FERTILITY

Is That A Phone In Your Pocket?

A new study finds that the radiation emitted by cell phones can lower sperm quality.

 
 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

Just when you thought you were doing something good by using a hands-free cell-phone device, along comes a fertility specialist to put a damper on the party. According to a study published Sept. 19 in the online version of the journal Fertility and Sterility, men who stash their cell phones in their pockets or clip them to their belts while using an earpiece to chat may also be compromising their sperm. The study found that the radiofrequency electromagnetic waves a cell phone emits when it's in talk mode can lead to higher levels of free radicals in sperm samples from healthy men—free radicals are the rogue molecules that have been implicated in heart disease, cancer and numerous others human diseases—and to a reduction in sperm motility and viability.

In a study of 361 men published last year, Cleveland Clinic fertility specialist Ashok Agarwal, the lead author of the new study, found that there was a higher incidence of poor sperm quality among men who reported that they were heavy cell-phone users than among men who weren't. Because of the limitations of studies that rely on self-reported data, he decided to devise a follow-up lab experiment to look at what happens to sperm exposed to the frequency of radiation most often used by cell phones. Agarwal talked to NEWSWEEK's Joan Raymond about the new study and why he nonetheless keeps his phone in his pocket. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why do a study like this? I thought researchers had debunked the idea that cell-phone use is linked to human disease.
Ashok Agarwal: That's not true. We still have questions that haven't been answered. And there are still more questions to ask. This particular study was designed to examine whether exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic waves from cell phones would cause any kind of changes in human sperm. That was our central question. And one that needed to be answered.

We did a study of some 361 men that was published last year and showed that increased cell-phone use is related to a poorer quality of sperm. This was a self-reported study, and that has limitations. But there was a significant relationship between cell-phone use and sperm quality, especially among men who used [cell phones] for more than four hours per day. We wanted to find out what was going on. But you obviously can't conduct a study on humans, with a group of men that [would] be exposed to something [potentially] hazardous. So we devised a lab experiment, since animal models have a lot of limitations when it comes to studies about reproductive health.

What did the study entail?
We took sperm samples from 23 healthy men, and from nine men with known fertility issues. The samples were then divided into two portions to make a control group and a test group. We exposed the test group sperm to a cell phone in "talk" mode with a radiation of 850 megahertz, the frequency most often used by cell phones in the U.S. We selected a distance from the tube containing the test sperm samples to the cell phone that mimicked the distance from an average man's gonads to, say, a phone kept in the trouser pocket. We exposed the sperm for about one hour to see if there was any effect on the sperm quality in exposed and unexposed portions.

What markers did you look at?
We looked at several markers, including motility, viability and cellular or molecular changes.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Tcushy @ 01/24/2009 1:11:04 PM

    I cant believe these statistics 40% male/ 40% female and 20% unknown. I read a supporting article for couples and support on this article: http://conceivableworld.com/QuickClicks/MaleInfertility/HavingAMaleInfertilityTest

  • Posted By: not registered @ 01/19/2009 7:40:59 AM

    Irrespective of anything, the antenna on a mobile phone is capable of transmitting / receiving a signal up to 20 miles with ease (further if line of site communication can be achieved and good atmospheric conditions are encountered)!
    In order to communicate and encrypt the transmission between the base station and the mobile device, a large number of transmissions are made ??? some at high power some at low whilst the phone works out frequency and time multiplexing regimes.
    Ultimately because of this I have ???off time??? where my mobile is turned off; I have people call the land line.
    When I can???t achieve ???off time??? I put the mobile in window (vertically stood up) in the room nearest the base station with the Antenna facing the base station (remember though that antennas on phones are slightly directional primarily they still propagate the signal in all directions). You???re now going to say that last part of the sentence contradicts is self, but what I am doing is getting the phone to use as LITTLE power as possible to communicate with the base station, you should always try to do that ??? don???t call from the middle of the office, call from outside or near a window / door.
    We still don???t fully know what LONG TERM impact low power radio devices will have on the human body, and the more complicated and awash the planet becomes with WiFi / Cell phones it???s better to try and reduce your exposure whilst you can!
    Once you get into the Architecture of UTMS (Universal Mobile Telephone System) do you realise how impressive these devices are, and how we should treat them with respect.
    As a foot note mobile radio has existed for around 80 years but these were analogue devices that behaved and were used in a very different way ??? i.e. they were only used by the Military / Fire / police and they users would not have the radio with them and turned on 365 days a year ??? let alone in their pockets.

  • Posted By: walterbuch @ 09/21/2008 9:43:03 AM

    Oxidative stress is caused by mobiles. Lots of studies here.

    1) Mobile EMF leads to oxidative stress in rats as measured by MDA, NO, ADA and reduced SOD and GSH, reversed by Ginko-biloba. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734207
    2) EMF from mobiles myocardial oxidative stress in rats (reversed by CAPE a components of honeybee propolis), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16342473
    3) Mobile induced plasma LPO and reduced SOD, GSH-Px.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11516912
    4) Mobile reduced DOS-1 in human blood platelets.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16602439
    5) Simulated GSM MAST radiation well below ICNIRP limits led to MDA, reduced GSH, SOD in rats.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16954120
    6) Mobile induced oxidative stress in rat retina. Melatonin vs CAPE, both reversed, Melatonin ???won narrowly??? on GSH.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16317515
    7) EMF from mobile Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), oxidative stress in rat kidneys, CAPE reverses
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16132717
    8) Melatonin vs CAPE, mobile damage to rat kidneys, both reversed, Melatonin overall more effective
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16132682
    9) Mobile effects on rats kidneys, rats pre-treated with Melatonin were protected.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15950073
    10) Nonlinear time window ??? effects of mobile on human blood platelets with respect to SOD-1 and MDA ??? after 1,5,7 mins, SOD-1 down, MDA up, but after 3 mins, the reverse.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474410
    11) Mobile radiation-induced increases in nitric oxide levels
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15886623 and
    12) Mobile radiation-induced increases in nitric oxide levels
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11192886

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

 

Up and Coming Newsweek Stories on Digg

Discover more Newsweek content on Digg