This post was reported four times as pseudoscience and misinformation.
Currently this community doesn’t have any rules against posting pseudoscience and misinformation for discussion.
Also, it seems like the discussion here has focused on exactly why this is pseudoscience and misinformation, with lots of educational links about how microwave cooking actually works.
So this stays up for now. Be nice, folks.
This post was reported four times as pseudoscience and misinformation.
Maybe the community is telling you something?
That is the biggest pile of bullshit nothingburger I’ve seen on lemmy. Utter trash article full of outright falsehoods, half truths, and horrible misunderstanding of things.
Like, they went in about the decrease in b vitamins in raw beef and pork after heating. Milk too, but you can drink milk raw safely. Of course the fucking b vitamins are decreased when heated. Good luck with your inevitable tapeworm, e-coli, and/or salmonella infections from that nice, healthy meat.
And that’s the least empty bit in the whole thing
Whomever wrote that is pandering to the type of person that only reads headlines and does no critical thinking. You’re 100% correct and it’s dangerous to promote that kind of easily debunked misinformation. This has no place on here and should be downvoted into oblivion.
Did you see OP’s response? They’re fucking insane and advocating for raw food diets including raw meat.
And they’re convinced of the safety of a raw meat diet because of a single Instagram user purporting to have been consuming nothing but raw meat. Social media combined with gullible/ignorant people is such a cancer on the human race.
Just saw it now… 😩
trash article
it is posted for discussion, and I think it stands unless you have some specific issue with it
There are people who advocate for raw-only diets, microwaving aside (they also oppose other heating methods)
b vitamins are decreased when heated. Good luck with your inevitable
It’s not intended to be inevitable, as there are people who heat with other methods, and even people who consume raw meat (or fermented meat) without issues
I certainly disagree with the response here and the downvotes rather than a discussion of the issues but thank you for offering some counter-view argument
It is posted for discussion, and I think it stands unless you have some specific issue with it
They presented an issue with it, it is misleading. It does not indicate what other avenues of cooking do to food as a fair comparison.
There are people who advocate for raw-only diets, microwaving aside (they also oppose other heating methods)
I’m pretty sure none of those raw-only diets tell you to eat raw meat. If they do, that’s stupid. There are also people who advocate that the world is flat, does that mean that they are correct?
It’s not intended to be inevitable, as there are people who heat with other methods, and even people who consume raw meat (or fermented meat) without issues
These people put their health at risk by doing so. Again, there are people who do all sorts of things “without issues” until they develop issues. People drink urine “without issues.” Should we all be drinking piss? No, that’s stupid. It is a risk to one’s health to eat raw meat. That’s it. No debate with science about that.
I certainly disagree with the response here and the downvotes rather than a discussion of the issues but thank you for offering some counter-view argument
Not all view points merit deep discussion. Are you anti-vax too? I certainly disagree with your insanity proposing people eat raw meat. However, if you want to do that yourself, go ahead. I’ve learned sometimes people want to harm themselves and don’t listen to reason. It’s best to let them do that and hope they don’t spread their misinformation to harm others.
the world is flat
That’s another topic, although people have become skeptical about the shape of the earth after realizing certain photos of the earth were “composites” rather than actual pictures:
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it
These people put their health at risk by doing so
That is what is being argued by the OP article, that people in contrast put their health at risk by using microwaves
It is a risk to one’s health to eat raw meat
They’re saying it is a risk to one’s health to use a microwave to heat food, in contrast
Not all view points merit deep discussion
True, although it is unfortunate that some subjects which probably should have deeper discussion, don’t get the discussion needed
Are you anti-vax too
Vaccines have many problems; I’m open to vaccines possibly working, but sanitation may be more important (like quarantining and social distancing were used during lockdowns), they may be contaminated with toxic additives, they may be ineffective as recent flu vaccines have been, there are “free” alternatives that people might do like get Vitamin D by getting some sunshine that help prevent disease, there are financial incentives that may get in the way of recommending free alternative remedies, there is the placebo effect which may explain the “effectiveness” of some vaccines, and so on (to name some issues).
