Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
don't miss it at all.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.

http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...sg_share_topic

(snip)

I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps
it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
it fast. Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
in dead. But the makers say it's safe.

In article
>,
ImStillMags > wrote:

> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
> don't miss it at all.
>
> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...d=2127676%3ATo
> pic%3A509308&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
>
> (snip)
>
> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps
> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> it fast. Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead. But the makers say it's safe.

I eat dead food. There is very little still alive in the food I eat.
Most of the destruction done in the microwave is done by heat. It is
called "cooking". The proteins are denatured. I don't know how blood
is warmed, but I suspect that overheating is an extremely bad idea.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:


> I don't think too many mothers are heating up milk or formula in them
> because it specifically says not to do that. It causes hot spots.

Do you have a cite for that, Julie? Heating up milk and formula was a
primary use for our microwave. Of course, our son is now 32, so things
may have changed! I don't think that hot spots are too much of a
problem with liquids, but it is good to agitate the bottle before
serving, and to check the temperature, at least at first.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
>> warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
>> don't miss it at all.
>>
>> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
>> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>>
>> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...d=2127676%3ATo
>> pic%3A509308&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
>> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
>> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps
>> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
>> it fast. Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
>> appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
>> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
>> in dead. But the makers say it's safe.
>
> I eat dead food. There is very little still alive in the food I eat.
> Most of the destruction done in the microwave is done by heat. It is
> called "cooking". The proteins are denatured. I don't know how blood
> is warmed, but I suspect that overheating is an extremely bad idea.

It is true that cooking kills the food. Any food. I do not know that
microwaving food is any worse than cooking it on a traditional stove. I do
know that it works very well (with caution) for melting chocolate. It makes
quick and easy pudding and it makes really moist muffins. The pudding and
muffins were really the only things I ever cooked/baked in it. Mostly I
just use for reheating leftovers. It will also make quick nachos although
IMO the oven makes better ones.

Tonight I used it on a jar of Ragu cheese sauce. Yes, I know it is dead
easy to make cheese sauce. I used to make it all the time and I don't need
a recipe. But... Winco had it on some kind of extreme bargain for just
$1.48 for a jar of 7 servings. I don't think I could make it for that price
although most likely mine would be tastier and healthier. However,
sometimes it's just nice to be able to make a super quick meal so I bought
two jars. Used half of the jar on Sunday and put the rest in the fridge.
Yes we each ate slightly over two servings. Oink. Anyway... The fridge
made it very thick and difficult to get out of the jar. 20 seconds in the
microwave and it came out easily.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think too many mothers are heating up milk or formula in them
>> because it specifically says not to do that. It causes hot spots.
>
> Do you have a cite for that, Julie? Heating up milk and formula was a
> primary use for our microwave. Of course, our son is now 32, so things
> may have changed! I don't think that hot spots are too much of a
> problem with liquids, but it is good to agitate the bottle before
> serving, and to check the temperature, at least at first.

When you buy the formula it says it right on there. At least it used to.
My daughter is 12 now so hasn't had it in a while. I will see if I can
google it...

http://www.babycenter.com/404_can-i-...ave_1334516.bc

You have to scroll down for this one because there is lots of other
information.

http://www.breastfeeding-mom.com/bab...fety-tips.html

And this:

http://babyproducts.about.com/od/fee...areformula.htm

There are plenty of other cites and also a few that say if it is mixed well,
they now say it shouldn't be a concern. That being said, I never heated my
daughter's formula in any way! In the very beginning I may have used some
premixed stuff or the powder that you can mix up a lot of at a time. I
can't remember exactly because she had issues with so many different
formulas that we switched them around a lot. I don't really remember
keeping any in the fridge but if I did, logic would tell me to remove a
bottle's worth about an hour before feeding so it would warm to room temp.

