Habits of cell phone usage and sperm quality(rbmojournal.com)
rbmojournal.com
Habits of cell phone usage and sperm quality
http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(15)00300-4/abstract
91 comments
> Studies also indicate a continuous decline in testosterone (in males) over 20th century. I'd welcome someone correct my biological knowledge, but I would guess that testosterone influences production of sperm, not the other way round. So they're probably studying the wrong thing.
Yup. And our society also happens to encourage activities which lower testosterone levels (various things like inactivity, weight gain, poor sleep and stress all sap testosterone levels).
Yup. And our society also happens to encourage activities which lower testosterone levels (various things like inactivity, weight gain, poor sleep and stress all sap testosterone levels).
>And our society also happens to encourage activities which lower testosterone levels
also important that natural selection in our society isn't for higher testosterone anymore. Peaceful interaction and coexistence lead to more success than open aggression ("success" here is in natural selection sense, i.e. producing next generation and bringing them into "successful" (in the same sense) adulthood)
also important that natural selection in our society isn't for higher testosterone anymore. Peaceful interaction and coexistence lead to more success than open aggression ("success" here is in natural selection sense, i.e. producing next generation and bringing them into "successful" (in the same sense) adulthood)
Any study looking for long term health effects of specific behavior, no matter how good the methodology, is going to wind up looking stupid in the end. There are simply too many variables to account for.
With so many variables to consider, of course the scientists will be able to wrangle some explanation from the data that fits their hypothesis.
This kind of study makes a mockery of the scientific method by following it in name only.
I'm sure you could come to the same conclusion for dozens of factors other than cell phone radiation. How about hormones in the food supply? Work, sleeping habits? Changing life timelines? Social media?
You could attribute literally any new phenomenon from the past century to a correlated observation.
This seems like such poor science it makes me angry my tax dollars are paying for this so-called "research." What a waste of time.
Relevant: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
With so many variables to consider, of course the scientists will be able to wrangle some explanation from the data that fits their hypothesis.
This kind of study makes a mockery of the scientific method by following it in name only.
I'm sure you could come to the same conclusion for dozens of factors other than cell phone radiation. How about hormones in the food supply? Work, sleeping habits? Changing life timelines? Social media?
You could attribute literally any new phenomenon from the past century to a correlated observation.
This seems like such poor science it makes me angry my tax dollars are paying for this so-called "research." What a waste of time.
Relevant: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
Also isn't clear at all if they're accounting for multiple comparisons. Given they're looking at (glancing through they paper) at least seven or eight cell phone related factors, it'd be pretty crucial here.
The authors note that it is a contributing factor, which means it is not the only factor.
I'm not really sure why people referred for semen analysis would be a biasing factor in this when it is present in both test groups. It seems like it would be the only reasonable way to get statistical power in a study like this since if the effect is small and most people don't suffer from it there would be a much larger sample size required.
I'm not really sure why people referred for semen analysis would be a biasing factor in this when it is present in both test groups. It seems like it would be the only reasonable way to get statistical power in a study like this since if the effect is small and most people don't suffer from it there would be a much larger sample size required.
> I'm not really sure why people referred for semen analysis would be a biasing factor in this when it is present in both test groups. It seems like it would be the only reasonable way to get statistical power in a study like this since if the effect is small and most people don't suffer from it there would be a much larger sample size required.
You're right, everything else being equal, that probably wouldn't be the biggest issue... Although in this specific case, it seems like a way to amplify the effect - if this study would be done on the general population, where (1) almost everybody uses mobile phones extensively, and (2) presumably, men are less likely to have poor sperm than in this focus group, the resulting effect would be diluted (as in most cases, mobile phone usage would not result in poorer sperm quality).
You're right, everything else being equal, that probably wouldn't be the biggest issue... Although in this specific case, it seems like a way to amplify the effect - if this study would be done on the general population, where (1) almost everybody uses mobile phones extensively, and (2) presumably, men are less likely to have poor sperm than in this focus group, the resulting effect would be diluted (as in most cases, mobile phone usage would not result in poorer sperm quality).
I can't critique the article directly, since it's behind a paywall.
But I can take the purported results and do some Bayesian analysis with it. Take first a prior - due to my knowledge of physics, my prior on microwave/RF/visual radiation having any biological effect is 10^{-5}. Multiphoton ionization has simply never been observed to happen except under extremely intense (read: it'll melt you) fields and there are strong theoretical reasons to believe it won't happen.
I.e., if this effect is real, it'll require new physics to explain. Most likely 10^{-5} is a conservative prior on the likelihood that an experimental paper overturns quantum mechanics.
Now, lets take their strongest result (p = 0.02) and do a Bayes update with it, assuming a complete absense of selection bias/etc (i.e. imagining this was a perfect RCT).
P(effect false | experiment result) = P(experiment result | effect false) P(effect false) / P(experiment result)
= 0.02 x (1-10^{-5}) / P(experiment result)
We can compute the latter as P(experiment result | effect false) x (1 - 10^{-5}) + P(experiment result | effect real) x 10^{-5} \approx 0.02 x 1.0. Assuming optimistically that the statistical power - aka P(experiment result | effect real) - is 0.99, the bottom is 0.020009700000000002.
Plugging and chugging yields:
P(effect false | experiment result) = 0.9995052399586201
Or equivalently P(effect real | experiment result) = 0.000494760041379938.
As a result, assuming you believe strongly in quantum physics (I do), this experiment provides wildly insufficient data to overturn QM and believe the effect is real.
Note: I'm not explaining here why quantum mechanics says multiphoton ionization is a tiny effect, negligible in biological applications, I'm just going to argue by authority: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/publications.html
But I can take the purported results and do some Bayesian analysis with it. Take first a prior - due to my knowledge of physics, my prior on microwave/RF/visual radiation having any biological effect is 10^{-5}. Multiphoton ionization has simply never been observed to happen except under extremely intense (read: it'll melt you) fields and there are strong theoretical reasons to believe it won't happen.
I.e., if this effect is real, it'll require new physics to explain. Most likely 10^{-5} is a conservative prior on the likelihood that an experimental paper overturns quantum mechanics.
Now, lets take their strongest result (p = 0.02) and do a Bayes update with it, assuming a complete absense of selection bias/etc (i.e. imagining this was a perfect RCT).
P(effect false | experiment result) = P(experiment result | effect false) P(effect false) / P(experiment result)
= 0.02 x (1-10^{-5}) / P(experiment result)
We can compute the latter as P(experiment result | effect false) x (1 - 10^{-5}) + P(experiment result | effect real) x 10^{-5} \approx 0.02 x 1.0. Assuming optimistically that the statistical power - aka P(experiment result | effect real) - is 0.99, the bottom is 0.020009700000000002.
Plugging and chugging yields:
P(effect false | experiment result) = 0.9995052399586201
Or equivalently P(effect real | experiment result) = 0.000494760041379938.
As a result, assuming you believe strongly in quantum physics (I do), this experiment provides wildly insufficient data to overturn QM and believe the effect is real.
Note: I'm not explaining here why quantum mechanics says multiphoton ionization is a tiny effect, negligible in biological applications, I'm just going to argue by authority: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/publications.html
Like many people, you're starting from assumption of the mechanism (ionization) and ignoring the fact that there are many other known physical mechanisms that are plausible.
Also, if people detect a reliable signal without a plausible physical mechanism, best thing to do is determine what the cause of the signal is- rather than just assuming it's impossible.
In grad school we were taught to do "back of the envelope" calculations to rule out improbably hypotheses, but I often found the physics people convinced (I think they used the term "proved impossible") themselves things wouldn't work, then after 5-7 years of grad school, managed to come up with actual physical data that showed they had made a false assumption.
Also, if people detect a reliable signal without a plausible physical mechanism, best thing to do is determine what the cause of the signal is- rather than just assuming it's impossible.
