Ten Reasons to Throw Your Microwave Out

reply to post by anhinga


I'm sure Tom Bedlam will elaborate, but Im pretty certain that food molecules don't have a positive and negative end to them. Nor am I certain what is meant by microwaves flipping between positive and negative. This sounds like some sort of confusion between ion exchange, free electron flow and conventional current flow, this would be fine if they were talking about electrolyte cells(batteries), but they are not.

LEE.

reply to post by thebozeian


Oh, ok, this bit's actually sort of true, but their lurid description of it is intended to be alarming. In truth, it's happening in the food all the time from elastic collisions between molecules swapping heat energy back and forth.

Think of a water molecule. It has two hydrogens and an oxygen. The oxygen atom will try to reach a "noble gas configuration" by sharing the hydrogen's electrons in a covalent bond, and it's more electronegative, so it doesn't share equally. It keeps the electrons more to itself. The hydrogens end up with their single protons partly exposed, if you want to think of it that way. Physically, it's also asymmetric, with the two hydrogens on one side at, IIRC, a 107 degree angle.

This makes the overall molecule electrically neutral, but the combination of unequal sharing and asymmetry gives it a net dipole with the oxygen the negative side. So the water molecule is sort of like a magnet, only with electric fields instead of magnetic.

That's why a relatively large wave like a microwave at 2.45GHz can affect it at a molecular level - the dipole's field extends way past the molecule itself, electrically it appears larger than the single water molecule.

The mass of the water molecule gives it a nice quantum spin coupling at 2.45GHz. It will twirl trying to follow the wave's E field.

That only works for free water though, which is why dry foods don't nuke well. You have to have a polar molecule that has a mechanical quantum coupling at that frequency, and the thing's designed for free water. Once the water in the food heats, the heat transfers to the rest by several means but mostly collision.

The other mechanism that produces heat in a microwave is Maxwellian dissipation, which relies on the electrical resistance in the food dissipating the E-field component of the microwave as heat. It's how the susceptors in the microwave popcorn work.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by anhinga
I didn't say that -- I threw the stat up there. Almost 1 out of 4 people in the U.S. are overweight, although, I imagine if we looked at these kind of stats before the mv oven -- they'd be a lot less. That's something not really worth arguing. . . .

Also, I'll have to disagree w/ you - "heat is heat"?? I won't accept or ever agree w/ that statement -- this seems a little different then fire heating:

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic energy, like light waves or radio waves, and occupy a part of the electromagnetic spectrum of power, or energy. Microwaves are very short waves of electromagnetic energy that travel at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second). In our modern technological age, microwaves are used to relay long distance telephone signals, television programs, and computer information across the earth or to a satellite in space. But the microwave is most familiar to us as an energy source for cooking food.

Every microwave oven contains a magnetron, a tube in which electrons are affected by magnetic and electric fields in such a way as to produce micro wavelength radiation at about 2450 Mega Hertz (MHz) or 2.45 Giga Hertz (GHz). This microwave radiation interacts with the molecules in food. All wave energy changes polarity from positive to negative with each cycle of the wave. In microwaves, these polarity changes happen millions of times every second. 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.


SOURCE

Mod Edit: Reduced Extrernal Quote.

[edit on 15/10/2007 by Mirthful Me]

You do realize that all heat is radiation of some sort, whether it come from IR, microwave, etc...
A microwave oven does nothing more than excite the water molecules in food, causing it to heat up. There is no irradiation, magnetizing, polarity change in you vitamin B12, etc....
I wouldn't recommend disabling the safety switch of the door, and microwaving your head, but the food that is heated in a microwave oven, is just as healthy or unhealthy as it would be no matter how it was heated.
If it wasn't healthy to eat in the first place, it's still not gonna be healthy.

Regardless of the chemical effects of the microwave, I stopped using it for the most part a few years ago. Cooking even the least gourmet foods in the oven always tastes better. Plus, as mentioned early in the thread, it's worse when the taste of plastic containers gets baked into the food.

