Mobile phones are 'cooking' men's sperm | Hacker News Reader

Mobile phones are 'cooking' men's sperm

telegraph.co.uk

57 points0x454255 comments

The first paragraph in the article says: 'Fertility experts are warning man that using a mobile for as little as an hour a day is "cooking sperm" and lowering level significantly.'

Assuming for the sake of argument that the findings of this research are actually correct, it seems to me that using your mobile phone more would reduce the sperm-cooking effect, because most ways of actually using a mobile phone don't involve holding it near your groin.

The reported effect is large enough that I strongly suspect it's (1) just wrong or (2) actually caused by some other thing that happens to correlate with mobile phone use. The Telegraph article doesn't seem to provide a link to the actual study, so it's hard to tell.

I notice that they say "The team monitored more than 100 men attending a fertility clinic for a year" -- it's hard to see how any study based only on looking at men who are having trouble conceiving could actually provide the information the Telegraph is suggesting this one does.

That last bit of information is kind of a hilarious confounder.

I call BS. There is no known plausible mechanism for this - radio waves from phones are much longer wavelength and much lower power than the infrared radiation emitted by everything at room temperature. The study itself is paywalled, but from the abstract it appears to be small, based on a survey rather than a randomized trial, and doesn't mention controlling for obvious confounders like socioeconomic status.

Beware The Man Of One Study: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s...

Smartphones usually also have WiFi, which is the correct wavelength to heat things up.

WiFi: 2.4 GHz

GSM: 0.9 - 1.9 GHz (UMTS, LTE go up to ~3 GHz)

Microwave ovens: 0.9 - 2.4 GHz [1]

Seems like more or less the same wavelength to me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Principles

Your microwave work at around 800W, not your phone (2W for the worst)

My 800W microwave is shielded and sitting on the countertop at least several feet away from me; my phone is in my left side pocket for probably 10+ hours a day. I'm not arguing that there's any danger (I'm also not arguing that it's safe), but that's a huge difference which needs to be accounted for.

this topic is nothing new, I've seen it in various forms for at least 10 years. to have conclusive results, long term studies need to be done, which AFAIK so far haven't been done properly.

in this case, I don't get why anybody at least slightly sane would carry wound 10+ hours a day cell phone in their pocket. if all this is true, and you get "damaged", you can blame only yourself then...

The amount of energy involved is tiny though, and we have a variety of systems that continually manage temperatures throughout our body.

It's like people who go crazy about radiation because it destroys DNA. Yes, it does, but that's happening continuously and is under continuous repair. Adding a small amount of energy to a system in homeostatis changes nothing.

With chronic exposure, the rate of damage will eventually exceed the rate of repair as cell energy is depleted. If you examine the sci.literature on biological effects of RF, you'll discover that oxidative stress and free radical formation following non-thermal RF exposure is well documented.

Just like in the VW emissions scandal, a similar thing is probably happening with radio devices. The inspection is no longer done by the FCC but instead by private corporations paid for by the industry. Can we trust these companies to have our interest in mind? It didn't work with financial ratings and car emissions, why would it work for the FCC or FDA?

If the free market demands market collusion then who are we to regulate the flow of the close-to-perfect information needed to make a informed decision as a rational actor?

Read Atlas Shrugged.

Ha! If the free market says every man should be infertile I think I'll avoid the free market.

Well there is that small issue of over population and the impact we're having on the environment so perhaps this is the free market solution?

We already tried sterilization and eugenics back in the 1920's-1940's.

A more intelligent and humane approach to overpopulation lies in the recognition of the demographic-economic paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

>There exists a realizable, evolutionary alternative to our being either atom-bombed into extinction or crowding ourselves off the planet. The alternative is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation to accommodation of all humanity at an aerospace level of technology, with the vastly larger, far more enduringly profitable for all, entirely new World Livingry Service Industry. It is statistically evident that the more advanced the living standard, the lower the birth rate.

-Buckminster Fuller

That all depends on if your concerns about overpopulation are based on available space versus available resources. Fuller's conjecture might work for conserving space, but a child born in a first-world country will use something like 800x the resources of a child born in a third-world country. Clearly a higher and more equitable standard of living for everyone is desirable, but we also need to figure out how to cut way back on resource usage at the same time.

Fuller's theory was based on both the efficient use of space and the efficient, renewable production and distribution of resources:

>In technology's "invisible" world, inventors continually increase the quantity and quality of performed work per each volume or pound of material, erg of energy, and unit of worker and "overhead" time invested in each given increment of attained functional performance. This complex process we call progressive ephemeralization. In 1970, the sum total of increases in overall technological know-how and their comprehensive integration took humanity across the epochal but invisible threshold into a state of technically realizable and economically feasible universal success for all humanity

-Grunch of Giants

>but a child born in a first-world country will use something like 800x the resources of a child born in a third-world country. Clearly a higher and more equitable standard of living for everyone is desirable, but we also need to figure out how to cut way back on resource usage at the same time.