In grad school we were taught to do "back of the envelope" calculations to rule out improbably hypotheses, but I often found the physics people convinced (I think they used the term "proved impossible") themselves things wouldn't work, then after 5-7 years of grad school, managed to come up with actual physical data that showed they had made a false assumption.
When it comes to weird results in human epidemiology and public health, my bet is always on hidden/unknown 3rd factors. You're right that the signal might be real, but it might have nothing at all to do with cell phones. Rather, cell phones might be independently correlated with whatever the real causes of the sperm problems are.
Put in plain English: a group of men with similar cell phone habits probably have many other things in common.
Put in plain English: a group of men with similar cell phone habits probably have many other things in common.
yes, I think it's always key to look at epi studies like this and make absolutely sure everybody agrees the protocol is designed to address bias. I'd say only about 10% of the studies I read do this adequately (it's one of the things that helped convince me Ionnides is right that nearly all studies are Just Wrong).
It is impossible for an epidemiology study to elimate hidden factors, no matter how many statistical tests they run. Hidden factors are hidden, which means the statistics can't tell you about them. Information not available to the researchers cannot be evaluated by the researchers.
This is why the concept of a mechanism is important in science--it provides a framework for simplified experiments that exclude hidden factors by their design. For example if the hypothesis is that cell phone radiation causes sperm problems by damaging human cells, then human cells can be directly exposed to that type of radiation to see what happens.
This is why the concept of a mechanism is important in science--it provides a framework for simplified experiments that exclude hidden factors by their design. For example if the hypothesis is that cell phone radiation causes sperm problems by damaging human cells, then human cells can be directly exposed to that type of radiation to see what happens.
Like I said, a carefully designed study can eliminate many biases. I didn't claim it could eliminate hidden factors.
Anyway the problem with finding something in an epi study then trying to reproduce it in a minimal environment (isolated cells exposed directly to radiation) is unlikely to uncover any complex mechanism. Cells on their own don't behave like tissue, and tissue on its own doesn't behave like an organism.
Anyway the problem with finding something in an epi study then trying to reproduce it in a minimal environment (isolated cells exposed directly to radiation) is unlikely to uncover any complex mechanism. Cells on their own don't behave like tissue, and tissue on its own doesn't behave like an organism.
Even doing radiation tests on rats in a lab is going to have fewer confounding factors than 100 infertile human guys filling out a questionnaire.
I'm not aware of any lab rat studies that found harm from cell phone radiation. And of course the basic mechanism by which radiation affects materials is pretty well understood.
All this is to say: I think yummfajitas had it right. Fajitas are delicious.
I'm not aware of any lab rat studies that found harm from cell phone radiation. And of course the basic mechanism by which radiation affects materials is pretty well understood.
All this is to say: I think yummfajitas had it right. Fajitas are delicious.
There are a number of experiments where researchers have reported visible changes to sperm morphology. Here are the ones I found without looking to hard (only extracted abstract; did not read full paper from the perspective of a grad student preparing for journal club)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578660 " However, rats exposed to RF-EMR exhibited a significantly reduced percentage of motile sperm"
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10343/1/IJEB%... "decrease ... in total sperm count".
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/ferguson2/ "An experiment by Yan et al. in 2007 was conducted to see how cell phone radiation affected sperm quality. [10] The rats were placed in a PVC holding tube and exposed to a total of 6 hours of cell phone radiation per day for 18 weeks. After the 18 weeks were over, the rats were euthanized for tissue testing. They found that sperm motility was significantly different between the control and experimental group. [10]"
That ref is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628553, "Rats exposed to 6 hours of daily cellular phone emissions for 18 weeks exhibited a significantly higher incidence of sperm cell death than control group rats through chi-squared analysis."
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=476323... "Our findings shows a significant decrease in GPx and SOD of exposed rat sperm (p< 0.001)"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578660 " However, rats exposed to RF-EMR exhibited a significantly reduced percentage of motile sperm"
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10343/1/IJEB%... "decrease ... in total sperm count".
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/ferguson2/ "An experiment by Yan et al. in 2007 was conducted to see how cell phone radiation affected sperm quality. [10] The rats were placed in a PVC holding tube and exposed to a total of 6 hours of cell phone radiation per day for 18 weeks. After the 18 weeks were over, the rats were euthanized for tissue testing. They found that sperm motility was significantly different between the control and experimental group. [10]"
That ref is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628553, "Rats exposed to 6 hours of daily cellular phone emissions for 18 weeks exhibited a significantly higher incidence of sperm cell death than control group rats through chi-squared analysis."
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=476323... "Our findings shows a significant decrease in GPx and SOD of exposed rat sperm (p< 0.001)"
What are the other plausible mechanisms? The effect of low intensity RF fields on chemistry is essentially negligible. For the most part, folks doing chemistry with non-ionizing radiation need intense lasers or microwave resonating cavities.
The main exceptions (which in reality also mostly require intense radiation) are highly engineered scenarios where you finely tune a radiation source to excite an electron to a specific level that's far from the continuous spectrum, but useful for some other chemical to interact with. To detect low frequency radiation, these usually require very specific materials with nearly continuous energy bands (think carefully doped semiconductors or possibly photoreceptor proteins).
These are also highly unlikely to occur - again, unless you've engineered it to happen, 10^{-5} is probably an extreme overestimate on the probability.
But if you know a plausible mechanism, I'd love to hear it. Feel free to provide references or go into physical detail.
The main exceptions (which in reality also mostly require intense radiation) are highly engineered scenarios where you finely tune a radiation source to excite an electron to a specific level that's far from the continuous spectrum, but useful for some other chemical to interact with. To detect low frequency radiation, these usually require very specific materials with nearly continuous energy bands (think carefully doped semiconductors or possibly photoreceptor proteins).
These are also highly unlikely to occur - again, unless you've engineered it to happen, 10^{-5} is probably an extreme overestimate on the probability.
But if you know a plausible mechanism, I'd love to hear it. Feel free to provide references or go into physical detail.
Again, you're making a ton of assumptions about mechanisms. Saying low intensity RF has a negligible effect on chemistry belies the fact that cell receptors can be exquisitely sensitive and those receptors can cause large changes in cells via DNA transcription.
The current most plausible mechanism is localized cell heating. We already know that RF can cause cell heating. There are a number of physical responses to cell heating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shock_protein) which can have large effects on cell morphology.
I am not claiming that is the mechanism. But I've seen enough epidemilogical studies that have been conducted carefully enough to suggest there is some mechanism by which negative health effects may be occurring, and I think that alone makes it worth being a bit more creative than trying to disprove the observed evidence by claiming one of the plausible mechanisms isn't.
(I have a PhD in Biophysics; I've worked up and down the molecular stack, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that if the epidemiologists carry out a good study, and the meta-analysts confirm the effect, it's always a good idea to be open minded about the cause).
The current most plausible mechanism is localized cell heating. We already know that RF can cause cell heating. There are a number of physical responses to cell heating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shock_protein) which can have large effects on cell morphology.
I am not claiming that is the mechanism. But I've seen enough epidemilogical studies that have been conducted carefully enough to suggest there is some mechanism by which negative health effects may be occurring, and I think that alone makes it worth being a bit more creative than trying to disprove the observed evidence by claiming one of the plausible mechanisms isn't.
(I have a PhD in Biophysics; I've worked up and down the molecular stack, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that if the epidemiologists carry out a good study, and the meta-analysts confirm the effect, it's always a good idea to be open minded about the cause).
Of course I'm making assumptions - the biggest one is that quantum chemistry works.
If you are now retreating to thermal effects, they a) can be easily measured and b) are vastly smaller than effects like wearing tighty whities or walking past a radiator in winter. Is your sole claim that using a cell phone might have an effect 1/100th as large as blow drying one's balls after a shower?