I wonder, though, if any of the dangers are real if people my age would have grown up any differently.

reply to post by anhinga


I ate Microwaved food and still do. Thus far, no change. As a matter of fact, My family is reducing in cancer. My parents are old and healthy, while their parents were dead by 50 with heart attacks. One with cancer. My grandmother on my mother's side was 90 when she died. She lived through pre and post microwave, got cancer before the microwave and survived, never getting it again post microwave. She went through pretty much any epidemic disease you can think of that has pooped up since the 1910s. What did she die of? faulty heart and live meds. Heart meds killed the liver, and the liver meds killed the heart. She died in her sleep, cancer free. And thus far, no one in my family of +50 something relatives has died of cancer except one, who worked by a toxic waste factory. (duh, your going to get cancer from that)

Until I get cancer, I highly doubt this. The increase in colon cancer is more then likely due to the increased importing of toxic foods from foreign places

reply to post by Tom Bedlam



That was a great plain explanation of this topic, Tom


Dr Michio Kaku would be most proud....thanks so much for posting in such an easy to understand manner...

Peace

You know, I have never read this thread before, but now I am rather surprised that you haven't mentioned the reason I do not use microwaves. Same reason I would rather avoid pastuerized milk. All the microorganizims in it have been killed, the good the bad and the ugly. There are many living things in good food that your body needs, and needs to digest the food. But you are killing them, so you don't properly digest the food. Pastuerization, same thing. Even honey is superheated and the stuff that kills the bacteria that cause cavities is killed. This is done so that the machinery used to process the honey isn't all gummed up. And, I guess, it is great for the dental business. I like to 'nuke' my dish washing sponge to kill the bacteria, and I also heat water to make hot chocolate or tea. I just make sure the microwave is not damaged to allow emission of xrays. When electric lights were first invented, there was a common fear that they emitted some sort of radiation. So they had glass protective covers to 'prevent' damage from this radiation. Now we know that is nonsense and laugh, as we talk into a cell phone giving off MREs. I guess it is always a trade off; we have drugs that prevent a quick and painful death, but ensure we die of something they cause, when we are old. Cell-phones? We don't get anything but convenience, major auto accidents, and brain cancer. But they don't taste bad...

Originally posted by Gregarious
You know, I have never read this thread before, but now I am rather surprised that you haven't mentioned the reason I do not use microwaves. Same reason I would rather avoid pastuerized milk. All the microorganizims in it have been killed, the good the bad and the ugly.

I don't really WANT some of the organisms, personally.

You have your very own intestinal flora to help you with this sort of thing. They digest parts you can't, and make vitamins of various types. But the food you eat doesn't come with a set of bacterial flora that's tailored to help you digest that food. You get a crap shoot of whatever's there.

Cooking it with any source of heat will kill off a lot of the bacteria, microwave or cookfire.

There are many living things in good food that your body needs, and needs to digest the food. But you are killing them, so you don't properly digest the food.

Not true. You don't have to consume some sort of pre-packaged bacteria kit with each meal. Do you eat all of your food raw, including meat?

I just make sure the microwave is not damaged to allow emission of xrays.

Microwave ovens don't EMIT x-rays. That's something else totally.

When electric lights were first invented, there was a common fear that they emitted some sort of radiation. So they had glass protective covers to 'prevent' damage from this radiation. Now we know that is nonsense and laugh, as we talk into a cell phone giving off MREs.

So THAT'S where MRE's come from. I always thought it was Dinty Moore or something. Where do the MRE's come out of on a cell phone? Do you get a choice? I'm afraid mine would only produce pork patties or corpse fingers.

Originally posted by Gregarious
You know, I have never read this thread before, but now I am rather surprised that you haven't mentioned the reason I do not use microwaves. Same reason I would rather avoid pastuerized milk. All the microorganizims in it have been killed, the good the bad and the ugly.

Microwaves kill microorganisms the same way as ovens do. Are you telling me that you only eat raw food?

There are many living things in good food that your body needs, and needs to digest the food.

No, not really. In a healthy person in modern society, the bacteria in their gut will sustain its population just fine.

Pastuerization, same thing. Even honey is superheated and the stuff that kills the bacteria that cause cavities is killed.

The stuff that kills the bacteria that cause cavities? Care to enlighten me about that?