The Fuller house was an example of how to cut back on that higher resource usage by using intelligent architecture and design. It is important to cut back resource usage in many areas. It is likewise important to cut back on resource waste (the resources that goes unused). Most importantly, the surplus of food, water, and shelter that goes wasted every year which nearly half of the world's population struggles to obtain. Effectively distributing this waste could go a long ways to ending war, violence, mental illness, disease, substance abuse, and a whole host of other problems.

Looks like rational choice theory is correct.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is "conflict of interest"

The case for laptop computers kept on the lap when they're hot having an effect on this clearer because they can heat up the groin and part of the reason there is a ball sack hanging out of the body is to keep them cooler than the rest of the body, so heating them up is not a good idea if you're interested in getting a woman pregnant. This is not major worry though since apparently it is reversible if you stop using laptops this way. For a phone though unless it's hot, harder to understand why this would cause this.

I like how the articles specifies men's sperm as opposed to women's sperm. Although that does bring up a point about whether someone should research the effect on corresponding female parts.

> I like how the articles specifies men's sperm as opposed to women's sperm. Although that does bring up a point about whether someone should research the effect on corresponding female parts.

Where did you go to school and what exactly do you think is "woman's sperm"? Do you mean her cache of eggs?

He was pointing out that the article's use of phrase "male sperm" is an unnecessarily clarification, as there could be no other type.

Thanks

Plenty of transwomen out there with sperm.

The main biological impact of low-level microwaves is oxidative stress damage and free radical formation. These effects are seen in most cell types after even low-level microwave exposure and can lead to DNA damage. Sperm cells lack the protective mechanisms other, more permanent cell types employ so the effect is more apparent in sperm. Its not a thermal effect, as the headline would suggest, as it happens at levels far below the threshold of RF heating. Thus: official safety guidelines are not protective and need to be revised to take into account non-thermal RF effects. In the meanwhile, reduce your exposure. For reviews on these effects see Yakymenko I. et al. 2015 and Pall M. 2013.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6656806/

44 watts/kg in a waveguide system of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation for 30 min., is representative of cellphone use?

That was in 1983. See Yakymenko I. et al 2015 and Pall M. 2013 for more recent sci.literature (they're both reviews).

Yakymenko http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.104...

Pall M http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

----------- And a few extra data points:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826127Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366. Epub 2009 Oct 13.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175330 Bacterial response to the exposure of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 May;29(4):302-11. doi: 10.1002/bem.20391.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21401315 Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on growth rate and morphology of bacteria. Int J Radiat Biol. 2011 Dec;87(12):1155-61. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2011.560992. Epub 2011 Mar 14.

Abstract of the study: http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483%2815%2900300-4...

I'm a bit annoyed how the article doesn't mention anywhere if this effect is permanent or not, which is a key to the level of severity of this problem.

Can a man stop carrying the phone in his pocket and have his sperm levels go back to normal?

From the abstract, it doesn't seem they assessed that, they just found a correlation between the behaviour and the sperm quality.

As far as I know, the quality would improve again (within at most months) if the source of heat has been removed. Cooks also have this problem when their crotch is around ovens all the time. Or people with varicoceles.

Also, while I believe that there is a problem when the phone is in the pocket, I seriously doubt that a mobile would reduce sperm count if it's on the bedside table. Energy decreases in square distance and the mobile would have to send out huge amounts of energy to heat up something this far away.

Tim Ferris, in his book The Four Hour Body, managed to get his testosterone & sperm levels back up after keeping away from his phone & cold showers.

I've never read the book, but I'm curious: did he do both at once, or independently then decide that both in combination gave the best result? If he stayed off his phone and took cold showers, without testing them separately, how do we know it wasn't the cold showers that gave the result, or the lack of phone?

I'd be skeptical. From what I understand the damaging factor is WiFi here. But when my phone is on WiFi it's usually on the table, at the charging dock and occasionally in my hand.

When the phone is in my pants, it's almost never using WiFi as I'm usually outside and on 3G/LTE.

I'd also look for a sample size significantly north of 100 before waking up someone at FCC.

I'd also point out that it's probably more damaging being closer to router. They noticed these men at a clinic. In public places, people gravitate towards the router offering WiFi much more than they would at their homes or office. So the proximity of router in this study compared to a nominal case is something left unaccounted for.

Don't hold your breath for FCC "waking up", no matter the sample size or strength of sci.evidence of hazard. Their Obama-appointed chief used to be #1 CTIA lobbyist. For example: http://microwavenews.com/news-center/cell-phone-carriers-fcc...

