Akashic fields forever

Yesterday, a student of mine asked me if I knew what an "Akashic Field" was.

I was tempted to say that it was a field that had no buckwheat in it, but that was a rather abstruse pun at best.  So I told him that I didn't, but my intuition was that a term where the first word sounded vaguely Sanskrit and the second word was "field" was probably referring to something that didn't exist, and then I told him I'd look into it and get back to him.

It's nice when your intuition is correct.

A quick Google search brought me here, to the Linda Howe Center for Akashic Studies, wherein we learn that the "Akashic Field" is an energy matrix that allows you to access the "Akashic Record."  The latter, according to the website, is defined thusly:  "The Akashic Record is a dimension of consciousness that contains a vibrational record of every soul and its journey.  It is completely available everywhere...  The energy present in the Record is a very quick vibration with a great velocity. It is also full-bodied and rich.  When opening the Record, a quickening occurs.  The infusion of light accelerates everything in its path. In the presence of light, all darkness is seen and brightened. Individual conscious minds do not need to direct this light.  Infinite wisdom of light goes where it is needed and received to fulfill its function."

Okay, now that we've successfully disabled any readers who have taken a college-level physics class, I'm sure the next question to ask is: how do I get access to this amazing source of wisdom?

"Working with the sacred prayer provides a reliable, deliberate way to move into and access the consciousness of the Record responsibly." Linda Howe tells us.  We then are directed to take one of her classes ($300-500 for in-person classes if you live in the Chicago area, or happen to be near one of the places she's touring, and $25-40 an hour for online classes where you watch a video recording) so we can learn the "Pathway Prayer Process" to tap into the "Akashic Record" and "receive guidance."

Well, sorry, I'm not going to spend $25, much less $300, to find out more about something that sounds like a slightly reworked version of "The Force" from Star Wars.  (Although other websites I looked at said that your access to the Akashic Record had something to do with the pineal gland, the Egyptian god Osiris, and the Orion Nebula, and that modern Americans were losing this ability because of fluoridation in water.  The Nazis were also briefly mentioned.)

The problem is, the whole "Akashic Record" idea traces its origins not to Ancient Egypt or Ancient Babylon, or in fact Ancient Anywhere, but to the writings of noted early 20th century wingnut Edgar Cayce, whose mystical books are still immensely popular (and his followers say that he didn't write them, but "channeled" them).  So let's see what Cayce himself has to say on the subject -- that's sure to be illuminating, right?  "We have explained before that the intelligent infinity is brought into intelligent energy from eighth density or octave.  The one sound vibratory complex called Edgar used this gateway to view the present, which is not the continuum you experience but the potential social memory complex of this planetary sphere."

Okay.  Right.  What?

The problem, of course, is that Cayce et al. seemed to have been really good at making stuff up, and they counted on (and in many cases found) the credulity of the vast majority of the public working in their favor.  For an excellent skeptical look at the ideas of Cayce and other channelers of Mystical Knowledge of the Ages, take a look at this site, which shows that not only is the basic claim nonsense, but the writings that were produced from accessing the "Akashic Records" (such as Levi Dowling's famous The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ) are actually riddled with simple, and easily checked, factual errors.

A little hard to explain if you think, like Linda Howe, that the "Akashic Record" contains accurate information of "every soul and its journey," isn't it?

In any case, the whole thing smacks of wishful thinking to me.  Until someone brings out an Akashic-o-meter and can show that this "Akashic Field" actually exists, and that it's not just someone going into a trance and deciding that she was Cleopatra in a previous life, I'm not buying it.  Me, I'm going back to my previous definition of an "Akashic Field" as a field with no buckwheat, which, you have to admit, is kind of a kick-ass pun.

Correlation, intelligence, and politics

Everyone loves a good correlation.  Our brains are outstanding pattern-finders; we are very good at picking patterns out of the sensory input that bombards us constantly, so good that we sometimes invent patterns where there is nothing there but some random array (numerology and pareidolia are two excellent examples of this).

There's a second problem, though, and that is that although our brains are pretty good at finding patterns, they're not nearly as good at determining what those patterns mean.  Presented with a correlation, we're quick to assume that there's a causation present -- especially if the relationship seems to support something we already thought was true.

Take, for example, the following table, that has been making the rounds of liberal websites this week:

The statistics given -- the percent of adults 25 years or older who have a college degree -- correlates strongly with which of the two presidential candidates the state went for.  The states with the highest percentage of college graduates went for Obama; the ones with the lowest went for Romney.  And of course, the crowing on the liberal websites was loud and long, and mostly to the effect of "Ha!  We're smarter!  We knew it!"

