Print 56 comment(s) - last by bldckstark.. on Sep 26 at 12:46 PM

Is that a cell phone in your pocket?

There's been plenty of hearty debate between cell phone proponents and critics about potential cancer risks.  After one study claimed cell phones had more detrimental health effects than smoking, a major cancer doctor came forward stating that there was strong upcoming evidence of a cell phone-cancer link, the first time a head of a major academic cancer research institution had suggested such a possibility.

Now another new study has been released citing a decidedly different hazard of cell phone use.  The new study shows that cell phones are no friends of testes, the male reproductive organs in which sperm is made.  In the upcoming study, it was shown that when in close range to the testes and in talk mode, cell phones damage sperm.

The new study is alarming because of two key problems.  First, damaged sperm can lead to birth defects and higher incidences of various disabilities, as seen among the children of older fathers.  Second, the scenario tested in the study is a common one.  Males who chat using hands free headsets often leave their phones resting in their pockets, in perfect range to cause the testes harm.

Ashok Agarwal, who led the study and is the Director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, states, "We believe that these devices are used because we consider them very safe, but it could cause harmful effects due to the proximity of the phones and the exposure that they are causing to the gonads."

The study consisted of semen samples taken from 32 men, which exhibit similar sperm health.  The samples were kept at constant temperature and other similar conditions, while being split into a control group and a test group.  The test group was placed for an hour within 2.5 cm of a cell phone in talk mode, at 850 MHz, perhaps the most common frequency.

The transmissions led to an apparent increase in oxidative stress, with free radicals and oxidants being created at a higher rate and antioxidants being broken down.  Agarwal says this stress equates to damaged sperm.  Other factors which can cause it include environmental pollutants or infections in the urinary genital tract, he adds.

While the study does not trump up the cancer link, there may be a relation to testicular cancer as well.  Says Agarwal, "On average, there was an 85 percent increase in the amount of free radicals for all the subjects in the study. Free radicals have been linked to a variety of diseases in humans including cancer."

Though the study raises some red flags -- due to its very controlled nature -- one key component was left out and remains to be tested say its creators.  There is additional protection against various environmental hazards afforded by the body's skin, bone and tissue.  In order to develop a more accurate picture, the effects on sperm or other cells, when passing through such layers would have to be examined. 

As to why the cell phones seem to crank up oxidative stress is unclear.  Agarwall theorizes, "Perhaps the cell phone radiation is able to affect the gonads through a thermal effect thereby increasing the temperature of the testes and causing damaging effects in the sperm cell."

A previous study from his team had shown that men who use their cell phones more than 4 hours a day have significantly lower sperm counts.  The previous study had 361 subjects.  It offers compelling supporting evidence as it provided evidence that even with tissue protection damage may be occurring.  This, backed with the evidence from the more carefully controlled experimental study, which offers a possible mechanism for the damage, paint a worrisome picture.

Joe Farren, a spokesman for the CTIA was among the cell phone industry leaders who declined to criticize the studies, but argued, "The weight of the published scientific evidence, in addition to the opinion of global health organizations, shows that there is no link between wireless usage and adverse health effects."

But he even added, "We support good science and always have.  It's important to look at studies that are peer-reviewed and published in leading journals and to listen to the experts."

Perhaps part of why they are hesitant to criticize Agarwall's work is that he is being so careful in his statements about its conclusions.  He advises men not to feel compelled to move their cell phones from their pockets just yet, explaining, "Our study has not provided proof that you should stop putting cell phones in your pocket. There are many things that need to be proven before we get to that stage."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A new low for DT
By Lord 666 on 9/22/2008 8:19:33 AM , Rating: -1
Didn't even have to check who authored this piece. Knew instantly that it was Mick using the word "gonads" in the tile.

Let's try to keep it professional. If you are going to attempt to write something serious, you are allowed to use the word "testicles."

RE: A new low for DT
By Spivonious on 9/22/2008 9:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
Gonads is a general term for testicles/ovaries.

RE: A new low for DT
By Lord 666 on 9/22/2008 9:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not in medical terms, but in slang. The simple use of "testicles" instead would have been more accurate and professional.

Although medically the gonad term can refer to either male gonads (testicles) or female gonads (ovaries), the vernacular, or slang, use of "gonads" (or "nads") usually only refers to the testicles.

RE: A new low for DT
By Spivonious on 9/22/2008 10:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
Although medically the gonad term can refer to either male gonads (testicles) or female gonads (ovaries)...

Sounds medical to me, plus we learned that term way back in 8th grade health class. I do agree though, since the study only concerned males, testicle should have been used.

RE: A new low for DT
By amanojaku on 9/22/2008 12:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick's use of the word "gonad" was acceptable and professional, if not entirely accurate. It's like using the word "human" (e.g. check out that human's ho-ho's!) when you are referring to a woman. The evidence is in your quote; the term can be used medically or as slang, typically with the word shortened.

There's been a little research into the effect on women, although it's much less severe what with ovum being hardier than spermatozoa. As a result, it's accurate to say that cell phone radiation (less successfully) attacks female gonads and their gametes, as well.

RE: A new low for DT
By Lord 666 on 9/22/2008 12:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
As a result, it's accurate to say that cell phone radiation (less successfully) attacks female gonads and their gametes, as well.

The original article makes no mention of women reproductive system and cell phone raditation. You would be really talking out of your ass by making those ASSumptions.

RE: A new low for DT
By amanojaku on 9/22/2008 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to put a goat on your bridge, little troll... But you probably prefer sheep.

RE: A new low for DT
By Lord 666 on 9/22/2008 6:06:18 PM , Rating: 1
Definitely not trolling. Even in his own write up, he used "no friends of testes" which would have been a more appropriate title.

However, Mick took DT to a new low this morning by using the word gonads to grab attention.

RE: A new low for DT
By mindless1 on 9/24/2008 8:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
Definitely trolling.

Further, since when is gonads used to grab attention where testicles wouldn't?

RE: A new low for DT
By foolsgambit11 on 9/22/2008 1:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yes and no. It wouldn't be accurate to say that in the headline without having evidence of it in the body of the article. So for that, Jason could have been more specific. In fact, the research says nothing about the male gonads, either. It researched cell phones' effects on sperm within samples of ejaculate, not their effect on male gonads (the site of sperm production). So the title, to be accurate and specific, should have been, "New Study Shows At Least Some Cell Phone Radiation No Friend To Ejaculate". But I think that's being a bit nit-picky. After all, headlines need to be succinct.

While I agree that gonads is an acceptable medical term, the title was obviously intended to be somewhat humorous. And that doesn't bother me one bit. The two purposes of a headline is to grab your attention and let you know what you will be reading about, after all.

If the OP was offended, the problem is obviously that he or she is a gonad.

RE: A new low for DT
By Cr0nJ0b on 9/22/2008 11:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
...and you had no issue with the picture of the hotdog guy?

RE: A new low for DT
By Lord 666 on 9/22/2008 12:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Any picture from Something about Mary and the frank and beans would have been better actually. The hot guy doesn't make sense since, per the article is not being studied, and the focus is the testicles.

Something along these lines

RE: A new low for DT
By bldckstark on 9/26/2008 12:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
The hot dog guy is in relation to the cell phone commercials where the parent had to get a second job to pay the family cell bill. It is related to the article in two ways. It is a hot dog, often associated with male reproductive organs, and it was featured in a television cell phone commercial.

Still not a great choice though.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007
Related Articles
Study: Cell Phones Worse Than Smoking
March 31, 2008, 6:39 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki