, it is not really clear what the meaning of the "/second" in this power expression means. Is he just trying to impress his readers with his technical terms? HOME


Then he give a summary (expanded) of the claimed effects of microwaved food reported from the German and Russian reports listed above. These are similar to those two listed already, and will not be repeated here. However, I would like to ask one very significant question here. Just suppose that all of these claims about the harmful effects of microwave ovens were true. Then remembering that it is said that 90% of American homes have and use microwave ovens, to say nothing of the considerable use of microwave ovens in many fast food places, and you certainly must have almost everyone of those users in serious medical problems, if not already dead from these ovens. Yes, there are more medical problems in the U.S. (and the world) today then ever before, but there are many other know factors that affect these which include refined foods, diseased animal products, chemical additives, preservatives, insecticides on fruits and vegetables, dangerous household products, hazardous drinking water, and many other factors. Just take one statement, "a decreased food value of 60 to 90% in all foods tested." If all of the 90% of Americans who use microwave ovens found this level of decrease in the value of their food, would not they be malnourished? Oh, you say, they don't eat only microwaved food. Yes, I agree, but many do, and those who eat out a lot may also eat primarily microwaved food. Yet how often do you hear of any but the poorest of Americans who are malnourished? You can take each other claim, apply the same logic, and certainly with all of the claims made, most of those 90% using microwave ovens even occasionally, would have serious health problems today, if they were not already dead! HOME


He later lists the "BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE . . . to microwave emissions [which] also had an unpredictably negative effect upon the general biological welfare of humans. This was not discovered until the Russians experimented with highly sophisticated equipment and discovered that a human did not even need to ingest the material substance of the microwaved food substances: that even exposure to the energy-field itself was sufficient to cause such adverse side effects that the use of any such microwave apparatus was forbidden in 1976 by Soviet state law. (See "REAL FACTS" below.) "The following are the enumerated effects: "1. A breakdown of the human 'life-energy field' in those who were exposed to microwave ovens while in operation, with side-effects to the human energy field of increasingly longer duration; "2. A degeneration of the cellular voltage parallels during the process of using the apparatus, especially in the blood and lymphatic areas; "3. A degeneration and destabilization of the external energy activated potentials of food utilization within the processes of human metabolism; "4. A degeneration and destabilization of internal cellular membrane potentials while transferring catabolic [metabolic breakdown] processes into the blood serum from the digestive process; "5. Degeneration and circuit breakdowns of electrical nerve impulses within the junction potentials of the cerebrum [the front portion of the brain where thought and higher functions reside]; "6. A degeneration and breakdown of nerve electrical circuits and loss of energy field symmetry in the neuroplexuses [nerve centers] both in the front and the rear of the central and autonomic nervous systems; "7. Loss of balance and circuiting of the bioelectric strengths within the ascending reticular activating system [the system which controls the function of consciousness]; "8. A long term cumulative loss of vital energies within humans, animals and plants that were located within a 500-meter radius of the operational equipment; "9. Long lasting residual effects of magnetic "deposits" were located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system; "10. A destabilization and interruption in the production of hormones and maintenance of hormonal balance in males and females; "11. Markedly higher levels of brainwave disturbance in the alpha, theta, and delta wave signal patterns of persons exposed to microwave emission fields, and; "12. Because of this brainwave disturbance, negative psychological effects were noted, including loss of memory, loss of ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes, and interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range emissive field effects of microwave apparatus, either in cooking apparatus or in transmission stations." HOME


Here again, if these are true, essentially every person in America who uses a microwave oven should have many serious complication in their health just from being in the room with the oven. Previous claims have listed some of these same items, such as "loss of vital energies within humans, animals and plants that were located within a 500-meter radius of the operational equipment". As analyzed above, that would mean microwave energy levels hundreds of times less than even the claimed Russian "limits of 10 microwatts exposure for workers and one microwatt for civilians", which is already 1,000 times lower than has been documented to be safe. Something just doesn't add up, which is all good evidence that these are not genuine facts, but either made up totally or seriously exaggerated from some misunderstood information. By the way, if microwave energy is even slightly as dangerous as these claims make them to be (at 1640 feet away from an oven that emits a maximum of 5-thousandth of a watt per square centimeter), all of the telephone microwave relay stations, satellite uplink stations (like I used to operate), cell phone and cell phone towers (which emit several watts to thousands of watts into the air), should be hundreds to thousands of times more dangerous. (See under "MICROWAVES KILL PEOPLE" under Claim 13 above.) At that rate, everyone in the U.S. today should have many if not most of these symptoms! If these microwave-haters would list only a few simple claims, it would be much more believable! HOME


Near the end of his article, he has a "Forensic Research Conclusions" in which he says: "From the twenty-eight above enumerated indications [not quoted here], the use of microwave apparatus is definitely not advisable; and, with the decision of the Soviet government in 1976, present scientific opinion in many countries [what other country was even mentioned, but Russia?] concerning the use of such apparatus is clearly in evidence." And by the way, why is it that it is the non-scientists, mostly religious people, who make claims against microwave ovens. HOME


"Due to the problem of random magnetic residulation and binding within the biological systems of the body . . . , which can ultimately effect the neurological systems, primarily the brain and neuroplex uses (nerve centers), long term depolarization of tissue neuroelectric circuits can result. Because these effects can cause virtually irreversible damage to the neuroelectrical integrity of the various components of the nervous system (I. R. Luria, Novosibirsk 1975a) [what kind of documentation is this?], ingestion of microwaved foods is clearly contraindicated in all respects. Their magnetic residual effect can render the pyschoneural receptor components of the brain more subject to influence psychologically by artificially induced microwave radio frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay-networks. "The theoretical possibility of psychotelemetric influence (the capability of affecting human behavior by transmitted radio signals at controlled frequencies) has been suggested by Soviet neuropsychological investigations at Uralyera and Novosibirsk (Luria and Perov, 1974a, 1975c, 1976a), which can cause involuntary subliminal psychological energy field compliance to operative microwave apparatus." Many of these statements I have already commented on, but again, if true, there would be far more serious problems in all countries where microwave ovens are in common use than there is today, even in the U.S. where such ovens have been in use for about 50 years. The following "documentation" follows the above statements: "FORENSIC RESEARCH DOCUMENT Prepared By: William P. Kopp A. R. E. C. Research Operations TO61-7R10/10-77F05 RELEASE PRIORITY: CLASS I ROO1a" Here is the name of Mr. Kopp again, the only name given previously as a source for some of these claims. But what is the "A. R. E. C." and how do you find it? The next line, "TO61-7R10/10-77F05", looks like a military "Technical Order" (TO#...), but since he stated the our government has not done any such research, this must not be a government technical order. But what is it and how does anyone find it? What is the purpose of the last line? Even though this starts with "TO", it does not look like a government document--and I have seen many of them. HOME


He ends with "Ten Reasons to Throw out your Microwave Oven "From the conclusions of the Swiss, Russian and German scientific clinical studies [really? Clinical studies from all three countries? I though there was only one in Switzerland!], we can no longer ignore the microwave oven sitting in our kitchens. Based on this research, we will conclude this article with the following: "1). Continually eating food processed from a microwave oven causes long term - permanent - brain damage by 'shorting out' electrical impulses in the brain [de-polarizing or de-magnetizing the brain tissue]. "2). The human body cannot metabolize [break down] the unknown byproducts created in microwaved food. "3). Male and female hormone production is shut down and/or altered by continually eating microwaved foods. "4). The effects of microwaved food by-products are residual [long term, permanent] within the human body. "5). Minerals, vitamins, and nutrients of all microwaved food is reduced or altered so that the human body gets little or no benefit, or the human body absorbs altered compounds that cannot be broken down. "6). The minerals in vegetables are altered into cancerous free radicals when cooked in microwave ovens. "7). Microwaved foods cause stomach and intestinal cancerous growths [tumors]. This may explain the rapidly increased rate of colon cancer in America. "8). The prolonged eating of microwaved foods causes cancerous cells to increase in human blood. "9). Continual ingestion of microwaved food causes immune system deficiencies through lymph gland and blood serum alterations. "10). Eating microwaved food causes loss of memory, concentration, emotional instability, and a decrease of intelligence." As far as I can find, there is no reason to believe even one of these ten statements, several of which I have already shown to be wrong and why they are impossible to be right, Then he concludes with one more absurdity: "The use of artificial microwave transmissions for subliminal psychological control, a.k.a. 'brainwashing' [what is 'brainwashing'?], has also been proven [really? where?]. We're attempting to obtain copies of the 1970's Russian research documents and results written by Drs. Luria and Perov specifying their clinical experiments in this area." No doubt, he will find something written on this subject area. But until a real mechanism for these kinds of effects to occur can be found, they must be classified by the honest scientist as pure speculation and wishful thinking, or even just wild imagination. HOME


The following article comes from a site called: "www.ioa.com/~dragonfly/microwave.html". The top line says "Microwave Madness", and the main title is: "THE EFFECTS OF MICROWAVED APPARATUS ON FOOD AND HUMANS". They repeat the German and Russian stories, and repeat the one statement about the power densities: "In most research, the foods were exposed to microwave propagation at an energy potential of 100 kilowatts per cubic centimeter per second to the point considered acceptable for sanitary normal ingestion." These two statements are almost word-for-word, but this one skips the phrase "used for research", and spells out the technical abbreviations. Is one a copy of the other, or do they both copy a third source? Since I have not been able to find their references, I can only guess. Then they have the same basic list of "problems" above and in other papers referring to these Russian and German sources. After that is this: HOME