The problem is, is this really what this table shows?  What we have here is a correlation; that Democrats actually are smarter, or that being smarter caused you to vote Democrat, very much remains to be seen.  I can think of three other explanations for the data without even trying hard.  (1) A college education is also correlated to having a higher-paying, more stable job; the message about Obama being weak on jobs resonated more with the people with fewer marketable credentials.  (2)  The lack of diplomas from colleges, and tendency to vote Republican, in the right hand list are both caused by a second factor; a higher adherence to evangelical religion in those states.  (3) Going to college brainwashes you into becoming a Democrat; colleges are frequently accused of being hotbeds of liberalism.

Which is it?  Or is it something different still?  I think you can see that establishing what caused the pattern is a lot harder than seeing the pattern in the first place.  But when someone finds a pattern that seems to suggest something we already believed, it's easier just to jump to a causation when one has yet to be established.  (Especially when the conclusion is, "Boy, aren't we smart?"  Psychological studies have been done that have shown that nearly everyone thinks (s)he is above average in intelligence, something that has been nicknamed the Lake Wobegon Effect.)

Now, to be sure, patterns like this certainly do demand an explanation; saying "correlation does not imply causation" and then forthwith giving up thinking is lazy.  Something is going on here that needs explaining.  And as Daniel Engber, in his wonderful piece "The Internet Blowhard's Favorite Phrase," put it, "Correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint."  Whatever the reason behind the pattern in the table -- whether it is true that Democrats, on average, are smarter than Republicans, or one of my three alternate explanations is correct, or that some combination of those reasons is responsible, or that it is caused by something else entirely -- it certainly is a question that should be of interest to sociologists and political scientists.  What it is not is a reason for the liberals to go "Woo hoo!" and then stop thinking.

Because, of course, that one is not the only correlation that is out there.  How about this one, that made the rounds after the 2008 election:

Yes, the red state/blue state split correlates almost perfectly with another statistic, the number of breweries per capita.  I can see it now -- conservatives claiming that the election was invalid, that people who voted for Obama in the blue states actually meant to vote for Romney but screwed up their ballots because they were drunk.

Telehealing

I have a commitment to the truth, and I try never to let other considerations (money, power, pride, personal gain) trump that commitment.  It's why I have made the statement in Skeptophilia more than once; if you can show me that anything I've written here is demonstrably wrong, and have the facts to back you up, I will happily print a retraction.

That isn't to say that sometimes I'm not sorely tempted to lie.  I'm only human, after all.  In fact, today's post is about a guy whose moneymaking idea is so inspired, so completely brilliant, that I wish I'd thought of it first.  Had I done so... well, let's just leave it at "I hope I'd have done the right thing."

Meet Michael Mohoric, who runs Qigong Energy Healing.  Now, I'm sure you've heard of Qigong before; it's the same old tired "revitalize your aura and realign your chakras" stuff, and his site is full of our favorite words "vibration" and "frequency" and "energy."  But most Qigong practitioners at least make a show of having their clients show up in their offices, and then lie down while the practitioner waves his/her hands around or does whatever it takes to manipulate an essentially nonexistent "energy field."  Mr. Mohoric, on the other hand, has gone the next logical step -- he does the whole thing long-distance.

For a monthly subscription fee of $99, Mr. Mohoric will "send you energy" once a week.  "I feel that this series of energy transmissions can be life transforming for many people," he tells us on his website.  "Although one session can often provide dramatic results, multiple sessions can deepen the energy work and get to deep-seated core issues. By receiving energy for a full month, the energy will continue to work deeper and be able to address long held patterns and anchor the changes. When one has had an energetic pattern for many years, it can take time to release and cancel the pattern and move it out of one’s energy field."

For your $99 a month, he will do a "long-distance healing session" and "energy adjustment" once a week, sending out a "major energy transmission" every Wednesday night.  He suggests meditating at that time so you can pick up his signal, but you don't need to worry if you forget to tune in; he says you'll get the energy anyhow, and there's a testimonial from a guy who forgot and then started feeling really energized on Wednesday night, and suddenly remembered what was happening.  "The energy is intelligent and will work with you individually to give you personalized attention to your specific energetic needs," Mr. Mohoric writes.

Oh, yeah, and for another $39 he'll energize your pets long-distance, too.