We did make a cross country move when Angela was 3 months old. I was told
to give her only bottled water. I bought special bottles just for the trip
and they did not work very well at all. They had disposable bags that fit
inside. So I only needed to pack a couple of bottles and some extra nipples
and bags. Technically the bottles didn't need to be washed between uses. I
say technically because they did get washed once a day. The nipples did
have to be washed between uses. The issue I had with those is that they
didn't let enough milk out of the nipple. She struggled to feed. SIL used
a pin to enlarge the nipples and they worked better. I used the single
serve powder packets and bottled water at room temp.

Once we settled in after the move, I quickly switched her over to sippy
cups. I actually would have started her right out on these after having
read how to feed a baby from a cup, but my SIL who is a nurse freaked out at
this notion and said she would choke. She didn't. They worked just fine.

I should add that I did breast feed her until she was 10 months old but I
was not producing enough milk and needed to supplement. Until she began on
solid foods it seemed that the majority of my day was spent feeding her!

She went onto regular milk at a year and I never heated that. She just had
it cold.

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't think too many mothers are heating up milk or formula in them
> >> because it specifically says not to do that. It causes hot spots.
> >
> > Do you have a cite for that, Julie? Heating up milk and formula was a
> > primary use for our microwave. Of course, our son is now 32, so things
> > may have changed! I don't think that hot spots are too much of a
> > problem with liquids, but it is good to agitate the bottle before
> > serving, and to check the temperature, at least at first.
>
> When you buy the formula it says it right on there. At least it used to.
> My daughter is 12 now so hasn't had it in a while. I will see if I can
> google it...
>
> http://www.babycenter.com/404_can-i-...ave_1334516.bc
> http://www.breastfeeding-mom.com/bab...fety-tips.html
> http://babyproducts.about.com/od/fee...areformula.htm
>
> There are plenty of other cites and also a few that say if it is mixed well,
> they now say it shouldn't be a concern.

Thanks for looking that up. To summarize, some said to don't ever use a
microwave, but if you do, because everybody does, then...! To be
honest, I don't really remember what we did, but I'm sure we used the
microwave, for formula, cow's milk and breast milk. With our first
child, my wife lost her milk after about nine months. She was working
full time plus an hour commute each way. The bottle was such a horrible
experience, that the other kids only had two bottles each, for their
whole lives. They were pretty much exclusively breastfed.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On May 17, 9:25*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> warming. * *I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. * I really
> don't miss it at all.
>
> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...ic/show?id=212....
>
> (snip)
>
> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. *So the body wraps
> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> it fast. *Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> appliances. *What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead. *But the makers say it's safe.

The link you posted isn't very good science. It's alarmist without
providing any actual information. The credentials of the person
making the claims are not given. She could be completely
ignorant of science, and it sounds like she is. Here's
a nice writeup on what has been termed junk science:
http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunko...p/Junk_science

The human body does not use the DNA of the food that you
eat. Here's a nice explanation of genetics and the role
of DNA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 17 May 2011 19:38:51 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>On May 17, 7:25*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
>> warming. * *I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. * I really
>> don't miss it at all.
>>
>> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
>> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>>
>> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...ic/show?id=212...
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
>> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
>> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. *So the body wraps
>> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
>> it fast. *Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
>> appliances. *What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
>> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
>> in dead. *But the makers say it's safe.
>
>
>That b.s. about corrupting DNA in foods is so freakin' phony as to be
>laughable. Lord, what will they come up with next?

Exactly... the physics of heat transfer is the same whether nuking
bacon or frying bacon in a pan.. the same whether nuking or
boiling/steaming on a stovetop. Cooking pasta on a stove top creates
hot spots too, that's why yer supposed to stir.

On May 17, 8:25*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> warming. * *I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. * I really
> don't miss it at all.
>
> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...ic/show?id=212....
>
> (snip)
>
> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. *So the body wraps
> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> it fast. *Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> appliances. *What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead. *But the makers say it's safe.

