These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » Out of Pod Experience » I don't like eggs quite so much anymore

Topic is locked indefinitely.

I don't like eggs quite so much anymore
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

silens vesica

Corsair Cartel

Likes received: 3,128

#41 - 2013-01-14 17:56:49 UTC

Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:

I've found as I've grown older, I just don't really like eggs as much as I used to, except for the yolk. I always liked the yolk, and like it more now, but I feed the egg whites to the dogs. I guess before I liked both white and yolk more equally.

I also used to like omelets, and scrambled eggs, but find myself feeding those to the dogs now too. I guess pretty much anything that's an egg white or mixed thereof, I don't like it anymore. I just made an omelet, and thought it was going to be good, and made it just like I always have, but it's going to the dogs.

Try mixing things up a bit. It may be that you've grown jaded of the 'same 'ol, same 'ol.'
Throw some grueyere over it, or maybe pair it with some asparagus and a dill sauce (super easy to make), slab it over some sourdough toast with a bit of canadian bacon and cheddar... Many ways to make eggs 'new' again.

Or maybe not.
*shrug*

Quote:

Is this a normal part of growing older? Has anybody else experienced an increasing dislike...

'Fraid so. For me, it's my sweet tooth that has gone missing. I found myself deliberately choosing 'old folks' candy, and it weirded me out. As you age, taste will definately change - kinda unpredictable what will stop tasting good, though.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

silens vesica

Corsair Cartel

Likes received: 3,128

#42 - 2013-01-14 18:03:04 UTC

Eurydia Vespasian wrote:

i love eggs. lol...in fact. this thread has inspired me to make breakfast for dinner. eggs benedict and sliced mango!

Damn, that sounds good. Cool

Maybe punch-up the sauce with a bit of cayenne...

We had breakfast for dinner last night - sausage, scrambled eggs, and flapjacks. Vanilla-malt flapjacks. Smile

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Hoover Inc. Snuffed Out 629
Dheeradj Nurgle Hoover Inc. Snuffed Out Likes received: 629	#43 - 2013-01-14 22:20:40 UTC 1 Quite frankly, I never liked eggs. I stopped eating sweet stuff, and build up a love for Sour and Spicy instead.

Krixtal Icefluxor

INLAND EMPIRE Galactic

Likes received: 114,583

#44 - 2013-01-15 00:25:51 UTC

I have not really lost my taste for anything except those green beans I mentioned previously.

What has changed is less of a desire for junk foods and trying to eat well and balanced.

In short, you won't find me online armed with Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Smile

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck." - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Graygor

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 146,968

#45 - 2013-01-15 04:42:43 UTC | Edited by: Graygor

Mountain Dew is bloody awful. I have no idea why anyone drinks something that looks the same going in as when its coming out.

Also i still dont get the whole sweet with pork. Ive tried pancakes and sausage and just am not a fan.

Syrup has no places near sausage or eggs in my world!

Fruit sauces are however ok.

"I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." - Kenneth O'Hara

"I dont think that can happen, you can see Gray has his invuln field on in his portrait." - Commissar "Cake" Kate

Mars Theran

Foreign Interloper

Likes received: 1,781

#46 - 2013-01-15 05:05:07 UTC | Edited by: Mars Theran

Akita T wrote:

If you use "whatever" it is you have and essentially screw it up, of course you're going to get a significant chance of ending up with something unappetizing or even unhealthy.
That would also happen with more traditional cooking methods, but there the "bad" results are more readily apparent.

well.. you're on the ball with spiffy answers today aren't you. Do you really research that much just to tell someone they're wrong in a superfluous fashion, or do you actually know what you're talking about. Personally, I'd almost consider this harassment.

I didn't even read that; not that interested. ..but what the heck..

Quote:

It is therefore useful to divide the UV spectrum into two categories: UVA and UVB. Radiation at the high-energy end of the UV spectrum can be as dangerous as x-rays or -rays.

...

"One suggestion," a bunch of chemists wrote recently, "is that this is some form of 'ponderomotive' driving force that arises when high frequency electric fields modulate ionic currents near interfaces with abrupt differences in ion mobility."

Quote:

Scientists have long used microwave ovens to heat up their coffee just like everybody else, but in the late 1980s they came to a startling realization: The ovens could greatly accelerate useful chemical reactions, sometimes by a factor of a thousand. Processes that once took hours, days, or months could be completed in minutes, often without the toxic solvents previously required.

