See what using microwaved water can do

www.snopes.com...

IF this has been proven to the plastic the microwaved water was in, wouldn't the microwave's plastic door pose a threat? How about the Wheels in the turntable the food spins on?

I don't know what is actually the truth in this matter. I do know that more scientific research should be done by real scientists in labs, with blind tests and controlled situations. I sure they could get a couple million dollar grant to test all different types of recycled plastics ect. ect. I would guess some are worse than others for microwaving.

It stands to reason that that chemicals could leech from almost any container, especially if they are heated. It concerns me that there hasn't been any real testing of this before. It one of those things that slips through the FDA process as it's not something they are looking for. Makes you wonder what frozen dinners and hot pockets have seeping into them with the packaging they use. You can buy a frozen dinner for a dollar, I'm sure their quality control on the plastics is not the best.

i suggest everyone repeats the experiment and posts the results here to be compared.


let us do this instead of making pointless arguements without more data.

once again please,please and pretty please let us repeat the experiment.

It is a good thing I threw my shady microwave out.
IF I have one all I eat is microwave dinners and lazy mans food, just stick a Cd in the microwave and think of your cell structure doing the same thing over and extended process.

The water I drink comes from my electric distiller. It is capable of making 12 gallons a day..from city or well water. IT has a 5 gallon holding tank. As I type this out this distiller is running to replenish the tank supply, having taken water out to make Iced Tea in my Mister Coffee machine and also to make ice for my ice trays.

Some time ago I started switching as much as possible from City Water to distilled water.

This is definitely a very intresting study on microwaved water. This reminds me of the experiment ,some years ago, where someone put two speakers in front of two of the same type plants. One speaker played hard rock and roll 24/7 and the other long haired classical music 24/7. You know..Beetoven, Bach, Vivaldi et al.
Same results..the hard rock and roll stunded and died...the classical flourished.

My thanks to the OP for this post and to the board for thier comments.

Orangetom

Like so much of the "scientific proof" I read on Rense, it's shoddy, poorly planned, pitifully executed, and meaningless.

The Snopes link has most of my immediate complaints about the "experiment" - mainly, one sample, no controls, no standardization, no blinding. I can't imagine even a half-bright high schooler doing an experiment this badly for a science fair.

You see what happens when Snopes repeats it - no difference.

This has given me an idea. I pharm Tardigrada's (water-bears) from algae from my garden.

I wonder how the bombardment would effect a population. I will perform the test and get back to you with the results.

Also, I can see what the effects are on the algae.* I have managed to successfully pharm them from a small population in my garden to observe their life cycle.

I am interested to see if there are any changes in their life cycle, or in the population.

Through observing my tardigrada's, I should have some idea what the radiation is doing to the plants.

I developed a fondness for the species of water-bears through studying with the OU.

They have certain exposure to radiation outdoors, but the microwave radiation exposure may, or may not effect the population. Give me a week to carry out my studies, as I suffer with spastic paraplegia.

As I said, I have a colony of water-bears in various stages of development. It will be interesting to see the results and I have a computer microscope to photograph, or video clip my findings. I will post them; as soon as, I have them.

My Tardigrada's are dear to me in a strange sort of way, as they have become the one thing that has really kept me rooted in my studies, if I am able to attend the OU and complete my degree, if my health allows.

love, light and peace

I think the plants is one way of studying the effects, but I want to see it's effects on a microscopic level, which will determine it's effects on our genomes. If the population is effected then I will have no other choice but to agree that it does indeed effect our dna, even boiling a cup of tea.

[edit on 15/8/07 by rachel07]

it should read: I can see the effects on the algae.

[edit on 15/8/07 by rachel07]

Off topic, but aren't they cool? I remember finding my first one in pond water. It looks a lot like a little bear munching down on algae.

I hadn't considered raising them, I don't think I've ever run across more than a handful.

control sample A




Sample B

These are the results of the algae and lifeforms, or lack of from my digital microscope at power level x10.

Sample A, not showing the Tardigradas, clearly shows an abundance of life and continuous growth of the algae.

The irradiated sample B, which was radiated in the microwave at only 30 seconds at the power level of x10 on my digital microscope, shows that the algae cells have divided and it has lost it's ability to bond. Although on a higher level, I detected very few organisms, including Tardigradas, which were virtually existent due to the high exposure to the Thermal Radiation.

This shows at a microscopic level why the plant with the microwave water didn't thrive, and the other one did. The water did effect the plant at a genetic level, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thermal Radiation has the effect on the bonding of the genomes in our system.

I use the microwave part of my oven moderately;I have a microwave, convection, grill. I use it mostly to defrost chicken and I eat meat, so infrequently, that it's effects are minute.