I have had a microwave for many many years, I use it to heat coffee,
etc. Also I use it to nuke frozen entrees, that I sometimes have for
lunch. And, I will probably continue doing so.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 22:34:08 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article
>,
> ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
>> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
>> in dead. But the makers say it's safe.
>
>Oh for pity sake! The blood was COOKED! That's why it killed the
>patient! It happened in a Hospital in San Antonio recently too where
>some dumb assed uneducated nursing assistant warmed up blood for a
>transfusion in the break room microwave because she thought it was too
>cold!
>
>Blood warmers are used for certain things, but they are NOT microwaves!

No one heats baby fomula over direct heat either, the double boiler
method is used... microwaving baby formula is perfectly fine if the
bottle is submerged in a container of water, same as using a stove
top, both heated by convection... naturally etiher requires testing
temperature frequently... if not the same thing will happen to a pot
of eggs set to boil on the stovetop and walking away.

On 5/18/2011 10:16 AM, rosie wrote:
> On May 17, 8:25 pm, > wrote:
>> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
>> warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
>> don't miss it at all.
>>
>> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
>> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>>
>> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...ic/show?id=212...
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
>> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
>> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps
>> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
>> it fast. Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
>> appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
>> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
>> in dead. But the makers say it's safe.
>
> I have had a microwave for many many years, I use it to heat coffee,
> etc. Also I use it to nuke frozen entrees, that I sometimes have for
> lunch. And, I will probably continue doing so.

Just the same as me! I have another use which is to defrost frozen
uncooked meat and fish at low power preparatory to cooking. With chicken
especially, I use a setting that does not cook the meat. The beginnings
of cooking are easily seen by the color change.

Incidentally, I despise the Whole Foods hype about irradiated food.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

ImStillMags wrote:
> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
> don't miss it at all.
>
> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...sg_share_topic
>
> (snip)
>
> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps
> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> it fast. Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead. But the makers say it's safe.
>
>
Well, I have agreed with much of what you have posted on in the
past, but I find this just bizarre.

--
Jean B.

On May 18, 11:49 am, "Jean B." > wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
> > Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> > warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
> > don't miss it at all. ....

> Well, I have agreed with much of what you have posted on in the
> past, but I find this just bizarre.
>
The whole site she linked to is bizarre. You aren't going to find
science on a site devoted to "welcoming all spiritualities." -aem

On May 18, 11:49*am, "Jean B." > wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
> > Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> > warming. * *I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. * I really
> > don't miss it at all.
>
> > I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> > couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> >http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...ic/show?id=212....
>
> > (snip)
>
> > I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> > not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> > DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. *So the body wraps
> > it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> > it fast. *Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> > appliances. *What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> > transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> > in dead. *But the makers say it's safe.
>
> Well, I have agreed with much of what you have posted on in the
> past, but I find this just bizarre.
>
> --
> Jean B.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I knew when I posted it that people would hop all over it. Both
camps in this controversy believe they are "right"

For my own self, my own reasons, my own "intuition", I don't think
microwaves are a good thing.

Whatever anyone else wants to do is ok.

On May 18, 12:29*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> On May 18, 11:49*am, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ImStillMags wrote:
> > > Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> > > warming. * *I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. * I really
> > > don't miss it at all.
>
> > > I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> > > couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> > >http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...ic/show?id=212...
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> > > not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> > > DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. *So the body wraps
> > > it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> > > it fast. *Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> > > appliances. *What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> > > transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> > > in dead. *But the makers say it's safe.
>
> > Well, I have agreed with much of what you have posted on in the
> > past, but I find this just bizarre.
>
> > --
> > Jean B.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I knew when I posted it that people would hop all over it. * * Both
> camps in this controversy believe they are *"right"
>
> For my own self, my own reasons, my own "intuition", I don't think
> microwaves are a good thing.
>
> Whatever anyone else wants to do is ok.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would love for someone who strongly believes that microwaves are
just fine to replicate the experiment with the water.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:25:31 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags wrote:

> Here is another site that talks about microwave cooking and
> warming. I got rid of my microwave about 7 years ago. I really
> don't miss it at all.
>
> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their microwave, but.........it
> couldn't hurt to do a little investigation.
>
> http://mountzion144.ning.com/group/s...sg_share_topic
>
> (snip)
>
> I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is
> not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the
> DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps
> it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates
> it fast. Think of all the mothers heating up milk in these "safe,"
> appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead. But the makers say it's safe.

this sounds like bullshit and the author like a kook.

blake

On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>*What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead.