Let me reason by analogy, to explain the probabilitistic intuition here. Study: we threw golf balls at aircraft carriers and cargo vessels, and concluded that they are an effective naval weapon. The probability of observing this result by random chance, assuming golf balls don't sink aircraft carriers, is 2%.
Would you draw the conclusion that golf balls are likely to sink aircraft carriers from such a study?
If you are now retreating to thermal effects, they a) can be easily measured and b) are vastly smaller than effects like wearing tighty whities or walking past a radiator in winter. Is your sole claim that using a cell phone might have an effect 1/100th as large as blow drying one's balls after a shower?
Let me reason by analogy, to explain the probabilitistic intuition here. Study: we threw golf balls at aircraft carriers and cargo vessels, and concluded that they are an effective naval weapon. The probability of observing this result by random chance, assuming golf balls don't sink aircraft carriers, is 2%.
Would you draw the conclusion that golf balls are likely to sink aircraft carriers from such a study?
No, my sole claim is not that using a cell phone would have 1/100th the effect of blow drying ones testicles after a shower (why????)
After all, the phone stays around a lot longer (temporal effect) and I have certainly noticed that when the phone is using lots of bandwidth it stays warm for hours at a time. Many effects in biology can occur from extended exposure (cumulative dosage effects) when they don't have an effect from acute exposure. And vice versa, of course.
Anyway, reasoning from probabilistic intuition here is probably a mistake: the epi studies show stuff that doesn't agree with our intuition (this is common) and that leads theorists and experimentalists to go search for other causes. In the history of science, we have a long list of things that weren't intuitive but ultimately were figured out.
Finally falling back on "I assume QC works" isn't really informative in this case. I assume QC works to and I don't see why that negates the possibility that cell phones can have negative health effects caused by physical mechanisms.
After all, the phone stays around a lot longer (temporal effect) and I have certainly noticed that when the phone is using lots of bandwidth it stays warm for hours at a time. Many effects in biology can occur from extended exposure (cumulative dosage effects) when they don't have an effect from acute exposure. And vice versa, of course.
Anyway, reasoning from probabilistic intuition here is probably a mistake: the epi studies show stuff that doesn't agree with our intuition (this is common) and that leads theorists and experimentalists to go search for other causes. In the history of science, we have a long list of things that weren't intuitive but ultimately were figured out.
Finally falling back on "I assume QC works" isn't really informative in this case. I assume QC works to and I don't see why that negates the possibility that cell phones can have negative health effects caused by physical mechanisms.
QM rules out non-thermal effects. Once you retreat to thermal effects you have conceded that a cell phone is vastly less dangerous than turning the thermostat from 74 to 75 (if you want to think about extended exposure) or blow drying one's balls (if you want to think about acute exposure). Now those things probably do have some measurable effect - certainly temperature effects sperm count, which is why men are advised not to wear tighty whities.
Computing the size of cell phone effects, relative to things like moving from NY to slightly warmer DC is just a simple thermodynamic calculation. If the study is concerned about such tiny relative risks, they are both a) wildly underpowered to detect them and b) certainly aren't making that clear in the abstract.
Now, it's possible that our physics-based priors are wildly wrong. But as the calculation I did notes, this study is too underpowered to significantly change our views on that.
Computing the size of cell phone effects, relative to things like moving from NY to slightly warmer DC is just a simple thermodynamic calculation. If the study is concerned about such tiny relative risks, they are both a) wildly underpowered to detect them and b) certainly aren't making that clear in the abstract.
Now, it's possible that our physics-based priors are wildly wrong. But as the calculation I did notes, this study is too underpowered to significantly change our views on that.
Outside temperature is less important than you might assume we can lower or pull back our boys to regulate temperature. Airflow and being physically pushed back into the body is a major factor so your boys can overheat when it's 55 or be fine when it's 95.
For a layperson, like me. How does QM rule out non-thermal effects?
Some hypothetical causes you might refute:
Could resonance be involved? At the right frequency maybe it doesn't take much to shake things up.
In a similar manner, could precise timing interfering with som finley tuned process be an explanation.
Or, could something in the body detect it, and respond excessively? Like how we get stressed from noise, even though the auditory system filters it out.
Some hypothetical causes you might refute:
Could resonance be involved? At the right frequency maybe it doesn't take much to shake things up.
In a similar manner, could precise timing interfering with som finley tuned process be an explanation.
Or, could something in the body detect it, and respond excessively? Like how we get stressed from noise, even though the auditory system filters it out.
It's fine for researchers to go look for other causes. It's not fine to expect that they will disregard what we already know. Well-supported scientific theories should be used to constrain the search space when addressing new problems, otherwise we'll get stuck re-proving the same basic things over and over again.
If every epidemiological study causes us to question everything we thought we knew, it's going to be hard to make any progress on health improvements. This is certainly not the first study to find health correlations with cell phones, and it won't be the last.
If every epidemiological study causes us to question everything we thought we knew, it's going to be hard to make any progress on health improvements. This is certainly not the first study to find health correlations with cell phones, and it won't be the last.
"Well-supported scientific theories should be used to constrain the search space when addressing new problems, otherwise we'll get stuck re-proving the same basic things over and over again."
I think QM showed this was pretty much not an acceptable position to take.
I think QM showed this was pretty much not an acceptable position to take.
Could quantum mechanics be wrong? Yes.
Are we going to discover that by surveying 100 infertile guys? No.
Are we going to discover that by surveying 100 infertile guys? No.
The reason QM rejected existing classical theories is because various experiments were wildly inconsistent with classical theory. I.e., if you repeat photoelectric experiments enough times to rule out experimental error, you've pretty much refuted classical physics with p < exp(-N) (where N is O(# of particles)).
This study has p < 0.02. It makes an highly unlikely hypothesis about 50x more likely, i.e. still extremely unlikely.
This study has p < 0.02. It makes an highly unlikely hypothesis about 50x more likely, i.e. still extremely unlikely.
This is probably silly speculation, but I'm neither good at testicle models nor the more squishy sciences.
So sperm virility is correlated with temperature. My phone gets very warm if I leave an app running. I keep my phone close to my testicles. The wikipedia page on "Semen quality" is now in my browser history.
I mean it's spurious, but I wouldn't be surprised if a running cellphone heats up the inside of your pants just enough for you to take a minor hit to semen quality. There's also a blood vessel that leads to the testicles that sits fairly close to where my phone sometimes goes. My browser history now contains anatomical diagrams of scrota. This could interfere with the thermoregulation of the testicle.
That or the tails act as tiny antenna. I'm sure glad that I'm nowhere near the field of Biology, and I'm sure Biology is glad too.
So sperm virility is correlated with temperature. My phone gets very warm if I leave an app running. I keep my phone close to my testicles. The wikipedia page on "Semen quality" is now in my browser history.
I mean it's spurious, but I wouldn't be surprised if a running cellphone heats up the inside of your pants just enough for you to take a minor hit to semen quality. There's also a blood vessel that leads to the testicles that sits fairly close to where my phone sometimes goes. My browser history now contains anatomical diagrams of scrota. This could interfere with the thermoregulation of the testicle.
That or the tails act as tiny antenna. I'm sure glad that I'm nowhere near the field of Biology, and I'm sure Biology is glad too.
Indirect, People carry cellphones in there pants pockets. Said pants are going to be tighter which hampers sperm production.
Posture, people that sit differently during a phone conversation which may be constricting airflow / blood flow / heating.
Direct heating, phones get fairly hot during charging which may cause other issues.
Related behaviors, people that use there phone a lot may also use-laptops in there lap which case heat issues.
PS: Sure, the study may just be random statistical noise. But, your better off investigating things that don't seem reasonable than assuming your world view covers everything.
Posture, people that sit differently during a phone conversation which may be constricting airflow / blood flow / heating.
Direct heating, phones get fairly hot during charging which may cause other issues.
Related behaviors, people that use there phone a lot may also use-laptops in there lap which case heat issues.
