Microwaves are a common appliance in every household now. You will see it in kitchens of not just houses, but offices, cafeterias, and co working space. However, there are studies that show that heating food in a microwave could be a health concern. While it does come handy, there are questions about harmful radiation and nutrient loss and heating safety that still linger.

Does Microwave Destroy The Nutrients In Food While Heating?

Some research suggests that microwaving may cause nutritional loss, particularly in vegetables. For example, studies have shown that microwaving broccoli with water diminishes its flavonoid content, which are anti-inflammatory compounds. However, experts note that cooking method and duration have a significant influence on nutrient retention.

Surprisingly, several studies indicate that microwaving preserves more nutrients than traditional cooking methods. A study comparing microwaved versus oven-cooked ready meals found that the microwaved version contained somewhat more vitamin C. Another study discovered that microwaving some vegetables, such as broccoli and green beans, may retain more beneficial compounds than boiling.

Ultimately, the nutrient loss really vary on the type of food which is being heated and how it is being cooked. Experts also recommend using minimal water and shorter cooking times to maximize the nutrient retention.

Is Heating In Plastic Safe?

Plastic containers and heating food in it, has always been a topic of debate. While containers do come with microwave-safe stamps, is it really safe to heat them with food?

According to research, when certain plastics are subjected to heat, they produce compounds such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). These substances have been associated to hormonal disturbance, metabolic problems, and perhaps reproductive concerns.

A study also took in account over 400 plastic food containers that were microwave-safe and found that most of them leaked hormone-disrupting chemicals. These are phthalates, warn experts, which are commonly used in food packaging and can interfere with body's hormonal balance, and increase risk of diabetes or even high blood pressure.

Additionally, BPA exposure has been associated with fertility issues and immune system disruptions.

So, what can be done instead?

To minimize this risk, experts recommend using glass or ceramic container when microwaving foods. If you must use a plastic container, make sure the container is not damaged or old, as they are more prone to leach harmful chemicals.

What About The Radiation?

Concerns about microwave radiation have been largely debunked by decades of research. Microwaves use non-ionizing radiation, which does not have enough energy to damage DNA or cause cancer. The electromagnetic waves used in microwaves are similar to those from radios and light bulbs.

Experts emphasize that microwave ovens are designed to contain radiation, preventing exposure. As long as the microwave is in good condition and the door seals properly, there is no significant health risk from microwave radiation.

Other Concerns

Microwaving food could sometimes also lead to uneven cooking and it can create some risks to food safety. Thus, experts advertise to use microwave only to reheat the food and not to actually cook raw food. For safe reheating, food should reach at least 82°C (176°F) throughout to kill bacteria.

When we think about cancer risk, it’s natural to wonder, “is it genetic?”

The truth is, sometimes it is, but in many cases, cancer develops from a mix of lifestyle, environmental factors, and DNA changes that occur over a lifetime. Understanding the difference between inherited genetic risks and those acquired along the way can help people make smarter decisions about screening, prevention, and treatment, and empower families to take proactive steps for their health.

Inherited genes or life choices?

Cancer arises from a series of changes/mutations in cells that disrupt normal growth control. Many of these changes happen over a person’s lifetime, influenced by exposures (like tobacco, UV rays, infections), aging, and random DNA errors. These are called “somatic mutations” and occur in our tissues—they are not inherited, and are not passed to children.

By contrast, a smaller fraction of cancers are influenced by inherited mutations called “germline mutations”; these are changes in the DNA that you are born with, and are present in every cell of your body. These mutations can predispose someone to cancer by impairing DNA repair, controlling cell division, or through other mechanisms. Approximately 5–10% of all cancers are thought to have a strong hereditary component.

So, while your DNA can influence your cancer risk, most cancers don’t occur because of an inherited gene defect. And even when a germline mutation is present, environment, lifestyle, and chance usually play significant roles in whether cancer actually develops.

Recognizing hereditary cancer syndromes

When should we suspect hereditary cancers? Here are red flags:

A strong family history of cancer, especially the same type (e.g. multiple members with breast cancer, or several relatives with colon cancer).

• Early-onset cancer, e.g. diagnosis before the age of 50 or 40 years.
• Multiple primary cancers in the same person (e.g., ovarian + breast).

