Still want to use a microwave for cooking with

[HeyWayne]

She was probably a little nervous serving the odd guy that takes his printer out to lunch!!!

Even more so when she realised it was in fact my printer that had taken me! You should see it when the whole office goes out.

[pigletwillie]

Woops, it seems like I got a bit too carried away again. No offence intended.

But I do get annoyed by small "experiments" like this, which people then use to justify their own position (happens on both sides).

Steven

You know sooooo much more than I do buddy so no need to appologise, I agree the science sucks but it made a point and opened debate.

[pigletwillie]

Avacado, well, its tasteless and needs camouflaging to make guacamole vaguely interesting. Its like eating green fluff.

[Capsid]

I'd also like to apologise to pigletwillie for misinterpreting your post.

[pigletwillie]

I'd also like to apologise to pigletwillie for misinterpreting your post.

No need buddy, my dummy is surgically attached and never comes out of the pram.

Debate is good, we all have differing views and as long as we all are polite, bring it on.

[Eyren]

As a scientist, I would have to agree that one kid's school project is hardly scientific evidence for anything. And there have been scares about microwaves based on sloppy journalism for years.

Anyone remember the "OMG don't microwave your baby milk" scare? IIRC, the tabloids came across some study that found if you microwaved baby milk until it was burnt then fed it to rats, the rats got cancer. Well a) we already know that burnt food is carcenogenic and b) you're not going to do that to your baby's milk, right, so what's the problem?

That said, I don't use the microwave much, but that's because I prefer cooking on a conventional stove, not because I have any health worries about the machine. I have some micro platewarmers that are useful because we don't have a double oven or an aga or anything so handy, and I nuke the odd tin of soup or tub of pasta sauce, or occasionally zap a baked potato before it goes in the oven to reduce cooking time, but that's about it.

The world is full of nasties that are giving you cancer/heart disease/etc whatever your lifestyle, and life is too short to get worked up about each and every one of them. Stress is bad for your health too, y'know?

[Flummery]

And I would have liked to see a bit a bit more science in the whole thing.
Like how long was the water microwaved for?
Did it read boiling point?
Why was it limited to 2 types of water.?
Where were tap water, rain water, kettle-boiled water?
What did they mean by 'purified' water? - was it boiled, de-ionised -run through a filter - distilled?

All too vague for me. Pseudo science.

[Hilary B]

This whole topic started when I suggested using a microwave to make Dulce de Leche, which isn't made with home-grown veg. Nor is it something that is going to lose significant nutrients by being cooked via a microwave vs a stove top. Who makes a super-sweet dessert for its nutritional content?!?!?

I don't cook entire meals in my microwave and like most, it probably gets used mostly for defrosting or rewarming of food. But this talk of it being "the tool of the devil" or hating an inanimate object is a bit extreme. And I find the pseudo-science quoted as facts to be very misleading for those who might not realise the difference.

The biggest thing wrong with the so-called science was only having ONE plant for each approach. You need dozens to eliminate 'chance mishap' as a cause for the differences. I also noticed the increased wetness in the 'microwave' plant. I will continue to use my microwave to give things a quick boost, or to start off meals that I want to casserole, but NOT risk things sticking on a saucepan, so they get the 'initial bring to boil' stage in the pyrex, and to make hot milky coffee, or scrambled eggs, etc.......
Microwaves have their proper place. If you used one ALL the time, it would be bad, but those who do all their cooking with a microwave probably eat a badly balanced diet anyway!