Well, let's see; we have confirmation bias, dart-thrower's bias, misuse of scientific terminology, and the placebo effect going on here.  Have I missed any?

That said, don't you think it's a brilliant idea?  What a job!  You maintain a website, get people to subscribe to your services not just one time only, but for a monthly fee, and in return, you work one night a week.  Assuming he really is doing anything on Wednesday nights.  Doesn't this sound like the career of a lifetime?  Even if you really believe that what you are doing is real -- and however outlandish it sounds, he appears to be sincere -- the sum total of your job is to sit there for an hour on Wednesday evening and beam out some "energy" to your customers.  Doesn't matter if it gets there or not; he has the usual disclaimer at the bottom of the page that he is "not making a medical claim" and that "all healing is self-healing" and that "like any modality, it won't work for everyone."  The rest of the week you can sleep in late, go for a run, play with your dog, take a nap in the hammock, whatever floats your boat.

Given that I'm shortly to get myself together and spend the day attempting to educate savage hordes of teenagers, that kind of life sounds pretty awesome.

Of course, there's just this one teensy problem, and that's that commitment-to-the-truth thing I was mentioning earlier.  Given that controlled scientific studies have never found a shred of evidence for the existence of chakras, energy meridians, or the rest of it (for a nice summary of the studies that have been done in this regard, go here), I couldn't in good conscience take your money when I knew that what I was accomplishing was precisely nothing.

Well, okay,  how about this as an idea?  You send me $99 a month ($39 additional if you want me to include your pets), and every Tuesday night I'll think about you in a scientific way.  I'll picture you thinking critically, using scientifically-sound logic, and being rational, and applying those skills to your everyday life.  I'll ponder how much more clearly you'll think if you can accomplish those goals.  Okay, I know that my thinking about you won't make you change, but I promise I'll do it faithfully.  Ready to sign up for my service?

No?

Oh, well, it was worth a shot.  Truth always comes at a cost, I suppose.

The creationists target Indiana

Well, here we go again.

Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, has once again put rationalist Americans on high alert that a state legislator is planning to give a go to at undermining public schools' teaching of biology.

Dennis Kruse (R-Indiana) has announced plans to introduce a bill into legislation drafted by none other than our friends in the Discovery Institute, who have listed amongst their stated goals:

Scientific research and experimentation have produced staggering advances in our knowledge about the natural world, but they have also led to increasing abuse of science as the so-called “new atheists” have enlisted science to promote a materialistic worldview, to deny human freedom and dignity and to smother free inquiry. Our Center for Science and Culture works to defend free inquiry. It also seeks to counter the materialistic interpretation of science by demonstrating that life and the universe are the products of intelligent design and by challenging the materialistic conception of a self-existent, self-organizing universe and the Darwinian view that life developed through a blind and purposeless process.

Lest my more optimistic (and scientific) readers think this won't have a chance, such efforts have already been successful in Louisiana (2008) and Tennessee (2012).  Inevitably it takes the form of some sort of "teach the controversy" argument -- as if instructing students in the findings of valid, peer-reviewed, evidence-supported science represents some kind of satanic indoctrination.  Interesting, too, that no one ever suggests "teaching the controversy" in, for example, chemistry, inducing chemistry teachers to spend a few weeks discussing alchemy -- despite the fact that the findings of evolutionary biologists are no more controversial in scientific circles than those of the chemists.  Oh, and isn't it odd that it seems to be only people who are poorly educated in biological science who think there's a controversy?  (Wait, that's probably just because we biologists were "indoctrinated" ourselves.  Never mind.)

Kruse, for his part, is serious about this.  He pledged when elected to remove evolution from state science standards, and publicly stated, "I'd guess that 80% of Indiana would be oriented with the bible and creation."  No equivocation there, is there?  No mealy-mouthed "teach the controversy" nonsense.  Nope,  just good, old-fashioned young-earth literalism, designed to further hack away at the state of science education in the United States.  It's no wonder there are so many international students in US college science programs, given our determination as a nation to destroy the underpinnings of science teaching in American high schools.

It's to be hoped that the legislators will handle this sensibly (well, in my opinion, "sensibly" would include laughing directly in Kruse's face, but I'm not optimistic enough to hope for that).  Kruse has attempted this sort of thing before, and failed, the last time because the legislature refused to vote and the bill died when they adjourned -- a remarkably spineless way to handle things, and one which doesn't bode well for the future.