I'm sorry, but if that really happened, it didn't have anything to do
with the microwaves.

Please read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7600834

In article >,
says...
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
> >*What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> > transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> > in dead.
>
> I'm sorry, but if that really happened, it didn't have anything to do
> with the microwaves.
>
> Please read this:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7600834

The really whackadoodle part is that red blood cells don't _have_ DNA,
so there's none to corrupt.

They might have been plain old fashioned _cooked_ though.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> this sounds like bullshit and the author like a kook.
>
> And anybody who believes it is woefully ignorant.
> Like the people who believe in astrology, homeopathy,
> and Sylvia Browne.

Sylvia Browne, the old fraud.

Cheri

blake murphy wrote:
>
> this sounds like bullshit and the author like a kook.

And anybody who believes it is woefully ignorant.
Like the people who believe in astrology, homeopathy,
and Sylvia Browne.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> this sounds like bullshit and the author like a kook.
>
> And anybody who believes it is woefully ignorant.
> Like the people who believe in astrology, homeopathy,
> and Sylvia Browne.

I believe in Astrology and Homeopathy. But Sylvia Browne? She's freaky.

On Thu, 19 May 2011 01:53:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> this sounds like bullshit and the author like a kook.
>>
>> And anybody who believes it is woefully ignorant.
>> Like the people who believe in astrology, homeopathy,
>> and Sylvia Browne.
>
>I believe in Astrology and Homeopathy. But Sylvia Browne? She's freaky.

Sylvia Browne is a textbook case of a con-artist.

She does it very well. TV shows, books...she's made it in the world of
con-artists. She's one of their center-folds.

Comparable to any money-begging Evangelist. Slick as oil-covered
sheet-metal.

Astrology? You gotta be kiddin. The position of an object in space
that is 20 billion light years away.....means exactly nothing, except
that 20 billion light years away, there used to be an object floating
in that spot in space.

Homeopathy? Right there on the same shelf with Sylvia Browne's books.
Pure, unadulterated nonsense and junk science for those who are
inclined to think vodoo is real. <eye-roll>

"The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to
be no more effective than a placebo."

Sorry Julie, unless you're just looking for a "feel good" cult to
"believe in", you're "believing" in snake oil and bovine feces with
Astrology and Homeopathy. You seem like an intelligent person. Get out
of that nonsense and find some real science to study.

Here's an excellent place to start: "The Natural Medicines
Comprehensive Database" at www.NaturalDatabase.com
or, you can get the hard copy as I did in 2000. It'll be one of the
best $60 you ever spent.

It sorts the chaf from the wheat in terms of Natural Medicines, with
detailed analysis of each item listed. If nothing else, it's one of
the best reference books for medicinal plants that exists. My copy of
it was given to me by my Doctor at the Mayo Clinic when she got the
most current version.

The $60 gets you the book and a years worth of the online version of
it to use. Fasinating reading.

On May 18, 3:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:

> I would love for someone who strongly believes that microwaves are
> just fine to replicate the experiment with the water.

It looked to me like the "microwave water" plant died of overwatering.
There were signs on the windowsill or whatever those plants were
sitting on.

To perform the experiment fairly, you would want to measure the
soil and give each plant the same soil. Every time you watered,
you'd want to measure the water and give each plant the same
amount. You might want to swap their positions around on a
regular basis to factor out differences in light levels and
draftiness. There might be other ways to keep the experiment
free from bias.