Quote:

Because living tissue is 70-90% water by weight, the dividing line between radiation that excites electrons and radiation that forms ions is often assumed to be equal to the ionization of water: 1216 kJ/mol. Radiation that carries less energy can only excite the water molecule. It is therefore called non-ionizing radiation. Radiation that carries more energy than 1216 kJ/mol can remove an electron from a water molecule, and is therefore called ionizing radiation.

We experience the fact that biological systems are sensitive to heat each time we cook with a microwave oven, or spend too long in the sun. But it takes a great deal of non-ionizing radiation to reach dangerous levels. We can assume, for example, that absorption of enough radiation to produce an increase of about 6C in body temperature would be fatal. Since the average 70-kilogram human is 80% water by weight, we can use the heat capacity of water to calculate that it would take about 1.5 million joules of non-ionizing radiation to kill the average human.

...

Ionizing radiation is much more dangerous. A dose of only 300 joules of x-ray or -ray radiation is fatal for the average human, even though this radiation raises the temperature of the body by only 0.001C

tl;dr: nothing conclusive, a singular dose of non-ionizing radiation at relatively low power is presumeably harmless, but microwaves involve prolonged exposure, and they heat food by much more than 6C.

..and:

Quote:

Nevertheless, some excellent scientific data has been gathered regarding the detrimental effects of microwaves on the nutrients in your food:

A study published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture5 found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact.
A 1999 Scandinavian study of the cooking of asparagus spears found that microwaving caused a reduction in vitamin C6.
In a study of garlic, as little as 60 seconds of microwave heating was enough to inactivate its allinase, garlic's principle active ingredient against cancer7.
A Japanese study by Watanabe showed that just 6 minutes of microwave heating turned 30-40 percent of the B12 in milk into an inert (dead) form8. This study has been cited by Dr. Andrew Weil as evidence supporting his concerns about the effects of microwaving. Dr. Weil wrote:
"There may be dangers associated with microwaving food... there is a question as to whether microwaving alters protein chemistry in ways that might be harmful."
A recent Australian study9 showed that microwaves cause a higher degree of "protein unfolding" than conventional heating.
Microwaving can destroy the essential disease-fighting agents in breast milk that offer protection for your baby. In 1992, Quan found that microwaved breast milk lost lysozyme activity, antibodies, and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria10.
Quan stated that more damage was done to the milk by microwaving than by other methods of heating, concluding: "Microwaving appears to be contraindicated at high-temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures."

tl;dr: misinformation is wide-spread, but studies suggest you are wrong in every respect but that microwaves are considered a non-ionizing source of radiation.

edit: except for that bit about plastics and such, but if it does that..

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub

Akita T

Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force

Likes received: 2,031

#47 - 2013-01-15 06:58:08 UTC | Edited by: Akita T

Mars Theran wrote:

Do you really research that much just to tell someone they're wrong in a superfluous fashion, or do you actually know what you're talking about.

I am frequently arguing with inlaws and family about microwave cooking and vaccinations.
My mother, my sister and my wife's mother are in the deep "microwaves are evil" court, and both mothers are somewhat in the "vaccines do more harm than good" team (also on the "cold causes flu" one, but that's just laughable).
Considering me and my wife have a baby that's recently underway, I had the "pleasure" of doing plenty of research about both subjects in the past, and a lot more recently.
I guess you just happened to hit two misconception-laden subjects I feel strongly about in the same day, eh.

Quote:

radiation to produce an increase of about 6C in body temperature would be fatal.

It is THE HEATING ITSELF that causes death on the spot in case of non-ionizing radiation. Put a healthy person (i.e. normal body temp around 37C) in an insanely hot room and let them sit there. They will heat up, BUT THEIR CORE BODY TEMPERATURE WILL NOT EVEN GET CLOSE TO 37C+6C=43C as long as they still have enough water in their system to sweat profusely in order to dump heat away. When they run out of sweat, core body temperature will start to go up fast, and after it goes past 43C and upwards, death will soon follow.
HOW that 6C heating happens bears very little relevance to whether a person dies or not. It could be sitting in the desert, it could be sitting in an oven, it could be physical exertion in a very confined space, it could be sitting on a microwave dish or anything else, it does not matter what caused the heating, you're going to be dead either way.