This is done so that the machinery used to process the honey isn't all gummed up.

No. It’s done to drastically reduce the population of any harmful bacteria and viruses that may be present, for the benefit of the health of the consumer. Do you really think pasteurization changes the consistency of honey enough that it would keep it from gumming up machinery? Sorry, but that’s pretty damned funny.

And, I guess, it is great for the dental business.

You guess.

I like to 'nuke' my dish washing sponge to kill the bacteria, and I also heat water to make hot chocolate or tea. I just make sure the microwave is not damaged to allow emission of xrays.

Oh? How do you do that? How would a damaged microwave oven emit X-rays, anyway?

I guess it is always a trade off; we have drugs that prevent a quick and painful death, but ensure we die of something they cause, when we are old.

No, we die of things like cancer when we are old because something else didn’t kill us first.

Oh, and as to a post somebody made much earlier on in the thread about microwave ovens destroying nutrients:

Yes, microwave ovens destroy nutrients. But not any more than convection ovens do.

The medical point of view does not immediately care about mechanisms, just the results of experiments, which, btw. clearly showed adverse reactions to µwaved food.


The mechanism behind this fact is not all that clear, there are, however, experimental results, which indicate that longer chained molecules are easily fragmented by microwaves, especially after prolonged exposure.

this would of course include proteins, which would explain them and by 'results' i mean devastating results:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

..
The operation was a success, but the patient died. Norma died after being given a blood transfusion where the blood had been warmed in a microwave oven. This was our first big clue to the fact that heating things in a microwave does

..

the source link has been broken in the meantime, so use this link instead.

I'd love to see someone explain that incident away.

Originally posted by Long Lance
The medical point of view does not immediately care about mechanisms, just the results of experiments, which, btw. clearly showed adverse reactions to µwaved food.

Well, first off, that site isn't "the medical point of view", it's a lot of rehash of the same old tired crap the OP posted, with a couple of exceptions.

First, this "William Kopp" fellow - he's a Harvey Rabbit. He doesn't exist. He supposedly wrote the article that's referenced over and over ad nauseum in this sort of link - and then vanished.

The "Soviet research" he refers to was never published, the institute that supposedly did the research doesn't exist anymore, and microwave ovens are not banned in Russia.

The first three paragraphs on the site are pseudoscience trash.

"Dr" Lita Lee is a PhD doctor, not a medical doctor. The "research" in Lancet ... isn't there. There is a LETTER to Lancet addressing amino isomerisation of infant formula in microwaves...by Lubec, Wolf and Bartosch. Not Lee.

A paper was published by Fay, Richli and Liardon in 1991 in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry in which they basically cut the throats of Lubec, Wolf and Bartosch and left their twitching corpses on the rubbish pile of medicine, though.

According to a recent paper (Lubec et al., 1989), microwave heating of milk or reconstituted infant formulas could induce the inversion of amino acid residues to a significantly higher extent than conventional heating. In this study, UHT milk and three different infant formulas were heated under two sets of conditions: 600 W for 3 min and 70 W for 20 min. When the proportions of D-amino acids were measured after acid hydrolysis, no significant differences could be found between untreated and treated samples. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that heating of milk or infant formula in a microwave oven under conditions corresponding to those normally applied for heating food does not induce significant inversion of protein-bound amino acids

"Evidence for the Absence of Amino Acid Isomerization in Microwave-Heated Milk and Infant Formulas"

A fast flip through the stuff we have access to in our "scholarly journal" package shows a lot of similar findings - there's not much difference between microwaved and water bath heated infant formula.

Where there are differences, it's usually due to the microwave tending to create hot spots in the milk instead of heating it evenly. In those areas, the overheating can degrade the nutrient levels - not because it's evil radiation, but that it got too hot. You could do the same with a water bath if you heated the milk to those levels and then cooled it. Due to hot spots, you have to be really careful microwaving milk, and we didn't do it very often for that reason.

I'll also say that a fast flip through Lee's website shows it to be a close cousin to, say, Ken Adachi's. It's mostly pseudoscientific bunk, I bet UC Boulder wants their PhD back.

I'd love to see someone explain that incident away.