"POTENTIAL USE IN MIND CONTROL "Due to the creation of random, residual magnetic deposits and binding within the biological systems of the body (nervous and lymphatic systems damage) which can ultimately affect the neurological systems (primarily the brain and nerve centers), longer-term depolarization of tissue neuroelectronic circuits can result. "Because these effects can cause virtually irremissible damage to the neuroelectrical integrity of the various components of the nervous system (see note 7), ingestion of microwaved foods is clearly contraindicated in all respects. "Their residual magnetism effect can render the psychoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influences by artificially induced, microwave- radio-frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay networks. "Soviet neuropsychologists at Uralyera and Novosibirsk (see Note 8) have theorized the possibility of psychotelemetric influence (i.e., affecting human behaviors by transmitting radio signals at controlled frequencies), causing subjects to comply - involuntarily and subliminally - with commands received through microwave transmissions action upon their psychological energy fields. "For this reason, and due to the 28 other contradictions listed above, the use of microwave apparatus in any form is definitely ill-advised. Present scientific opinion in many countries clearly opposes them, as exemplified by the mentioned Soviet Ban. "Notes: [only referenced notes are listed] "7. L. R. Luria, Norosibirsk. 1975. "8. Perov and Luria 1974, 1975 and 1976." HOME


There is one fact that I have not yet mentioned. And I hesitate to state it, because some one might be offended. It is well known that those with medical degrees--MD's, DD's, etc., have gone to school much longer than most of us have. These professionals often seem to believe that they know everything! Of course, they do not. As you may already know, a specialist is a person who knows more and more about less and less! Even if you call a doctor just a general practitioner, he is still a specialists in medicine. So these professional do know much more than most people, but they know that about a very limited area of subjects. Oh yes, they studied physics and many other subjects, but they never became specialist in these areas. They know the most about medical subjects, or at least are supposed to, but their knowledge--on the average--is very limited in other areas of science, statistics, and research. Oh yes, some study other areas extensively, and become knowledgeable on more subjects. But the point is, just because a report is written by a person with professional degrees (alphabet soup after their name), does not prove that they are accurate, honest, or reliable. Even a PHd in one field does not prove that that person knows a lot about another field. One who works in a field is often more knowledgeable than those with all the schooling you can imagine. When I was in the army, I worked for more than half of my two years with a team of scientists, mostly electronic engineers (EE's). We had a civilian boss, one civilian employee, and about 8 college graduates recently drafted. Six were EE's and two were Physicists--myself and my best friend. We both had worked with electronics since childhood, and knew how to do things by experience. The others had taken the class work only, and thought they knew more than we did, because of their EE degrees. Our time schedule was very tight, so our boss assigned every one of us with specific tasks to be completed by a given date. One of the most difficult projects was given to an MIT graduate with an EE degree. He worked for weeks and months on that design, and it was not really working right when we left for H-bomb tests in the Pacific (Eniwetok and Bikini Atolls). He never got clearance to go to the Pacific, so he didn't go with us. So it fell the lot of my friend and I to solve this problem in the field. No one else would even consider trying to solve a problem in a few weeks that this MIT EE could not solve in months. But we knew it had to be done. So we worked about 14 hours a day each, with about 8 hours a day of overlap (both working at the same time). Remember, we neither one had the EE degree, but only the experience as hobbyists! We built many test circuits, studied everything we could find (very few books were taken out there), talked to others there, and within a few weeks we had a "breadboard" (temporary) circuit doing exactly as needed. It was not those with the "theory", but those with "experience" that could get the job done right. It isn't just what one knows, but how he applies what he knows that really counts. So once again, only if these Russian doctors can show how the studies were done, and others independent from them can duplicate their research, should it be considered valid. Even if I could find the books by these Russian doctors, it would be hard to convince me that their work is correct, since there is no evidence that their work has been duplicated. But such books might either clear up the misunderstandings that are most likely, or else give reasons to try to get someone to duplicate their research. HOME


In trying to document the use or non-use of microwave ovens in Russia, I have found the following: 1. One of our supporters (whose name I have forgotten) told me that he was in East Germany recently, and that microwave ovens are in use there. If they were outlawed in the USSR in 1976, that would have included East Germany. So why would they be used there now, if safety was the reason for outlawing them? This fact seems to contradict the claims of both Russian and German reports. 2. A business called the "Russian Press Service" (847-491-9851) told me that they knew many people in Russia and had been to many restaurants, and that none of them used microwave ovens. The lady explained that apartments are very small, have little power available, and very few electrical appliances, and very little money for luxuries. Electric mixers were just coming into use today and a few have electric hot plates. She pointed out that at one time Xerox machines were outlawed, because they did not understand them! She believed that if microwave ovens have been outlawed, it would be for the same reason! That makes good sense. Now, suppose that Russia did outlaw microwave ovens in 1976. Even if a reason (not related to safety) for their being outlawed was made plain, there would be an excuse for anyone who already had a notion or intuition against them, to believe that the real reason was not as was told. This logic is used today in the U.S. about many of the laws of the land, which on the surface look good, but in fact they have a more sinister reason why it was passed. But does such logic always make the assumed conclusion true? Of course not. So these Russian authors could write reams about what they thought, yet if they cannot publish the details of their research, and if their research cannot be duplicated (remember, any new or unexpected result, needs to be duplicated before it is to be believed), then it is just theory at best, and wishful imagination (made-up misinformation) at worst. However, after much consideration, I got a new idea. The Shelton's of 3ABN (Three Angel's Broadcasting Network) have often been to Russia. They work with many Russians regularly. So I called and tried to talk with Linda Shelton. However, I could only get to her administrative assistant, "Dee". She was interested in my question, and told me that she would soon be talking to people in Russia. Later she called me back and told me the following: A number of people in Russia today are using microwave ovens. Most of these ovens come from the U.S., sent there by friends, as they are very expensive to buy in Russia. They are not outlawed in any sense. Very few homes have electricity at all. Most people could not afford to buy a microwave oven there even if they have electricity. Based on these facts, and the rest of my knowledge about what microwaves cannot do to food, I would have to conclude that everything "reported" as coming from Russia is either made up by anti-microwave people (pure fiction), generated within Russia for the sole purpose of keeping (some of) their people from wanting to have the Western luxuries of cooking with a microwave, the result of extremely poor "research", the misapplication of nuclear radiation data to microwave radiation, or one other possibility. After reading and rereading this report, trying to make it as accurate as possible, one pair of facts jumped out at me. In the research about using specially designed microwave heating devices for heating human blood, one statement was made that all at once rang a bell. Reread that section, and you will find that in the 1970's, the U.S. prohibited the use of conventional microwave heating devices (ovens) to heat patients blood. The claim is made that in 1976 Russia supposedly outlawed the use of microwave ovens. If the two are one and the same event, then we only need to add a few words to the second statement to make it correct: "Russia outlawed the use of microwave ovens for use in heating blood in hospitals." Now that is likely what happened. Further, it likely happened in many countries all about the same time. HOME


It is doubtful that I will have time to do much if any more research on this microwave oven subject. Only if someone can find some genuine documentation and tell me where to find it, will I even try to look at any more reports. I have already spent far more time than I ever expected to in this study. From all my studies, microwave ovens are as safe as the stovetop if used carefully. If any of you have any documented evidence that I have not yet seen, I will be glad to study it, and share it if I find it to be useful, either pro or con. But you must make up your own mind what you want to do. If you still want to believe these reports about the hazards of microwave energy, that is your perfect right. But if you feel as I do that microwave cooking is safe, then you may want to put your microwave oven back into service (if you had removed it). We have used a microwave oven for over 15 years with no known problems. We thaw food, heat cold leftovers, and cook a variety of foods in small quantity. We rarely cook large quantities, as it is usually just as fast or faster to cook on the stovetop or in a regular oven. I can cook one serving of "old fashioned" oatmeal mush in 6 minutes in the microwave, but 2 servings takes nearly twice as long. However, I can cook 6 servings of oatmeal in 15 minutes (including heating the water) on the stovetop. We use the microwave to heat water, and to pop corn, which is, for us, the only way readily available to have popped corn without any oil on it. If you have eaten microwave popped corn, which was burned, did you note that the flavor of burnt popcorn from a microwave is different than it is from a pan? That is because when it starts to burn in the microwave oven, it rapidly heats to much higher temperatures than that of the pan on stove-top popped corn, which can only heat as hot as the pan. So regardless of how you cook your food, as long as you do it carefully, may God bless HOME



The need for at least 10,000 people for years to produce a reasonably meaningful test is shown by many reports. Here are a few of these.


Dr. Lemon from the School of Health at Loma Linda University, obtained data from every possible SDA in the nation (several thousands, including yours truly, and maybe even you) comparing meat eaters and non-meat eaters for several years, and the effect of these diet differences on health. He used SDA's since the rest of their lifestyle is similar--no tobacco, alcohol, little caffeine, and in general a more healthy, consistent lifestyle. With that quantity of people (many thousands), there was a statistical significance to the data, even though it was primarily based on correlation of data. Non-meat eaters lived about 10% longer, and had fewer other health problems. It is easy also in this study to show the chemicals in meat that are not in vegetables which affect the quality of life, so the genuine cause was also evident here. It would have been impossible for him to have used 8 people and make any claim for valid results, even over several years, to say nothing of 8 weeks. HOME

to reverse existing conditions. They emphasize that this study does not say anything about vitamin E as a preventative for those who do not have any problem yet. It is obvious that this doctor knew that if he was going to have valid data from statistics alone, he needed thousands of people for many years. These people had to be similar in their lifestyles, and that they must not know if they are getting the vitamin E or not. Even here, it could not be honestly stated that this study was "proof" that NO BODY over 60 with a known heart condition could ever be benefited by taking vitamin E. There are just too many unknown variables in the human system. But on the average, there was not a statistically significant difference on these people as a whole. The theory is that vitamin E, being an antioxidant, should help reduce existing heart problems. But the evidence is that it did not. If the statistical results come out opposite to what is expected, there is reason to believe that the experimenter's belief did not bias how the data was gathered and interpreted. But even this extensive experiment should not stop anyone who wants to take vitamin E from doing so. There was no evidence given that it hindered anything, and who knows what else it might have helped that he did not study. HOME


This statistician that I knew, stated that if he knew the answer that was wanted, he could often take the data--any data--and write a "scientific" report that would either support or deny the desired conclusion! (See the book by Darrell Huff, "How to Lie With Statistics".**) In other words, personal bias can easily affect the conclusion. This is one more reason why "blind" studies must be done with thousands of people for long periods of time to get anything close to valid data. It was interesting to find the definition of statistics in a book titled "Statistics with Application to the Biological & Health Sciences" on Page 2: "Statistics is the study of methods and procedures for collecting, classifying, summarizing, and analyzing data and for making scientific inferences from such data." their definition even shows that the results are only scientific inferences, not scientific proven data. They also listed 3 kinds of liars: 1. liars, 2. d... liars, and 3. statisticians. Then they stated that all too often statistical data is misused. This is certainly true in political poles. HOME