Also, a steak is part of a dead animal. The animal can't die more than it's already dead. Whether you heat up the steak 6C or 100C, you still won't kill the originating animal more than that. And unless you eat yourself mounds upon mounds of ultra-hot stuff with no way to radiate heat away, it does not matter what kind of heating method you used to cook your food.

In the case of ionizing radiation of a much smaller total energy, death happens later on due to damage down to the DNA level. That's a completely different story.

Quote:

Nevertheless, some excellent scientific data has been gathered regarding the detrimental effects of microwaves on the nutrients in your food:
[...]
studies suggest you are wrong

As I was saying earlier, the TYPE of microwave (frequency used, power modulation method) matters a lot to WHAT you are trying to cook.
Here's some other studies that say the exact opposite. Considering the above phrase though, the studies showing apparently contradictory results are actually NOT mutually exclusive, they merely used different microwaving settings for different foodstuffs, and as expected, the results are not always the same.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1994.tb00135.x/abstract
" Fresh broccoli, cauliflower, and potatoes and frozen corn and peas were cooked by boiling, steaming, microwave boiling and microwave steaming to equivalent tenderness as measured by a shear press.[...] The nutrient retention was highest in foods cooked by microwave steaming, followed by microwave boiling, followed by steaming, and then by boiling. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030881460400295X
"The cooking yield in microwaving was markedly higher than in broiling."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1982.tb07625.x/abstract
"reheating by conduction, convection and microwave radiation was compared. [...] Statistical analyses indicated no significant difference in nutrient retention of experimental products due to method of reheating."

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480400009102
"Eight whole legumes [...] were cooked under pressure or in a microwave oven and were analysed for nutrient composition. Raw legumes served as control. [...] Cooking methods did not affect the nutrient composition of legumes. [...] The mean in vitro protein digestibility of pressure-cooked and microwaved samples was 79.8% and 74.7%, respectively."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1981.tb14579.x/abstract
"[...]simulate those used in home meal preparation, upon nutrient retention in Colossus Peas [...] was studied. Neither method resulted in significant changes in the fat, protein, β-carotene and ascorbic acid content of the peas. Microwave cooking resulted in significantly greater losses of several ammo acids, but resulted in significantly greater retention of thiamin and riboflavin than the conventional treatment."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02852138?LI=true
"The retention of water-soluble vitamins by several potato varieties using various home preparation methods [...] with but a few exceptions, whole, unpeeled, boiled and microwave cooked potatoes exhibited the highest vitamin retention."

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1453972&show=abstract
"Several studies have shown that microwave cooking, if properly used, does not change the nutrient content of foods to a larger extent than conventional heating.[...] nutrients and antibacterial factors in milk are maintained unchanged provided the final temperature does not exceed 60°C"

...

The key is HOW you use the microwave (and what microwave oven you have matters too).
It's easier to screw stuff up with a microwave, and harder to know when you screwed up, but I said as much already.
Of course, SOME things are better cooked traditionally.
Overall, microwaving is just fine if used properly.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC

Akita T

Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force

Likes received: 2,031

#48 - 2013-01-15 07:16:30 UTC | Edited by: Akita T

Mars Theran wrote:

except for that bit about plastics and such, but if it does that..

You wouldn't even dream of cooking anything in a plastic bag or on a plastic plate in a conventional oven, so why does it seem so surprising bad stuff has a chance of happening if you do it in a microwave oven instead ?
Also, it's not all plastics, and not in all operational modes. But if you don't know for sure, better be safe than sorry.

...

Ok, I'll grant you this though : for the completely oblivious "Joe Average" home microwave user that does it "by the ear", microwaving food has a significantly higher chance of ending up worse off, for a pretty long list of reasons, and they probably won't even realize what they did wrong in the first place if they messed up.

So, yes, if you have no idea what you're doing, you're probably better off sticking to only slightly heating stuff in the microwave to a luke-warm temperature at most, in ceramic/glass dishes with no plastics of any kind, and nothing else, for your own safety.

However, for people who know exactly what they're doing and how exactly their oven operates, they can potentially obtain better results by using it for cooking (not just reheating) instead of other traditional methods for a wide variety of foods.
NOT ALL foods, and depending on what oven they have, but still, you get the idea.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC

Mars Theran

Foreign Interloper

Likes received: 1,781

#49 - 2013-01-15 09:54:45 UTC | Edited by: Mars Theran

Akita T wrote:

Mars Theran wrote:

except for that bit about plastics and such, but if it does that..

