Foodconsumer.org

 
USCards.com Bookmark Us
All Food, Diet and Health News 
 
 Misc. News
 Must-Read News
 Letter to Editor
 Featured Products
 Recalls & Alerts
 Consumer Affair
 Non-food Things
 Health Tips
 Interesting Sites
 
 Diet & Health
 Heart & Blood
 Cancer
 Body Weight
 Children & Women
 General Health
 Nutrition
 
 Food & Health
 Food Chemicals
 Biological Agents
 Cooking & Packing
 Technologies
 Agri. & Environ.
 Laws & Politics
 
 General Health
 Drug News
 Diseases
 Mental Health
 Infectious Disease
 Environment
 Lifestyle
 Government
 Other News
 
 Food Consumer
 FC News & Others
Search





Search Foodconsumer & Others


Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo
Newsfeed

foodconsumer.org news feed
Su bmit news[release]



More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com from uscards.com, you can pick more than 100 credit cards


General Health : Environment Last Updated: May 5, 2009 - 12:58:27 PM


Cell phone use linked to poor sperm quality
By Ben Wasserman
Feb 7, 2008 - 5:14:54 PM

E.mail t.his a.rticle
 P.rinter f.riendly p.age
Get n.ewsletter
 
   
THURSDAY FEB 07, 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- Talking on a cell phone for too long too often costs men more than a big monthly phone bill.  A new study found men spending hours talking on a cell phone each day actually had low sperm quality in terms of the count and morphology.

The more time spent on a cell phone, the lower the count and the higher the percentage of abnormal sperm, according to the study.  But researchers cautioned that this is not a cause-and-effect relationship, meaning it is unknown whether using cell phone causes bad sperm.

Early studies have linked long term cell phone use to a higher risk of brain tumors although other short term studies found no relationship between the two.

The current study of the 361 men who sought help from the Cleveland Clinic - a fertility clinic - was meant to examine an association between exposure to the radiation from cell phones and the quality of sperm.

In the study, researchers surveyed the patients for their use of cell phones in one year.  The results showed that the sperm count and quality tended to decline as cell phone use increased.

Those men who used more than four hours got the worse sperm quality, according to the study, which appears in the Jan 2008 issue of Fertility and Sterility.

The possible effect of cell phone radiation on sperm has been researched in a number of studies.  In 2007, Dr. Ji-Gen Yan at Medical College of Wisconsin and colleagues already reported that rats exposed to two 3-hour periods of daily cellular phone emissions for 18 weeks had a significantly higher incidence of sperm cell death than control group rats.

The study published in the October 2007 issue of Fertility and Sterility also found abnormal clumping of sperm cells in rats subject to cell phone emission, but not in rats without such exposure.

A study similar to the current study conducted by Hungarian researchers found even just bearing a cell phone can reduce a man's sperm count by up to 30 percent.  

The radiation from a cell phone on a belt or in a pocket or on standby was enough to reduce both sperm count and mobility of surviving sperm, according to Dr. Imre Fejes of the University of Szeged in Hungary and colleagues who present the study at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Berlin, Germany in June, 2004.

In the study of 221 men with and without a cell phone, Fejes and colleagues found men who actively used cell phone scored 59 million sperm per milliliter of seminal fluid compared to 83 million for those without phones.

The researchers concluded "prolonged use of cell phones may have a negative effect on spermatogenesis and male fertility that presumably deteriorates both concentration and motility" although they acknowledged more research was needed to confirm the harmful effect of cell phone radiation.

According to media reports, the independent Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) in the UK conducted a review and issued a report in January 2004 claiming a conclusion that "It is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF (radiofrequency) radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."





© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified

Top of Page




Google
 
Web foodconsumer.org

Search Consumer-friendly Health Sites












We have moved to Food Consumer . Org



disclaimer | advertising | jobs | privacy | about us | newsletter | Submit news/articles
link partners: | Buy Viagra | MarketAmerica.com |
Buy a home | Auto Insurance | Mortgage refinancing | DaytonaCPA.com | Take Your Blog to a Higher Level
© Copyright 2004 - 2008 foodconsumer.org All rights reserved

Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only. The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals. Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.