Are Microwave Ovens Killing You?
If they were, you would know immediately
Visit the Evidence Files Facebook and YouTube pages; Like, Follow, Subscribe or Share!
Find more about me on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Mastodon. Or visit my EALS Global Foundation’s webpage page here.
The market size for microwave ovens in the United States in 2019 reached USD 11.55 billion and expects to exceed 13 billion in 2023. Back in 2014, that market comprised 90% of US households; today it may be even higher and certainly is globally. First introduced as a consumer product in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the technology behind it had been in development since the 1920s. Despite this very long history of development, people today still believe microwaves are dangerous to your health. This belief undoubtedly persists from its pervasive spread by junk science websites and conspiracy theorists. As an example, a website inaptly titled “Health Science Research” makes such claims as “eating food processed from a microwave oven causes long term, permanent, brain damage by ‘shorting out’ electrical impulses in the brain,” “the human body cannot metabolize [break down] the unknown by-products created in micro-waved food,” or “The prolonged eating of micro-waved [sic] foods causes cancerous cells to increase in human blood,” to mention a few. They are, of course, all false.
First, let me offer a quick explanation of how microwaves work. Then, I will break down some of the claims from the “Health Science Research” website since it goes so far out of its way to support its ludicrous views (clearly to sell its nonsense products, as conspiracy sites are universally wont to do).
Microwave ovens (and cellphones) use non-ionizing radiation to heat products. Radiation comes in a variety of manifestations (including mere visible light) and is only dangerous in certain forms. Non-ionizing radiation operates at lower frequencies than ultraviolet, and includes such things as infrared, radio waves, and cell phone range radiation. Non-ionizing radiation lacks the energy needed to remove electrons from atoms or molecules, and thus works only by causing these atoms and molecules to move about rapidly. Microwave ovens send waves of energy into a chamber (where you put the food) where it bounces back and forth causing the surface atoms on your food to vibrate with ever increasing speed. The movement creates rising surface heat, and then cooks the interior of the item through convection. It is why the outside can be blistering hot while the inside of your burrito remains cold. The primary difference between exposure to cellphone radiation and microwave radiation is the intensity of the radiation. The intensity inside of a heating microwave is much higher than what cellphones produce. Nonetheless, exposure to either at a high enough intensity can cause burning of exposed surfaces (and, if long enough, to the insides of materials subject to convected heat from that surface exposure). The physics behind this kind of radiation prohibits the contamination or molecular altering of materials exposed to it, except in only the most extreme circumstances.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces several requirements to limit any dangerous leakage of microwave radiation to prevent the possibility of topical burns. One such requirement includes two independent interlock systems to prevent the escape of radiation upon opening the door mid-cooking. Another is to set the intensity value at which various microwave oven models are allowed to operate. The primary concern with leaked radiation is potential damage to the eyes and testes, as these body parts lack sufficient blood flow to carry off excess heat before it causes damage. Moreover, the FDA notes that the overwhelming majority of injuries attributed to microwave ovens are burn injuries. Only in extremely rare circumstances have more serious radiation burn injuries occurred, these as a result of very poorly maintained appliances and unusual exposure vectors. In order to cause injury beyond severe burning, a person must be exposed to microwave intensity at “orders of magnitude larger than most real-world exposure conditions,” such as in military or research applications. This would consist of enough energy to cook a bag of microwave popcorn in one-millionth of a second—a power level no commercial microwave comes anywhere close to producing (indeed, a level at which few, if any, entire households produce).
So now, let’s examine the claims of the so-called “health science” website.
My original plan was to breakdown the 10 claims made at the top of the page. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the site does not directly explain the methodology behind each of its specific claims, such as exactly how “Continually eating food processed from a microwave oven causes long term, permanent, brain damage by ‘shorting out’ electrical impulses in the brain [de-polarizing or de-magnetizing brain tissue].” De-magnetizing brain tissue. Instead, it makes its claims, then shifts to an article authored by Anthony Wayne and Lawrence Newell that seems scientific, but really just meanders from erroneous claims about radiation to Nazi inventors (yeah, that last part is really in there).
Wayne and Newell begin with an almost immediately debunked myth. They ask, “Why did the Soviet Union ban the use of microwave ovens in 1976?” The Soviet Union was in fact producing at least three different brands of microwave at that time; they were simply not affordable to most of the population. It is true that in the 1970s the Soviets sent high intensity microwave signals at American embassies as a sort of communication analysis/obstruction program, but that was an entirely separate issue and the government never initiated some sort of ban on the commercial product. In fact, the false premise of a ban seems to have started on the website mercola.com, a conspiracy site of great vigor, that espouses loads of other debunked nonsense, including about the COVID vaccine, among other things. Russian sites themselves have much to say (indirectly) on the matter; this one in particular showing plenty of microwave ovens that were for sale during the time of the alleged ban.
Translation: Microwave "Electronics" 1984 production.
