Hello all,
It seems this debate over whether blood heated in a microwave alters its structure leading to death has been on going; Which only means that my comment would be adding to this. :-)I would like to just say that whom ever is in favor of not having sufficient proof, conclusive evidence that a person or persons getting transfusions from micro waved blood isn't responsible for ones death, please go on and request a personal bag of micro waved blood for your own transfusion the next time you happen to be in the hospital for something critical. I didn't think so...Why not put your theory or the so called research out there to the test. "LOGIC" would indicate that if water, the most basic element yet most crucial to our survival gets altered. Why then wouldn't blood? Water after all is 70% of our body's composition. I have had my blood tested, and free radical damage is present. Sure there may be environmental and job related exposure which may have contributed to my condition. BUT, my nutritionist asked me a simple question. "do you use a microwave and how much?" I am in impeccable good health, ( thank God ) so then, where did the cellular damage come from? Most sincerely, ernie -----Original Message----- From: Lea Ann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CS> In doing research for my son's Science Fair Project (his or mine? :-) I kept coming up with websites claiming, "There was a lawsuit in 1991 in Oklahoma. A woman named Norma Levitt had hip surgery, but was killed by a simple blood transfusion when a nurse "warmed the blood for the transfusion in a microwave oven!" Website after website claims that this proves microwaving food makes the food dangerous. One website states, "Logic suggests that if heating is all there is to microwave cooking, then it doesn't matter how something is heated. Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed, but not in microwave ovens. Does it not therefore follow that microwaving cooking does something quite different?" This is not a logical conclusion. How on earth do they get from "Norma Levitt died following a blood transfusion using blood warmed in a microwave" to "therefore, microwaving blood does something to the blood other than heating it"? There are many variables besides the microwaving that could have occurred and other possible conclusions that can be drawn. In the court case, it appears that the plaintiff alleged that the blood was hemolyzed by the microwaving process. Hemolyzed means that the blood cells were ruptured causing hemoglobin to leak into the plasma.