Another study that was on NPR news on March 9, 2000 on the morning news program (7:25 A.M. EST) reported on a study done with 1200 children which contradicted a previous study. This previous study had examined an unstated number of children being raised with and without lights on in their rooms at night while they slept. The first study found that there was a higher incidence of nearsightedness in those who slept with some light on than in those who slept with no light on. NPR stated that 2 new studies had been done and that all three were reported in Nature magazine. Both new studies contradicted the first study. They found no correlation between nearsightedness and sleeping with or without any light on (bright or dim) in the child's room at night. They pointed out that nearsightedness is hereditary, and that some nearsighted people want more lights on at night than other people. It was stated that there needed to be more studies done with a "larger population" (more people, maybe 10,000?). They said there was also a need for more control in the experiment to remove other variable factors. These studies also show how difficult it is to get valid data with people and health based on correlation statistics alone, even with hundreds of people over many years. It should be obvious, even though not stated on this report, that it took several years to collect the data to even begin to show a correlation between light at night and nearsightedness. HOME


There is another study reported in a health food store magazine titled "Energy Times" for May, 2000, on page 54 as a part of an article titled "SOY'S Anti-Cancer Secrets". It includes an interesting report of a study done to show that "Soy Milk Fights Prostate Cancer". For men, drinking soy milk may reduce their chances of developing prostate cancer. A Study of more than 12,000 Seventh-Day Adventists, vegetarians who do not smoke or consume alcohol, looked at their soy milk consumption (Cancer Causes Control 1998 Dec; 9(6):553-7). Over a period of more that two decades, the men who drank soy milk more that once a day suffered 70% less cancer that those who abstained from the beverage." Note several things about this study. 1. They used 12,000 people, 2. It ran for more than 20 years ("more than two decades"), It has the documentation as to the source of the study (Cancer Causes Control 1998 Dec; 9(6):553-7), and 4. even this is not considered to be proof positive, but rather evidence that "drinking soy milk may reduce their chances of developing prostate cancer." Any such statistical study of human health factors needs this type of extensive research, but even then it is not proof of the indicated conclusion. If researchers are really interested in this study and the cause of this indication, they will research the chemistry of the soy bean products and find the specific food chemical in soy beans that produces this effect. In fact, some of this research has already done, which was listed on a side bar with certain chemicals in soy beans and their known or believed anti-cancer effects. So it shows not only a valid human study, but also some factors that validate the data. HOME


Then I heard part of a very interesting program called "Sunday Rounds" (to order, call 800-226-8668) on Sunday, May 14, 2000, at 2 P.M. on a Georgia radio station at 89.9 FM (the call letters were never heard). It was a call-in program, with a professor from University of Maryland being interviewed. He has written a book called "Voodoo Science", ($25.00). This is his title for pseudo-science or false science. He states that the more true science grows, the more pseudo-science thrives. HOME


As an example, he referred to the so called cold fusion that had been "discovered" by a lab in Salt Lake City a few years ago. (Fusion is the process by which the sun generates energy, which is basically the same as a hydrogen bomb. This "cold fusion" was touted as a way to get fusion energy without the explosion. The hope was to have a cheap energy source by generating heat in a way that we could use it easily.) There was a lot of hype, and kits were sold to do the experiment at home. But as the experiment was duplicated in many other labs, it was found that the original experimenter did not have enough control, and his data was wrong. It was proven beyond any doubt that the originator was wrong. Yet even today, there are those who still believe and promote the idea even though they never get anything useful. Then he stated that you can find a PhD to support any crazy idea around. And I might add that you can find people willing to believe any crazy idea around, especially if one person teaches it who has some degree. It seems that no documentation or genuine evidence is needed for people to believe almost any idea in print. HOME


He gives another example of magnet therapy. Theory proves it can't work. Research proves it does not work. Yet it has become a 5 billion dollar a year business! He then states that there is at least one new theory each week to be checked out. Most are useless just as the "science" of bleeding to let the bad blood out and heal a disease is known today to be "voodoo science". This health fanaticism asks you to put magnets in various places on your body, and these are claimed to solve certain problems. From my study, this is close to a form of acupuncture or hypnotism. Magnets affect two things: 1. any other magnet or magnetizable material and 2. moving electrons (or any moving charged particle). A magnet will attract any other magnetic material, which is various metals, mostly iron, nickel, and cobalt. It will attract the opposite pole of a magnet, and repel like poles. Since your blood, your lymph system, or any other part of the body has no metallic (or magnetic) particles in them, the magnet cannot attract or repel any part of your body. Moving a magnet by a coil of wire is the basic form of an electric generator, as the moving magnet moves the electrons. When electrons are moving and they come to a magnetic field, the direction of their movement can be modified, if there is some other path they can take. Would you want to change the normal course of electrons in your nerves? If not, then I would not want a magnet continuously against my body, anywhere. HOME


Then he gave one more example, Homeotherapy. Maybe 200 years ago a German doctor "discovered" that if a patient had a rash, and he gave that patient a dilute solution of a chemical that produced a rash, that the rash seemed to go away. Today that idea is taken to extreme, even if it really worked for him. A popular product is listed as "X30" dilution. The idea is that the more dilute the solution is with the problem causing agent in it, the safer it is (less likely to cause a new problem--probably true), and the better it works (not true). The "X30" means that one-tenth of the solution is mixed with 9 times as much water (or other solvent), and this is repeated 30 times. That means the dilution ratio is 1 to a thousand-billion-billion- billion! That is a 1 with 30 zeros after it. But the problem is, there are not nearly that many molecules of the original chemical, so one must take 7,000 gallons of the final product to assure that he took only one molecule of the chemical! When this fact is pointed out to those who produce these dilute chemicals, they say that the water has a "memory", and still contains the effect needed. However, if water has a memory (and it doesn't), what do you think about the memory of your water in its last several cycles on earth? All water is recycled over and over, and maybe it came from a sewer last cycle, and a dead animal before that, etc. etc. If such a memory existed, how devastating it could be to all living. But of course, there is nothing in water to have a memory of anything unless it is modified by a nuclear reactor. Even then, its "memory" (radioactivity) is short. Another one had a dilution ratio of "C40". That meant it was diluted 100 to 1 each of 40 times. That ratio is 1 to a 1 with 80 zeros after it. And the number of atoms estimated to be in the whole universe is only about that number, so they would have to start with every atom in the universe in their first mix to have one atom in each of the final solutions! How absurd. HOME


An lastly he gave the example of the so called vitamin "O" that was promoted some time ago. It was also proven to be useless. HOME


But users explain that any of these products (especially the magnets) make them feel better. This result is the placebo effect, where if you think it is something that will benefit you, it often will make you feel better. HOME


A caller stated that he has a new man-made antioxidant that is supposed to be extra effective. It is some procedure where an atom of hydrogen has an electron added (ionized) and then it is placed into the blood stream. Since the hydrogen atom is so small, the claim is made that it can easily get to wherever it is need. If such an ionized hydrogen atom could be made and kept ionized, and placed into the blood stream, it might be very effective in collecting unwanted oxygen (and even wanted oxygen?). However, how does one keep an ionized atom from losing its extra electron on anything else it touches? This would be very difficult if not impossible. No comment was given on this product, as it was too new for him to have studied. About all he said was the there is some new such product with great claims almost every week. HOME


However, he did point out some very interesting research facts, which I had forgotten. No one should ever believe just one study, even if it was a double blind study and all of the data is released. Only after a second, independent researcher has duplicated the study and come to the same conclusion, could any confidence be placed in any study. Even then, if the results seem extravagant, several more studies must be done, still coming to the same conclusion before it is safe to believe the results. HOME



While at the University of Florida Science Library in Gainesville, Florida, I found a number of articles on studies using food and microwaves for various reasons. I did not have time to search every publication, but the following is what I did find.


In the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, D. B. Lund Editor Vol. 14 No. 5 Oct. 1990 P. 335-343 describes tests using apple, corn, oat bran, and soy fibers which are heat processed. The tests were done as follows: 1. 121 degrees C (250 degrees F) for 15 minutes 2. 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) for 30 minutes 3. 5 minutes in a microwave oven 4. 10 minutes in a microwave oven At first the fiber in the microwave ovens would turn brown (obvious excess heat), but they added enough water to keep this from happening. They learned that all heat damaged the fibers. But "the greatest morphological differences appear to exist between the non-processed fiber and the processed fiber, irrespective of the type [microwave or standard heating] or degree [temperature or length of time] of processing conducted in these trials." The fibers were studied on a scanning electron microscope with photos in the article. The damage was increase surface area caused by much cracking in all heated samples. Thus no condemnation of microwave ovens was produced by this test. HOME


In the same Journal, P. 406: "Researchers who studied microbial inactivation by microwave energy in the 1960's concluded that microbial death was caused solely by thermic [heat] mechanisms (IFT 1989). Dreyfuss and Chipley (1980) conducted experiments with cultures of Staphylococcus aureus to characterize some of the effects of sublethal microwave radiation. The results indicated differences in specific enzyme activity which cannot be explained solely by thermic effects. However, the results cannot be compared due to lack of thermal control [so how did they know it was not thermal effects?] during both conventional and microwave heating. Recent studies of Khalil and Villota (1988) on microwave and conventionally heated S. aureus cells at a sublethal temperature of 50 degrees C indicated a greater reduction . . . by microwave. The temperature history of the sample during microwave and conventional heating were not present [so the microwave heated samples could have had hotter spots in them to produce the greater reduction effects]. Greater membrane damage and slower rate of regaining enterotocis synthesis ability were reported for microwave-heated cells. The authors also mentioned some of the reported causes of the adverse effects lie in the breakage of hydrogen bonds and secondary linkages, release of bound water, electron tunneling and pair chain formations.... "The effects of microwave and dielectric heating [shortwave frequency heating] are clearly fields in which the knowledge gap is vast, and much further investigation is needed." This is a common belief--that more research needs to be done. However, there just is not a lot done. The great lack of current research, studies, or even concern about the use of microwave ovens seems to me to have its own message. It tells me that the scientific community, especially the food science community, have little if any concern about any safety problems in cooking food in a microwave oven. HOME