You must be a troll.
However, here’s a person who died this week due to an extreme raw food diet. You whackos usually can’t even take care of yourselves while doing this nonsense.
I mean they were a fruitarian (consumed fruit more exclusively), not really representative of all the raw foodists with more varied diets (I’m also not one myself)
This pseudo-science bullshit does not belong on Lemmy.
I wouldn’t call it pseudoscience, and your link could be “debunked” by people with opposing views; it would be more helpful to discuss the issue at hand rather than respond as such
That’s the problem. You believe the nonsense. You can’t provide credible sources because the nonsense is not credible it is unworthy of discussion. There is no middle ground. It is garbage.
deleted by creator
“Bullshit”, usually.
I’ll save everyone a click to this bullshit pseudo-science website and put this archive link (from 2011!) here instead. And since I’m bored, I’ll give it quick fact check why not. I may very well also be wrong, so you’re all welcome to fact check the sources too!
What may have started as a nutritious plate of food has now evolved into “dead food” due to the dielectric heating of microwaves. “They bounce around the inside of your [microwave] oven and are absorbed by the food you put in it,” writes Dr. Joseph M. Mercola. The water molecules rotate rapidly in the microwave and in the food in high frequencies which creates molecular friction and heats up your food. This causes the molecular structure in your food to change, and as a result diminishes the nutrient content in the food.
Link just goes to Dr. Mercola’s homepage website, a pseudo-science website written by someone who is known for dubious scientific claims, not even an article. (Side note, I find it funny that mercola’s website URL has been excluded from Wayback Machine)
And are the water molecules bouncing or rotating? The article can’t seem to make up its mind about it. And what does it mean by “changing the molecular structure in your food”? Seems like an extremely sensational way to say “the nutrients broke down”, which by the way, tends to happen when you cook stuff, microwave or not. In fact, studies show that due to the shorter length of time microwaves need to heat up food, they tend to damage the nutrients the least. Boiling vegetables also robs them of some of their nutritional value because the nutrients leach out into the cooking water.Microwaves Destroy Breast Milk And Vitamin B-12
If you’re going to claim microwaving is bad, then at least also say if heating up via other methods would preserve the nutrients. The article and the study it links to does not say. Not dunking on the original study of course, but this is just a textbook way of spinning a study into something that they didn’t claim in the first place.
When you head foods that are wrapped in plastic in the microwave, you can create carcinogens in the food. Based on Russian research and German studies, the Russian government issued a warning […] says Foodbabe.
Yeah no shit. You’re eating melted plastic. Same happens if you put plastic on the stove and eat food from it. No links to the research and studies, link to the Russian gov warning is to Mercola, and foodbabe is also a pseudo-science website. And why would anyone claim a study but put a link to another website and not cite the original source is beyond me.
Microwaves Can Change the Makeup of Your Blood: In a Swiss clinical study, researchers found that… The eight participants in the study ate a series of food…
The link to the study is to huffpost, not an actual study paper, and the article has since been removed by them. Looking at the archived webpage, it was written by Mercola again. The claims in the article itself isn’t that different to this one, I’d say it’s even more entertaining, including terms like Radiolytic Compounds and Biophotons.
It did say that there were 8 participants, but it also said that it was a significant downside that there was ONLY 8 participants, including the researcher himself, and that his methodology did not stand up to the scientific rigors of the field.Microwaves can produce effects on your body instantly due to the 2.4 GHz radiation
Link to article is broken/taken down, even in internet archive. So let’s look up Dr. Magda Havas and her study instead. This article sums it up quite good. Her Ph.D is in botany, not medical nor EE. And an article also pointed flaws in her tests. She did do a follow up research, but I still seriously doubt the credibility of it. Providing statistics of people who are sensitive to EMI by just asking them, and then place a 2.4Ghz source straight on their chest to test their heart rate, doesn’t seem like a great way to test their claims.
Even more fact checking to debunk the pseudo-science:
We simply don’t know the long-term effects of radiation, so why risk it by watching your food cook in your microwave day after day and night after night?