The whole thing makes me despair a little.  Of course, that's what Kruse et al. want; to wear down the opposition, to make them give up out of sheer exhaustion.  I don't think they reckon with the likes of Dr. Scott, however, who doesn't strike me as the capitulating sort.  I think her attitude can much better be summed up in the immortal words of Captain Mathazar from Galaxy Quest:  "Never give up, never surrender."

News, slant, and the Weeping Jesus of Huntsville

One of the points I make repeatedly in my Critical Thinking classes is that there is no such thing as unbiased media.  Every media has slant.  Even the decision to say "this is news" and "this is not news, don't show/print this" represents a bias -- they are deciding for you what is important for you to hear.  This is not to say that you shouldn't believe anything you read, hear, or see on public media, but it does mean that you can't just watch with your brain shut off.

Of course, not everyone approaches it this way, which is why it really pisses me off when a professional media outlet prints (and televises) stuff like this article, entitled "'Black Jesus' Draws Mystery To Visitors At Historic Cemetery."

In this story, we hear about the early 20th century sculpture "The Comforting Christ," which stands in historic Oakwood Cemetery in Huntsville, Texas.  The statue was commissioned by Judge Benjamin Powell and his wife in honor of their son, who had died young during a botched surgery.  The statue, made of bronze, has darkened to near black by the effects of weathering.  It is clearly an imposing figure in the quiet cemetery.

But the story isn't about a historically interesting piece of art work, nor about a public figure's grief over losing a child, nor even about how the beauty of a local churchyard attracts visitors.  No, this story is about...

... spirits.

And hauntings.  And the fact that the Jesus statue sometimes cries, sometimes its eyes open, and sometimes its hands, which normally face downwards, turn palm up.  And even at this point, the people at KVUE and KHOU who did this story could have to some extent salvaged it, by focusing on how people are sometimes primed by their emotions and fears to believe bizarre, counterfactual stuff.

But no.  The reporters and writers leapt right into this big ol' vat of woo-woo, and called out their own "investigators" who came there, armed with divining rods and a "paranormal activity meter."  The rods and the meter, the "investigators" said, showed clearly that the ghost of Rawley Powell was present.  The "investigators" asked Rawley's ghost if the statue's hands would turn upward that night, and Rawley answered yes.  However, evidently he got his ghostly wires crossed, because the reporters and "investigators" stayed there all evening, and nothing happened... although the "paranormal activity meter registered a spike."

Oooh.  My little heart is just going thumpety-thump.

I'm sorry, folks at KVUE and KHOU, this is not a news story.  It's not even a human interest story.  This is a story about suckering the credulous.  None of the alleged antics of the Jesus statue -- opening and closing eyes, weeping, moving hands -- has the least bit of supporting evidence other than the usual "my aunt's best friend's daughter saw it happen."  (James Patton of the Walker County Historical Commission called the claims "ridiculous.")  Controlled tests of divining rods have repeatedly failed (see an excellent summary of those studies here); evidence of ghosts is sketchy at best, although (as I have said before) there are some suggestive bits of evidence here and there regarding hauntings.  It would certainly take more than someone swinging around some divining rods and claiming that the "paranormal activity meter" pegged the needle to convince me that there was anything going on.

But of course, that's not how the news sources presented it, is it?  A quick mention of Patton's dismissive comment was the only skeptical statement in the entire article; in fact, just the idea that KVUE and KHOU themselves invited "paranormal investigators" out lends an unwarranted credibility to the whole thing.

So, all of this further reinforces my impression that what sells sponsorship to news agencies isn't veracity, or even good reporting; it's "whatever the public will buy."  Meaning that as always, a good skeptic's motto should be caveat emptor.

Source credibility and the legalization of marijuana

A particularly subtle problem in establishing whether a claim is pseudoscience, or at least flawed, has to do with source credibility.  Note that I didn't say credentials; there are plenty of smart, well-read, logical people with no degree in the field in question, and whose arguments I would consider carefully, and I've met more than one Ph.D. who gave every evidence of being a raving wackmobile.

Credibility is a different thing than a piece of paper with some Latin hanging on your wall.  It has to do with establishing that you understand the basics of rational argumentation, that you are familiar with the fundamental principles of science, and that you don't have a particular vested interest or agenda.