PS: Sure, the study may just be random statistical noise. But, your better off investigating things that don't seem reasonable than assuming your world view covers everything.
Maybe people with low sperm concentrations tend to sit around using their cell phone while it is plugged in?
The abstract doesn't really propose a mechanism, it just notes the correlation.
Pushing people with certain usage patterns to get screening for low t (or whatever) can still be a useful outcome of the further research.
Not that I think they really need to get funding to pursue it, but you are imputing the proposal of a causative radiation mechanism.
The abstract doesn't really propose a mechanism, it just notes the correlation.
Pushing people with certain usage patterns to get screening for low t (or whatever) can still be a useful outcome of the further research.
Not that I think they really need to get funding to pursue it, but you are imputing the proposal of a causative radiation mechanism.
Right - I'm charitably assuming that their study supported causality with p=0.02. In reality it doesn't.
My statement above but you are imputing the proposal of a causative radiation mechanism. is poorly phrased. A better way to put what I was getting at is that they are not claiming that radiation effects are the only possible causative mechanism. They found some observation in some data and published it, probably in the service of a future grant proposal. Saying they didn't prove anything for this publication is like saying water is wet.
Should hn spend much time discussing the result (or really, observation)? Absolutely not. Should they get grant funding for this? I dunno, I hope there are better proposals out there, but really have no idea.
Should hn spend much time discussing the result (or really, observation)? Absolutely not. Should they get grant funding for this? I dunno, I hope there are better proposals out there, but really have no idea.
Isn't it the case that we can expect roughly one in fifty studies with p<0.02 to be the result of statistical noise?
As dramatized at https://xkcd.com/882/
Warm battery in front pocket? Testicles are outside the body to help control temperature.
Assume some model, and do calculations within that model to tell you what the probability of some event is under that model.
What is just about impossible to calculate is what the probability is that the model captures only way for X event to occur. I find people sometimes confuse the reliability of calculations within the model as a defense of the model itself - usually unintentionally, but sometimes intentionally (with industries defending the safety of some practice...).
What is just about impossible to calculate is what the probability is that the model captures only way for X event to occur. I find people sometimes confuse the reliability of calculations within the model as a defense of the model itself - usually unintentionally, but sometimes intentionally (with industries defending the safety of some practice...).
Thanks for this helpful comment. The back-and-forth that is going on in the subthread below your comment illustrates the difference between "evidence-based medicine" (medicine studied through randomized, controlled trials, which by the way we don't have here) and "science-based medicine" (medicine studied not just through randomized, controlled trials but also through careful consideration of fundamental science). Science-based medicine is rare but important[1] because even clinical trials, if done with small enough sample size and enough researcher degrees of freedom, can produce spurious results, which are all the more convincing because they appear to be backed up by good methodology.
But of course here we don't even have a randomized controlled trial, but only a very poorly conducted observational study in an obscure journal that is implausible on scientific grounds. If there is any association here, likely it results from some coincidental lifestyle association between cell phone use (wherever the cell phones are put) and sperm quality. (P.S. I'm a father of four children, but three of those four were born before I became a regular cell phone user. I'm not worried about this issue for my personal life, at my current age.)
[1] https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-science-based-med...
But of course here we don't even have a randomized controlled trial, but only a very poorly conducted observational study in an obscure journal that is implausible on scientific grounds. If there is any association here, likely it results from some coincidental lifestyle association between cell phone use (wherever the cell phones are put) and sperm quality. (P.S. I'm a father of four children, but three of those four were born before I became a regular cell phone user. I'm not worried about this issue for my personal life, at my current age.)
[1] https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-science-based-med...
""science-based medicine" (medicine studied not just through randomized, controlled trials but also through careful consideration of fundamental science)."
Medical science seems like it's wrong as much as it's right. Careful experiments are how we learned most of what we learned that's useful. Science can certainly inform those experiments. Yet, the solution to the problems of evidence-based medicine is usually better evidence gathering and review. Filters out the major issue of scientists own models or assumptions screwing up their results because they didn't reflect reality. Fixing that can take a long time, too, depending on the sub-field.
Medical science seems like it's wrong as much as it's right. Careful experiments are how we learned most of what we learned that's useful. Science can certainly inform those experiments. Yet, the solution to the problems of evidence-based medicine is usually better evidence gathering and review. Filters out the major issue of scientists own models or assumptions screwing up their results because they didn't reflect reality. Fixing that can take a long time, too, depending on the sub-field.
Another former academic physicist here, but with very little understanding of biological tissue+radiation interactions.
You state multi-photon ionization is not a possible pathway for biological effects in this case (and I believe that). But are there other pathways?
I googled "protein response at 1000 mhz" and got a book "RF / Microwave Interaction with Biological Tissues" that mentioned effects on ATP production at frequencies in the 1-1000 MHz band.
Do you or anyone know more about potential other pathways?
You state multi-photon ionization is not a possible pathway for biological effects in this case (and I believe that). But are there other pathways?
I googled "protein response at 1000 mhz" and got a book "RF / Microwave Interaction with Biological Tissues" that mentioned effects on ATP production at frequencies in the 1-1000 MHz band.
Do you or anyone know more about potential other pathways?
There are a number of excitation pathways for organic molecules in water across the spectrum. These resonances will, generally speaking, relax thermally. Of course, the medium is salt water, so dielectric heating is the dominant effect of kHz - GHz RF irradiation, far above and beyond whatever heat is dissipated by the absorbance of distinct molecular resonances.
I'm not sure why you're so critical. This is how science works. No one wants to do (or pay for) a huge survey if you have no idea what the results will be. So you start out with a smaller survey and see if it's worth investigating more. Right now there's no consensus about the effects of RF-EMF on semen quality. The proper solution is to continue doing research, not ignoring it all together because "it can only harm us in a way that QM disproves".
But yes, this is not a "this will change your life"-paper, it's just "another data point which we should investigate"-paper.
Anyway, I found it interesting that their survey did discover another variable:
> A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a strong independent effect of two variables on the risk for abnormal sperm concentration: talking while the device is being charged and smoking.
There seems to be quite a consensus that smoking does indeed have a negative effect on sperm quality. Their survey did manage to pick that up.
But yes, this is not a "this will change your life"-paper, it's just "another data point which we should investigate"-paper.
Anyway, I found it interesting that their survey did discover another variable:
> A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a strong independent effect of two variables on the risk for abnormal sperm concentration: talking while the device is being charged and smoking.
There seems to be quite a consensus that smoking does indeed have a negative effect on sperm quality. Their survey did manage to pick that up.
That's fine, but this study (or the effect it measured) is vastly too small for us to significantly raise our prior estimate of an effect.
There is consensus (among physicists who know QM) that non-thermal effects of RF radiation on the body are negligible. Simple calculations and easy experiments show that thermal effects are tiny, vastly smaller than turning up the thermostat by one degree or walking out in the sun.
The fact is that the results of this study are not even particularly suggestive of being worth of investigation.
Concretely, based on this study and my prior knowledge, I'm willing to offer bets at 1000:1 that a sufficiently large study [1] will show that cell phones have a smaller effect than turning the thermostat up 1 degree.
[1] This number assumes a perfect study; adjust this drastically downward for small studies with high p-value cutoffs like 5%. If the study is underpowered, then offering 1000:1 odds on outcomes is like offering 1000:1 odds on`if (Math.random() < 0.05)`.
There is consensus (among physicists who know QM) that non-thermal effects of RF radiation on the body are negligible. Simple calculations and easy experiments show that thermal effects are tiny, vastly smaller than turning up the thermostat by one degree or walking out in the sun.
The fact is that the results of this study are not even particularly suggestive of being worth of investigation.
Concretely, based on this study and my prior knowledge, I'm willing to offer bets at 1000:1 that a sufficiently large study [1] will show that cell phones have a smaller effect than turning the thermostat up 1 degree.
