Is It Safe to Drink Water Boiled In a Microwave?

Microwave liquid in dangerous. You can heat it to just above the flash point. and due to the surface tension it is slightly pressurized and its still liquid. Break the surface tension and it flashes to steam.

I always felt that heat is heat no matter the source.

You need to go back to http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp and read the entire article. Apparently you never learnt (sic) to be very thorough.

well, I asked for recent research other than what's posted on snopes..

I don't trust to base my view on a single experiment ....

This advice is exactly what you do need (you don't otherwise have a clue) - and why did you ask the question if you were not asking for an answer?

Not at all! I did not specifically ask anyone for an answer.....

Aren't you discouraging quest for knowledge??

If not asking for an answer, why did you write " ... is water boiled in a microwave fit for drinking??" and "Do we have any recent research available on the subject??" in your original post?

The number of question marks in your post (including your thread title) certainly suggests at least one question.

You're dueling with an unarmed man, John.

You wrote, "I don't trust to base my view on a single experiment"

Well, you should.

That is just begging of a CGI ending, turning the goo into a monster....

What's wrong with using LEARNT?

P.S. "Thorough" means doing something completely, so you don't need to say "very thorough".

I think the resident linguist ER will agree with you. I do.

"P.S. "Thorough" means doing something completely, so you don't need to say "very thorough".

Not so, there are, depending on which dictionary you prefer, degrees of thoroughness; thorough, more thorough, most thorough. Another synonym is "painstaking" which seems to me to mean "best efforts".

You're right, although to my ear it sounds clumsy in the sentence I was referring to.

I'm not really that pedantic, what's considered correct usage is constantly changing, I was making a snide comment on PMOON's objection to the word "learnt".

"it sounds clumsy in the sentence I was referring to."

should be, "it sounds clumsy in the sentence to which I was referring".

Ok, I know that's really anal.

Yup to

1. "LEARNT" is perfectly ok
2. In English English we often use "very thoroughly"; never quite sure what the various Colonials get up to
3. Ending sentences with a preposition is a heinous crime up with which we will not put!!

Pedant duties over, I too was trying to work out why PMoon had used "(sic)" in that sentence. Perhaps he just doesn't know what it means...

It is the Latin word that means "thus".

/Pedant on

Correction: I should have said "Perhaps he doesn't know its correct usage in modern English written text"

/Pedant off

_{Glad to see you're back on form!}

There is nothing wrong with using "Learnt" it means to gain knowledge or to memorize. However, it is kind of archaic and in today's use of the English language we usually use "learned" which is the past tense of learn. It is a little like using "thine" which is the possessive form of thou instead or using your as the possessive form of you.

Most of the users of this forum aren't as old as I, and therefore, would not know that old stuff.

Here's an idea: Let's consult with our Aussie, British and other non-American English-speaking friends about their use of the word in everyday speech. Saying 'learnt' where Americans would say 'learned' is commonplace in parts of Australia, for instance.

"Learnt" is in current everyday parlance here in the UK. "Learned" has a slightly different feel to it - it has a time implication. Like Satchel, I am unable to completely "wordify my why", so some examples:

• I learned that he was the CEO of the firm last weekend
• I learnt he was CEO at the conference
• I learnt thermodynamics at University

Sometimes it's a matter of emphasis. I would use "learnt" more than "learned", and rarely write "learned", unless I mean "learn-ed"

In Bristol, it is used to mean "taught" as in "Well, I learned him how to tie his laces".

Full marks to E

Huh?

The source cited plainly says that microwaved water is no different than water heated on a stove. Please read the article again, this time read past the pictures.

I believe you might be thinking of your cellular telephone. How much do you use it?

[edit] I see PMoon has the same take on the article.
[edit again] ...and lyn too. I see a trend developing. Maybe CR4 is an Urban Legend?

No, I was thinking or ''irradiated seafood'' dumped by the Dutch...