Then another article in the same Journal, Vol. 23, No 6, Jan 2000 P. 474-477 had an article titled "Microwave and Spouted Bed Drying of Blueberries". Blueberries are dried so they will store longer before spoiling. Various methods of drying were here tested, including microwave, hot air, and freeze drying. The microwave drying is a combination of microwave energy and hot air in a "spouted bed" called MWSB (not described how it is made). Then after the berries are dried, they are re-hydrated (water added) and a juice made from which the volatile flavors are analyzed in a gas chromatograph to see what chemicals are present. The juice of the fresh berries is used for comparison. Of a list of 26 chemicals, 13 are present in the fresh juice. Only 10 are in the freeze dried juice, and two of these are new ones not in the fresh juice, with 5 of the original chemicals missing. The hot air treated juice had 18 of the 26 listed chemicals, with 9 new chemicals, including both of those found in the freeze dried juice, also missing 5 of those found in the fresh juice, but only 3 of the same ones. The microwaved juice has 24 of the 26 chemicals, with the two missing being those in the original juice, but not found in any dried product. At first glance, the 6 extra chemicals produced by microwaving looks bad. But what does the researcher say about it? P 474: "The major findings from Table 3 (summarized above) include: (1) heating caused some aroma compounds, [listed] to vanish or to decrease until they were undetectable; (2) several aroma volatiles disappeared from freeze-dried samples as a result of prolonged drying; (3) heat treatment altered aroma by creating ten new flavor notes . . . [listed]. Among the compounds newly detected after heating, limonene and 1,8-cineole have been identified as blueberry aroma in previous studies [references]. It is likely that the heating increases the intensity of these compound; (4) microwave heating generated some unique flavor compounds . . [listed-probably caused by the excess heating of some portions of the berry]. The mechanism under which the flavor volatile are generated during drying are unknown for both ordinary heating and the microwave heating. Luning et al. (1995), in a study regarding the effect of hot-air drying on the flavor compounds of bell peppers, found that the hot-air drying can release new odor compounds which can be related to the autoxidation of unsaturated fatty acids. Microwave-hot air drying of mushrooms positively affected retention of characteristic aroma compounds (Riva et al. 1991). Further study is required to understand the interaction between heat treatment and flavor compound retention/degradation/generation. HOME


"MWSB drying of frozen blueberries was characterized by a substantial reduction in drying time and an improved product quality as indicated by a low bulk density, a high short-term rehydration ratio, and a more reddish and less blue color compared to samples of freeze dried, tray dried, and SB dried. Pretreatment using 2.5% Ethyl Oleate & 0.2% NaOH dipping followed by sucrose osmotic dehydration can prevent blueberries from bursting when microwaved but resulting in a high bulk density and low rehydration ratio. . . . "Characteristics of the flavor volatile compounds of 'Elliott' [brand of] blueberries were changed by both hot air and microwave heating." It should be noted that blueberries in a microwave would "burst" if not treated with special chemicals! Why would a berry burst? Only because they got so hot that it generated steam. Since hot air (temperature not given) produces most of the new chemicals, it is only reasonable to think that the extra heat alone to the point of making steam would generate even more new volatile chemicals. Also note that the analysis was done with a "gas chromatograph". This instrument can only analyze the vapors or odors (gas) given off from the juices made from the berries. It is not unreasonable to believe that the heating may not manufacture new chemicals, but merely releases flavor chemicals already in the blueberries, but originally attached to the berry flesh. This was indicated in the first paragraph quoted when he stated that "hot-air drying can release new odor compounds", not make new compounds. Most people will recognize that as you heat almost any food, that the smell of that food is increased. Just think of toasting bread, you smell the toast, but you did not smell the bread much if any. And note that in the first sentence of the conclusion, they felt that the berries dried in a microwave were "an improved product quality", not a damaged or degraded product. HOME


Then in Chilton's Food Engineering, March 1991, P. 98 there is a study of using a microwaves to sterilize pasta. They state that the "major advantage of microwave sterilization verses retorting: high temperature, short-time heat treatment to preserve the taste, texture, and other organoleptic properties of food-including the al dente (firm, not mushy) quality of pasta." In other words, the heat-only treatment (no microwaves), which took a long time at high temperature, did not produce as high of a quality of the pasta. HOME


There were a few articles which involved the use of microwave energy for various food uses (some above), but only one where any safety concern was given. And this was a brief note in a magazine from Australia, where there was concern for those cooking meat in a microwave. It stated that many microwave ovens did not provide enough microwave energy throughout the whole oven area so that portions of the meat may stay below 70 degrees C, and therefore not have all of the bacteria killed! There was no concern for any damage of the food by the microwave energy. No Encyclopedia found there told of the origin of microwave ovens. They all describe the process and use without any concerns listed. HOME



Comparison of three articles on Russian/German research from "The Effects of Microwave Apparatus on Food & Humans" (credited to: William P. Kopp.) Note that the Internet article from lawgiver.org has duplicate ideas in more than one place. One article is always listed with only a number on the left column. The next article is only listed with a number and a period on the left column. (These numbers were added.) The Internet article is listed with four spaces first, and with a number or no number, as it was in the actual article. These are all quoted from these articles. Any of my comments are in braces "{ }". Brackets "[ ]" are in the original as the author's comments. You will readily note that they are not quoting their source. Some of the writers have reworded the statements to fit their style, but most say the same basic idea. Who is the original writer is unknown, especially since I cannot find the actual Russian article (which would have to be a translation). Note that there is some mixing of statements, so that it is not always clear which statement belongs in which group.