[1] This number assumes a perfect study; adjust this drastically downward for small studies with high p-value cutoffs like 5%. If the study is underpowered, then offering 1000:1 odds on outcomes is like offering 1000:1 odds on`if (Math.random() < 0.05)`.
Speaking as a physicist who knows QM, this is almost-correct.
More precisely, the chemical effects of microwave photons are restricted to being the sort of effects that routinely happen within your body all the time due to the thermal jiggle of atoms. Obviously this is not "nothing", because your body does a lot of cool stuff with all of that jiggling.
Obviously, chemical effects can also happen due to accumulated electric potential, as when a metal fork causes sparks in a microwave, but cell phones only have one hundredth or thousandth of that much power going through them at any given time, and the most visible effects of this in the human body seem to be negligible. (These effects do exist -- witness what tasers do to people, or what a 9V battery feels like on the tongue -- but nobody really reports these feelings when holding a transmitting cell phone near their tongue.)
So the possibilities are certainly there but it does seem like if cell phones caused the calamities that are sometimes attributed to them, it would probably change our understanding of one of these two spaces.
More precisely, the chemical effects of microwave photons are restricted to being the sort of effects that routinely happen within your body all the time due to the thermal jiggle of atoms. Obviously this is not "nothing", because your body does a lot of cool stuff with all of that jiggling.
Obviously, chemical effects can also happen due to accumulated electric potential, as when a metal fork causes sparks in a microwave, but cell phones only have one hundredth or thousandth of that much power going through them at any given time, and the most visible effects of this in the human body seem to be negligible. (These effects do exist -- witness what tasers do to people, or what a 9V battery feels like on the tongue -- but nobody really reports these feelings when holding a transmitting cell phone near their tongue.)
So the possibilities are certainly there but it does seem like if cell phones caused the calamities that are sometimes attributed to them, it would probably change our understanding of one of these two spaces.
"These effects do exist -- witness what tasers do to people, or what a 9V battery feels like on the tongue -- but nobody really reports these feelings when holding a transmitting cell phone near their tongue."
I liked the comment in the beginning but it's problematic here. I come from a system engineering background with some knowledge on hardware side. For our chips, the effects of an electrical surge are totally different than the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The interface point and nature of materials make them respond differently to each. The machinery of the human body might do the same thing. I cited the Frey effect as an example of non-melting-point effects in a previous comment.
Also, I found something very interesting about your claim to support my hypothetical parallel between chips and the bodies. Let me show you instead of trying to explain it:
"witness what tasers do to people, or what a 9V battery feels like on the tongue -- but nobody really reports these feelings when holding a transmitting cell phone near their tongue."
Witness what a surge does to the CPU or how dropping an electricity source onto its I/O pins results in detectable activity. Yet, no users or monitor software reports detecting something like this when you hold a cellphone next to it.
Your claim would be true and readers would think cellphones/radiation had no effect on computers. Yet, they actually do have an effect that ranges from undetectable leaks to failures of the system from components made faulty due to long exposure. In later case, users not aware of attacks believe the components were faulty for other reasons. Here's a nice timeline on the leak side:
https://cryptome.org/0001/tempest-time.htm
Matter of fact, they banned cellphones in secure facilities because bringing certain ones within 20 or so ft of a secure phone compromised it. The background radiation of the phone bounced off the inside of the chip in a way that was modified by the circuits holding the master key. What bounced out could be caught, analyzed, and keys re-assembled. All conversations compromised without anyone ever knowing. Just because you walked in with a cellphone on your waste.
But, "nobody really reports these [compromises] when holding a transmitting cell phone near their [computer]."
;) What do you think of that parallel? Something to it possibly or just a fun thought experiment?
I liked the comment in the beginning but it's problematic here. I come from a system engineering background with some knowledge on hardware side. For our chips, the effects of an electrical surge are totally different than the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The interface point and nature of materials make them respond differently to each. The machinery of the human body might do the same thing. I cited the Frey effect as an example of non-melting-point effects in a previous comment.
Also, I found something very interesting about your claim to support my hypothetical parallel between chips and the bodies. Let me show you instead of trying to explain it:
"witness what tasers do to people, or what a 9V battery feels like on the tongue -- but nobody really reports these feelings when holding a transmitting cell phone near their tongue."
Witness what a surge does to the CPU or how dropping an electricity source onto its I/O pins results in detectable activity. Yet, no users or monitor software reports detecting something like this when you hold a cellphone next to it.
Your claim would be true and readers would think cellphones/radiation had no effect on computers. Yet, they actually do have an effect that ranges from undetectable leaks to failures of the system from components made faulty due to long exposure. In later case, users not aware of attacks believe the components were faulty for other reasons. Here's a nice timeline on the leak side:
https://cryptome.org/0001/tempest-time.htm
Matter of fact, they banned cellphones in secure facilities because bringing certain ones within 20 or so ft of a secure phone compromised it. The background radiation of the phone bounced off the inside of the chip in a way that was modified by the circuits holding the master key. What bounced out could be caught, analyzed, and keys re-assembled. All conversations compromised without anyone ever knowing. Just because you walked in with a cellphone on your waste.
But, "nobody really reports these [compromises] when holding a transmitting cell phone near their [computer]."
;) What do you think of that parallel? Something to it possibly or just a fun thought experiment?
The article may be hogwash, but this "analysis" was worse.
"Take first a prior - due to my knowledge of physics, my prior on microwave/RF/visual radiation having any biological effect is 10^{-5}. Multiphoton ionization has simply never been observed to happen except under extremely intense (read: it'll melt you) fields and there are strong theoretical reasons to believe it won't happen."
He we go again. The assumption that microwaves won't have biological effects because it would have to be at a melt you level. Or focusing on one aspect where this might be true. That's despite plenty of work in the past showing otherwise. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
Did Frey's subjects all die? No? QED.
Now, since microwaves can affect us, what effects do they have and how? This piece of research claims one. So, the question becomes: is it producing good data from good methodology? If so, then we duplicate that data from a few groups unlikely to collude to forge it. If it checks out, especially eliminating other variables, then cell radiation is probably killing sperm and we find out why.
"if this effect is real, it'll require new physics to explain."
Another common line of nonsense dropped often when people push the envelope in science. Most of the time, we find that existing physics explains a new phenomenon but scientists were just looking at the problem wrong. My favorite example is always how gecko's cling to walls: neither suction nor sticky hands but van der Walls force. We knew it existed but people's existing beliefs delayed understanding the truth.
He we go again. The assumption that microwaves won't have biological effects because it would have to be at a melt you level. Or focusing on one aspect where this might be true. That's despite plenty of work in the past showing otherwise. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
Did Frey's subjects all die? No? QED.
Now, since microwaves can affect us, what effects do they have and how? This piece of research claims one. So, the question becomes: is it producing good data from good methodology? If so, then we duplicate that data from a few groups unlikely to collude to forge it. If it checks out, especially eliminating other variables, then cell radiation is probably killing sperm and we find out why.
"if this effect is real, it'll require new physics to explain."
Another common line of nonsense dropped often when people push the envelope in science. Most of the time, we find that existing physics explains a new phenomenon but scientists were just looking at the problem wrong. My favorite example is always how gecko's cling to walls: neither suction nor sticky hands but van der Walls force. We knew it existed but people's existing beliefs delayed understanding the truth.
That's not multiphoton ionization or any chemical effect at all. The microwave auditory effect is caused directly by inducing thermal expansion in the skull due to rapidly heating tissue from extremely intense microwave pulses. I've never disputed that a microwave oven can heat you up.
Microwave heating is also well understood. So the question now is "how much energy can be deposited into testicles from a cell phone?" This is an easy question to answer, either theoretically or experimentally. The answer is "not much".
As retric noted, it's far more likely that if any effect exists it's caused by the cell phone making your pants tighter.
Microwave heating is also well understood. So the question now is "how much energy can be deposited into testicles from a cell phone?" This is an easy question to answer, either theoretically or experimentally. The answer is "not much".