Your wish is my command. First, from your link, it's a huge huge stretch to say "If I can't microwave blood then I can't eat microwaved food" - one might ask if a nice IV infusion of steak juice, naturally cooked of course, would make you healthy or dead. One tends to be much more sensitive to IV fluids because one doesn't have a digestive system in the way preparing it.

At any rate, it's not unheard of to use proper microwave heating of blood products, but you can't use a home cooking microwave, you need something like a Transfusio-therm. Because a home microwave can produce hot spots, there is a possibility for the blood to hemolyze in those areas. When it does, it "pops" the RBC's and expels their contents into the blood. That's not good. It doesn't make it radioactive, or poisonous, or whatever other crap these articles infer, it causes hemolysis, and transfusion of the hemolytic products can cause all sorts of issues. This would be true if you'd overheated the blood in any manner at all.

And in most cases, you're going to find blood banks only using microwave heaters (proper ones) on FFP, not whole or PRBC's for this very reason.



[edit on 23-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Long Lance
The medical point of view does not immediately care about mechanisms, just the results of experiments, which, btw. clearly showed adverse reactions to µwaved food.

No, they showed changes in microwaved food. They completely ignored food cooked in a convection oven. And until anybody proves otherwise, I will continue to insist that microwave ovens do not damage or alter food more than convection ovens.

The mechanism behind this fact is not all that clear, there are, however, experimental results, which indicate that longer chained molecules are easily fragmented by microwaves, especially after prolonged exposure.

Interesting, but inconclusive.

this would of course include proteins, which would explain them and by 'results' i mean devastating results:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wrong. See this bottom of this page.

I'd love to see someone explain that incident away.

No need to explain it away when it’s already explained.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Well, first off, that site isn't "the medical point of view", it's a lot of rehash of the same old tired crap the OP posted, with a couple of exceptions.

iirc, Lancet is subscription only,so i'm not going to verify anyway. i garee that the subject tends to attract more 'esoteric' folks, so a bit of bunk was expected. changes in the blood have been reported in sporadic intervals, though, so i'll post another link, which you will not find trustworthy, either, probably, but for everyone to see:

Source

Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings. This small but well-controlled study pointed the firm finger at a degenerative force of microwave ovens and the food produced in them. The conclusion was clear: microwave cooking changed the nutrients so that changes took place in the participants' blood; these were not healthy changes but were changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems.
Working with Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants.

Alternative Source

i know the article containsa cop-out: namely that he was fired soon after publishing the data, so it's no longer all that clear if he ever was in a position to carry out such studies ina credible manner.

Where there are differences, it's usually due to the microwave tending to create hot spots in the milk instead of heating it evenly. In those areas, the overheating can degrade the nutrient levels - not because it's evil radiation, but that it got too hot.

hotspots, 'evil radiation', does it really matter? if it degrades your food and there's no way to reliably prevent it, chances are you're not doing yourself a favor.

Your wish is my command. First, from your link, it's a huge huge stretch to say "If I can't microwave blood then I can't eat microwaved food" - one might ask if a nice IV infusion of steak juice, naturally cooked of course, would make you healthy or dead.

apples to oranges, blood is supposed to be infused, steak juice is not. the results from parenteral exposure are certainly more drastic, that's all. you came up with a mechanism focused on hotspots, NRen2k5 mentioned plastics leeching out under the influence of microwaves, both mechanisms could explain the lethal result, although i wonder if blood wouldn't start to clot when overheated, and therefore clogged the i.v. line.

let's see, you must absolutely make sure that no amount of plastics goes into the microwave oven and the food you cook will be randomly overheated, so, to summarize, microwave ovens are good for heating - water. correct? because 'being careful' does no mean much when all you get is a few settings and no sensors to speak of.

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Wrong. See this bottom of this page.
..
No need to explain it away when it’s already explained.

ok, you offered a plausible explanation, how does this prove or disprove anything? your idea is intriguing, though.

[edit on 24.10.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance

Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings...

Well, the questions raised about it (not only about his subsequent disappearance) revolve mainly around the question of whether he did the research at all. Yes, eight qualified food chemists (all vegetarians - make of that what you will) met for two months outside a lab and produced that paper. No one was able to verify whether any research had been done whatsoever.