Microwave radiation does not have any long-term effects on your health or food quality. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation, which does not damage cells or DNA. Microwave radiation is also contained within the oven and does not leak out. Therefore, there is no risk of watching your food cook in your microwave.
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/what-to-microwave-ovens-health
Tissues directly exposed to microwaves are subject to the same deformities molecules go through, and this can in turn cause you to experience “microwave sickness”. Remember, it isn’t just microwave ovens which emit this kind of radiation.
Microwave ovens do not expose tissues to microwaves, as they are shielded and contained within the oven. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation, which does not cause deformities in molecules or cells.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26556835/
Microwaving food, in effect, potentially destroys and depletes the life energy, rendering the food completely dead and lifeless. In addition, the food’s nutritional value is lost and it becomes nearly useless in terms of providing any real health benefit.
Microwaving food does not affect its nutritional value negatively, as long as it is cooked properly and with minimal water. In fact, microwaving food can preserve some nutrients better than other cooking methods, such as boiling or frying, because it reduces the exposure to heat and water.
https://www.drberg.com/blog/do-microwaves-actually-lower-your-nutrients-in-food
Vitamin C in asparagus spears was lost during a 1999 Scandinavian study.
This is not unique to microwaving, as any cooking method that involves heat and water can have the same effect. In fact, microwaving food can preserve more vitamin C than boiling or frying, because it uses less water and shorter cooking times.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/microwave-cooking-and-nutrition
Microwaving Food Leads to a Negative Impact on Human Physiology & the Heart
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which issued a press release in 1992 stating that Hertel’s study was not scientifically valid and that there was no evidence that microwaved food was harmful to health.
Very nice 👍
Ok so based on your response and others, it seems like 1) raw is being compared to 2) non-microwave other cooking methods (say stove or oven) versus 3) microwaves, so three categories roughly of cooking (fair?). In the (2) non-microwave cooking category, concern has been raised about burning foods to a char (some raw food enthusiasts bring this point up I think):
(this article suggests microwaving instead of food getting burned, so take with a grain of salt): https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/does-burnt-food-give-you-cancer.aspx
back to this comment
“the nutrients broke down”, which by the way, tends to happen when you cook stuff, microwave or not
I think this is a good point to highlight. This is what some (1) raw food enthusiasts argue for, against cooking with or without microwaves. They argue cooking can reduce the nutrients in food, so people should consume raw foods instead. It seems this point may be admitted, however people often argue for cooking food for the trade off of killing off certain diseases. So the counter-argument in favor of the raw position would be to emphasize cleanliness for most people (and then only possibly cook for “at risk” people), i.e. mostly eat raw unless you are likely to get sick from raw food.
In fact, studies show that due to the shorter length of time microwaves need to heat up food, they tend to damage the nutrients the least
This would be true if all else was equal, but it was being argued here that microwaves may uniquely cause damage over other methods of cooking.
Boiling vegetables also robs them of some of their nutritional value because the nutrients leach out into the cooking water.
Right, I saw one site arguing that it was correct that microwaves removed nutrients (Vitamin C) from broccoli, but that this was similar to how the stovetop might affect it
eating melted plastic
I think this is a good point to take note of, that even assuming microwaves to be safe for the sake of argument, some people may wrongly microwave things thinking them to be “microwave safe”. So there may be dangers to microwaves beyond the act of microwaving itself, which I think would be good to note.
In a Swiss clinical study
I get that people are critiquing the studies, but it should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if microwaves are healthy or not; it sounds like people should avoid them when they can, but if they want to take the risk, that’s for them to decide, and there should be discussions on if it is healthy or not.
For example, plants given microwaved water did not fare well. This study seems easily reproducible, and I am open to it being explained if it is not thought to be relevant, but I’m curious about your thoughts on it: https://www.giftofcuriosity.com/plants-microwaved-water/
This is what some (1) raw food enthusiasts argue for, against cooking with or without microwaves. They argue cooking can reduce the nutrients in food, so people should consume raw foods instead.