As retric noted, it's far more likely that if any effect exists it's caused by the cell phone making your pants tighter.
No, the question is, "Can heat cause any effects on any aspect of our machinery for sperm production or maintenance that reduce sperm quality? Or the same for the sperm itself?" See how that broadens one's perspective above "Can heat produced by X microwave energy do damage with Y effect?"
This is what I'm talking about with assumptions making people think too narrow. You know enough about one phenomenon that you're casting the entire problem in that light. This may turn out to be justified here but it's also one of top sources of scientific mistakes or delays in understanding. So, I have to call it immediately as an unnecessary risk to force people to clarify their own position and make their own assumptions explicit.
Unfortunately, my knowledge of biology is too limited to help past noticing you were dismissing a broad phenomenon or range of possibility based on a narrow set of data or theory. A pattern that exists in many claims that are dismissed later. I wish I could do more than spot the problem here as it's an important research area. But I'm out of my depth if we start talking the molecular or cellular machinery itself. (shrugs)
This is what I'm talking about with assumptions making people think too narrow. You know enough about one phenomenon that you're casting the entire problem in that light. This may turn out to be justified here but it's also one of top sources of scientific mistakes or delays in understanding. So, I have to call it immediately as an unnecessary risk to force people to clarify their own position and make their own assumptions explicit.
Unfortunately, my knowledge of biology is too limited to help past noticing you were dismissing a broad phenomenon or range of possibility based on a narrow set of data or theory. A pattern that exists in many claims that are dismissed later. I wish I could do more than spot the problem here as it's an important research area. But I'm out of my depth if we start talking the molecular or cellular machinery itself. (shrugs)
I appreciate this analysis (and I agree with commenter who notes that there may be another element at work here and not just ionization/radiation). But concerning radiation, Shawn Otto has a great breakdown of why cellphones cannot cause cancer because the microwaves in cellphone transmission don't have enough energy to break DNA chains. It's a great, enlightening passage from his book "Fool Me Twice." I love how down-to-earth it is:
Physics explains why no links were found. The microwaves used in cell phone transmissions do not have enough energy to break the chemical bonds of DNA, which is how cell mutations occur and cause cancer. How do we know this? Light and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, including microwaves, radio waves, infrared waves, and ultraviolet light waves, are all forms of radiation. A single unit of radiation is called a photon. A photon can be thought of either as a particle or as a wave. A century ago, Albert Einstein showed that the energy (E) of a photon can be calculated as Planck's constant (h) times the frequency (v) of its wave form, or E = hv This formula was set out in one of his early papers, among his most famous, which was published in 1905 and is one of the reasons for which he won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics. Photons with low frequencies are at the red end of the spectrum. They include radio photons, whose waves can be as long as a football field and thus fly past us with low frequency and low energy. Microwaves are slightly stronger, followed by infrared radiation and then visible light waves. Waves at the high end of the spectrum fly past us at much faster frequencies (and thus have more energy) and appear more blue. This part of the spectrum includes ultraviolet light, followed by the even more energetic X-rays, followed by gamma rays, whose waves can be shorter than the diameter of the nucleus of an atom and thus very high frequency and very highly energetic.
Microwaves are slightly more energetic than radio waves, but far less energetic than even the infrared radiation that our skin gives off, which is how we can be seen by someone wearing infrared night vision goggles. Both visible light and microwaves can be used to cook food and heat up your coffee by concentrating them in very large amounts, such as in a solar oven or a microwave oven. The concentrated waves excite the molecules in a way that increases their vibration, and the friction H that produces increases their temperature, but they still don't have anywhere near enough energy to break chemical bonds. If they did, the food would turn into goop.
Microwaves are much weaker than visible light, though, so it takes a lot more of them to make an oven work than it does to make a solar oven work, which is why microwave ovens are such electricity hogs. It'st's not until you travel into the red end of the visible light photons, then on to the yellow emitted by incandescent bulbs, then to the blue that illuminates many fluorescent bulbs, and then on past the visible spectrum: into ultraviolet light that you get photons that have a high enough frequency and thus enough energy to break DNA bonds. These photons have about million times more energy than microwave photons, enough that they can act like cue balls and knock electrons out of atoms, ionizing the atoms and changing their chemical nature. This is what Einstein's 1905 paper showed. Just imagine the force of a wave the length of a football field being concentrated into a wave the length of a molecule and then flashing past you over and over and over, and you can get a sense of the vast difference in the power of the two. That is what can break the bond between two carbon atoms, damaging DNA and causing cancer. Bi these ultraviolet photons still don't have enough energy to penetrate us very deeply, so they can only give us skin cancer.
Electromagnetic radiation above this level grows increasingly dangerous. X-rays are sometimes stopped by our skin, but if we are bombarded by enough of them they have enough energy to penetrate through us, a few of them being absorbed by skin and muscle, many more by our bones. which are denser, and many shooting that cue ball of a photon clear through us, which is why we can use them to make images of the inside of our bodies. X-rays can and do cause cancer, but our bodies can almost always stop them if the exposure is low enough. Gamma rays are so energetic that they can penetrate us, kill cells, and cause cancer very easily, and in high exposures they cause radiation poisoning, which kills much more quickly by damaging our bone marrow and gastrointestinal tract.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=6pMqCjVynG0C&dq=shawn+lawr...
Physics explains why no links were found. The microwaves used in cell phone transmissions do not have enough energy to break the chemical bonds of DNA, which is how cell mutations occur and cause cancer. How do we know this? Light and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, including microwaves, radio waves, infrared waves, and ultraviolet light waves, are all forms of radiation. A single unit of radiation is called a photon. A photon can be thought of either as a particle or as a wave. A century ago, Albert Einstein showed that the energy (E) of a photon can be calculated as Planck's constant (h) times the frequency (v) of its wave form, or E = hv This formula was set out in one of his early papers, among his most famous, which was published in 1905 and is one of the reasons for which he won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics. Photons with low frequencies are at the red end of the spectrum. They include radio photons, whose waves can be as long as a football field and thus fly past us with low frequency and low energy. Microwaves are slightly stronger, followed by infrared radiation and then visible light waves. Waves at the high end of the spectrum fly past us at much faster frequencies (and thus have more energy) and appear more blue. This part of the spectrum includes ultraviolet light, followed by the even more energetic X-rays, followed by gamma rays, whose waves can be shorter than the diameter of the nucleus of an atom and thus very high frequency and very highly energetic.
Microwaves are slightly more energetic than radio waves, but far less energetic than even the infrared radiation that our skin gives off, which is how we can be seen by someone wearing infrared night vision goggles. Both visible light and microwaves can be used to cook food and heat up your coffee by concentrating them in very large amounts, such as in a solar oven or a microwave oven. The concentrated waves excite the molecules in a way that increases their vibration, and the friction H that produces increases their temperature, but they still don't have anywhere near enough energy to break chemical bonds. If they did, the food would turn into goop.
Microwaves are much weaker than visible light, though, so it takes a lot more of them to make an oven work than it does to make a solar oven work, which is why microwave ovens are such electricity hogs. It'st's not until you travel into the red end of the visible light photons, then on to the yellow emitted by incandescent bulbs, then to the blue that illuminates many fluorescent bulbs, and then on past the visible spectrum: into ultraviolet light that you get photons that have a high enough frequency and thus enough energy to break DNA bonds. These photons have about million times more energy than microwave photons, enough that they can act like cue balls and knock electrons out of atoms, ionizing the atoms and changing their chemical nature. This is what Einstein's 1905 paper showed. Just imagine the force of a wave the length of a football field being concentrated into a wave the length of a molecule and then flashing past you over and over and over, and you can get a sense of the vast difference in the power of the two. That is what can break the bond between two carbon atoms, damaging DNA and causing cancer. Bi these ultraviolet photons still don't have enough energy to penetrate us very deeply, so they can only give us skin cancer.