For it to be good science, you'd have to honestly believe that
the experiment could show results that invalidated your
hypothesis. You'd want to describe your method of procedure
so that other experimenters could repeat and/or critique your
procedure. You probably would want to repeat it several times
with different kinds of plants.

Frankly, if a junior high student turned in what was shown on
that web site, I don't think I'd be able to give it better than a C.
I know my junior high science teacher would have been very
critical of the whole thing. He probably would have awarded
a D.

Cindy Hamilton

On May 19, 6:26*am, Cindy Hamilton >
wrote:
> On May 18, 3:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > I would love for someone who strongly believes that microwaves are
> > just fine to replicate the experiment with the water.
>
> It looked to me like the "microwave water" plant died of overwatering.
> There were signs on the windowsill or whatever those plants were
> sitting on.
>
> To perform the experiment fairly, you would want to measure the
> soil and give each plant the same soil. *Every time you watered,
> you'd want to measure the water and give each plant the same
> amount. *You might want to swap their positions around on a
> regular basis to factor out differences in light levels and
> draftiness. *There might be other ways to keep the experiment
> free from bias.
>
> For it to be good science, you'd have to honestly believe that
> the experiment could show results that invalidated your
> hypothesis. *You'd want to describe your method of procedure
> so that other experimenters could repeat and/or critique your
> procedure. *You probably would want to repeat it several times
> with different kinds of plants.
>
> Frankly, if a junior high student turned in what was shown on
> that web site, I don't think I'd be able to give it better than a C.
> I know my junior high science teacher would have been very
> critical of the whole thing. *He probably would have awarded
> a D.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

So, I asked if anyone who doubted it to do the experiment....would you
do it?

I would love for someone here to do it.

I don't mind being called names and ridiculed for having my own
reasons for not using microwaves, but
if I do the experiment, no one would consider it valid.

On May 19, 8:15*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
> On May 19, 6:26*am, Cindy Hamilton >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 3:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > > I would love for someone who strongly believes that microwaves are
> > > just fine to replicate the experiment with the water.
>
> > It looked to me like the "microwave water" plant died of overwatering.
> > There were signs on the windowsill or whatever those plants were
> > sitting on.
>
> > To perform the experiment fairly, you would want to measure the
> > soil and give each plant the same soil. *Every time you watered,
> > you'd want to measure the water and give each plant the same
> > amount. *You might want to swap their positions around on a
> > regular basis to factor out differences in light levels and
> > draftiness. *There might be other ways to keep the experiment
> > free from bias.
>
> > For it to be good science, you'd have to honestly believe that
> > the experiment could show results that invalidated your
> > hypothesis. *You'd want to describe your method of procedure
> > so that other experimenters could repeat and/or critique your
> > procedure. *You probably would want to repeat it several times
> > with different kinds of plants.
>
> > Frankly, if a junior high student turned in what was shown on
> > that web site, I don't think I'd be able to give it better than a C.
> > I know my junior high science teacher would have been very
> > critical of the whole thing. *He probably would have awarded
> > a D.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> So, I asked if anyone who doubted it to do the experiment....would you
> do it?
>
> I would love for someone here to do it.
>
> I don't mind being called names and ridiculed for having my own
> reasons for not using microwaves, but
> if I do the experiment, no one would consider it valid.

==
I have some African Violets that need dividing. I may try the
experiment on them sometime in the future. I can hardly wait.
==

On May 19, 10:15*am, ImStillMags > wrote:

> So, I asked if anyone who doubted it to do the experiment....would you
> do it?

No. I have better things to do than debunking cargo-cult beliefs.

Cindy Hamilton

On May 18, 3:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:

...

> I would love for someone who strongly believes that microwaves are
> just fine to replicate the experiment with the water.