I think you are speaking of something else here. Some food is treated using radioactive material to kill bugs. Do you have a link?

Check these out...

1. Irradiation may make slurping safer - SeafoodSource.comwww.seafoodsource.com/newsarticledetail.aspx?id=458223 Apr 2009 - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recognized irradiation as a safe way to rid oysters of harmful bacteria after research by University of ...
   
2. Potential Application of Irradiation in Relation to Fish and Fishery ...aquafind.com/articles/radiation_technique.php - United StatesPotential Application of Irradiation in Relation to Fish and Fishery Products. Jaya Naik1, C.V. Raju2 and B.Manjanaik3. 1Research Scholar (UGC), 2Assistant ...
   
3. [PDF] Seafood Irradiation - Public Citizenwww.citizen.org/.../seafood%20fact%20sheet%20-%20PDF.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
   Seafood Irradiation: adiation: adiation: The True Cost of rue Cost of. Industrialization and Globalization. A Food Irradiation. Fact Sheet. Irradiation: What is It?
   
4. Food Irradiation Research and Technologybooks.google.com › Technology & Engineering › Food ScienceFood Irradiation Research and Technology appeals to a broad readership: industry food scientists involved in the processing of meat and fish, fruits and ...

This is not the same thing as the microwave radiation. In this, the food is bombarded with the products of radioactive decay. See Doorman's #14, above.

Your chick?

This is totally false. Heating water in a microwave DOES NOT alter it in any way that heating it on a stove or wood fire does. Boiling does remove the air/oxygen and other dissolved gases from the water.

If you had read the entire article you would have seen that it was totally dismissed as "junk science". Urban legend might be another name.

As i stated earlier I do not want to base my trust on it, hence the question.

As i stated earlier I do not want to base my trust on it, hence the question.

And yet you base your trust on the schoolgirls' experiment. May i suggest you take a leaf out of Snopes' book and do the experiment yourself using their design; same vessel to hold and heat, same environment, same water source, same temperature. Just be wary of the exploding water phenomenon when boiling in the microwave. AND NO that doesn't mean that the D.N.A. of the water has been made explosive.

IF i were trusting the school girls I wouldn't be with 'men of science' here..

Instead of telling me what to do why don't you tell us about your experience in the subject if any.....I suppose you have none!! It's easy to criticize than deliver...they say.

Can people eat pet foods? yes, been done.

Can pets be microwaved? yes, been done.

Can microwaved pet food be used as a fuel source?, I'm sure someone is working on that at this moment.

If I pressurize the pet food, is that the same as irradiation? Interesting, Flow International has been pastuerizing orange juice with High Pressure for about 12 years now. Where it replace HTST (High Temperature/Short Time) pastuerizers thus not effecting quality when items are heat sensitive. (Pressure sensitive is another issue)

http://ohioline.osu.edu/fse-fact/0001.html

I started up sacasticaly, but your last question had some validity in it.

You ba$tard Doorman, just when I was going to unsubscribe

Not the Flow International I know, and often do work for... They manufacture water jet cutting machines, and have nothing to do that I am aware of with orange Juice.

No, your wrong, it was Flow International. And this was back in the 1990;s.

The Florida Orange Growers worked in conjunction with Flow International to develop this. It was called High Pressure Pasteurization (HPP) as a non-thermal pasteurization method for orange juice, aiming to extend shelf life and maintain quality, but its economic viability proved challenging.

After initial tests showed promise, it was later revealed that it only smashed the pathogens small enough that it initially did not show up on the swab test.

It was later revealed that it didn't kill them and just stunned the pathogens. Where the pathogens were still there and grew.

Being in the food industry, and in the mid 90's had just purchased waterjets for our fabrication shop, I thought was pretty interesting. It was in a industry magazine I beleive called 'FOOD'... I think.

I try looking for documentation. And I only got a AI response with both of Flow International And Orange Growers listed together for HPP.