Electromagnetic radiation above this level grows increasingly dangerous. X-rays are sometimes stopped by our skin, but if we are bombarded by enough of them they have enough energy to penetrate through us, a few of them being absorbed by skin and muscle, many more by our bones. which are denser, and many shooting that cue ball of a photon clear through us, which is why we can use them to make images of the inside of our bodies. X-rays can and do cause cancer, but our bodies can almost always stop them if the exposure is low enough. Gamma rays are so energetic that they can penetrate us, kill cells, and cause cancer very easily, and in high exposures they cause radiation poisoning, which kills much more quickly by damaging our bone marrow and gastrointestinal tract.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=6pMqCjVynG0C&dq=shawn+lawr...
Exactly. The energy required to break the bond of a DNA pair (a covalent bond) is about 1 eV. If you plug 1 eV into E = hv you get the frequency of ultra-violet light. So anything lower than UV light (visible, infrared, microwave, radio wave) doesn't have enough energy to do anything.
This is a good explanation, but unfortunately it's wrong. You don't actually need to invoke quantization of light (i.e. photons) to derive the photoelectric effect, or multiphoton ionization.
You can actually use a semiclassical model - electrons are quantized, and obey the Schrodinger equation, but EM radiation is fully classical. I.e., just solve the time dependent Schrodigner equation with V(x,t) = V_{atom}(x) + cos(wt) E x.
Using this model, you derive exactly what the photonic theory intuitively predicts - i.e., the rate of 2-photon ionization scales like O(I^2) (i.e. probability of ionization = probability of 2 photons hitting simultaneously), n-photon ionization scales like O(I^n), etc.
Unfortunately I can only give paywalled references for this:
A. Jensen A. Galtbayar and K. Yajima. Local time-decay of solutions to schrodinger equations with time-periodic potentials. J. Stat. Phys., 116:231, 2004.
O. Costin, R. D. Costin, and J. L. Lebowitz. Time asymptotics of the Schr¨odinger wave function in time-periodic potentials. J. Statist. Phys., 116(1-4):283–310, 2004.
S Geltman. Multiphoton ionization of atoms. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 10:831, 1974.
R. V. Jensen and I.B. Bernstein. Semiclassical theory of relativistic electrons in space and time varying electromagnetic field. Phys. Rev. A., 29:282–289, 1984.
You can actually use a semiclassical model - electrons are quantized, and obey the Schrodinger equation, but EM radiation is fully classical. I.e., just solve the time dependent Schrodigner equation with V(x,t) = V_{atom}(x) + cos(wt) E x.
Using this model, you derive exactly what the photonic theory intuitively predicts - i.e., the rate of 2-photon ionization scales like O(I^2) (i.e. probability of ionization = probability of 2 photons hitting simultaneously), n-photon ionization scales like O(I^n), etc.
Unfortunately I can only give paywalled references for this:
A. Jensen A. Galtbayar and K. Yajima. Local time-decay of solutions to schrodinger equations with time-periodic potentials. J. Stat. Phys., 116:231, 2004.
O. Costin, R. D. Costin, and J. L. Lebowitz. Time asymptotics of the Schr¨odinger wave function in time-periodic potentials. J. Statist. Phys., 116(1-4):283–310, 2004.
S Geltman. Multiphoton ionization of atoms. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 10:831, 1974.
R. V. Jensen and I.B. Bernstein. Semiclassical theory of relativistic electrons in space and time varying electromagnetic field. Phys. Rev. A., 29:282–289, 1984.
I don't even need to read the actual paper in order to debunk it. They admit a selection bias in their fucking abstract: "Questionnaires accessing demographic data and characteristics of cell phone usage were completed by 106 men referred for semen analysis."
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)
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.
Either way, it's very unlikely that the cause is RF radiation and not some confounding variable. Radiation damage is pretty much excluded, and I don't think there can be any effect on the impulses of the nervous system, which I think operates in the kHz, very far away from the 800 MHz+ from cell phones.
Talking while charging seems very unlikely to be related to any radiation, but might be associated with talking while driving or a sedentary lifestyle or something like that.
categories abnormal semen (n=34) normal semen (n=45)
talk >1h 14 9
<=1h 20 36
while
chging?
yes 12 6
no 21 38
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.
Either way, it's very unlikely that the cause is RF radiation and not some confounding variable. Radiation damage is pretty much excluded, and I don't think there can be any effect on the impulses of the nervous system, which I think operates in the kHz, very far away from the 800 MHz+ from cell phones.
Talking while charging seems very unlikely to be related to any radiation, but might be associated with talking while driving or a sedentary lifestyle or something like that.
I also noticed that discrepancy in the "talking while charging column"; 21 + 12 = 33 != 34. I briefly looked for an explanation in the text, but I could not find one.
Would need to see the full article to find out the size of their sample, but their confidence intervals are quite tight for a study of this nature, and they add in the caveat of further research being needed. This should be a least a warning correlation for cell phone users, and will make me rethink some of my usage habits.
Or the 5th sentence of the abstract:
> Questionnaires accessing demographic data and characteristics of cell phone usage were completed by 106 men referred for semen analysis
And this article isn't recommending a change in behavior, only further study:
> Investigation using large-scale studies is thus needed.
> Questionnaires accessing demographic data and characteristics of cell phone usage were completed by 106 men referred for semen analysis
And this article isn't recommending a change in behavior, only further study:
> Investigation using large-scale studies is thus needed.
"Investigation using large-scale studies is thus needed."
Which would be the conclusion of pretty much any result that they could have had. I could have given you that recommendation even without conducting a study at all.
Which would be the conclusion of pretty much any result that they could have had. I could have given you that recommendation even without conducting a study at all.
this study is virtually useless from statistical point of view. Sampling bias, lack of control for confounding effects and other issues mean you should not in any way use this study as a guide for any changes in behavior. Sure, I understand, they did add a caveat that more study is needed. Just saying, do not use this study as a reason to do anything differently
Not an expert on critical analysis of research, but seems like there's a bit of selection bias given the population studied wanted to reproduce and was referred to the study based on being unable to do so.
There could be an over-represented subgroup of the general population who are more susceptible to the cell phone radiation, but selecting from that group would not necessarily obscure the relationship between the amount of cell phone use and any resulting biological impact.
They don't go very far out on the limb, they say that it probably justifies a bigger study, which is pretty mild.
They don't go very far out on the limb, they say that it probably justifies a bigger study, which is pretty mild.
> There could be an over-represented subgroup of the general population who are more susceptible to the cell phone radiation, but selecting from that group would not necessarily obscure the relationship between the amount of cell phone use and any resulting biological impact.
That's not what he said. If you read the abstract, it says that the candidates were chosen using "questionnaires accessing demographic data and characteristics of cell phone usage were completed by 106 men referred for semen analysis." The fact that they were referred for semen analysis (read: they were having trouble reproducing) indicates there'd be a selection bias in their study. And without a control group, it's all hand-waving anyway.
> They don't go very far out on the limb, they say that it probably justifies a bigger study, which is pretty mild.
In order to do it properly, they'd need a much bigger study and a much better sample.
That's not what he said. If you read the abstract, it says that the candidates were chosen using "questionnaires accessing demographic data and characteristics of cell phone usage were completed by 106 men referred for semen analysis." The fact that they were referred for semen analysis (read: they were having trouble reproducing) indicates there'd be a selection bias in their study. And without a control group, it's all hand-waving anyway.
> They don't go very far out on the limb, they say that it probably justifies a bigger study, which is pretty mild.
In order to do it properly, they'd need a much bigger study and a much better sample.
My point was that the selection bias proposed will not necessarily obscure a biological effect (or at least, correlation).
Setting aside the legitimacy of pursuing this research, looking for effects using statistical analyses of medical records is an interesting way to direct at least a small amount of research, saying that such questions can only be asked when there is solid control of every factor is probably not a win.