A particularly good example of this came my way yesterday, in the form of a New York Times editorial piece written by Dr. Ed Gogek, entitled "A Bad Trip for Democrats."  The gist of the article is that the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington last week is a terrible idea.  His arguments:

• 90-some-odd percent of patients who have been prescribed medical marijuana received it to alleviate pain.  Pain, Gogek says, is "easy to fake and almost impossible to disprove."  Further, chronic pain patients are mostly female, while 74% of marijuana users are male.
• Medical use of marijuana for glaucoma is no longer recommended.
• Marijuana is addictive, despite claims that it's not.
• Use of marijuana lowers cognitive function.

He then ends with an interesting statement:

In effect, America now has two tea parties: on the left they smoke their tea; on the right they throw it in Boston Harbor. Both distrust government, disregard science and make selfish demands that would undermine the public good. 

Now, let me be up front about the fact that I am not a pharmacologist, and am not qualified to evaluate the soundness of clinical studies of the efficacy of THC for treating glaucoma.  I do know enough neuroscience, however, to doubt his claims that marijuana is addictive; most addictive substances create addiction one of two ways, either by activating the brain's dopamine-loop pathway (such as cocaine) or by creating a rebound effect if you stop (such as heroin).  Marijuana does neither, so I have a hard time seeing how it could be addictive in the strict sense of the word.

I'm also skeptical of his suggestion that claims of chronic pain are being used as excuses to obtain marijuana.  While in one sense he is right -- it's impossible to prove, or disprove, that someone is in pain -- the idea that a significant number of patients who claim to be in chronic pain are lying remains very much to be seen.

However, even with all of those questions about Gogek's statements, I would not have been prompted to write about him on Skeptophilia if it hadn't been for one additional thing I discovered about him:

Dr. Gogek is a homeopath.

He doesn't state that anywhere in his piece; at the end, his bio statement says, "Dr. Ed Gogek is an addiction psychiatrist and a board member of Keep AZ Drug Free."  But whenever I have questions about a study -- or even a brief editorial, like this one -- I always want to find out what the writer's background is, to see how credible a source (s)he is.  And lo and behold, a quick search brought me to Dr. Gogek's homepage, wherein he makes the following statement:

Many people think homeopathy refers to all forms of alternative medicine, but it’s actually one specific type of alternative practice, very different from nutrition and herbs. Classical homeopathy works well for most medical and psychiatric problems. For people in psychotherapy or suffering from addictions, it removes roadblocks, and speeds the recovery process. And the right homeopathic remedy will also transform marriages and other significant relationships. Nothing heals and transforms a person’s life like the right homeopathic remedy.

In my experience, homeopathy can help all psychiatric problems except ADHD and schizophrenia. However, it works exceptionally well for anxiety disorders (panic attacks, social anxiety, specific phobias, PTSD and OCD), bulimia, sex and love addiction, and anger. It’s also very helpful for personality disorders and unusual problems that defy easy diagnosis.

My immediate reaction was, "And you're lecturing other people about disregarding science?"

Now, please note that the immediate loss of scientific credibility that this engenders doesn't mean that Dr. Gogek's original argument was entirely wrong (any more than a Ph.D. means a person is always right).  But it does tell me one thing; he has a serious difficulty with looking at a body of evidence, and concluding correctly whether that body of evidence supports a particular conclusion.  There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of controlled, double-blind experiments testing homeopathy, and not one has produced any clinically relevant results.  Not one.  The fact that he is unaware of this, or perhaps ignoring it or rationalizing it away, makes me look at other conclusions he draws with a wry eye.

Now, as far as the legalization of marijuana, please understand; I don't have a dog in this race.  I'm not a user, and have no intent to become one.  I do find it curious that tobacco, which is clearly a more dangerous drug, is not only legal, but federally subsidized, while marijuana possession can land you in jail in most states; but that isn't the only weird internal contradiction in our legal code.  What I do want to make abundantly clear, however, is that when something appears in print -- even in The New York Times -- it is always worthwhile to check source credibility.  Things, as Buttercup points out in H.M.S. Pinafore, are seldom what they seem.

Sense, nonsense, and microwaves

One of the difficulties in detecting spurious claims occurs when the writer (or speaker) mixes fact, and real science, in with spurious bits and stirs the resulting hash so thoroughly that it's hard to tell which is which.  When a claim is made of unadulterated bullshit (such as yesterday's post about ley lines), our job is easier.  Mixtures of science and pseudoscience, though, are often hard to tease apart.