The process as I understand was discontinued for more development. But there may be developments using homogenizers.

Just to appease your 'quest' for knowledge my next question would be ''Can we keep aquarium fish in microwaved water???''

As for the rest of your questions the answer is : yes provided you experiment on yerself!!

Happy runoff!!

My questions would be, how many more insanely stubborn people will come here and ask a question and then refuse to accept any logical explanations?

This poster makes # 3 so far this month.

The point about "men of science" is that they seek out the answers - practically or from others' experience. Those suggesting you try the Snopes experiment (not the schoolgirl's) for yourself are simply exasperated that you won't listen to their knowledge and experience and think you must need to see the proof for yourself.

So tell us: do you believe us when we tell you, from our experience and knowledge, that there is no difference between water that has been microwaved, heated on a stove, over fire or in a kettle?

I believe this is a misapplication of logic; the OP is immune to it to which the OP is immune.

Is it safe to bang one's head against a brick wall?

That may well be the next question from the OP.

I'm tired of banging my head against an empty microwave.

"I'm tired of banging my head against an empty microwave."

Ah, so that's why! Nuff said.

I did not criticise you or your belief, i mearly put into question why it is you support one side more fervently than another. As was pointed out in the Snopes ( your reference ) article the experiment you place so much trust in ( your words ) was poorly done. You choose to see the dark side, if you let this rule your life........?

Totally false but only as we understand the science and properties of water today.

In ancient geocentric theory, Earth was the center of the universe, and the body around which the Sun and planets revolved.

Capernicus' theory of a Heliocentric world was deemed totally false.

Are there properties of water yet to be discovered?

As the others have said the claim is false:-

AND based on junk science:-

There's water in all of the food that I've heated or re-heated in the last 25 to 30 years and I'm still here making a nuisance of myself.

It is difficult, proving a negative; why don't you, instead, try to prove that it is dangerous by chasing down the superposition of the H₂O molecules in that environment?

As I understand it, excitation of water molecules is what makes a microwave work.

Quite. If water is absent, a microwave cannot heat its contents.

Actually, that raises a question for me from that Snopes article. It says that the water on the stove and in the microwave was heated in the same vessel. Can you put Pyrex on a microwave? That's the only thing I can think of that would survive both stove and microwave.

Does not look like anyone answered your question SO yes, you can use Pyrex in a microwave.

I use a quart Pyrex every morning the last 8 years to boil water in the micro with no melt downs or casualties!

I do the same but the question is: Is it safer??

Safer than what? You can't use a comparator without two objects.

My only concern was identifying a material that could be used both on the hob and in the microwave. I use the latter so infrequently, I had brainfade.

Making water safe to drink by boiling it, is a function of heat, not process....and it only kills the most common bacteria that cause diarrhea , it doesn't purify the water in any way, other than that....and in fact you don't have to actually boil the water, just heat it up to 161ºF...at this temp the bacteria die instantly, they do not tolerate heat well....so if you heat the water to say 150ºF for say 15 min, it's the same, and 140ºF for say 30 min....The idea is to kill the bacteria with heat....

BTW, some chef worked out that he could cook a bacteria free, soft boiled egg , by heating to, and maintaining a certain temperature for a certain amount of time, but I can't find any link.

I just came across this explanation ......how far it is true is for you to judge and comment.

This prompts me to yet another question: ''What is the difference between gas pressure

and air pressure?? That is you test Ammonia coils at, say 300 psi with gas, but you test the same at a lesser pressure , say 150 psi with air. Why??''

Is there a difference between microwaved water and stove boiled water?

yes, there is a difference, And, the difference creates in one that are not found in the other.