All I really have to do is stick a fork in a microwave, (seriously, if anyone is reading this and thinking of trying it: don't; it's bad; you will likely need a new microwave - /disclaimer), and turn it on to know that it's not your average means of heating food. What?

That, and I've not tried it, but it might be educational to stick one of those 'not safe for microwave use' containers in a microwave without food or water and see what happens. I mean, a microwave cooks by exciting water molecules right, so what could possibly go wrong? - back to fork.

Not saying microwaves are terribly unsafe really; they work well enough provided you use them properly. But they don't exactly just heat your food.

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub

Akita T

Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force

Likes received: 2,031

#50 - 2013-01-15 10:29:39 UTC | Edited by: Akita T

Mars Theran wrote:

But they don't exactly just heat your food.

That's exactly what they do, and not much else. They heat stuff up.
But they heat it up through dielectric heating, NOT convection nor direct radiative heating.
The issue is with what exactly they heat better (or more accurately said, which parts are more rapidly heated).

Dielectric heating acts on polarized molecules, "shaking" them vigorously, which translates into kinetic energy, which is basically what heat is at the molecular level (the more strongly polarized the molecule, the faster it heats up).
Water is the most polar common molecule in food, fats are less polar, and sugars even less so. So they heat up preferentially in that order.
A lot of materials contain polarized molecules.

In microwave ovens, heat gets applied gradually from the outside to as much as 2-6 cm deep into the food (depending on the food chemical composition and physical structure, and depending on the operating frequency of the oven) AND preferentially on the more polarized molecules.
In traditional ovens, heat initially gets applied on the first few millimeters only (or even less), but to basically anything that's there.
The rest of the interior of the food heats up through thermal contact with the already heated exterior layers of food, regardless of oven type, be it traditional or microwave.
Some foods are more insulating thermally than others (stuff that contains small air bubbles, like bread or meringue), but they also tend to be more transparent to microwaves (getting a deeper penetration). So if you cook stuff in the microwave, you will not get a crust, unless you go out of your way to find a method to concentrate significantly more heat on the surface (by, say, covering it with fats, for instance).

In case of a material that can conduct electricity (i.e. metal), depending on the SHAPE of the object, a rudimentary receiving antenna might get created, absorbing energy.
Pointy, sharp or wrinkled metal surfaces usually end up generating sparks between edges, closing an electric circuit via an electric arc, making the new antenna-like loop heat up even faster, and keep the arc going longer.
The fork example you gave should theoretically result in electric arcs between the teeth of the fork, which would keep going until the fork gets too melted to be an effective antenna anymore (or gets deformed enough to no longer do that). You should not see much of a reaction from the rounded end of the fork.

However, if you put a smooth, groove-less metal object in the microwave, that's actually quite ok. A ball from a ball bearing, for instance. Or a metal pot without sharp edges nor loops. Or even aluminium foil, provided it's not too creased.
The reason why a CD/DVD goes bonkers in a microwave is that, while appearing smooth, its metallic surface has a very thin spiral groove covering the entire surface.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC

Storm Hunters 18,737
Eurydia Vespasian Storm Hunters Likes received: 18,737	#51 - 2013-01-15 18:57:49 UTC 6 lol! only in oope on the EvE forums would users be subjected to a battle of microwave knowledge. unless, of course, kenmore and general electric have forums maybe...

Mars Theran

Foreign Interloper

Likes received: 1,781

#52 - 2013-01-16 08:19:34 UTC

Akita T wrote:

I read all the same material and I remain essentially unconvinced that microwaves just heat food. That isn't what occurs, no more than a piece of metal suddenly tossing about electrons occurs when you heat it with an open flame.

What actually occurs in a piece of metal when heated with an open flame, is that it has electron movement and thus electrical current. Not a lot generally, but it does happen, just as heating food through conventional means excites molecules and puts them into motion, a result of thermal transfer.

A microwave is a little different. It doesn't simply excite molecules through thermal transfer, but rather excites the molecules, creating heat where there was none before. It destabilizes atoms in molecules with a polar structure and creates a situation of high likelihood of chemical change by loosening up the electron bond of the atomic structure.

This is why scientists can use microwaves to accelerate chemical reactions or the process of them. I won't pretend to know a whole lot about this as I'm not familiar with any chemical reactions, (I assume they are using the term loosely), which take years to occur, aside from potentially the creation of molecular structures like diamonds. It's quite possibly that is to what they are referring.