However, on the odd occasion, I have had a microwave meal, but have found that as I have a higher setting than the required setting on my microwave portion of my oven, that I can put it in for a much reduced time. I tend to use my oven and grill more frequently.

However, if you live on microwave meals, and use the microwave frequently, I, personally, believe that there is a risk on a cellular level over a longer period of time.

I base this on the plant experiment and my own experiment.

I have the examples at higher magnifications, but feel that at x 10, it clearly shows the algae cells do not bond properly, after 30 seconds.

I have certificates in General, Natural, and Biological Science from the OU. My condition and health was too poor at the time for me to do well on my exams and get my degree. I had studied in the hope of getting a Ph.d in Microbiological Sciences.

[edit on 16/8/07 by rachel07]

I am having problems loading them from ATS, I will post them to Photobucket and resubmit them.

Originally posted by rachel07

The irradiated sample B, which was radiated in the microwave at only 30 seconds at the power level of x10 on my digital microscope, shows that the algae cells have divided and it has lost it's ability to bond. Although on a higher level, I detected very few organisms, including Tardigradas, which were virtually existent due to the high exposure to the Thermal Radiation.

Most people don't use "irradiated" when they mean "heated", unless they're trying for drama. Did you heat equivalent samples to the same temperature using other means as a comparison? It's hard to tell, but it sounds like you heated the algae and tardigrada in the microwave directly? Take a few slides and flame them, you'll see the same thing.

The water did effect the plant at a genetic level, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thermal Radiation has the effect on the bonding of the genomes in our system.

Or what it proves is, if you cook plants and little animalcules, they die?

When I was a student nurse way back in 89', we were told NEVER to heat babies milk bottles in the microwave because it destroys vitamin C.
I thought that was a crock, maybe not.

Control Sample A at x 10 resolution


Sample B at x10 resolution



I have higher resolutions, but I thought this would clearly show that the algae cells clearly start breaking down after 30s exposure to Thermal Radiation, and I only saw one small Tardigrada through my microscope.

For those who do not know what a Tardigrada is here are two examples.

Example A taken at x 200 from Control Sample on my microscope


and here it is taken from under an electron microscope to which I copied from a site on the internet.

Example B


I study these clearly, as a hobby, as my disability allows. As I couldn't afford a proper digital microscope, I bought a Digital Blue, which I found fit for purpose, although it didn't give me the resolution I really wanted, as you can see, it is sufficient enough to prove a point.

[edit on 16/8/07 by rachel07]

reply to post by dgtempe


This is absolutely false. Water is water.

www.snopes.com...

I'm doing this expirement at school and at home I have just started right now.

You know what, I always wondered why water taste different after being in the microwave. If I take coffee after it brews and drink it I love the taste and is good, but if I nuke it in the microwave to make it hot again it seems to change the taste of it. I always thought it must be in my head because from knowing how microwaves work I can't see how it would change the taste any.
Maybe it isn't the microwave but rather the tap water chemicals and junk that's not suppost to be in it that go south when nuked?
Well I don't really care though, I will still use my microwave

reply to post by darklife


3 YEARS LATER AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU BOTHERED TO GET OF YOUR COLLECTIVE BACKSIDES AND REPEAT AT THE EXPERIMENT.

you continue to argue the same thing over and over gain.

you could even have your your family members/kids to REPEAT the experiment.

did you?

no

i really hate to say this.


i really do.

arguing on the internet is like the special olympics even if you win you are still a .........

[edit on 9-2-2009 by esecallum]

[edit on 9-2-2009 by esecallum]

I dont think this kid used a proper controled enviroment. Shooting 2ghz at water isnt going to affect its properties enough to kill plants. Plus it looks like she really clipped the heck out of the plant. Looks like she took far more clippings from it then the other trying to influence a particular result.

I mean if she didnt find anything she wouldnt get a grade and would have to repeat it. Or she used plastic in the microwave. Either way this is not a good example and needs to be done with atleast 4 plants. Plus Im looking at the containers they dont even hold the same volume of water. Then we have to take into account things that can grow in water exposed to light that kills plants. Also what if the microwave sumply altered the PH of the water?

I can go on and on but this experiment in no way shape or form shows anything. It shows so little I think it would be a waste of my time to repeat the experiment.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Memysabu]

reply to post by dgtempe


On first glance it may appear the microwaved water is responsible for the drastic difference. But look at the difference in the soil in the pots, the pot with the microwaved water is clearly much wetter that the other. While this may appear to prove something, the only thing it appears to prove to me is that proper methods of comparison were not followed. Ie: how many other variables were not kept the same.??

Why do you think Russia banned microwave?
www.relfe.com...
we are being poisoned in as many ways as can be dreamed up