These people don’t understand what they’re talking about. There’s a reason why the human race began thriving once we learned how to make fire and cook our food.
Cooking also increases the energy they can get from the food they eat. Starchy potatoes and other tubers, eaten by people across the world, are barely digestible when raw. Moreover, when humans try to eat more like chimpanzees and other primates, we cannot extract enough calories to live healthily. Up to 50 percent of women who exclusively eat raw foods develop amenorrhea, or lack of menstruation, a sign the body does not have enough energy to support a pregnancy—a big problem from an evolutionary perspective.
This would be true if all else was equal, but it was being argued here that microwaves may uniquely cause damage over other methods of cooking.
It may be being argued, but it’s unsupported by any research. There is no special mechanism for microwaves to cause “unique damage” to food. It creates heat and heat cooks the food.
I get that people are critiquing the studies, but it should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if microwaves are healthy or not; it sounds like people should avoid them when they can, but if they want to take the risk, that’s for them to decide, and there should be discussions on if it is healthy or not.
It would not be fair to “consider it uncertain” whether microwaves are unhealthy or not. They’ve been around longer than most of us have been alive and there wasn’t some mass health epidemic after they were installed in homes across the planet. None of this material has even given an actual mechanism for why microwaved food is ‘different’ or ‘risky’ compared to food cooked in other ways.
For example, plants given microwaved water did not fare well. This study seems easily reproducible, and I am open to it being explained if it is not thought to be relevant, but I’m curious about your thoughts on it: https://www.giftofcuriosity.com/plants-microwaved-water/
This woman’s ‘study’ is absurd. She couldn’t even remember to water the plants regularly and then blames “microwaved water” when one dries out and dies from a lack of water in the summer sun.
What I concluded from this experiment is that both stove-boiled and microwave-boiled water would help the plants do well under optimal conditions. But as soon as the plants were stressed (such as from a hot day with no water), the plants given microwave-boiled water proved to be much more vulnerable than the plants given stove-boiled water.
What exactly is the microwave doing to the water here? Is she suggesting that putting water into the microwave creates some new chemical compound that isn’t H2O? If so, what is the new compound and how is it being created? Why is she the first person in history to discover that putting water in the microwave can somehow transform it into something else?
Is she suggesting that putting water into the microwave creates some new chemical compound that isn’t H2O?
Maybe it’s the new compound called radiolytic compounds microwaves produce that are not found in humans nor nature according to Dr. Mercola.
Structures of the water molecules are torn apart and forcefully deformed. This is different than conventional heating of food, whereby heat is transferred convectionally from the outside, inward. Microwave cooking begins within the molecules where water is present.
Contrary to popular belief, microwaved foods don’t cook “from the inside out.” When thicker foods are cooked, microwaves heat the outer layers, and the inner layers are cooked mostly by the conduction of heat from the hot outer layers, inward.
Since not all areas contain the same amount of water, the heating is uneven.
Additionally, microwaving creates new compounds that are not found in humans or in nature, called radiolytic compounds. We don’t yet know what these compounds are doing to your body.Lol. Seriously, if you are bored and need a laugh, I recommend giving it a read.
raw food
But we’re not discussing raw vs cooked food here, are we? The article in question and the “articles” they sourced claim microwaving food is an inferior method of cooking than other traditional methods. Though, human evolution tends to agree that cooking your food is simply better.
but it was being argued here that microwaves may uniquely cause damage over other methods of cooking.
So the proper scientific way of proving that would be to cook the same food on the stove or other methods and test their difference in nutrients, which the article does not do by the way. You can’t claim that the method does something different from the others without testing said methods too.
it should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if microwaves are healthy or not; it sounds like people should avoid them when they can, but if they want to take the risk, that’s for them to decide, and there should be discussions on if it is healthy or not.