For reference, this sentence is in the abstract:

> Talking for ≥1 h/day and during device charging were associated with higher rates of abnormal semen concentration (60.9% versus 35.7%, P < 0.04 and 66.7% versus 35.6%, P < 0.02, respectively).

The problem is that if you make a survey with too many questions, it increase the probability of finding an spurious correlation with a low p. Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/

Previous discussion of the original article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033516 (143 points, 17 days ago, 86 comments)

I´ll copy partially two comments cherrypicked from that thread:

From evils https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033918

> If I interpret the abstract correctly, the change in sperm they observed was only correlated to talking on a cell phone whilst charging it (that is, holding it next to your head), where keeping it right next to the groin did not show any significant influence?

> That doesn't sound like a plausible outcome of radiation having any influence.

From cozzyd https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036852

> I think you can pretty much reproduce their study from the percentages with the following table (they claim 26 of the 106 did not meet study eligibility criteria, but the total seems to be 79? but then the total isn't consistent between the two categories; I didn't read carefully enough to see if the discrepancy is explained)

> It's interesting to note that they actually collected more data than < 1h and >1h (they more finely categorized it as 0-30, 30-60, 60-120 and 120+). The freedom to choose the boundary there should count against the p-value.

> Of course, it would be nice if they treated hours talking on phone as a continuous variable instead of a discrete <1h and >1h. With the freedom to set that boundary (if they had that), it would reduce the associated p-value.

Effectively they need to reduce the p value for significant threshold to refuce the risk of random associations. Its still very rarely done these days.

Correlation without causation?

What if people that don't keep the phone in their pants life a different lifestyle that is different enough to cause the observed discrepancy.

You took the words right out of my keyboard. :D

If this effect exists, it's probably due to the temperature rather than any ionizing radiation.

Evolution goes so far as to keep its most important reproductive organ outside the protection of the body in order to keep them cool.

I can't imagine heating them up is a very good idea, either with a cellphone or a laptop.

... or trousers, or daily hot showers or baths.

It is an excellent idea if you don't want babies. Jocks (the underpants) probably have more effect though.

I'm convinced that modern briefs are mens' version of high-heels -- Worn only for their appearance yet totally dysfunctional. We've all been duped by hot CK guys in tight pants.

That's a good point, could it be more of laptop use that is doing the damage, not necessarily the phone?

So people that carry a mobile phone around all the time could also be using a laptop on the lap for extended periods.

The article mentions that there seems to be an effect even if the phone is kept somewhere like a bedside table. Which would seem to indicate it is not only heat. It doesn't really go into much detail about the cause though.

I'm waiting for someone to start selling tin foil lined pants.

That's a kickstarter waiting to happen.

>there seems to be an effect even if the phone is kept somewhere like a bedside table. Which would seem to indicate it is not only heat

It seems to indicate that there is something wrong with this study.

The Tin Cup(tm).

Do you mean a phone in your pocket, when not actively in use during calls or texting etc, gets warm enough to affect tissue a couple of cm away from it? That seems a bit unlikely, no?

I'm not sure "unlikely" is the right word. There's a lot of advice to men to wear boxers, not briefs, because "briefs raise temperature".

This article (1999) says it's not proved: http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/men/9906/14/men.infertility/

This article gives two reports that did show an effect: (2015) http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-those-tightie-whitie...

Having something warm in your pocket, which also makes everything a bit tighter, may increase temperature a bit. And raised temperature might be bad. So it's not smoking gun, but it's not totally implausible.

> If this effect exists, it's probably due to the temperature rather than any ionizing radiation.

There's a possible third mechanism for electromagnetic radiation to affect cells. It is known that DNA is conductive, and there are researchers who believe that the mechanism that detects and repairs damage uses this to detect damage [1]...kind of analogous to the way we might try to isolate a break in a cable using a continuity checker.

There is research that shows that DNA can act as a fractal antenna over a range of non-ionizing frequencies [2], implying that electromagnetic radiation at non-ionizing frequencies could cause currents in DNA. If those researchers who believe that conductivity is used to find damage are right, then it could be that currents induced by DNA acting as a fractal antenna could confuse the damage detection mechanism, causing it to fail to recognize that a damaged section of DNA is damaged and so not repair it.

I wonder if sperm would be more sensitive than normal cells to disruption of DNA repair?

[1] https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-chemist-jacqueline-bart...

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072

They are talking about sperm count though. Not intrinsic sperm dna quality.

Most HAMs know about the dangers of microwave exposure. If it really is an issue I'd expect vision problems first since your eyes are most sensitive.

If it has something to do with wavelengths, some 3g frequencies are close to WiFi. A tablet on somebody's lap for three hours while watching tv should be as bad as three hours of a phone in the pocket.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com