Rare cancers or specific tumor types tied to known syndromes (e.g. medullary thyroid cancer, male breast cancer, pancreatic cancer in some families).

Known syndrome features, such as colon polyps and colon cancer in Lynch syndrome.

In such cases, genetic testing can identify mutations in genes like BRCA1/2, Lynch syndrome genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM), TP53, PALB2, and others. Identifying carriers has implications for targeted screening (e.g. colonoscopic surveillance or mammography at regular intervals), preventive surgery like mastectomy, and sometimes therapy in case cancer does develop.

How do hereditary mutations lead to cancer?

Imagine your cells are factories, following a strict set of instructions (your DNA). Inherited mutations can mean that a “safety check” is broken from the start. For example:

A mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes weakens the cell’s ability to repair DNA. Over time, unrepaired damage accumulates, raising the risk of developing breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancer.

Mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes (as in Lynch syndrome) allow errors during DNA copying to persist, boosting mutation load and increasing the risk of developing colon, endometrium, stomach, and other cancers.

But even when a high-risk mutation is present, cancer doesn’t appear overnight. Additional “hits”, or more mutations, microenvironment changes, hormonal exposures, or lifestyle factors need to typically accumulate before cells turn cancerous.

Why does hereditary information matter?

You might ask: if it’s a small percentage of cancers, does knowing about hereditary risk make a difference?

The answer is, yes, absolutely. Knowing your hereditary risk of cancer has some important benefits:

Prevention & early detection: If you carry a pathogenic mutation, you can undergo more frequent surveillance, chemoprevention (e.g. tamoxifen for breast cancer), or risk-reducing surgeries (e.g. prophylactic mastectomy or oophorectomy).

Therapeutic choices: Certain inherited mutations also influence how cancers respond to therapy. For example, PARP inhibitors are effective in tumors with BRCA-related homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Thus, knowing that a patient has a germline BRCA mutation may alter drug selection.

Family risk & cascade testing: Identifying a hereditary mutation allows cascade testing, where close relatives can also get genetic testing done. This helps them understand risks and take prevention measures before cancer develops.

Clinical trial access: Many modern trials require knowledge of inherited DNA defects. Patients with known germline mutations may qualify for therapies designed precisely for those DNA repair vulnerabilities.

However, it is also important to understand that absence of a germline mutation does not mean absence of risk. Many cancers are driven purely by somatic mutations, and many hereditary variants remain undiscovered or classified as Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS). Testing negative for known genes does not guarantee immunity.

Also, hereditary risk is not absolute: a person may carry a mutation but never develop cancer, due to protective factors like healthy lifestyle, background genetics, or luck. Interpretation must be done thoughtfully, ideally with genetic counselling.

Conclusion

While hereditary mutations play a role in a minority of cases, their impact on prevention, therapy, and family planning can be profound. Knowing whether cancer “came from your DNA” is often less important than using that knowledge wisely—both for patients and their relatives.

As we move deeper into the era of precision medicine, clinicians and patients alike should appreciate that hereditary and somatic worlds coexist, and that DNA insight is a tool—not a verdict.

In a medical first, surgeons in China have successfully transplanted a gene-edited pig liver into a living human to temporarily support his failing liver. The procedure showed that a pig liver can function inside the human body for several weeks and act as a “bridge” for patients who have no other treatment options.

The patient was a 71-year-old man with severe hepatitis B–related liver cirrhosis and a large liver cancer tumor. His condition made traditional surgery or a human liver transplant impossible. With no donor organs available and his health rapidly worsening, doctors decided to try the experimental pig liver transplant under compassionate use.

How the Pig Liver Was Engineered

The donor organ came from a specially bred Diannan miniature pig. Scientists had made 10 specific genetic changes to the animal so its liver would be more compatible with the human body.

These changes included:

• Removing pig genes that usually trigger strong immune rejection
• Adding seven human genes to help the liver work smoothly with human blood, immunity and clotting systems

Once the liver was connected to the patient’s blood supply, it began working immediately. It produced bile, supported metabolism, made important proteins like albumin and helped with blood clotting. Early tests showed stable liver and kidney function, and there were no signs of sudden or severe rejection, which is usually the biggest challenge in pig-to-human organ transplants.

A Serious Complication Emerges

But the case also revealed a major challenge for future xenotransplants. After about a month, the patient developed a condition called xenotransplantation-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (xTMA).