If you’re not going to believe the other studies and articles saying the opposite, then it’s your freedom I guess. But consider this, I could change your quote into “It should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if cooking on a stove is healthy or not; it sounds like people should avoid them when they can, but if they want to take the risk, that’s for them to decide, and there should be discussions on if it is healthy or not”, but would it still make sense to you?
plants given microwaved water did not fare well
I don’t think that’s really relevant to the topic, as humans have multiple organs to fend off harmful substances while plants have none. As for the article itself I can’t comment on it too much, but a sample size of 2 is still too small, and ideally the experiment should be conducted in a way more controlled manner including a controlled environment, controlled source of water including not heated, heated, and microwaved, with maybe sources varying from tap water to diluted water. The problem could very well be the water source itself and not the microwave, or the plant itself was already dying regardless. And a quick Google search of “plants microwave water” gives me other articles debunking the myth, so that doesn’t really help.
Give it another day or two and OP is going to be posting stupid shit about UFOs, flat earth or MAGA nonsense.
UFOs
a prevailing view is that aliens are demons and “UFOs” are a kind of fakery to distract people
flat earth
many people have become skeptical about the shape of the earth due to proven fakes about space and unanswered questions about space-related topics, for example popular pictures of the earth were not “real” pictures but composites:
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it
we also don’t know what gravity is (just search “we don’t know what gravity is” for a bunch of articles)
MAGA
if only we could break the uniparty…
Shut the fuck up. No one wants to hear from you.
“The eight participants[…]”
No.
Including the not so scientific researcher lol
OP is right, that’s why I cook everything in my anti-vax homeopathic oven. No 5G is getting in my lasagna 🤡
I have bad news for you, your lasagne contains dihydrogen monoxide, it can kill you! You are 100% going to die.
Wait until you learn about how much β-D-fructofuranosyl α-D-glucopyranoside there is in things you eat regularly. That shit will kill you.
You are absolutely correct. Research shows that 100% of people who died in the past 500 years has dihydrogen monoxide in their body!!!
Hey OP, if you’re feeling attacked maybe try to engage some critical thinking skills and the scientific method. There’s decades of established research and evidence that you can work on reproducing and proving it wrong. That’s the beauty of open information and the scientific method. I’m sure there’s an amazing opportunity for anyone who is able to show that decades of peer reviewed research is wrong.
Understood, however microwaves being healthy or not is independent of studies (implying studies could be wrong and have been at times)
Unicorns are real. Studies saying otherwise could be wrong and have been at times.
Independent of studies? Are you suggesting the claims are unverifiable by experiment?
If that’s the case, then claim whatever you want.
Commenter here made the best argument IMO. If you truly believe this pseudoscience bullshit, then you have fantastic opportunity in front of you to prove your claims and overturn decades of scientific understanding regarding the safety of microwaves. You could be famous.
The title is dumb and misleading, but I don’t doubt that the microwave process does degrade the quality of the food. But that depends on the food itself, the microwave isn’t killing you…
We should always doubt until we see evidence.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/microwave-ovens-and-health#nutrients
"Every form of cooking reduces the nutrient value of food.
The main contributing factors are temperature, cooking time, and method. During boiling, water-soluble nutrients may leak out of the food.
As far as microwaves go, cooking times are generally short, and the temperature is low. Plus, the food is usually not boiled.
For this reason, you would expect microwave ovens to retain more nutrients than methods like frying and boiling.
According to two reviews, microwaving does not reduce nutrient value more than other cooking methods"
there are plenty of contrary sources that raise questions about the safety of microwaves: https://naturalsociety.com/microwaves/
Why don’t you open your mind and be skeptical with your sources?
We simply don’t know the long-term effects of radiation, so why risk it by watching your food cook in your microwave day after day and night after night?
Microwave radiation does not have any long-term effects on your health or food quality. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation, which does not damage cells or DNA. Microwave radiation is also contained within the oven and does not leak out. Therefore, there is no risk of watching your food cook in your microwave.
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/what-to-microwave-ovens-health
Tissues directly exposed to microwaves are subject to the same deformities molecules go through, and this can in turn cause you to experience “microwave sickness”. Remember, it isn’t just microwave ovens which emit this kind of radiation.