Wayne and Newell move on to describing how microwaves work, but creep toward deception in the second sentence. They claim “Microwaves are very short waves of electromagnetic energy.” This is a broad-brush claim that is true or false (mostly false) depending upon the context. Compared to radio waves, microwaves are indeed short, measuring 1mm to 1m in length while radio waves can be vastly longer. However, on the next level of the electromagnetic spectrum, infrared, waves measure between 750 nanometers (750 billionths of a meter) to 1 mm—and electromagnetic waves get smaller from there. Thus, microwaves actually exist toward the larger end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Next, the authors claim that microwaving food “causes substantial damage to the surrounding molecules, often tearing them apart or forcefully deforming them. The scientific name for this deformation is ‘structural isomerism’.” Structural Isomerism is simply molecules with the same molecular formula, but with a different order of arrangement of their atoms. It is unclear what their point is here, but microwave ovens do not vaporize or otherwise destroy the molecules of items cooked in them.
The next paragraph concerning radiation is plainly false, which makes sense given that that word carries with it a negative connotation to many. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) defines radiation as nothing more than “Energy emitted from a source.” These authors capitalize on the negative feeling behind the term to state the following:
Radiation causes ionization, which is what occurs when a neutral atom gains or loses electrons. In simpler terms, a microwave oven decays and changes the molecular structure of the food by the process of radiation. Had the manufacturers accurately called them “radiation ovens”, it’s doubtful they would have ever sold one, but that’s exactly what a microwave oven is.
Radiation does not “cause” ionization, rather ionization is merely one kind of radiation. Ionizing radiation requires enough energy to remove electrons from the atom, which causes the atom to take on a positive charge (as a result of the loss of the negatively charged electron). Niels Bohr had this figured out over a century ago. Non-ionizing radiation, the kind used by household microwaves, lacks the energy to “change the molecular structure” as these authors contend, and therefore only vibrates or moves molecules around.
Building on this elementary misunderstanding of chemistry, the authors then contend that “No FDA or officially released government studies have proven current microwaving usage to be harmful,” which is correct but they then say, “Many of these studies are later proven to be inaccurate.” You can see a whole catalog of studies on the effects of microwave radiation here and judge for yourself. I could not find one that was later deemed “inaccurate” nor did these authors specify one. Nevertheless, to attempt to prove their point, Wayne and Newell deftly change the subject of radiation studies to studies about the health effects of eggs. The contention is apparently that if studies about the health effects of eggs remain debated, studies about the effects of microwaves should too. Notably, they do not cite a single study in their egg-based discussion. I, however, provide you an article examining the history of the study of the health effects of eggs, here (with references).
Without backing up anything they say about egg studies, they again shift the premise, this time to “motherly instincts” about microwaves, stating “mothers and grandmothers have distrusted the modern ‘inside out’ cooking [of microwave ovens].” While applauding the validity of this alleged instinct, the authors then say “even though [moms and grandmothers] didn’t know the scientific, technical, or health reasons why, [they] just knew that microwave ovens were not good based on how foods tasted when they were cooked in them.” I concede that Wayne and Newell are correct in pointing out that the anecdotal mother(s) at issue here did not know the technical aspects of microwaving food—it is not cooked “inside out,” but in fact the opposite (see above regarding convection). But still speaking in anecdotes, if the taste of an item determined its safety of preparation, Coke would be viewed by many as extremely healthy (it most certainly is not) and Asparagus as unhealthy (also decidedly untrue).
Clinging to the mom theme for a moment longer, the authors go on to cite public warnings about microwaved breast milk and baby formula, released in 1989—34 years ago. The public service announcement they quote mostly cautions against the temperature of the formula, with one line dedicated to the “loss of some vitamins” as a result of heating. No molecular alteration to be found. Of course, most food and beverage items lose some nutrients as a result of heating because vitamins and minerals are sensitive to heat and light. The current CDC guideline on microwaving breastmilk or formula is exclusively about monitoring the temperature and safe storage. Wayne and Newell then begin a section wherein they cite work of Dr. Lita Lee, who states that “fake milk (baby formula)” is “toxic,” and is even more so when microwaved. Curiously, Dr. Lee’s publications in peer-reviewed journals no longer seem to exist—if they ever did, but her work is still cited across a vast array of conspiracy sites. That said, I did find one study published in 2016 in the International Journal of PharmTech Research titled, “"Adverse Effects of Microwaves," but I could find no source validating its conclusion nor has it been cited in any other article about the specific negative effects it discusses. In other words, its validity or purpose is doubtful.