I came in late. What experiment? I didn't find it browsing the thread.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On May 19, 7:43*am, Landon > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 01:53:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> blake murphy wrote:
>
> >>> this sounds like bullshit and the author like a kook.
>
> >> And anybody who believes it is woefully ignorant.
> >> Like the people who believe in astrology, homeopathy,
> >> and Sylvia Browne.
>
> >I believe in Astrology and Homeopathy. *But Sylvia Browne? *She's freaky.
>
> Sylvia Browne is a textbook case of a con-artist.
>
> She does it very well. TV shows, books...she's made it in the world of
> con-artists. She's one of their center-folds.
>
> Comparable to any money-begging Evangelist. Slick as oil-covered
> sheet-metal.
>
> Astrology? You gotta be kiddin. The position of an object in space
> that is 20 billion light years away.....means exactly nothing, except
> that 20 billion light years away, there used to be an object floating
> in that spot in space.
>
> Homeopathy? Right there on the same shelf with Sylvia Browne's books.
> Pure, unadulterated nonsense and junk science for those who are
> inclined to think vodoo is real. <eye-roll>
>
> "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to
> be no more effective than a placebo."
>
> Sorry Julie, unless you're just looking for a "feel good" cult to
> "believe in", you're "believing" in snake oil and bovine feces with
> Astrology and Homeopathy. You seem like an intelligent person. Get out
> of that nonsense and find some real science to study.
>
> Here's an excellent place to start: "The Natural Medicines
> Comprehensive Database" atwww.NaturalDatabase.com
> or, you can get the hard copy as I did in 2000. It'll be one of the
> best $60 you ever spent.
>
> It sorts the chaf from the wheat in terms of Natural Medicines, with
> detailed analysis of each item listed. If nothing else, it's one of
> the best reference books for medicinal plants that exists. My copy of
> it was given to me by my Doctor at the Mayo Clinic when she got the
> most current version.
>
> The $60 gets you the book and a years worth of the online version of
> it to use. Fasinating reading.

Astrology is a funny subject. People who believe it often believe that
Asian and Western astrology, while contradictory, are both valid.
Astrology may may even have a smidgen of validity, but not for the
reason than fuzzy-heads believe. It wouldn't amaze me if it turned out
that the weather during one's early development has some influence on
the course of that development.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On May 20, 6:42*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> On May 18, 3:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> * ...
>
> > I would love for someone who strongly believes that microwaves are
> > just fine to replicate the experiment with the water.
>
> I came in late. What experiment? I didn't find it browsing the thread.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

In the opening post there is a link to a site where someone used
boiled water and microwaved water
to water plants to test the difference.

I would like for someone here to do it to see if it is true or not.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On May 19, 10:15 am, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> So, I asked if anyone who doubted it to do the experiment....would you
>> do it?
>
> No. I have better things to do than debunking cargo-cult beliefs.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

a truer comparison test would be one plant watered with boiled water,
the other with the nuked water. Fresh oxygenated tap water isn't the
same as cooked water no matter how it was "cooked".

And like you I find the whole idea alarmist and silly.
I need to Google that phrase "cargo cult"...

ImStillMags wrote:

> In the opening post there is a link to a site where someone used
> boiled water and microwaved water
> to water plants to test the difference.

and what were the findings?
>
> I would like for someone here to do it to see if it is true or not.

Perhaps you'd like to do it?

On May 20, 10:07*am, Goomba > wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
> > In the opening post there is a link to a site where someone used
> > boiled water and microwaved water
> > to water plants to test the difference.
>
> and what were the findings?
>
>
>
> > I would like for someone here to do it to see if it is true or not.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to do it?

I would do it, but since I am the OP and I got rid of my microwave
because I just don't like the "vibe", I'm considered a nut or a kook
by many here. So, my findings would be suspect. If someone who
disagrees with the experiment did it, in a scientific and forthright
manner, and posted their findings, it would put the subject to
rest.....one way or the other.