Microwave ovens do not expose tissues to microwaves, as they are shielded and contained within the oven. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation, which does not cause deformities in molecules or cells.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26556835/
Microwaving food, in effect, potentially destroys and depletes the life energy, rendering the food completely dead and lifeless. In addition, the food’s nutritional value is lost and it becomes nearly useless in terms of providing any real health benefit.
Microwaving food does not affect its nutritional value negatively, as long as it is cooked properly and with minimal water. In fact, microwaving food can preserve some nutrients better than other cooking methods, such as boiling or frying, because it reduces the exposure to heat and water.
https://www.drberg.com/blog/do-microwaves-actually-lower-your-nutrients-in-food
Vitamin C in asparagus spears was lost during a 1999 Scandinavian study.
This is not unique to microwaving, as any cooking method that involves heat and water can have the same effect. In fact, microwaving food can preserve more vitamin C than boiling or frying, because it uses less water and shorter cooking times.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/microwave-cooking-and-nutrition
Microwaving Food Leads to a Negative Impact on Human Physiology & the Heart
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which issued a press release in 1992 stating that Hertel’s study was not scientifically valid and that there was no evidence that microwaved food was harmful to health.
non-ionizing radiation, which does not damage cells or DNA
well, that’s the point of the discussion because there is not consensus that is true:
“When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749116309526
Evidence of free-radical damage has been repeatedly documented among humans, animals, plants and microorganisms for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and for radio frequency (RF) radiation, neither of which is ionizing. While IR directly damages DNA, NIR interferes with the oxidative repair mechanisms resulting in oxidative stress, damage to cellular components including DNA, and damage to cellular processes leading to cancer. Furthermore, free-radical damage explains the increased cancer risks associated with mobile phone use, occupational exposure to NIR (ELF EMF and RFR), and residential exposure to power lines and RF transmitters including mobile phones, cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and radar installations.
back to comment
Microwave ovens do not expose tissues to microwaves
I guess there would be concern that they could if they leaked (microwave harm reduction as a related topic)
Microwaving food does not affect its nutritional value negatively
I think it’s accepted that it does, along with cooking, but this was thought to be a trade off for killing possible diseases.
can preserve some nutrients better than other cooking methods, such as boiling or frying, because it reduces the exposure to heat and water
That would be true all else equal, but it’s argued microwaves possibly create unique damage
This is not unique to microwaving
Raw food advocates would argue against microwaves and other non-microwave cooking methods though
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which issued a press release in 1992 stating that Hertel’s study was not scientifically valid and that there was no evidence that microwaved food was harmful to health
it’s possible they could be correct but also possible this is a fallacy of appealing to authority
“When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?”
That paper is written by none other than Magda Havas, the person whom your article in question cited and is criticized for pseudo-science. Try linking to another more credible one next time.
fair, how about this one?
“Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub
Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews.
I won’t comment too much on this since it’s straying further and further away from the original topic, which is microwaving food, not microwaving yourself. I’m also not familiar enough with biology and electromagnetism to give a conclusive argument to the paper. HOWEVER. Just a quick question to you, did you actually read through the paper and its citations, thought through its testing methodologies, and came to your own conclusion, or did you just search for “WiFi bad” and reply with any article or “scientific research” that pops up? Cause there is definitely no shortage of bullshit articles and even scientific studies online, as Abraham Lincoln once famously said:
If you read it on the internet, it must be true.
If you’re just going to post whatever pops up in the search engine without thinking through first, I doubt the discussion is going to be any more constructive and would be wasting everyone’s time.
Do you have any “sources” that aren’t conspiratorial pseudo-science?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-society/
This does not belong on Lemmy.
Do you have any arguments against what is being said rather than simply attack the source? What if what they are saying is correct?
The misinformation you are posting is unworthy of discussion. No one is in any way obligated to entertain your nonsense.
That’s a chemtrail peddling quack site
> implying there are not chemicals being sprayed in to the atmosphere
Everything in the entire universe is made from chemicals. Turning on your kitchen faucet is “spraying chemicals into the atmosphere”
mediabiasfactcheck.com/medical-daily/
Bias Rating: PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITYThis is no argument against the claims made in the article or other articles
