Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scaredofradiation3

  1. A study done at a fertility clinic, which had 300 subjects, found that cell phone use harms male fertility. This is obviously very concerning, but is it flawed? Their exclusion criteria was:

    “Subjects who had undergo surgery for hernia repair, medical diseases as D.M, U.T.I, thyroid disease, patients who were on antipsychotic or antihypertensive drugs, or taking alcohol, azoospermics & those with small sized testes were excluded from the study.”

    That doesn’t seem like a very extensive criteria to account for the fact that patents where already infertile. Their questionnaire isn’t available, they say they looked into ‘general information’. The study was also done in Iraq, during the Iraq war, I don’t know if that affects the results or not, but I’d imagine people who live in a war zone are more prone to stress and anxiety, although I don’t know if they accounted for that. Fertility health awareness also doesn’t strike me as a priority for the Iraq government in 2011, so that may be another issue. Also, people who use phones will be exposed to more news about the war then those without phones. To me, it seems like a study that investigated if being Catholic leads to greater stress, by conducting the study in Belfast at the height of The Troubles, so of course they are going to have higher stress levels than the general population.

    There is one thing that I’m struggling to debunk. The study divided cell phone users by where they store their phone, in their pocket (n=112), in a waist pouch (n=127), or in a shirt pocket (n=30). They found that the worst sperm quality was among men how kept their phones in their pockets, with the ‘best’ being those had kept their phone in a shirt pocket. So the closer the phone is to the testicles, the worse the fertility. This seems to be quite convincing. Is it proof that the study isn’t flawed?

    It may be that putting a phone in your pocket tightens you trousers, which harms fertility, or owning a shirt with a pocket is associated with certain careers (Office workers, CEOs, etc. which all have different traits that affect fertility), but I’m not too sure. 

    They also divided subjects into use groups (4 hours of use a day, 3 hours, etc.) and only 30 people made up the non-user category, which doesn’t seem like a lot. Does this seem like a flawed study?

  2. A study has found that cell phones are detrimental to male sperm quality (Lower sperm motility and sperm concentration). It’s original goal was to determine if image content has a effect on sperm quality, but accidentally discovered that men who said they kept their phone in their pocket had worse sperm quality than those who didn’t have a phone in their pocket.

    As far as I can tell, from my limited knowledge, the study isn’t very flawed. What I do know is that they used 52 men, which doesn’t seem like a lot. Another possible flaw is in regard to how they took sperm samples. Sperm parameters can vary amongst healthy individuals, the WHO recommends taking at least 2 samples to determine fertility. This study took one sample from all 52 men, then asked them if they wanted to participate the second time around and only 25 men agreed. So, they did take more than one sample but only for 25 men. I’m not sure, but this doesn’t seem like very good methodology:

    “Sperm count varies all the time, meaning from hour to hour, day to day, month to month. To truly achieve a representative sample, men’s sperm quality would need to be monitored for a long time” - JAMES M. HOTALING, MD, MS, FECSM

    I guess what that means is that only 25 samples where useful ones, and that seems like a very small number. The age range was 18-35 and all the subjects where from a Australian University.

    I was wondering if certain lifestyle factors that tend to be associated with phone use where causing the infertility, not the phones themselves, but the study had a very extensive questionnaire and adjusted for many different factors from bathing habits to diet, so I don’t think that the study can be flawed in this are.

    What do you guys think? Is this something that we should be worried about and change our habits over, or is it scientifically limited and no cause for alarm until bigger and better studies conform their findings?

  3. I have read a study that has found that cell phones are assositated with increased immature sperm amoung men:


    Lifestyle factors that were positively associated with percentage of immature sperms (high DNA stainability index) included: obesity and cell phone use for more than 10 years (P=0.02 and P=0.04, respectively).

    I am wondering if this study warrents action, should we change how we use phones? I can only indetify one flaw with this study, and that is that it's population was from a fertility clinic. This seems like a selection bias as they are studying people who are already infertile (The study tried to account for this by only allowing those with normal sperm concentration to participate, however sperm concentration only makes up one of many factors that go into measuring fertility, this leads me to believe that they haven't accounted for the bias very well). I don't know how much of a bias this is, as they did measure the fertility of the population over time, and found that as time went on immature sperm (something that impares fertility) rose amoungst cell phone users, but it still seems biased and flawed.