1 "Meats: creates d-nitrosodiethanolamine, a well known cancer-causing agent. 1. "MEATS: Heating prepared meats sufficiently to ensure sanitary ingestion creates d-nitrosodiethanolamine, a well-known cancer-causing agent. "Microwaving prepared meats sufficiently to insure sanitary ingestion caused formation of d-Nitrosodienthanolamines, a well-known carcinogen. 2 "Proteins: Active-protein, biomolecular compounds are destabilized. 2. "PROTEINS: Active-protein, biomolecular compounds are destabilized. {See also #4 and #14} 3 "Increase in Radioactivity: A 'binding effect' causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha and beta particle saturation in the food. 3. " INCREASE IN RADIOACTIVITY: A 'binding effect' between microwaved food & and atmospheric radioactivity is created, causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha & beta particle saturation in the food. 3. "Creation of a 'binding effect' to radioactivity in the atmosphere, Memorandumnthus causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha and beta particle saturation in foods "Due to the problem of random magnetic residulation and binding within the biological systems of the body, which can ultimately effect the neurological systems, primarily the brain and neuroplex uses (nerve centers), long term depolarization of tissue neuroelectric circuits can result. Because these effects can cause virtually irreversible damage to the neuroelectrical integrity of the various components of the nervous system (I. R. Luria, Novosibirsk 1975a), ingestion of microwaved foods is clearly contraindicated in all respects. {This last paragraph is inclusive of many different ideas.} 4 "Milk & Cereals: Cancer-causing agents are created in the proteinhydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal grains. 4. "MILK AND CEREALS: Cancer-causing agents are created in the protein-hydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal grains. 4. "Creation of cancer causing agents within protein hydrolysate* compounds in milk and cereal grains {*these are natural proteins that are split into natural fragments by the addition of water} "Microwaving milk and cereal grains converted some of their amino acids into carcinogens. {Please note that last definition: "*these are natural proteins that are split into natural fragments by the addition of water". This is a good example of how the addition of water causes chemicals--even organic compounds--to "split" and/or become "hydrated". Note prefix: "hydro...". You will recognize that term's relationship to water in another term, hydroelectric, which is water power generators.} 5 "Frozen Foods: When used to thaw frozen foods alter the catabolism (breakdown) of the glucoside and galatoside elements. 5. "FROZEN FOODS: Microwaves used to thaw frozen foods alter the catabolism (breakdown) of the glucoside and galactoside. 5. "Alteration of elemental food-substances, causing disorders in the digestive system by unstable catabolism* of foods subjected to microwaves {*the metabolic breakdown process} 6 "Vegetables: Even extremely brief exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables to microwaves alter alkaloid catabolism. 8. "Microwave emissions caused alteration in the catabolic {metabolic breakdown} behavior of glucoside {hydrolyzed dextrose} and galactoside {oxidized alcohol} elements within frozen fruits when thawed in this manner. Microwave emission caused alteration of the catabolic [metabolic breakdown] behavior of plant alkaloids {organic nitrogen based elements} when raw, cooked, or frozen vegetables were exposed for even extremely short thawing of 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. 7 "Digestive System: Alters elemental food substances, causing disorders in the digestive system. 6. "DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: The unstable breakdown of micro-waved food alters their elemental substance, causing disorders in the digestive system. 9. "INCREASED INCIDENCE OF STOMACH AND INTESTINAL CANCERS: A statistically higher percentage of cancerous growth result in the organs, plus a generalized breakdown of the peripheral cellular tissue and a gradual degeneration of digestive and excretory functions. 11. "In a statistically high percentage of persons, microwaved foods caused stomach and intestinal cancerous growths, as well as a general degeneration of peripheral cellular tissues, with a gradual breakdown of the function of the digestive and execrative systems. "Higher rates of digestive disorders and a gradual breakdown of the systems of elimination were observed. "Increased rates of stomach and intestinal cancers were observed. 8 "Lymphatic System: Malfunctions occur in the lymphatic system, causing a degeneration of the body's ability to protect itself against certain forms of neoplastics (cancerous growths). 7. "LYMPHATIC SYSTEM: Due to chemical alterations within food substances, malfunction occur in the lymph system, causing degeneration of the body's ability to protect itself against certain forms of neoplastics (cancerous growths). 6. "Due to chemical alterations within food substances, malfunctions were observed within the lymphatic systems {absorbent vessels}, causing a degeneration of the immune potentials of the body to protect against certain forms of neoplastics {abnormal growths of tissue}. "Lymphatic disorders were observed, leading to decreased ability to prevent certain types of cancers. 8. "FREE RADICALS: Certain trace-mineral formations in plant substance - in particular raw root vegetables - form cancer-causing free radicals. 10. "Cancer causing free radicals {highly reactive incomplete molecules} were formed within certain trace mineral molecular formations in plant substances, and in particular, raw root-vegetables "Carcinogenic free radicals were formed in microwaved plants, especially root vegetables. "RESULTING EFFECTS ON THE HUMAN BODY 9 "Blood: A higher than normal percentage of cancerous cells in blood serum (cytomas) can be seen in subjects ingesting microwaved foods. 7. "Ingestion of microwaved foods caused a higher percentage of cancerous cells within the blood serum {cytomas - cell tumors such as}sarcoma] "An increased rate of cancer cell formation was observed in the blood. 10 "Brain: Their residual magnetism effects can render the psychoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influence by artificially induced, microwave- radio-frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay networks. Wow! Folks., do you see the serious potential here for mind control? The Soviets outlawed all such microwave apparatus {that would include all radar, much space communications-especially satellite relays for TV and other uses, cell phones, telephone relay towers, and a host of other devices that use microwave energy. Such was certainly not outlawed, as all of these devices are in use in Russia today. See "REAL FACTS" above} in 1976 for this reason." "For this reason"? Oh really? I though they said microwave ovens were outlawed because they damaged the food. Just think, if Russia, in 1976, could have developed a way of mind control of their population, they certainly would have taken advantage of it, and put microwave ovens in every home! "Soviet neuropsychologists at Uralyera and Novosibirsk have theorized the possibility of psychotelemetric influence (i.e., affecting human behavior by transmitting radio signals at controlled frequencies), causing subject to comply - involuntarily and subliminally - with commands received through microwave transmissions acting upon their psychological energy fields." This is similar to the HAARP claims--that somehow microwave energy will be used to involuntarily control your mind. If you believe that HAARP (ELF*, eating microwaved food, or any other such thing) has the ability to control your mind without your choice, then you would believe that these external "control" methods could produce a temptation which you would have no power to resist--HAARP (or whatever) was controlling your mind. Therefore, when an overpowering temptation came your way, your could be led to conclude that this temptation was being produced by HAARP, and you have no way to resist it. Further you might be led into sin by choice thinking it was not your choice. But the Bible says in I Cor. 10:13 that "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer {allow} you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." If these theories of mind control were true, then this verse is not true. Let us not get led into yielding to temptation by man's false theories. Continuing the comparison: "The theoretical possibility of psychotelemetric influence (the capability of affecting human behavior by transmitted radio signals at controlled frequencies) has been suggested by Soviet neuropsychological investigations at Uralyera and Novosibirsk (Luria and Perov, 1974a, 1975c, 1976a), which can cause involuntary subliminal psychological energy field compliance to operative microwave apparatus. "Their magnetic residual effect can render the pyschoneural receptor components of the brain more subject to influence psychologically by artificially induced microwave radio frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay-networks." {Way back in the 1950's, I heard of desires to study man's brain waves, and learn how to affect man's thinking. I have been in a room while brain waves were being recorded. Most of the time, the patient is asked to relax with eyes closed, and remain quiet. Any muscle motion, anything seen with the eyes, or any speech clutters up the traces that are desired to be seen. I can assure you that no microwave energy--even if it were to some how affect the brain, could make you think or do any specific thing. The nearest thing that I can imagine, would be if somehow the microwave energy could be converted to audible sound in your ears, that voice suggestions or commands might be given. But this could more easily be done with low or medium frequency. Many people have heard radio station sound from fillings in their teeth.} "MICROWAVES REDUCE FOOD VALUE 10. "SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN NUTRITIVE VALUE OF all foods studied decrease in nutritional value 11 "Vitamins and minerals made useless: In every food tested bioactivity of the following vital nutrients decreased: Vit. B complex, Vit. C & E, essential mineral and lipotropics. 11. "VITAMINS & MINERALS MADE USELESS: in every food tested, the bioavailability of vital nutrients decreased: vitamin B complex, vitamins C and E, essential minerals & lipotropics. 1. "A decrease in the bioavailability {capability of the body to utilize the nutriment} of B-complex vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, essential minerals and lipotropics in all foods; "Deceased bio-availability of vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin E, essential minerals and lipotropics factors in all food tested. 12 "Vital-Energy Field Devastated: The vital-energy-field content of all tested foods dropped 60-90%, 12. "VITAL ENERGY FIELDS DEVASTATED: all tested foods dropped 60-90%. 2. "A loss of 60-90% of the vital energy field content of all tested foods; Russian researchers also reported a marked acceleration of structural degradation leading to a decreased food value of 60 to 90% in all foods tested. 13 "Digestibility of Fruits and Veggies Reduced: The metabolic behavior and integration-process capability of alkaloids, glucosides, alactosides and nitrilosides are lowered. 13. "DIGESTIBILITY OF FRUITS & VEGETABLES REDUCED: microwaves lower the metabolic behavior and integration-process of alkaloids, glucosides, alactrosides & liptropics. 3. "A reduction in the metabolic behavior and integration process capability of alkaloids {organic nitrogen based elements}, glucosides and galactosides, and nitrilosides; "Various kinds of damaged to many plant substances, such as alkaloids, glucosides, galactosides and nitrilosides. 14 "Meat Proteins Worthless: It destroys the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats. 14. "MEAT PROTEINS WORTHLESS: the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats is destroyed. 4. "A destruction of the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats; "The degradation of nucleo-proteins in meats. 15 "All Foods Damaged: It greatly accelerates the structural disintegration of all foods tested. 15. "ALL FOODS DAMAGED: microwaves greatly accelerates the structural disintegration of all foods tested. 5. "A marked acceleration of structural disintegration in all foods. "BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MICROWAVES 16 "There is also a long list of BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MICROWAVES but space does not permit sharing it. This is caused by exposure to microwave emissions without having to eat the food from it. 16. "Merely entering the energy field of microwaved foods causes harmful side-effects. The Soviets outlawed microwaves in 1976! {See "REAL FACTS" under Claim 14.} "Exposure to microwave emissions also had an unpredictably negative effect upon the general biological welfare of humans. This was not discovered until the Russians experimented with highly sophisticated equipment and discovered that a human did not even need to ingest the material substance of the microwaved food substances: that even exposure to the energy-field itself was sufficient to cause such adverse side effects that the use of any such microwave apparatus was forbidden in 1976 by Soviet state law." {Again, see "REAL FACTS" above. So is this the reason why they outlawed microwaves? And what does that outlawing include? Again, IF (but they didn't) they outlawed them, it is more likely that backwards Russia would have outlawed them because they did not understand them!} 17. " LIFE ENERGY FIELD BREAKDOWN: increases relative to length of exposure. 1. "A breakdown of the human 'life-energy field' in those who were exposed to microwave ovens while in operation, with side-effects to the human energy field of increasingly longer duration {What, may I ask, is a "life energy field"? To me, that sounds like something out of the occult, where they say they can see your "aura", a field they claim is surrounding every person!.} 18. " Cellular energy decreases: The cellular-voltage parallels of individuals using the apparatus degenerate - especially in their blood and lymphatic serums. 2. "A degeneration of the cellular voltage parallels during the process of using the apparatus, especially in the blood and lymphatic areas {I've seen many body voltage measurements, from the brain, the heart, and muscles; but I've never heard of "cellular voltage" or "energy" being measured. Now I admit, there is a much higher technological achievement now than when I worked at Loma Linda Univeristy.} 19. "Destabilized metabolism: The external-energy activated potentials of food utilization are both destabilized and degenerated. 3. "A degeneration and destabilization of the external energy activated potentials of food utilization within the processes of human metabolism; 20 "Cell damage: Internalcellular-membrane potentials during catabolic processes into the blood serum from the digestive process degenerate and destabilize. 4. "A degeneration and destabilization of internal cellular membrane potentials while transferring catabolic [metabolic breakdown] processes into the blood serum from the digestive process 21. "Brain circuitry destruction: Electrical impulses in the cerebrum degenerate and break down. 5. "Degeneration and circuit breakdowns of electrical nerve impulses within the junction potentials of the cerebrum {the front portion of the brain where thought and higher functions reside. As with many other statements, it is not at all clear what is being talked about.} 22. "Nervous System: Nerve / electrical circuits degenerate and breakdown while energy-field symmetry is lost in the nerve centers in both the front and rear of the central and autonomic nervous systems. 6. "A degeneration and breakdown of nerve electrical circuits and loss of energy field symmetry in the neuroplexuses [nerve centers] both in the front and the rear of the central and autonomic nervous systems 23. "Loss of bioelectric strength: The bioelectric strengths within the system which controls the function of walking, consciousness go out of balance and lose their proper circuiting. 7. "Loss of balance and circuiting of the bioelectric strengths within the ascending reticular activating system [the system which controls the function of consciousness]; 24. "Loss of vital energies: Humans, animals and plants located within a 500-meter radius (1,640 feet) of a microwave in operation suffer a long-term, cumulative loss of vital energies. 8. "A long term cumulative loss of vital energies within humans, animals and plants that were located within a 500-meter radius of the operational equipment; {If this were even close to true, there would no place in urban America, and even in most rural areas were one could get away from microwave energy at these extremely weak levels.} 25. "Nervous and lymphatic Systems damaged Long lasting residual magnetic 'deposits' become located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system. 9. "Long lasting residual effects of magnetic 'deposits' were located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system; 26. "Hormone imbalances: The production of hormones and the maintenance of hormonal balance in both males and females become destabilized and interrupted. 10. "A destabilization and interruption in the production of hormones and maintenance of hormonal balance in males and females; 27. "Brainwave disruptions: Levels of disturbance in alpha, delta and theta-wave signals patterns are markedly higher that normal. 11. "Markedly higher levels of brainwave disturbance in the alpha, theta, and delta wave signal patterns of persons exposed to microwave emission fields. 12. "Because of this brainwave disturbance, negative psychological effects were noted, including loss of memory, loss of ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes, and interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range emissive field effects of microwave apparatus, either in cooking apparatus or in transmission stations. {Note that here they finally admit that the problem would occur, not just from microwave ovens, but also from "transmission stations."} 28. "Psychological disorders: Because of the disarranged brain waves, negative psychological effects also result. These include loss of memory and ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes and interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range-emission field effects of microwave apparatus, from either cooking apparatus or transmission stations." {See above.} HOME


