[Greenbuilding] Thots on MicrowaveOvens

[Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance]

Thanks, I'll digest those thots... ;-)

...In the meantime, I guess I'll have to go digging for that article on the
difference between microwave and conventional cooking.

Mary Bull, Co-director
Greenwood Earth Alliance, Save the Redwoods - Boycott the Gap Campaign
252 Frederick, San Francisco, CA 94117 http://www.gapsucks.org
Chalice Farm and Sustainable Living Center, 748 Montgomery Rd, Sebastopol CA
95472
415-731-7924 - 415-509-1188 chalicenew at earthlink.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Donelson" <abetterbuilder at frontiernet.net>
To: "Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance" <chalicenew at earthlink.net>;
"Greenbuilding" <GREENBUILDING at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Thots on MicrowaveOvens


>
> Microwaves
>
> In the course of this thread, Lawrence mentioned that microwave oven would
> be a more energy-efficient back-up than an electric hot plate....
> I know that microwaves are supposedly the most energy efficient way to
> heat/cook food, but the way they heat is by tearing apart molecules,
whereas
> conventional heating simply animates molecules. This tearing apart of
> molecules supposedly detrimentally affects nutrition and possibly
generates
> other health issues; a lot of people are extremely wary of it. I am not
sure
> if there have actually been tests/studies one way or the other (there are
> deadly chemicals in use that have never been tested--so
> no-conclusive-testing is not a criterion that we should use to assume
> something is safe), but I have read some convincing articles on the
Internet
> that have turned me off to them, and have met a lot of people whom I
> respect--like our designer/builder--who recommend NOT using them. I have
> never owned one. Thoughts?
>
> Cheers and Thanks,
>
> Mary
>
> COOKING tears apart molecules. If you don't want to tear molecules apart,
I
> have heard great things about raw foods diets. Myself, the idea of a hot
> meal appeals greatly, and I would miss that a lot. (Especially today, in
the
> snow.)
> Microwaves are part of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. They are
> essentially the same as visible light, but they are pitched in an area of
> the spectrum where we can't see them. So cooking with a microwave oven is
> much like shining a light on what is being cooked. In a longer frequency
> than visual light is infrared. We can't see in this range, but many
> creatures (rattlesnakes) can locate prey by the infrared emissions. This
is
> what is seen with night vision equipment. At a longer set of frequencies
> than infrared, is the arbitrarily named microwave band. There is no
> particular difference between any of these frequencies: it is like the
> difference between green and blue, except that it slides over to a color
> that we can only detect with equipment.
>
> When microwaves shine on food, they are absorbed by certain molecules, and
> are transparent to others. This is the same for visible light. If you put
a
> flashlight inside your mouth, you can see if the light is on, because are
> bodies are translucent for visible light. Water molecules are transparent
to
> all of the frequencies of visible light, but they absorb energy in some of
> the frequencies in the microwave spectrum. Microwaves are absorbed by
water
> molecules (and others), and when they are, they cause the molecule to
> vibrate more rapidly. This is heat. Microwave are efficient because a
> greater proportion of the energy emitted goes into heating the food. On a
> regular stove, most of the energy goes past the pot and heats the air.
More
> energy is used to heat the pot. Only a little is actually used to heat the
> food. As the temperature of the food rises, some of the molecules break
> down. This is called cooking. Cooking has to do mostly with the
temperature
> of the food, and much less with how the food got to that temperature.
>
> Sorry for the long post, it making me hungry.
>
> Bruce Donelson
> A Better Builder
>
>