ImStillMags wrote:
> On May 20, 10:07 am, Goomba > wrote:
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>> In the opening post there is a link to a site where someone used
>>> boiled water and microwaved water
>>> to water plants to test the difference.
>> and what were the findings?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I would like for someone here to do it to see if it is true or not.
>> Perhaps you'd like to do it?
>
> I would do it, but since I am the OP and I got rid of my microwave
> because I just don't like the "vibe", I'm considered a nut or a kook
> by many here. So, my findings would be suspect. If someone who
> disagrees with the experiment did it, in a scientific and forthright
> manner, and posted their findings, it would put the subject to
> rest.....one way or the other.
>
You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.

On May 20, 10:39*am, Goomba > wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
> > On May 20, 10:07 am, Goomba > wrote:
> >> ImStillMags wrote:
> >>> In the opening post there is a link to a site where someone used
> >>> boiled water and microwaved water
> >>> to water plants to test the difference.
> >> and what were the findings?
>
> >>> I would like for someone here to do it to see if it is true or not.
> >> Perhaps you'd like to do it?
>
> > I would do it, but since I am the OP and I got rid of my microwave
> > because I just don't like the "vibe", I'm considered a nut or a kook
> > by many here. * So, my findings would be suspect. * *If someone who
> > disagrees with the experiment did it, in a scientific and forthright
> > manner, and posted their findings, it would put the subject to
> > rest.....one way or the other.
>
> You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
> oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

but then the water would not be microwaved and that's the whole point
of the experiment.

ImStillMags wrote:

>> You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
>> oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> but then the water would not be microwaved and that's the whole point
> of the experiment.
>
But it could show if cooking water versus freshly drawn was the culprit,
NOT the microwave itself.

"Landon" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

> What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a
> transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went
> in dead.

I'm sorry, but if that really happened, it didn't have anything to do
with the microwaves.

Please read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7600834

I don't store blood. If I need some I prefer it fresh. I will just wait
outside a nightclub and when a young lady exits alone, I will follow her and
bite her on the neck.

On May 20, 10:51*am, Goomba > wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
> >> You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
> >> oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > but then the water would not be microwaved and that's the whole point
> > of the experiment.
>
> But it could show if cooking water versus freshly drawn was the culprit,
> NOT the microwave itself.

you would have to do three plants....one with cooked water, one with
fresh water and one with microwaved water for the experiment to be
properly done

On 5/20/2011 2:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On May 20, 10:51 am, > wrote:
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
>>>> oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> but then the water would not be microwaved and that's the whole point
>>> of the experiment.
>>
>> But it could show if cooking water versus freshly drawn was the culprit,
>> NOT the microwave itself.
>
> you would have to do three plants....one with cooked water, one with
> fresh water and one with microwaved water for the experiment to be
> properly done

You really should read up on blind testing.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On May 20, 11:13*am, James Silverton >
wrote:
> On 5/20/2011 2:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 10:51 am, > *wrote:
> >> ImStillMags wrote:
> >>>> You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
> >>>> oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> but then the water would not be microwaved and that's the whole point
> >>> of the experiment.
>
> >> But it could show if cooking water versus freshly drawn was the culprit,
> >> NOT the microwave itself.
>
> > you would have to do three plants....one with cooked water, one with
> > fresh water and one with microwaved water for the experiment to be
> > properly done
>
> You really should read up on blind testing.
>
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm *not* - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK. Enlighten me.

On 5/20/2011 2:15 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On May 20, 11:13 am, James >
> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2011 2:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 20, 10:51 am, > wrote:
>>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>>> You could do a variation by doing one plant with freshly drawn and
>>>>>> oxygenated tap water and another with boiled (but cooled) tap water.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> but then the water would not be microwaved and that's the whole point
>>>>> of the experiment.
>>
>>>> But it could show if cooking water versus freshly drawn was the culprit,
>>>> NOT the microwave itself.
>>
>>> you would have to do three plants....one with cooked water, one with
>>> fresh water and one with microwaved water for the experiment to be
>>> properly done
>>
>> You really should read up on blind testing.
>>
>> --
>>
>> James Silverton, Potomac
>>
>> I'm *not* - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> OK. Enlighten me.
>In the annoying phrase, "Google is your friend".

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*