The next section of Wayne and Newell’s article carries the subtitle, “Microwaved blood kills patient.” It refers to a lawsuit in Oklahoma in 1991 where the hospital warmed the patient’s soon-to-be-transfused blood prior to the procedure, and the patient subsequently died during the procedure. The authors here conclude “[it is] very apparent that there’s much more to ‘heating’ with microwaves than we’ve been led to believe. Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed, but not in microwave ovens. In the case of Mrs. Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her.” I found the case they are talking about, Warner v. Hillcrest Medical Center, 914 P. 2d 1060 - Okla: Court of Appeals, 4th Div. 1995. Hillcrest argued that the patient died from a blood clot, while the plaintiffs claimed the “negligent introduction” of the blood into the patient’s blood stream killed her. Of particular interest in the case is the deposition testimony given by the expert witnesses. Not long prior to this incident (which occurred in 1991), warming blood or other hospital fluids or items in microwaves had indeed been prohibited. The testimony does not explicitly state why, rather it only hints at the same issue that arises with microwaving breast milk—the fluid is not uniformly warmed and thus creates potentially dangerous “hot spots.” Nowhere in the long procedural history of this case is it asserted that the blood itself was “altered” in any way but thermally, by either the plaintiffs or defendants. Again, authors Wayne and Newell are either intentionally misleading their readers or did not read this very long case. You can read it here.
The gross negligence of Anthony Wayne and Lawrence Newell promoting the conspiracy theories surrounding microwaves hardly needs a further look. But, for the sake of comprehensiveness, I will address two more points in their fantasy story.
“The Swiss clinical study”
Opening this section, Wayne and Newell cite a study by a Dr. Hans Ulrich Hertel, who they claim was “fired from his job for questioning certain [food] processing procedures.” I could not find Hertel’s study published anywhere, so I will relay one comment on it (errors belong to the commenter):
[Hertel’s study] forms the basis of most anti MW articles... Unfortunately it’s an appalling study. Just 8 subjects – including himself – of whom 7 were on macrobiotic vegetarian diets although no consideration was made for any lactose intolerance or chronic anaemia both of which are more common in this subject type, no blinds or double blinds (they all knew what they were eating), no controls due to multiple factors (raw vs cooked vegetables, raw vs pasteurised milk, frozen vs fresh, organic vs standard) before even introducing the MW factor, results were commented on before concluding, no peer review, not published in a reputable journal. Basically so poor that it should never, ever be cited. His colleague, Bernard Blanc, resigned because he was not involved in the conclusions which were not supported by the results. And 40 years later, we have not suffered a mass extinction as he suggested.
The comment is corroborated by Wayne and Newell’s article. They note it was a small study—8 people is not a worthy sample size for just about any type of study—and they do mention Bernard Blanc. Moreover, at least some of the text of the study is available in a subsequent court case, Hertel v. Switzerland (59/1997/843/1049), available here. The suit was Hertel’s appeal of a case brought by the Swiss Association of Manufacturers and Suppliers of Household Electrical Appliances, that essentially asserted a claim of libel against Hertel and Blanc. The plaintiff argued:
Blanc and Hertel’s experiments on the harmfulness of food heated by microwaves and their interpretations of them were not conducted and described according to scientifically recognised criteria. They are of no scientific value; the conclusions drawn from them as to the alleged harmfulness of food cooked by microwaves have no verifiable basis and are unsustainable.
The lower courts found in favor of the Swiss Association. Hertel received a reversal on this appeal and was granted damages based on an injunction that forbade him from further publicizing his results. Nevertheless, the dissent properly noted that “In the present case, it is beyond doubt that the applicant’s central assertion and the alleged scientific results do not stand up to close scrutiny.” The majority agreed with this, but it was addressing the legal issues related to the libel suit and not the veracity of the claims. In sum, Hertel’s experiment was garbage, yet Wayne, Newell, and other anti-microwave people continue to cite it as evidence. (It is hard to believe there is even a need for the phrase “anti-microwave people”).
Finally, for good measure, Wayne and Newell claim Nazis invented the microwave (they did not). I started to grapple with this, but decided never mind, this claim is made up for effect. It isn’t worth analyzing.
The conclusion is simple—people are not dying from some side effect of microwaves. Hundreds of millions of people have been using them for half a century, and no negative mass effect has been noticed or recorded. Until COVID, the life expectancy of the global population largely continued upwards. If radiation from microwaves and cellphones and other ubiquitous devices were so harmful, it would have been readily apparent long before now. Similar to the conclusions reached in my “chemtrails” article, the purpose for propagating these ridiculous myths is because it is a moneymaking machine. A small number of people utterly lacking in moral principles continue to prey upon the fears, hatred, conspiracy mindedness, or plain ignorance of certain people to profit from them financially, and often politically. It is perhaps the greatest harm possible in a society where this drivel can be heaped upon the masses so efficiently through modern technological connectivity.
***
I am a Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, Certified Crime Analyst, Certified Fraud Examiner, and Certified Financial Crimes Investigator with a Juris Doctor and a Master’s degree in history. I spent 10 years working in the New York State Division of Criminal Justice as Senior Analyst and Investigator. Today, I teach Cybersecurity, Ethical Hacking, and Digital Forensics at Softwarica College of IT and E-Commerce in Nepal. In addition, I offer training on Financial Crime Prevention and Investigation. I am also Vice President of Digi Technology in Nepal, for which I have also created its sister company in the USA, Digi Technology America, LLC. We provide technology solutions for businesses or individuals, including cybersecurity, all across the globe. I was a firefighter before I joined law enforcement and now I currently run a non-profit that uses mobile applications and other technologies to create Early Alert Systems for natural disasters for people living in remote or poor areas.