Water heated in a pan heats evenly. The heat is applied from the bottom along the one of the surfaces of the cylinder of water. Natural convextion currents create a stiring action that ensures that the temperature varience is very slight. When water boils the temperature of the water is essentially helt at the boiling point until the boiling process is halted. When water is microwaved, the microwaves affect the water molecules in almost randomly chosen locations in the 3 dimensional volume of the water. The microwaves waves coming in from many diverse angles and affecting many different points within the volume of water, stimulate the water molecules to vibrate and essential create heat from microscopic friction. However, these points of heat generation are not uniform and therefore the water is heated very quickly and in a very random, non uniform way. This lack of uniformity creates hot and cold spots. At any given time the water within the pot on the stove's temperature is very close to being the same for any two points tested. When the water is microwaved, the lack of organized convection and the quick, uneven heat cause the water to behave differently. This effect is most pronounced in a relatively small quantity, something around 8 ounces, give or take a ounce or two. This highly affected quanity of water is essentially the approximate quanity most often heated in microwaves. You may notice for instance that some of the water may be boiling before all of it is even really hot. The most dramatic and sometimes painful condition occurs when several points in the water are heated to a temperature that is higher than the boiling point so quickly and in such isolated quantities that the water is hot enough to boil but restrained by the pressure coming in from the adjacent cooler water. Sometimes when the water is removed quickly and powder like instant tea of coffee is added before the water temperature evens out, the super heated cells of water can cause an almost instant boil over. On the lighter and more dangerous side

Sources: Microwave misshaps http://askville.amazon.com/difference-microwaved-water-stove-boiled/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7186927

There's no doubt there is uneven heating in a microwave. But it does not affect the quality of the water if it is allowed to cool or redistribute the heat evenly. On a molecular level, there is no difference, and no reason why microwaved water would be any different to plants or to animals - unless you pour it on em hot! Once it cools there is no chemical difference from boiled or from unboiled water for that matter.

I don't have a microwave myself, because of the nasty paradox - you use it because you're so hungry you really can't wait to cook or heat your food by ordinary stove, but when the food comes out you can't wolf it, you have to wait for it to cool down. Not only burning your mouth sucks, but the taste of food is lost by burning your tongue. Hungry people like me are better off using the stove.

Not only burning your mouth sucks, but the taste of food is lost by burning your tongue.

I think you forget about the joys of the icy still frozen middle that helps to relieve a bit of the aforementioned burning.

Isn't that why every microwave has a turn table to make the heating more even?

We the Indians and Pakistani's are still fond of cooking our food in earthen pots over coal. It tastes so delicious!!

Microwave is just for convenience.....a gadget for reducing time spent against effort.

That's precisely why the instructions tell you to

1. stir halfway through cooking
2. let stand for 1 - 2 minutes after cooking

I find that 1 - 2 minutes fair zips by as I pour myself (another) drink and lay the table and get the palte out and dish up....

palte plate

Thanks - I'ev tkaen to reversing pairs of letters in odd wrods when typing. No idea why. Bolody annoying. I wonder if it's my fingers flying too fast!

I, too have this malady.

Do not be alarmed, but I fear it may be an early indicator of Alzheimer's.

Maybe I just drink too much.

Wouldn't that be "Anheuser's"

How about Alzheimer's, augmented by Anheuser's.

I do drink Bud sometimes.

It made Bud wiser!

...and Milwalkee famous and a loser out of...

I don't drink enough. Gonna share some of that Tequila?

Don't uncross 'em yet. You can always say "no thanks" later .

The water part (stove and microwave) makes for interesting reading, and my common sense dictates to me that is how it happens in practice. However, it still does not answer the safety part. IMHO, the source of heat should be irrelevant, that is, hot water is hot water, although I may add that some research discourage the use of plastic in microwave heat which is considered unsafe. Whether this is true (or partly so,depending on the type of plastic) is another topic altogether.

Stir after heating.

Anything else?

Is it safe to drink????

So safe you can give it to baby.

If it's hot enough, it will kill all the biologicals. However, that in of itself does not make it safe to drink. The cyanide and arsenic in the water will still kill you (if there is enough of it). Catch my drift?