Here is a popularized version of the event. Hertel and Kopp are not especially trustworthy at this point.

hotspots, 'evil radiation', does it really matter? if it degrades your food and there's no way to reliably prevent it, chances are you're not doing yourself a favor.

But it's pretty much the same with most forms of cooking. The bottom of the pot is much hotter than the top center - thus you use double boilers for milk and chocolate. Broiling and baking overheat the surfaces - thus you get surface browning and crusts.

The usual comparison is microwaves to water bath heating, like you do with chocolate, sauces and baby formula. But done in a pot, skillet or stove, you'll see the same things.

If you were steaming your food, then yes, you'll usually keep more nutrients, same if you're water-bath heating it, it's very uniform. But most forms of cooking (especially campfire cooking!) overheat in spots, undercook in others.

apples to oranges, blood is supposed to be infused, steak juice is not.

The point of your links was "If microwave ovens can "make blood poisonous" then you shouldn't eat food cooked in one," which is more like parakeets to cheese. That was the reason for my intentional miscomparison, which I tried to make plain in that paragraph. The mechanism is not comparable. You can't extrapolate from a parenteral infusion to a food, as you agree.

Hemolysis caused by warming blood in microwaves has been documented rather well, I found thousands of hits in scholarly journals, along with an explicit warning not to use household microwave ovens for the task, as the RBC's would lyse in the region of 50 C. Not too unexpected.

I noted in the other thread you linked to that you were also using that as proof that microwaves were bad because they could "kill", I'd say it's more like dropping a goldfish into a pot of hot water on the stove. The fish will die. That doesn't make the water poisonous, or the method of heating especially deadly, it's just not the proper environment for a goldfish. Similarly, the RBCs are not designed for very hot environments, and simply die and/or lyse. Poisons and death rays are not required, just heat.

although i wonder if blood wouldn't start to clot when overheated, and therefore clogged the i.v. line.

I wondered if that didn't happen as well - the lysing of the red cells may also have started a clotting cascade. And once spread around the system, it might also cause DIC, but I couldn't find much on clotting disorders caused by lysed blood in the few minutes I took.

let's see, you must absolutely make sure that no amount of plastics goes into the microwave oven and the food you cook will be randomly overheated, so, to summarize, microwave ovens are good for heating - water. correct? because 'being careful' does no mean much when all you get is a few settings and no sensors to speak of.

Well, you can't exactly cook on the stovetop with a plastic bowl either, eh? Same with the pot, don't heat foods in it directly which will scorch when a fairly tight temperature range is exceeded or they'll lump and stick to the pan due to hot spots, it's why you can't do some sauces, milk or chocolate that way.


[edit on 24-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Well, you can't exactly cook on the stovetop with a plastic bowl either, eh? Same with the pot, don't heat foods in it directly which will scorch when a fairly tight temperature range is exceeded or they'll lump and stick to the pan due to hot spots, it's why you can't do some sauces, milk or chocolate that way.

that's of course true, the real question is what kind of container you can use in the microwave, seeing as metals are problematic, so you're stuck with what? glass?

according to www.kitchenware-manufacturers.com... plastic is, and i quote, 'ideal'. couple that with www.snopes.com...

judging by the plant pics i saw in the other thread, i'd say that's a bit disingenious, plastics come in many varieties, sure, then there's the cheaper stuff, made in C.....

i'm not quite sure whether microwaved goldfish die of heat, oxygen deprivation or direct EMI, although i'll have to admit that the only solid anomaly is the DNA fragmentation effect (i'll add a better link)

www.rfsafe.com...

Theory of Microwave Induced DNA Covalent Bond Breakage A review of the data from the various referenced experiments shows a common pattern -- for the first few minutes of irradiation there is no pronounced effect, and then a cascade of microbial destruction occurs. The data pattern greatly resembles the dynamics of a capacitor; first there is an accumulation of energy, and then a catastrophic release. It may simply indicate a threshhold temperature has been reached, or it may indicate a two-stage process is at work.

of course, this issue does not really matter when it comes to cooking, as long as the changes are confined to DNA or overall similar to heat induced denaturation.

reply to post by Long Lance


I can't immediately see why it would fragment DNA other than by heat denaturing, because the photon energy level of a microwave is too low to break chemical bonds.