Since this one Internet article and two other articles each have these 28 bad claims, you might think that there is truth in them. These 28 claimed "problems" in using microwave ovens are said to be from German and Russian research. In reality, these are likely all reports of problems with radiation, but only nuclear radiation, where they could all be true. These claims are extremely serious, if they are true. However, I would like to ask one very significant question: if all (or even only 10) of these 28 claims about the harmful effects of microwave ovens were true, then why are not all of the users of microwaved food in serious medical problems or even dead today? Microwave ovens have been in use for over 50 years. And it is said that 90% of American homes have and use microwave ovens today, to say nothing of the considerable use of microwave ovens in many fast food places, and in commercial food preparation (see below). Yes, there are more medical problems in the U.S. (and the world) today then ever before, but there are many other known factors that affect health-including refined foods, diseased animal products, chemical additives, preservatives, insecticides on fruits and vegetables, dangerous household products, hazardous drinking water, besides alcohol, tobacco, legal and illegal drugs, and many other factors. In one of the books at the Library of Congress I found some interesting information--that I did not know before. Somehow I have lost the entire reference page, but it is on page 30 of a book titled "Radiofrequency . . ." By an M. H. Repacholi. He had studied microwave energy leakage from commercial microwave ovens. He wrote that "industrial microwave power devices operating at . . . output powers of 2 - 120 kW [kilowatts or thousands of watts], and used for . . . food processing . . . and precooking." Did you know that many foods sold today, including at least some frozen vegetables, are partly precooked? I have known that for many years, but it never dawned on me that microwave ovens were likely to be the method used for precooking. He elsewhere talks about the "maximum leakage . . . at the conveyor slot." This indicates that at least some of these food products are most likely precooked on a conveyor belt running through a microwave oven with powers up to 120,000 watts! This would increase even more the total amount of food eaten in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that has been treated in a microwave oven. This should make the above question even more significant, and show that none of these problems exist or we would all be dead from food cooked at 120,000 watts. But based on the research presented previously, there is no reason for any of us to be concerned, because both high power and very high power microwave ovens cannot cause any food problems unless it overheats the food. It would then turn brown or black, maybe even flame, and would not even be sold. Again this list of 28 claimed serious problems caused by microwaves is so inclusive, that if they in fact were all true, (or even a few true), essentially everyone who uses a microwave oven; or lives near a cell phone tower, a telephone relay tower, a TV relay station, a satellite up-link station, an airport or other radar station, was clocked by police radar, or a myriad of other microwave transmitters that operate part to full time; would find that they are severely malnourished, terribly sick, unable to think, can't keep their balance in walking, find that their thinking process is not functioning, and a myriad of other severe problems. The fact that some of these problems are on the increase is never any evidence as to the cause of the increase, or evidence that microwaves have anything to do with it. The truth is that so many extreme claims should be a signal to anyone who is thinking about it, that all of these claims just cannot be true, and if you cannot trust that they are all true, then certain you cannot trust that any of them are true. In other words, if some are made up, how are you to tell which ones are not made up? Just remember, that the best genuine research that I could find today shows clearly two facts: 1. Even blood (with its live cells) is not damaged by being heated evenly in microwave energy. 2. Microwave energy is not capable of breaking even the weakest of all chemical bonds, making any claim of chemical change, false. That does not say that chemical changes do not occur in a microwave oven, but the same change would occur from any other heat source reaching the same temperatures. It is the heat (especially in liquids) that allow chemical change. Only when and if someone would do a serious, documentable study that is repeatable, showing that microwave cooked food is changed, while oven or stove top cooked food is not changed, will there be any evidence to show that the microwaves, and not the heat, oxygen, being made liquid, or any number of other factors made the change. PLEASE NOTE that not one of the claims listed, show any evidence that normally cooked food does not have the same changes! It is well known that heat--cooking does make many chemical changes. So, from my research and knowledge for decades, I would again say that microwave ovens, used carefully, so as not to overheat any portion of your food, is just a safe as electric or gas heat, with the same caution. HOME



(as used in this paper)