This complication caused:

• Breakdown of red blood cells
• A drop in platelets
• Activation of the complement system (part of the immune response)
• Small blood clots forming in blood vessels

Doctors tried multiple treatments, including blood thinners, a complement-blocking drug (eculizumab) and plasma exchange. However, the condition continued to worsen.

On day 38, the medical team decided to remove the pig liver to protect the patient. Fortunately, during this period, the patient’s remaining left portion of his own liver had grown and was able to take over enough liver function. After the pig liver was removed, the signs of xTMA gradually resolved.

The patient later developed complications unrelated to the xenotransplant — mainly repeated bleeding in his digestive tract due to his pre-existing liver condition — and he died on postoperative day 171.

What This Means for the Future

Researchers conclude that this groundbreaking case proves pig-to-human liver transplantation is technically possible and can meaningfully support patients for weeks. This offers hope for people with acute liver failure or advanced liver cancer who have no donor organs available.

However, major barriers remain. The biggest challenges highlighted include:

• xTMA
• Blood clotting incompatibilities
• Overactivation of the immune system
• The need for better gene-editing strategies

Scientists say more work is needed before such transplants can become routine. But this case sets an important foundation for future clinical trials and brings the medical world a step closer to using animal organs to save human lives.

Screening for all men is "likely to cause more harm than good", says the UK National Committee. This recommendation is based on a clinical trial called Transform, which is now filling gaps in the evidence on how screening could be safely rolled out to other groups.

As of now, as per the recommendation, men who are between the ages of 45 and 61 should be screened every two years, if they have specific genetic mutations called BRCA variants.

The UK National Screening Committee recommends:

• No screening for black men due to "uncertainties" around the impact due to a lack of clinical trials in black men
• No screening based on family history

Why Is The New Recommendation Asking People To Not Get Screened For Prostrate Cancer?

As per the clinical study and the Cancer Research UK, of the 1000 men who get screened between the age of 50 to 60 for PSA test or the prostate-specific antigen test, around 100 have a positive PSA test. Of them, 34 have a positive MRI and receive a biopsy. Then only 28 are diagnosed with prostrate cancer. Of those 28, 10 are offered active surveillance, 13 are offered surgery or radiotherapy, and 4 need surgery or radiotherapy, while 1 need any other treatment.

However, the Cancer Research UK notes that while 1000 men are screening, and 28 diagnosed, only 2 lives could be saved, with 20 being over diagnosed, this means they have a slow-growing tumor that does not need treating, and of them 12 men will receive treatments that do not benefit them, rather harms them. These harms come in forms like being unable to control your bladder, or maintain an erection.

Is Prostrate Cancer Screening Recommendation Fit For All?

While experts say it is, patients are disappointed. Sir Chris Hoy, a terminal prostrate cancer patient says he was "disappointed and saddened" by the new recommendations as BBC reports.

However, Prof Freddie Hamdy, who is a urological surgeon in Oxford tells BBC: "The diagnosis of prostrate cancer in a healthy man is hugely disruptive event, with potential to affect quality of life, very significantly, for many years."

"It cannot be done lightly, men need to be really well counselled and informed before the 'snowball' starts. Before you know it, you are on the operating table having your prostate removed – and we see examples of that all the time," he said.

The screening committee’s decision is not final. It marks the beginning of a three-month public consultation period, after which the committee will reconvene and present its final recommendations to ministers in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Each nation will then make its own decision on prostate screening.

England’s Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he supports screening “if backed by evidence” and promised to review the data “thoroughly” ahead of the final guidance expected in March.

Reactions to the draft recommendations have been sharply divided. Cancer Research UK welcomed the consideration of screening for men with faulty BRCA genes and agreed that, for most men, screening could currently do more harm than good.

But others strongly disagreed. Sir Chris Hoy said he was “extremely disappointed and saddened,” calling the BRCA-specific recommendation “a very small step forward” that falls short. Sharing his own experience, he emphasised that “early screening and diagnosis saves lives.”

Prostate Cancer UK CEO Laura Kerby also expressed being “deeply disappointed,” saying the decision will “come as a blow” to tens of thousands of men.

Prostate Cancer Research criticized the move as “a serious error that ignores modern evidence,” calling it a missed opportunity for Black men and those with a family history.