But in terms of DNA, as long as I don't plan to eat the food raw and microwave myself to cook it, it doesn't seem to matter if it does or doesn't fragment DNA. In the food, the DNA is shot anyway, and its intactness or lack thereof is of no importance.

The RBC's don't have any DNA, so it couldn't be that for your blood warming example, neither the platelets.

edit: As far as the plastics go, a container that says it's "microwave safe" is supposedly tested by the FDA for leaching, same as the microwaveable containers some food comes in.

I nearly always use glass, myself, or ceramics, and I don't leave plastic wrap on when I microwave - the condensate forms on it and drips back into the food.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Long Lance:

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam:
Well, you can't exactly cook on the stovetop with a plastic bowl either, eh? Same with the pot, don't heat foods in it directly which will scorch when a fairly tight temperature range is exceeded or they'll lump and stick to the pan due to hot spots, it's why you can't do some sauces, milk or chocolate that way.

that's of course true, the real question is what kind of container you can use in the microwave, seeing as metals are problematic, so you're stuck with what? glass?

according to www.kitchenware-manufacturers.com... plastic is, and i quote, 'ideal'. couple that with www.snopes.com...

judging by the plant pics i saw in the other thread, i'd say that's a bit disingenious, plastics come in many varieties, sure, then there's the cheaper stuff, made in C.....

Yes. Use glass (Pyrex?) or ceramic.

i'm not quite sure whether microwaved goldfish die of heat, oxygen deprivation or direct EMI, although i'll have to admit that the only solid anomaly is the DNA fragmentation effect (i'll add a better link)

You ought to learn the difference between admitting and claiming.

www.rfsafe.com...

Theory of Microwave Induced DNA Covalent Bond Breakage A review of the data from the various referenced experiments shows a common pattern -- for the first few minutes of irradiation there is no pronounced effect, and then a cascade of microbial destruction occurs. The data pattern greatly resembles the dynamics of a capacitor; first there is an accumulation of energy, and then a catastrophic release. It may simply indicate a threshhold temperature has been reached, or it may indicate a two-stage process is at work.

Oh yeah, that store (www.rfsafe.com...) is a real objective source for information.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by NRen2k5]

reply to post by NRen2k5


if you believe that DNA fragmentation isn't the only well documented anomaly regarding microwaves and biological systems, or that it is not an anomaly at all, feel free to provide the required data.


DNA fragmentation is real, information on the net is sparse, of course, but that in itself does not change anything.

so, one last time, microwaves induce DNA fragmentation in the genome of single celled organisms and viruses, depending strongly on time of exposure rather than intensity alone, while more complex organisms do not seem to suffer from the effect.

there's even a more credible source, see

www.engr.psu.edu...

microwaves have been demonstrated to have biocidal effects due to the heating they induce, and are used to sterilize equipment. Normally this requires extended exposure times, but with a boost in power the exposure times could theoretically be reduced. In addition, there exists a phenomenon called the microwave effect which appears to destroy viruses for reasons other than heating.The system depicted above would be optimized to take advantage of the Microwave Effect. For more extensive information on microwaves and the microwave effect see the section titled DNA and the Microwave Effect.

Of related interest is microwave induced resonance.The first three harmonic modes of DNA have been shown to be excitable in the range of 2.5 - 20 Ghz by Davis et al. A sufficient power level could disrupt the molecule altogether. Vibrational and rotational resonance has been demonstrated at much lower frequencies by various researchers for both RNA & DNA. The specific frequencies and power levels necessary to dissociate virus nucleic acids remain to be determined.

while they don't go into detail, it's an .edu domain, which should satisfy your standards. note that the article does not mention the delay inherent to the mechanism, so a cleansing system based on the microwave effect alone probably will not work unless the air is exposed for minutes, ie. very slow.

[edit on 28.10.2007 by Long Lance]

reply to post by Long Lance

Negative proof.