Amp(s) or Ampere(s) - A measure of the quantity of electrons that are traveling through a wire. A voltage (which is called a "force") is required to push the electrons through any conductor* such as a wire and a light bulb. One amp of current amounts to about 6 billion-billion electrons per second passing a fixed point on a wire. That very large number is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000. For an example, a 150 watt light bulb (at 115 volts) has over one amp of current flowing through it. Alpha rays, radiation, or particles - The nucleus of a helium atom while it is traveling at a very high velocity. By the time it stops, it regains its electrons and becomes a simple helium atom again. Alternating Current - A current which flows first one direction and then the opposite direction. It can also be describes a voltage that goes from zero to a positive maximum, back to zero and to a negative maximum, and back to zero again, which makes one cycle. You household power does that 60 times a second which is 60 cycles (per second) or 60 Hertz power. It is abbreviated as "A.C." Antenna - A wire, metal rod, or group of such wires or rods, designed in such a way that the electromagnetic energy from a transmitter is sent into space. To do this efficiently, the size of the antenna must be tuned--designed to match the wave length of the energy. An antenna is also used to receive that which is transmitted, but tuning it is not as critical, but still helpful, especially for weak signals. Athermic - Without heat, used to indicate effects that are not produced by heat. Atom - The very smallest particle possible that still is just like the element it came from. If we divide a quantity of oxygen gas in half repeatedly, eventually, you get to where the next division no longer leaves oxygen, but only sub-atomic particles. The atom contains a nucleus (in a central group, slightly like the sun in our solar system) with electrons (which have a unit negative charge) orbiting around that nucleus, slightly like the planets orbiting around the sun. The nucleus contains both neutrons (no charge) and protons (which have a unit positive charge). If the number of protons and electrons don't match, then the atom is ionized, having too few or too many electrons. In this state, it is unstable. Atomic - Having to do with atoms, the size of atoms, atomic reactions, etc. Beta rays, radiation, or particles - Very high speed electrons traveling in space or in the air. As soon as these stop, they are captured and join the billions of electrons already in all matter. Cardiovascular - Having to do with your heart and blood vessels. Compound - In chemistry, a compound is two or more atoms of different elements which attach together. Some compounds have very strong bonds (attachments together), while some have weak bonds. Water is a compound made up from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which form a single molecule. Water has a strong bond, and is not broken into the separate gasses by heat, or even by nuclear reactors (I have been at a 100 million watt nuclear reactor where water is used to cool--remove the heat from--the nuclear reactor's core, the central part of the nuclear reactions, (where the heat is mostly generated) with no breaking of the water bonds. Conductor - Any material that will allow electrons to flow through it fairly easily. Metals are the better conductors, with gold and silver being the best. That is why some wires are plated with gold or silver. Other conductors, made of non-metals or compounds, do not conduct current as easily, and are called "semi-conductors". The silicon chips (silicon is a non-metal) used to make transistors and integrated circuits are semi-conductors. Current - A term describing a flow of electrons in a wire or other conductor. The units of current is the Ampere, or Amp. Cycle - In electromagnetics, it is a varying voltage or current going from zero to a maximum in one polarity, then going back to zero and on to a maximum in the other polarity, the back to zero again. This makes up one cycle. Cycles per second - The number of repetitive cycles that occur in one second, also called Hertz, Decay - Certain elements in nature are not stable. Uranium and Radium are the two most commonly known. These unstable atoms are called "radioactive", although this has nothing to do with your radio. God created these atoms so that the nucleus "self-destructs" periodically--somewhat randomly. When the nucleus emits one of its sub-atomic particle, it becomes a new element. Most of these new elements are also radioactive. However, after several such events, most of them end up as lead, which is no longer radioactive, and therefore perfectly stable. Diathermy - A radio device generating several hundred watts of high frequency radio power, used to heat internal body parts to aid in healing various medical problems. Direct Current - The flow of electrons in only one direction, or a voltage always the same polarity (positive or negative). It may be constant like the voltage from a battery not in use; or it may be widely varying, like a car battery varies between starting the engine and then being charged again; or it may be pulsed or switched on and off slowly as for a blinking light, or rapidly for other uses. Electromagnetic - When electricity flows through a wire, it generates a magnetic field. When this electrical energy is alternated positive and negative repeatedly and very rapidly, this energy can leave the wire and travel into space. This energy in space is call electromagnetic energy. As you get to frequencies above the radio spectrum, no wires are used to send this energy into space. Heat, light, X-ray, etc. all have various ways of getting the electromagnetic energy into space. Element - In chemistry, an element is pure matter with only one kind of atom present. Oxygen, hydrogen, iron, copper, and uranium are examples of a few elements. There are 92 elements in nature, and a number of man-made elements, of which Plutonium is the best known (and also extremely dangerous). ELF - Extra (or Extremely) Low Frequency, usually frequencies lower than 100,000 cycles per second. Energy - A general term applying to that which can produce power in something. It can often be used interchangeable with power. It is also used interchangeably with radiation, since radiation is also power. It is better understood if we use energy with microwaves, infrared, and light. Fiber Optics - Special types of fibers have the ability to capture light so that the light can travel a long distance with very little loss of brightness or energy. You may have seen such fibers on decorative devices, that have a bright glow on the end, but no light is visible along the fiber. As a result of this special feature of these fibers, dozens, hundreds or more can be bundled together, and each on can carry light without any mixing of that light. On each ray of light, a tremendous amount of information can be attached. Theoretically, one fiber can carry all of the information on all of the radio, short wave, FM, TV, microwave, etc. at one time. This is not fully achieved last I knew, but one fiber optic strand can carry a very large amount of information today, and is used extensively in high speed computing. Fiber optics cables are being buried all across the nation, and the hope is eventually to have one fiber to every home. All of the information you need, including all the telephone lines you want, very high speed Internet, radio, TV, etc., can already be sent on one fiber! Filter Capacitor - First, a capacitor is an electronic component which has the ability to store electrical direct current (only one polarity) energy, somewhat like a battery, but very different in that it can store the same voltage as it is given (from a fraction of a volt to hundreds of volts), whereas a battery stores only a specific low voltage, depending upon the type of battery-usually from 1.2 to 3 volts. Therefore, if a voltage is varying-either pulsed or just unstable-adding a capacitor will store energy at the higher voltages and give energy back on lower voltage, helping to make the voltage more constant. When alternating current is rectified, it inherently goes from near zero to a maximum in only one polarity, and back to zero. Hence, adding a capacitor smoothes or filters the variations, making the voltage more constant. Frequency - How often repetitive events occur, usually in numbers of events per second, therefore usually in cycles per second. Examples are: A radio station may have a frequency of 1240 Kilohertz*, a TV station may have a frequency of about 211 Megahertz (channel 13), or a small dish satellite may have a frequency around 12 Gigahertz. The term "radio frequency" can apply to many frequencies that are not heard on a normal radio. Giga... - A prefix meaning billions of... When used in radio waves, it is usually in billions of cycles per second, or GHz. HAARP - Acronym = High frequency Active Auroral Research Project, a sophisticated radar-like device to measure the electrical characteristics of the aurora borealis (northern lights), which are centered directly above the location of this equipment in southern Alaska. Hertz - The name of a man who did many early experiments with radio waves. He was "honored" by using his name to substitute for the longer technical term of "cycles per second". Infrared - Electromagnetic energy or radiation which is similar to light. It starts right next to red light, but is not visible. It goes down from red light for over 11 octaves. Ions, Ionized, or Ionization - An atom that has, or is made to have, too many or too few electrons. Kilo... - A prefix meaning thousands of... When used in radio waves, it is usually in thousands of cycles per second, or KHz. Magnetron - An electronic "tube" which generates microwave energy. The output can be sent into a (radar) antenna or into a microwave oven. There it is directed into a closed compartment where the energy produces heat, primarily in water. This tube has a very powerful magnet to direct a beam of electrons, hence the name magnetron, a combination of the words magnet and electron. Mega... - A prefix meaning millions of... When used in radio waves, it is usually in millions of cycles per second, millions of Hertz, or MHz. Microwaves - Electromagnetic energy with frequencies between 1 and 100 billion cycles per second, or 1-100 GHz. Milliwatt - Milli... is a prefix meaning one-thousandth. Hence, a milliwatt is one-thousandth of a watt, abbreviated mW. Molecule - A combination of two or more different atoms combined together. This is similar to a compound, except a molecule is a single combination of these atoms or elements, while the compound may have billions of these all together. Somewhat like an atom is the smallest division of an element that retains the same characteristics, so is a molecule the smallest division of a compound that retains the same characteristics. Nuclear - Having to do with the atomic nucleus, the central part of every atom. Nuclear radiation - Energy released from within the nucleus of an atom. This can be either from natural events, which is called "decay", or from atoms that are bombarded with neutrons in an atomic reactor or from an atomic bomb. Either of these events change the structure of the atom, making new elements. Octave - The doubling of the frequency. In music, there are many octaves that can be heard. A piano has about 7 octaves on the keyboard. Middle "C" is 256 cycles (vibrations) per second (or Hz), the next octave up is 512 Hz, and the next octave down is 128 Hz. The same effect is still present at microwave frequencies, which start at 1 GHz. The next octave goes to 2 GHz, etc. Organic - Having to do with plants or animals. An organic compound is defined as combinations of carbon with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur atoms, and other atoms, often into long chemical "chains". Polarity - In electronic terms, it is whether a conductor has too many or too few electrons. If it has too many, it is negatively charged and too few makes it positively charged. A battery produces too many electrons on one terminal and too few on the other terminal. Hence, when you place al light bulb (or other device) between the two terminals, electrons flow from the excess side to the deficient side. The flow of these electrons causes the light to turn on. The side with too many electrons is called the negative polarity, while the side with too few electrons is called the positive side. Photon - A packet of electromagnetic energy. Light was studied and found that as it got dimmer and dimmer, and was expected to get to a point where it could not produce a "photo- electric" effect (which required a certain energy level), it was found that it continued to produce this effect, even when very dim light - far too dim to do so they thought. So the light had to be in very short bursts of high energy. The dimming was not a decrease in the energy of each burst, but merely had fewer of the bursts of energy. It was as though the light was made up of minute particles, and the energy was determined by the color, not by the brightness. More brightness just meant more particles. These particles were named "photons", and it was later found that this effect is present in most if not all of the electromagnetic spectrum, although less so as the frequency is decreased. Even electrons and protons (known atomic particles) in a vacuum behave (follows the rules of) electromagnetic vibrations at extremely high frequencies. Radiation - A general term applying to any form of energy which can travel through the vacuum of space, whether electromagnetic (which includes microwaves) or particles, such as alpha and beta particles or rays. Radio - A general term used with many kinds of electromagnetic radiation, not just that which you may listen to on a device that you call a radio. Radioactive - This has little to do with "radio" just described. This term deals ONLY with nuclear activity or more specifically, nuclear changes. It originally was used with that which occurred in nature, but now it is used with all nuclear changes that occur after any element is exposed to high levels of neutrons in a nuclear reactor or reaction--like an atomic or hydrogen bomb. This radioactivity is sometimes called "secondary radioactivity". Rectified or rectify - In electronics, a process of allowing only one polarity of voltage or current to pass beyond a point, so that alternating current is changed into pulsating direct current. It is possible to turn the opposite polarity around (with a transformer) and add that pulse in between the first pulses, making the voltage much more nearly constant, but a filter capacitor must be added to store energy between the peaks of the voltage to make it fairly smooth. Almost all electronic devices in homes today--TV's, VCR's, computers, audio and radio devices, etc.--operate only on direct current, which is made from alternating current in your house by the use of rectifiers and filter capacitors. Spectrum - As used in electromagnetics, it describes a series of different frequencies or energies. An example is the rainbow, with its 7 different colors, which are a simple spectrum of visible light. In the laboratory, these seven colors can be broken into a spectrum of thousands (or millions) of colors. The entire electromagnetic spectrum covers from sub-audio (frequencies too slow to be heard) all the way to cosmic rays. I have observed electromagnetic energy which takes around 100 seconds for single cycle. In the description about "octaves" (not the definition), much of the total electromagnetic spectrum is described, which goes from VLF (Very Low Frequency), through radio, short wave, VHF (very high frequency), UHF (Ultra High Frequency), microwaves, infrared (light or heat), visible light, ultraviolet (light), X-rays, gamma rays, nuclear energy (particles and rays), and cosmic rays. It should be mentioned that in the atomic world, there is a limited distinction between fast moving particles, rays, radiation, and vibrations. They all interact and often blend into each other without the ability to distinguish one from another. Even light has characteristics of particles , which are then called "photons". Statistics - As far as this study is concerned, it is the collection of data from many people who have two or more variations of their food (or other factors), and then observations are made as to what changes occur in one group that are different than the other group. The results are tabulated and used to try to make a conclusion about which variation is better or worse. Statistical results are never "proof", but only indications--sometimes very strong and other times very weak. Transmitter - A device to generate high frequency energy, normally used to send that energy into space, such as a radio or TV transmitter. Ultraviolet - Electromagnetic energy or radiation right next to violet light, but invisible. That is why it is called "ultra" violet, it is just out of view. UHF - Ultra High Frequency radio waves, usually considered to be between 300 MHz and 1 GHz. VHF - Very High Frequency radio waves, usually considered to be between 30 MHz and 300 MHz. Volt or Voltage - A measure of the force available to move electrons through wires. Also called the "potential difference". Voltage alone does nothing, such as a battery on the shelf at the store. It normally has 1.5 volts, but is useless until it is placed into a flashlight or other device, and that devise is turned on. In a fixed situation (flashlight for example), the voltage determines how much power is delivered. In the flashlight, the light gets dimmer as the voltage decreases, which is caused by the battery running down. This also causes a decrease in the current flowing, the amount of amps. Watt = A unit of power. Commonly used in terms of the brightness of light bulbs, such as 60 or 100 watt bulbs. Technically, it is the result of multiplying voltage and current (amperes or amps), however in A.C. power, other factors (called the power factor) may reduce the actual power below that figure. Wave length - When radio energy is sent into space, it travels at the speed of light, which is 186,300 miles per second. If the frequency was 186,300 cycles per second, then each cycle would be one mile long, which is the length of each wave or cycle in space--or the wavelength. Likewise, if it were 186,300,000 cycles per second, then the wavelength would be one-thousandth of a mile, or 5.28 feet long. So microwave ovens at 2.45 Ghz, have a wavelength of 0.4 inches long. X-ray - The family of electromagnetic rays or radiation higher in frequency than ultraviolet light. It was learned that it had the ability to penetrate the human body and expose film on the other side. At first it was thought to be harmless, but latter it was learned than the X-rays can do damage to the body cells. It is not the X-ray that go through you that do the damage, it is those that are stopped inside of you that can do damage.