    What do you all think, is this a concerning study? Or is it one which is flawed and inconclusive? Here is a link that goes into a bit more detial about the study in question: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/29287

  4. Is this study worth worrying about?



    Radiofrequency exposure from mobile phones is concentrated to the tissue closest to the handset, which includes the auditory nerve. If this type of exposure increases tumor risk, acoustic neuroma would be a potential concern.


    In this population-based case-control study we identified all cases age 20 to 69 years diagnosed with acoustic neuroma during 1999 to 2002 in certain parts of Sweden. Controls were randomly selected from the study base, stratified on age, sex, and residential area. Detailed information about mobile phone use and other environmental exposures was collected from 148 (93%) cases and 604 (72%) controls.


    The overall odds ratio for acoustic neuroma associated with regular mobile phone use was 1.0 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use the estimates relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9-4.1); when restricting to tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the relative risk was 3.9 (1.6-9.5).


    Our findings do not indicate an increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short-term mobile phone use after a short latency period. However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration.


  5. Your link https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01620.x


    and another https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/salivary-gland-cancer/symptoms-causes/syc-20354151


    There appears to be no evidence increased or decreased saliva rates are a problem. Certain foods cause more saliva to flow. Why are you concerned ? 


    Which other science forums have you posted your question on?

    I posted this on Reddit’s biology forum, I thought that this was a sign of oxidative stress which can cause cancer, am I wrong?

  6. Hi, I’ve had a fear of phone radiation for a while now, the scientific community has been very helpful in helping me understand results of studies. That being said, I need someone to please look through this and tell me what you think:


    (The theory is that these results are signs of Oxidative Stress which can cause cancer)

    Study 1:


    Nowadays mobile phone is very popular, causing concern about the effect it has on people’s health. Parotid salivary glands are in close contact to cell phone while talking with the phone and the possibility of being affected by them. Limited studies have evaluated the effect of cell phone use on the secretions of these glands; so this study was designed to investigate the effects of duration of mobile phone use on the total antioxidant capacity of saliva.


    Unstimulated saliva from 105 volunteers without oral lesions collected. The volunteers based on daily usage of mobile phones were divided into three groups then total antioxidant capacity of saliva was measured by Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) method. Data were analyzed by SPSS software version 19. ANOVA was used to compare 3 groups and post-hoc Tukey test to compare between two groups.


    Average total antioxidant capacities of saliva in 3 groups were 657.91 µmol/lit, 726.77 µm/lit and 560.17 µmol/lit, respectively. The two groups had statistically significant different (P = 0.039).


    Over an hour talking with a cell phone decreases total antioxidant capacity of saliva in comparison with talking less than twenty minutes.

    Study 2:

    BACKGROUND: Handheld mobile phones (MPHs) have become a Ôcultural’ accessory device, no less so than a wrist watch. Nevertheless, the use of MPHs has given rise to great concern because of possible adverse health effects from exposure to the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by the device. Previous studies suggested correlation between MPH and salivary gland tumors.

    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether MPH induces physio- logic changes in the adjacent parotid gland, located on the dominant side, in terms of secretion rates and protein levels in the secreted saliva.

    MATERIALS AND METHOD: Stimulated parotid saliva was collected simultaneously from both glands in 50 healthy volunteers whose MPH use was on a dominant side of the head. RESULTS: A significantly higher saliva secretion rate was noticed in the dominant MPH side compared with that in the non-dominant side. Lower total protein concentra- tion was obtained in the dominant compared with the non-dominant MPH side among the right dominant MPH users.

    CONCLUSIONS: Parotid glands adjacent to handheld MPH in use respond by elevated salivary rates and de- creased protein secretion reflecting the continuous insult to the glands. This phenomenon should be revealed to the worldwide population and further exploration by means of large-scale longitudinal studies is warranted. Oral Diseases (2009) doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01620.x

    Thank you for any replies in advance, I greatly appreciate it!

  • Create New...