I saw a good example of this yesterday, in an article on the website NaturalSociety called "Microwave Dangers - Why You Should Not Use A Microwave."  In this piece, author Mike Barrett describes the terrible things that microwave ovens do to the people who use them and to the food that's cooked in them.  Amongst the claims Barrett makes:

1. Microwave ovens heat food by making water molecules move "at an incredible speed."  This differs from conventional ovens, which gradually transfer heat into the food "by convection."  Further, this energy transfer into the water molecules results in their being "torn apart and vigorously deformed."
2. Microwaves are radiation.  This radiation can "cause physical alterations" even though microwaves are classified as "non-ionizing."  This radiation "accumulates over time and never goes away."
3. Microwave exposure has a greater effect on your brain than on your other body parts, because "microwave frequencies are very similar to the frequencies of your brain," and this causes "resonance."
4. Exposure to microwaves causes all sorts of problems, from cancer to cataracts and everything in between.
5. Raw foods have "life energy" in the form of "biophotons," that came directly from the sun.  These "biophotons" contain "bio-information," which is why eating sun-ripened raw fruits makes you feel happy.  Microwaving food destroys the "biophotons" which makes it lose all of its nutritional value.
6. Microwaving foods causes the conversion of many organic molecules into carcinogens.
7. Microwave ovens were invented by the Nazis.

Okay, let's look at these claims one at a time.

1. First, all heating of food makes the molecules move faster.  That's what an increase in temperature means.  A piece of broccoli heated to 60 C in a microwave and a piece of broccoli heated to 60 C in a steamer have equal average molecular speeds.  Ordinary ovens don't heat most foods by convection; convection heating requires bits of the food itself to move -- so, for example, heating a pot of soup on the stove creates convection, where the bottom part of the soup, in contact with the base of the pot, gets heated first, then rises, carrying its heat energy with it.  Foods in conventional ovens are heated by a combination of radiation from the heating coils, and conduction of that heat energy into the food from the outside in.  Further, heating the water molecules doesn't "tear them apart," because then you'd have hydrogen and oxygen gas, not water.
2. Microwaves are radiation.  So is sunlight.  Sure, microwaves can cause physical alterations, which is why it's inadvisable to climb inside a microwave oven and turn it on.  But not all kinds of radiation accumulate; the microwaves themselves are gone within a millisecond (absorbed and converted into heat) of when the magneto shuts off, otherwise it wouldn't be safe to open the door.  Barrett seems to be making an unfortunately common error, which is to confuse radiation with radioactivity.  Radioactive substances, or at least some of them, do bioaccumulate, which is why strontium-90 showed up in cows' milk following the Chernobyl disaster.  But your microwaved bowl of clam chowder is not radioactive, it's just hot.
3. When oscillations of one body trigger oscillations of another body at the same frequency, this is called resonance.  However, your brain does not oscillate at the frequency as microwaves -- the frequency he quotes for microwaves inside a microwave oven is 2,450 megahertz (2.45 billion times per second), which is actually correct.  Brains, on the other hand, don't oscillate at all, unless you happen to be at a Metallica concert.
4. Agreed, exposure to microwaves isn't good for you.  Thus my suggestion in (2) above not to get inside a microwave oven and turn it on.
5. There is no such thing as a "biophoton."  You do not absorb useful energy in the form of photons in any case, for the very good reason that you are not a plant.  The only "bio-information" we have is our DNA.  Sun-ripened fruit may taste better, as it's ripened more slowly and has a longer time to develop sugars and esters (the compounds that give fruits their characteristic smell and taste), but microwaves don't destroy "life energy."  This bit is complete nonsense.
6. Microwaving food may cause some small-scale alterations of organic molecules into carcinogens, but so does all cooking.  In fact, the prize for the highest introduction of carcinogens into food has to be awarded to grilling -- the blackened bits on a charcoal-grilled t-bone steak contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known carcinogens.  The problem is, they're also very tasty carcinogens, which is why I still like grilled steaks.
7. Microwave ovens weren't invented by the Nazis.  The first microwave oven was built by Percy Spencer, an engineer from Maine, in 1945.  The mention of the Nazis seemed only to be thrown in there to give the argument a nice sauce of evil ("anything the Nazis invented must be bad").  But it's false in any case, so there you are.

So, anyhow, that's my analysis of Barrett's anti-microwave screed.  He's pretty canny, the way he scatters in actual facts and correct science with poorly-understood science, pseudoscience, and outright nonsense; the difficulty is, you have to have a pretty good background in science to tell which is which.  All of which argues for better science education, and better education in critical thinking skills.  But any effort I make in that direction will have to wait, because my coffee's getting cold, and I need to go nuke it for a couple of seconds.