Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microwaved milk is bad for you

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WantRancilio10
    replied
    Glitch!
    First 54 posts all in June 2014. A further 0 until Sept 2015 and then it became 'you say potato I say potahto'.

    Can we let this poor poor necro thread just die?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrJack
    replied
    Originally posted by BigalG View Post
    Methinks you need some English lessons my friend. The verb produce when used with object (agitated molecules) means 'bring into existence; give rise to; cause' Your inference is that there is no object being used, which is of course, ridiculous. You are correct that the 2.4Ghz oscillations agitate the molecules(i.e. movement), which produces the end result.

    Im more interested in the accuracy of whether or not a microwave does actually produce pathogens from excessive heat. Its a very old claim made by many microwave skeptics, but not proven as far as I can tell.
    Possibly the scum on a pots base from burned milk would have the same composition as those milk globules you get as a result of too higher microwave heat; I dont know.
    I'm not the one who needs a lesson. Heat is not brought into existence. Energy is transferred/transformed - and we call this transferred energy 'heat'.

    You could perhaps say "he got in his car, and driving was produced, then he arrived at his destination". Likewise, you could fill a bucket with sand and say you produced bucketed sand. But you'd get funny looks...

    My aim was not to point out a lexical error, but to address the likely conceptual misunderstanding behind it.

    As for pathogens - anyone who can take sterile milk, put it in a microwave and create a new organism is a shoe-in for a Nobel prize - or perhaps more fittingly, a sainthood.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigalG
    replied
    Originally posted by MrJack View Post
    [emoji52]

    a) that's not how microwaves work (see discussion above)
    b) heat is not "produced"
    Methinks you need some English lessons my friend. The verb produce when used with object (agitated molecules) means 'bring into existence; give rise to; cause' Your inference is that there is no object being used, which is of course, ridiculous. You are correct that the 2.4Ghz oscillations agitate the molecules(i.e. movement), which produces the end result.

    Im more interested in the accuracy of whether or not a microwave does actually produce pathogens from excessive heat. Its a very old claim made by many microwave skeptics, but not proven as far as I can tell.
    Possibly the scum on a pots base from burned milk would have the same composition as those milk globules you get as a result of too higher microwave heat; I dont know.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlight
    replied
    Does this mean I can't reply [emoji477]️

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry O'Speedwagon
    replied
    Originally posted by dlight View Post
    Why does anybody reply to this crackpot topic? Besides being rather funny, this is rather off the planet.
    There's a subtle irony here.......

    Leave a comment:


  • dlight
    replied
    Why does anybody reply to this crackpot topic? Besides being rather funny, this is rather off the planet.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrJack
    replied
    Originally posted by BigalG View Post
    Microwave works as you know by rubbing molecules against each other to produce heat. Fatty substances increase this effect but if used mildly, as in heating milk (not burning it) there should be no damaging pathogens generated. If you have evidence that this is wrong, please provide it here, as I dont want to mislead others.
    Thanks,
    Al.
    [emoji52]

    a) that's not how microwaves work (see discussion above)
    b) heat is not "produced" (it's simply the transfer or transformation of energy). In a microwave, electromagnetic energy is transformed into kinetic energy (i.e. movement). This increases the temperature, because temperature is, literally, just a measure of the average kinetic energy.
    c) a pathogen is an organism which causes disease (e.g. virus, microbe or fungus). Rest assured, there is most certainly none produced in a microwave (unless you were a genuis scientist attempting to recreate life; then, maybe there could be).

    Leave a comment:


  • BigalG
    replied
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    A word of warning - one of the worst things to microwave is milk. MW works by breaking apart molecules to release heat and some milk byproducts are toxic. Also, the reason why there's a 'best' temp for frothing milk is to avoid getting the milk to where it begins to break down. The steamer on the 7000 is pretty good, so it isn't really much of a chore to use.
    Journeyman you have inspirational writing; I have read several of your threads and I'd just like to say that your input on this forum is really appreciated by newbies like me.
    However, there are several misnomers about microwave cooking. Care must be taken choosing the heating vessel, but if you use your coffee cup (as I do) it serves dual purpose of heating the cup and milk at same time. I usually have a low fat, 50% milk/water heated cup of this mix, which takes about 2/3 the cup with the balance being the shot. I know it is not as nice as a steamed fatty milk, but my theory is its better for you and tastes fine IMHO.
    For treats, use the standard steam/full milk and shot as per cappuccino etc.

    Microwave works as you know by rubbing molecules against each other to produce heat. Fatty substances increase this effect but if used mildly, as in heating milk (not burning it) there should be no damaging pathogens generated. If you have evidence that this is wrong, please provide it here, as I dont want to mislead others.