With no scientific experience or practical knowledge in the field of microwaves or other similar forms of radiation, it is hard for me to say anything with certainty, so I tend to refrain from making bold, all-encompassing statements as fact.

I do know that a simple rule, is that a specific sample, (such as mentioned in the article I quoted regarding Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation), at a specific frequency and energy level is not indicative of all potential samples. In that specific case, where all samples are measured based on some known variable within a specific amount of time, (another known but unmentioned variable), certain types are identified as non-ionizing, while others are identified as ionizing.

The simple deduction, is that the known variables are naturally occurring ones, where we might expect people to see these levels of exposure in the environment to which we are all exposed is specific area of the world. In this case, that area was the US, and there was specific mention of how much radiation the average American was exposed to in a given year somewhere down at the bottom of the article.

It is reasonable to conclude then, that given a change of frequency of these radiation waves, along with a given increase in energy, and possibly duration of exposure, might produce different results.

What it actually states in the article, is that the effect of the microwaves on the atoms, is to excite the electron activity, (fork example), and increase it until the electrons are high valence orbitals. Any more excited, and the electrons would start popping off and floating about on their own. Ionization.

Metals have free electrons, so the electron movement is perceivable in most cases There's more; out of text space.

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub

Graygor

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 146,968

#53 - 2013-01-16 09:16:33 UTC

Eurydia Vespasian wrote:

lol!

only in oope on the EvE forums would users be subjected to a battle of microwave knowledge.

unless, of course, kenmore and general electric have forums maybe...

Oh what drama fests they must have.

THE OVEN IS DYING!!1111111

Learn to defrost n00b!

Nerf toaster ovens!

WTF? All my popcorn didnt pop! Im unplugging my 5 microwaves!

Big smile

"I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." - Kenneth O'Hara

"I dont think that can happen, you can see Gray has his invuln field on in his portrait." - Commissar "Cake" Kate

Akita T

Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force

Likes received: 2,031

#54 - 2013-01-16 11:46:48 UTC | Edited by: Akita T

Mars Theran wrote:

I read all the same material and I remain essentially unconvinced that microwaves just heat food. That isn't what occurs

So, people that supposedly know what they're talking about keep telling you A, but you choose to believe B for some unexplained reason ?

Quote:

What actually occurs in a piece of metal when heated with an open flame, is that it has electron movement and thus electrical current. Not a lot generally, but it does happen, just as heating food through conventional means excites molecules and puts them into motion, a result of thermal transfer.

Not quite.
What we call "heat" is essentially a measure of the magnitude of the average kinetic energy of particles in a sample.
For solids and liquids, it's mainly vibrational or rotational (with a little bit of assistance of electron motion in the conduction band for solids mainly), while for gases it's mainly random motion - but that's alreay besides the point. Everything else is irrelevant for "heat measuring" purposes anyway.
When you heat a piece of metal in or on a chemical fire (natural gas, wood, gasoline, etc), you don't get a measurable electric current (or, if you do, it happens because of some other reason, NOT because of the fire itself nor the heat it generates - like, say, in case of thermocouples, but again, that's besides the point). What happens is that the electrons in the conduction band that are there because of the portion of the heat that wasn't accommodated by the vibration or rotation of the atoms themselves are still bound to the material, but they move freely AND STATISTICALLY RANDOMLY between individual atoms.
To get an electric current, you need to have them travel preferentially in one direction, which does not happen without some other factors (other than heat, that is) coming into play first.

Quote:

A microwave is a little different. It doesn't simply excite molecules through thermal transfer, but rather excites the molecules, creating heat where there was none before.

So it doesn't vibrate/rotate the molecules though molecule-to-molecule collision, it does it by directly rotating the polar molecules. That's the only significant difference, Big whoop ?

Quote:

It destabilizes atoms in molecules with a polar structure and creates a situation of high likelihood of chemical change by loosening up the electron bond of the atomic structure. This is why scientists can use microwaves to accelerate chemical reactions or the process of them. I won't pretend to know a whole lot about this

Well, luckily, I do.
It doesn't destabilize anything. Unless you redefine what "destabilization" means in this context. And no, heat (as in, kinetic energy at the molecular level) does not constitute a reason to call it "destabilization". That word means something else.