Simply stated, potential difference is the difference between two different potentials. That is obvious, you say, and I agree. In describing potential above I talked about a rock on top of a high building. It has potential energy, but no energy is released--no power is delivered until that rock is dropped off of the top of the buildilng. If it is only a one story building, the difference is small (from the top to the bottom). But if it is the 100th floor of some skyscraper, you can readily see that the potential difference if very great. But it remains only potential energy until the rock is dropped. In voltage, the same principle applies. Here the voltage is called a potential, because voltage alone does nothing. It is only potentailly available. If I set two "D" cell betteries side by side on a metal plate, they both have a potential difference of 1.5 volts to the metal plate, but there is no potential difference between the two top terminals. As long as the batteries are not used, that potential remains nearly constant. Since nothing man makes is perfect, there is some internal leakage of electrons from the negative termianl to the positive terminal, which graudally runs the battery down even if it is not used. When you walk across a rug and touch something metal (in dry weather), you may get a spark from you to the metal. Sometimes, it can hurt quite a bit. You have generated either too many or too few electrons on you body from walking on the rug, You have made a rather large potential difference. But not until you get near something else that has a different potential, do you get a spark. When I was with a group of people in Yellowstone National Park many years ago, we were using several walkie-talkie to keep in touch. I was in the open, on a high spot, and there was a lightning storm brewing overhead. Such a storm generates a very large potential difference, which is distributed all the way from the cloud to the ground. When it gets large enough, a lightening bolt goes between the cloud and the ground. Of course, you don't want to be where it strikes. As I was walkng along, all at once the top of my walkie-talkie antenna (about 6 feet above me) started arking into the air! I recognized that as an indication that the potential difference in that 9 feet from ground to the top of my antenna was well over the 100,000 volts needed to start an ark. That also meant that the potential difference was getting nearly enough for the lightening to strike. I quickly radioed to everyone to pull their antennas down and run to the car. We all arrived just a few seconds before a lightening bolt hit near by. Please note, though, you cannot rely on such a warning as I had. It can increase too fast to give you a warning. I suggest that it is never safe to be outside when a thunderstrom is approaching.



On November 14, 2000, I accidentally ran across a program on the History Channel which reported on the origin of the microwave oven. So here are a few of the statements from that video: First, they point out that "Radar was perfected for use against the Nazi's in the second world war. It allowed the Allies to spot the enemy long before the enemy could reach them. . . . In early 1945, Raytheon engineer Percy Spencer was hard at work in the lab to improve these glorious machines [radar]. One afternoon Spencer got hungry while he was working. He reached into his pocket for a chocolate bar, and was flabbergasted to pull out a gooey mess. "[New speaker] When they stood in front of high powered radar, they get warm. So that was something that was in the back of his mind. But when the chocolate bar melted, flash, the light bulb went on. "[First speaker] Spencer was inspired. He sent an assistant for a bag of uncooked popcorn. Then he spread the corn over the table near the magnetron, and waited. Less than a minute later the kernels began exploding. Spencer was now certain that the microwaves themselves were doing the cooking." Do you realize that Mr. Spencer was literally standing "inside" his microwave oven? Did you note that he knew his body got warm? The chocolate bar melted in his pocket. The pop-corn popped on the table. Yet there was no report of his having any problem from have been so heated. The grandson of Spencer, Rod Spencer says: "The idea of encapsulating it in a box came afterwards, in fact, the original patent shows a conveyer belt going in front of an open-air magnetron!" Then they describe that the first microwave oven was the size of a refrigerator (6 feet tall) and weighed 600 pounds! It put out 3,000 watts of power. Because of its speed of cooking, it was nicknamed "stop-watch cooking". It would bake a potato in 2 minutes. "Raytheon's chief executive, Lawrence Marshal, told his wife about it. Mrs. Marshal wanted to try out the new invention, so the CEO brought it home. Special plumbing had to be installed to service the water cooled magnetron, but the family was thrilled." Two years later (1947) Raytheon brought out a more compact unit sold to commercial users. It cost $3,000! which was the average yearly household income, making it too expensive for the average household. In 1965, Raytheon bought Amman, who produced a small, counter-top model with less power, which cost only $500. By 1980, microwave oven sales were higher than conventional ovens. "No kitchen was complete without a compact, convenient, microwave oven, including the kitchen of Raytheon CEO, Lawrence Marshal. For thirty years, that first microwave had been humming in Mrs. Marshall's kitchen. Finally, in 1976 she asked for a replacement." That original microwave oven is now back on display at Raytheon in Lexington, Mass. Note that the statement "It allowed the Allies to spot the enemy long before the enemy could reach them" indicates that the Nazi's could not spot the Allies as soon as the Allies could spot the Nazi's. This further indicates that the Nazi's did not have much if any working radar, so how could they be the ones who wanted to use microwave ovens on the front lines in battle? Also note that from this report, the magnetron that was being tested, was not sending its energy to an antenna, but as the first patent described, it was no doubt operating in open air. It is likely that this same tube design was the one used in the first oven, so that this tube most likely also had 3,000 watts of power. There was enough energy on the table top to pop corn! No doubt, it would have popped in his pocket. Yet these people worked around this level of microwave energy for long periods of time with no known harm reported. The first report of death from microwave energy that I heard of was not too long before 1956. Then I was working at Aberdeen Proving Grounds where I was told that a worker on a high powered radar antenna (I think it had a million watts and I remember looking at both the antenna and the platform where they said he stood) was killed when someone turned it on while the worker was on a platform directly in front of the antenna--in the beam. That worker was literally cooked in seconds.



The Search for Health article was also republished in part by ABC WORLD, March 1996, pages 12-14, also written by Tom Valentine ("Excerpted by permission from: Search for Health: Anthology of Health Topics, Valentine Communications Corporation, Naples, FL, 1995"), and an even more condensed version published by Natural Lifestyle and Your Health (listed address is no longer valid), February, 1994 pages 9 and 11, written by "Jerry Hoover, N.D., director of Abundant Health Lifestyle Center (no longer in operation), Webster, FL 33597". I sent a draft of this article as far as it involved this paper to each of these places and asked for a response, but received none. The Dr. Hertel experiment as reported by Tom Valentine seems to be the most popular report to circulate and to reprint. Some of these reprints make additional comments, while other just reprint it. The most professional looking one, which also has the title of "Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking", gives two other references: "Extracted from NEXUS Magazine, Volume 2, #25 (April-May '95). PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia." and "Originally printed from the April 1994 edition of Acres, USA. PO Box 8800, Metairie, Louisiana, 70011 USA)" This article does not even list who compiled it or published it, but it is obviously re-written from the article published in "...Search for Health". Although it has a few added comments, it is mostly word-for-word repeat of the same material. The one difference is that its last three paragraphs are exactly the same as the first three paragraphs from the other article by the same title-the only similarity.



The schooling and work history given here is not to brag, but to give evidence that I am somewhat (at least) of an authority on this subject area. I was using algebra while I was in grade school. I took high school (academy) classes in physics, chemistry, and biology (as well as algebra and geometry). Then I took a major in college physics (with chemistry); and a math minor, and all the electronics related classes taught. I taught the radio service lab (hands-on fixing radios) without have ever taken the class. During these years I also obtained both amateur and commercial radio licenses. While still in college I was invited to start working at the College of Medical Evangelists in electronics (which later became Loma Linda University). I worked there for about 4 years. During that time I was drafted and worked not only in medical electronics for the U. S. Army, but also in electronic data collection for atomic & hydrogen bomb testing and data research for over a year, including trips to Eniwetok and Bikini Atolls for actual tests. As one class of critical test instruments started failing, due to the high humidity, it appeared that our whole system calibration was in jeopardy. This was very critical. The problem was that the power transformers were getting damp and wires were arcing and burning out. We could not finish our job without these test instruments! Yet, our job was to set up and operate data tape recorders to give the needed data for the whole air-dropped hydrogen bomb test. Without that data, the test would be almost a total failure. No one knew what to do. I volunteered to try to rebuild these transformers (as I had torn apart many transformers before, and rebuilt a few of them). I was given the job, and they brought to me about 8 such test instruments. One at a time I carefully took them apart, found the burned out wires, rewired them, and assembled them back together with a "Krylon" spray to keep any more moisture off of the wires. All but one of these instruments were returned to service in a matter of hours, and our work went on. Don't credit me with that, just remember, it is only as God led me to have a curious mind, to take things apart and find out how they worked, that I was qualified to do this job. Then I worked for 4 years in a nuclear reactor as (electronic) instrument engineer. Next I worked 4 years for the U. S. government in ionospheric research using 50,000 to 100,000 watt radio transmitting equipment. Following that I worked for 4 years for the U. S. Air Force (civil service) in a classified world wide government electronic research project. There we used frequencies from well below audio to light waves, which are well above microwaves. There I traveled all over the Pacific as a problem solver for field equipment that was not operating properly. The last 8 years of my employment was also working civil service in microwave and satellite positioning systems where the workers were very cautious about the 30 watt microwave transmitters, but all used microwave ovens daily. In addition to that formal employment, I was reading literally dozens of magazine titles (usually one magazine each work day for years) covering all of these subjects, during all of these years. Then last, but not least, is a God-given talent to understand all these things (but again, don't give me any credit, that just the way God made me).



There is one principle in theoretical studies that is rarely understood. I must admit that I fell victim to this error at one time. When I was in the Army in 1956, I spent 3 months at Eniwetok and Bikini Atolls in the mid-Pacific ocean. I had predicted that it might be possible to receive long range television (TV-DX) there in the daytime, so my boss had shipped a TV there for my use. However, we started getting evening TV from Hawaii, the Philippines, and even twice from Bangkok, Thailand. I wanted to find what was causing this TV-DX, as it was not what I had predicted (daytime TV was never seen). Studying the daily weather charts, I found a certain weather pattern every evening that TV-DX was seen, and which was not there any evening that TV-DX was not seen. Therefore, this correlation for several weeks of the weather vs. TV-DX, seemed to me to be evidence that the weather was the cause of the TV-DX, even though I didn't know HOW this weather could cause the TV-DX. A professional statistician with whom I was working, told me that correlation of events can NEVER be used to prove cause. Once a correlation indicates some possible cause, entirely independent research has to be done to show if the two events are really connected. Even a theory of how and why is not enough, for honest research reports. One must prove HOW AND WHY. Later I learned what was causing my TV-DX, and in fact low altitude weather, as seen on the weather charts, had nothing to do with the TV-DX! The same principle must apply to the Dr. Hertel experiment above. The fact that an apparent correlation between how the food was cooked and the measured blood parameters was seen, is not factual proof that the microwave cooked food caused the change in the blood. Only after this correlation was used as an indicator to do further tests which could show positive results, should the correlation be mentioned. But no chemical tests of the various food preparation methods was reported to document if the food was the cause of the blood changes. And if they had done these chemical test and it supported their belief, they certainly would have reported it.