In article .com>,
says...
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html
> > >
> > > Here is some discussion on the topic with some references to some
> > > studies.
[snip]
> The website referenced makes references to real science. Your negative
> opinion of the science being referenced is based on what?


I'd like to jump in here. I'd like to comment first about the chemistry
of cooking and then a bit about this website and "real science". I'll
even throw in my two cents about the original question. I love science,
and I love cooking, and I'm long winded, so I apologize in advance for
the length. However, I think it is important to provide a partial
critique of the website that has been posted as a reference of why not
to microwave.

The original question was, I believe, what cooking method best preserves
nutrients? I'd say it probably doesn't matter. The nutrition is
probably best immediately after picking... a lot of the chemicals in
produce start to degrade as soon as they are picked. So, when you by a
hunk of broccoli that was harvested 4 weeks ago, you've already taken a
hit. Eat a variety of foods, try to buy local, fresh produce and don't
worry about it too much.

Cooking causes chemical reactions. That's why we do it. A loaf of
bread tastes different from a hunk of dough. Some molecules are
destroyed and others are created. Proteins are altered and broken down-
generally made more digestible. In some cases the molecules created are
toxic or carcinogenic (cancer causing). A case you may remember from a
few years ago was that carcinogenic compounds were found in french fries
and baked goods.

Cooking dumps heat into your food via radiation. It doesn't matter
whether you use an oven, a microwave, a grill, or the stove. Some
methods are more direct than others. Look inside the oven- that glowing
element is emitting radiation. Microwaves target water molecules so the
water heats up. This is why food out of the microwave
tasted/looks/feels steamed.

A really nice book about the science behind cooking is
"What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained"
by Robert L. Wolke

It is at a very general level. He's a pretty funny writer too, so don't
think this book will read like a text book.

Now, on to the website. I'm not going to deconstruct the whole site, or
rebut point by point, but I would like to point out a few things. "Real
Science" generally requires peer review. That is, other scientists in
the field review the work, make comments, suggest additional
experiments, and judge whether the conclusions drawn are supported by
the evidence. While this isn't perfect, it is a pretty good system, and
most people involved spend a lot of time making sure good science gets
done and published. The majority of the references here are not from
such journals. Furthermore, a reference should be complete enough that
you or I could go to the library and pull that article up. That way we
can judge it ourselves based on the whole article, and not a 3 sentence
summary. Many of the references are to other websites (and not websites
of universities or scientific journals), which doesn't rank too much
higher than "I read it on usenet". The scariest portions have the
weakest referencing. For example (and sorry to quote such a long
passage:

"Microwave cooking is an important cause of ill health, and its effects
are mostly ignored. The violent change that microwaving causes to the
food molecules forms new life forms called radiolytic compounds, which
are mutations that are unknown in the natural world. Ordinary cooking
also causes the formation of some radiolytic compounds, but microwaving
cooking causes a much greater number. This then causes deterioration in
your blood and immune system. In addition, it was found that the number
of leukocytes increases after eating microwaved food, something which
hematologists take very seriously because this is often a sign of highly
harmful effects, such as poisoning. Cholesterol levels increase after
eating microwaved foods. In summary: Blanc and Hertel found that eating
microwaved food: increases cholesterol, increases white blood cell
numbers, decreases red blood cell numbers, and causes production of
radiolytic compounds (compounds unknown in nature). Editor's comment:
For those who are interested, there is a long list of effects from
microwaves observed by Russian forensic teams." - from
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html

I don't find either Blanc and Hertel a sufficient reference. Googling
for them finds (at least the top hits) a million pages like
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html- they provide summaries
of the study, but not a single reference to the actual study. The
editor's comment is even less helpful- Russians did research? Without
an actual citation so you can find the source yourself- this is like a
game of telephone. And I find the summary sufficiently garbled that I
don't trust this site is accurately represented Hertel and Blanc's work.
A few of the many errors include-
Microwaving doesn't form "new lifeforms". It may form new chemicals
(but again, that's why we're cooking, right?). They are not mutations.

What I would want to see in a study was people fed the same food cooked
by oven and by microwave and the looking at blood workups. For all I
know, the study participants just ate a Hungry Man microwave dinner. Or
maybe peoples cholesterol levels always go up in response to eating (or
eating fat or something). Studies purporting to be "science" need to be
read skeptically- whether your participating in peer- review or looking
on the internet.

A few of the studies here have little to do with microwaving and more to
do with heating. The bit at the end about superheating- microwaving
happens to be particularly good at setting up the conditions for
superheating, but you can also get superheating boiling water on the
stove topic. Microwaves have nothing to do with the injury- scalding
hot water does.

I'd be glad to discuss this further if you wish, though perhaps it might
be best to take it to email.

L.