Scientist use microwaves to accelerate reactions, true, but it's an acceleration that could have been accomplished by any other heating methods, just a lot more expensively.
That's because microwaves (as said before) heat up the sample deeply and directly (which is particularly important if you are trying to accomplish chemical reactions without much or very little solvents), and can heat up the sample even higher than would be economically feasible with a conventional fire.
After all, you can't possibly heat something to 3000 degrees Celsius if you're using a 1500 C flame (you need to use a different type of flame, one that burns at least that much hotter), but you can heat something (quite safely too) that high or even higher with enough microwave power.
Most microwave-assisted-speedup reactions happen at insanely high temperatures and at very high pressures (easily achieved by placing the sample in a strong, microwave-transparent container, and the increase in heat in a fixed space results in the desirable increased pressure), BOTH factors contributing to reaction speed.
And it's really just those two things, temperature and pressure, nothing else. Stuff you could do with any other methods. It would just cost you a lot more if you tried to do it in other ways. Microwaves are the cheapest way to do it, no more, no less.
And at best you're getting minutes instead of hours, if you go insane pressure and heat at the same time. You're not getting reactions that are normally impossible, and you're not getting years in seconds.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC

Akita T

Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force

Likes received: 2,031

#55 - 2013-01-16 12:13:08 UTC | Edited by: Akita T

Seriously, what's so difficult to understand as far as the general public is concerned anyway ?

Radiation-wise, you should be concerned ONLY with electromagnetic radiation from the mid-high ultraviolet spectrum "upwards" towards x and gamma rays.
Anything below, and you should only be concerned with HEAT, but no more than you would be concerned with sitting around a hot object.

Microwaves are even less energetic than infrared, and people are not really afraid of infrared, but somehow, they are afraid of microwaves ?!?
Sigh.
Heck, visible light is higher energy than infrared, let alone microwaves, but we're not afraid of light, are we ?
Well, I guess you could be afraid of lasers (i.e. coherent light), but mostly of getting one in the eye, not of one boiling you to death (unless you're in one of those few places on Earth where you can get a laser powerful enough for that).

EVERY OBJECT THAT'S ABOVE ABSOLUTE ZERO RADIATES ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY.
EVEN OUR OWN BODY CONSTANTLY RADIATES BOTH INFRARED AND MICROWAVE WAVELENGTH ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY !!!
Granted, at relatively low powers and in all directions, but we're not the only thing emitting microwaves and infrared, since THE WHOLE PLANET OF EARTH AND EVERYTHING ON IT DOES IT CONSTANTLY TOO.

As a matter of fact, the average adult human being at a comfortable skin temperature constantly radiates in the rough ballpark of 100 Watts worth of electromagnetic radiation, most of it in infrared, some of it in the microwave spectrum, and very little in the radio wave band too.
It is our primary method of cooling. If we would not be doing that constantly, WE WOULD BE COOKING OURSELVES to death.
Sweat is our other way to dump additional heat out past what we can radiate away naturally.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC

Hrothgar Nilsson

Likes received: 498

#56 - 2013-01-18 14:17:08 UTC

silens vesica wrote:

Actually, I'm still liking hard-boiled eggs just fine. Just made a nice egg salad the other day too.

I'll have to try poaching them to eat as breakfast, maybe that will be better.

Another thing that has looked absolutely delicious over the past few years is Eggs Benedict, but sadly I've yet to try them. I would like to make a nice Hollandaise sauce, but I'd probably mess it up.

Another thing I can't imagine getting sick of is egg drop soup, or the more ghetto version, cracking and stirring an egg along with the seasoning in a pot of ramen just as the noodles are finishing cooking.

It's really just fried eggs, I guess. I can get my runny yolk fix with poaching, without getting the fried egg white flavor that I've grown to dislike.

So, problem solved I suppose.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...


Krixtal Icefluxor INLAND EMPIRE Galactic Likes received: 114,583	#57 - 2013-01-20 03:48:16 UTC 2 Brace yourselves. The great mystery egg "He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck." - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Perkone Caldari State 60,166
Zimmy Zeta Perkone Caldari State Likes received: 60,166	#58 - 2013-01-22 16:08:30 UTC 1 How could you allow this thread to slip over to page two? I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory. 126,785
Alice Saki Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory. Likes received: 126,785	#59 - 2013-01-22 16:10:54 UTC 1 I must have not posted in it ^_^ FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.