    Thanks,
    Al.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry O'Speedwagon
    replied
    Steppenwolf anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • STS
    replied
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    And as to deformation of molecules, proteins are probably the worst things to deform. The shape of proteins (and as far as I am aware, aminos) matters. Mad Cow is a result of a deformation of a common molecule. Proteins that get their shape changed cause some very serious diseases. (or syndromes or whatever you might call them)
    Bit of a stretch. I was lead to believe Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE - Mad Cow Dx) was the result of consumption of nerve tissue (brain/offal) with the infected prion in situ, but that view is of course based on traditional science /pathophysiology.

    All forms of cooking/heating will denature/change the structure of proteins. So if the argument that microwaves are bad because of the structural changes they make to proteins then this would also apply to all forms of cooking.

    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • Yelta
    replied
    Originally posted by burr View Post
    These can also be avoided while locked in a lead lined bomb shelter. Or maybe a tin foil hat.
    Perhaps thats what this clown was up to. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...=1403498250236

    Leave a comment:


  • burr
    replied
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    Yes, but if you want to use reactivity rather than molecular weight, you should remember Gold IS a heavy metal and is very non-reactive.

    @Hildy - yeah - I used to think that too, but 2.45GHz - it's a bit hard to accept the only molecules vibrating are water ones... doncha think?

    And as to deformation of molecules, proteins are probably the worst things to deform. The shape of proteins (and as far as I am aware, aminos) matters. Mad Cow is a result of a deformation of a common molecule. Proteins that get their shape changed cause some very serious diseases. (or syndromes or whatever you might call them)

    Look up how microwave ovens work, not just the 'this is safe' stuff but how they actually work.The vibration is just a part of it, but even there, you have to question just how atoms vibrating can generate heat. Seriously. Which gets to what is friction in ANY sense. See... atoms never touch, so how can rubbing them together generate heat?

    And now... how does vibrating a molecule (water or otherwise) generate heat?

    Now... think about all that and ask yourself if you REALLY want to microwave milk...
    Hmmm for starters, 'heavy metal' has simply become a term people use to class nasty elements. Arsenic would be one of the most notorious, even though it is not actually a 'metal' is the strict definition. A whole range of metals that are 'heavy' are essential to life, either in large or trace amounts. Its only ones like lead which have no biological function as well as being toxic in small quantities.

    Now... dietary proteins are all going to be denatured (deformed) before being absorbed. In fact, they are going to be digested into amino acids or small peptides before they get through the gut wall. Digestion by pepsin and the like is easier on denatured proteins... think of cooking an egg before eating it. Amino acids can't be denatured.

    Regarding vibration... VIBRATION = HEAT at a molecular level. Absolute zero is the temperature at which no movement occurs, each degree kelvin above is a measure of the amount of movement those little suckers have. Rotation, up/down, twisting... all movement. There is no friction.

    I will add that microwaves don't only heat water. We have a dedicated microwave reactor in the chem lab (household micro on steroids). It is useful for heating liquids/solid of any kind from the inside for more even heating. As far as I'm aware they are tuned to a frequency which is most efficient for water. Its not like we're talking about X-rays here. They energy they contain is between visible light and radiowaves. These can also be avoided while locked in a lead lined bomb shelter. Or maybe a tin foil hat. Oh wait then we need to worry about heavy metal poisoning...

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    Originally posted by Yelta View Post
    Right at this moment? no, but if I needed to would not hesitate.

    Sometimes wonder about Journeyman, does he really believe all of this way out stuff he posts or is he simply playing devils advocate?
    "Devil's advocate"? Homer Simpson's advocate might be a bit more accurate. Time for a bit more edumacation perhaps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yelta
    replied
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    Now... think about all that and ask yourself if you REALLY want to microwave milk...
    Right at this moment? no, but if I needed to would not hesitate.

    Sometimes wonder about Journeyman, does he really believe all of this way out stuff he posts or is he simply playing devils advocate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    Yes, but if you want to use reactivity rather than molecular weight, you should remember Gold IS a heavy metal and is very non-reactive.

    @Hildy - yeah - I used to think that too, but 2.45GHz - it's a bit hard to accept the only molecules vibrating are water ones... doncha think?

    And as to deformation of molecules, proteins are probably the worst things to deform. The shape of proteins (and as far as I am aware, aminos) matters. Mad Cow is a result of a deformation of a common molecule. Proteins that get their shape changed cause some very serious diseases. (or syndromes or whatever you might call them)

    Look up how microwave ovens work, not just the 'this is safe' stuff but how they actually work.The vibration is just a part of it, but even there, you have to question just how atoms vibrating can generate heat. Seriously. Which gets to what is friction in ANY sense. See... atoms never touch, so how can rubbing them together generate heat?

    And now... how does vibrating a molecule (water or otherwise) generate heat?

    Now... think about all that and ask yourself if you REALLY want to microwave milk...
    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhh!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X