Setting aside the legitimacy of pursuing this research, looking for effects using statistical analyses of medical records is an interesting way to direct at least a small amount of research, saying that such questions can only be asked when there is solid control of every factor is probably not a win.
> My point was that the selection bias proposed will not necessarily obscure a biological effect (or at least, correlation).
I'd argue that the sample was not representative of the general population, so "it will not necessarily obscure" isn't relevant IMO because the results aren't even remotely close to being applicable to any other group of men.
> looking for effects using statistical analyses of medical records is an interesting way to direct at least a small amount of research
I agree that it's interesting. And since I can't read the paper at the moment (I'll download a copy through my university when I get a chance) I can't really comment on the statistical methods they used (I'm not even sure what they asked on the questionnaire). Statistical analysis is only useful if you take into account all of the parameter space (or at least all of the significant parameter space) otherwise you'll get a biased result.
Even then, correlation does not imply causation, so a statistical analysis would only be useful as a survey of "what could be investigated to do actual science on". People put far too much faith into statistics, and it
> saying that such questions can only be asked when there is solid control of every factor is probably not a win
Anyone can ask a question. I'm saying that the paper published should've actually been an email (or maybe just an article) sent around a faculty so they could do real research on the topic. "Asking a question" and "publishing a paper on a topic" are very different classes of activities.
I'd argue that the sample was not representative of the general population, so "it will not necessarily obscure" isn't relevant IMO because the results aren't even remotely close to being applicable to any other group of men.
> looking for effects using statistical analyses of medical records is an interesting way to direct at least a small amount of research
I agree that it's interesting. And since I can't read the paper at the moment (I'll download a copy through my university when I get a chance) I can't really comment on the statistical methods they used (I'm not even sure what they asked on the questionnaire). Statistical analysis is only useful if you take into account all of the parameter space (or at least all of the significant parameter space) otherwise you'll get a biased result.
Even then, correlation does not imply causation, so a statistical analysis would only be useful as a survey of "what could be investigated to do actual science on". People put far too much faith into statistics, and it
> saying that such questions can only be asked when there is solid control of every factor is probably not a win
Anyone can ask a question. I'm saying that the paper published should've actually been an email (or maybe just an article) sent around a faculty so they could do real research on the topic. "Asking a question" and "publishing a paper on a topic" are very different classes of activities.
yeah, beware researchers armed with regression analysis skills and poor sampling methodologies :)
[deleted]
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.
That doesn't sound like a plausible outcome of radiation having any influence.
Please note that they were not able to prove that having your cell phone near your groin correlated with abnormal sperm. Rather, they found a correlation with being very chatty and being chatty while charging.
Correlations, of course, are also not causation. For example, there is no control in this study which rules out an effect like "some men have less testosterone, and this causes them to both be more glued to their phones (using while charging), more social on their phones (talking for over an hour a day), and to have a higher incidence of abnormal sperm." It's sort of like a headline: "If you're shorter, you may be a better parent: a study found an inverse correlation between height and how much time you spend with your kids." You'd be tempted to disbelieve me until I tell you that on average, women are shorter and also spend more time with their kids. If in this case we know the causes, how much more difficult is it when we don't to isolate the confounding variables?
Correlations, of course, are also not causation. For example, there is no control in this study which rules out an effect like "some men have less testosterone, and this causes them to both be more glued to their phones (using while charging), more social on their phones (talking for over an hour a day), and to have a higher incidence of abnormal sperm." It's sort of like a headline: "If you're shorter, you may be a better parent: a study found an inverse correlation between height and how much time you spend with your kids." You'd be tempted to disbelieve me until I tell you that on average, women are shorter and also spend more time with their kids. If in this case we know the causes, how much more difficult is it when we don't to isolate the confounding variables?
>> a non-significantly higher rate of abnormal sperm concentration was found (47.1% versus 11.1%).
As someone contemplating a vasectomy, that's not quite the result I was hoping for. Sure would be easier to just keep my phone in my front pocket. Though, I suppose I'm not really sure what "abnormal" sperm end up doing. It's kind of implied that means they just don't work when the abstract starts out "Male infertility constitutes 30–40% of all infertility cases." but what if those sperm cause birth defects instead? Seems like that's a far from ideal result as well. As always... "Investigation using large-scale studies is thus needed."
As someone contemplating a vasectomy, that's not quite the result I was hoping for. Sure would be easier to just keep my phone in my front pocket. Though, I suppose I'm not really sure what "abnormal" sperm end up doing. It's kind of implied that means they just don't work when the abstract starts out "Male infertility constitutes 30–40% of all infertility cases." but what if those sperm cause birth defects instead? Seems like that's a far from ideal result as well. As always... "Investigation using large-scale studies is thus needed."
Maybe somebody could create an app for that, somehow optimize the radiation for killing sperms...
There is research on ultrasound devices which do what you're asking. Designed to work as short-medium term contraceptives[0]. That isn't how smartphones kill sperm however, just as an aside for getting the same-ish results.
[0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-zap-sperm-counts-with...
[0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-zap-sperm-counts-with...
Thanks for that link. Interesting. There's also the evidence... which needs more corroboration to be sure... that heat above a certain temperature kills them or weakens them. Small scale experiments and survey of blast-furnace workers provided evidence for it. With both, the fertility went back to normal I think a few months after they left the environment where they were overheated.
So, initial evidence for sperm-killing heat to be a safe and effective contraceptive. Doesn't feel as bad as you'd think, either.
So, initial evidence for sperm-killing heat to be a safe and effective contraceptive. Doesn't feel as bad as you'd think, either.
Perhaps you can boost radiation levels by leaving your phone on a call with a white noise generator and tuck the phone in the front of your [under]pants.
From the abstract: Some studies have shown a continuous decline in semen quality since the beginning of the 20th century. One postulated contributing factor is radio frequency electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones.
If the decline is since the start of the 20th century (1901), cell phones are unlikely to be a primary cause. The first cell phone was in 1973 and they didn't become commonplace until the end of the 20th or start of the 21st century. Unclear if the premise is wrongly stated or if the authors are confusing the 20th and 21st century.
If the decline is since the start of the 20th century (1901), cell phones are unlikely to be a primary cause. The first cell phone was in 1973 and they didn't become commonplace until the end of the 20th or start of the 21st century. Unclear if the premise is wrongly stated or if the authors are confusing the 20th and 21st century.
I don't know the inner details of cell phone technology, but as I understand it, the phone throttles its radio output power based on the quality of the signal, to conserve battery. Thus, usage in hours isn't exactly a measure of RF dose.
[deleted]
Don't play with your phone instead of your partner or penis.
[deleted]
The problem is that we have a bad model to describe the effect of EM-waves on biological tissue. Currently the model defines biological bodies as containers of water. This is clearly wrong.
What I propose is standard antenna science. Something needs to resonate with the biological systems. In artificial antennas there are free electrons. In biological bodies there are ions and polar molecules. Most proteins are diamagnetic, except when they are in reaction. These are the things that we need to concentrate on.
There are also new discoveries that show that biology uses quantum super position states in some of the important proteins. This allows these proteins to be far more sensitive to electromagnetism. For example: the magnetic sense of birds depend on it. Another example is chlorophyll, which becomes more sensitive to light (which is an EM-wave) than usual. Other discoveries show that DNA might be a conductor. And in combination with EM-radiation the functioning of parts of the DNA can be reduced or enhanced. This is new science which clearly shows that we were wrong about the effect of electromagnetism and biology before.
Also interesting are processes in biology that have certain frequencies of themselves like the firing of neurons. And other repetitive processes like the transcoding of DNA to RNA and of RNA to proteins.
Note that all these antenna possibilities depend on certain frequencies. On some frequencies we might see no result at all, while on others it affects a certain process in a negative or even positive way. And looking a the actual research at http://www.microwavenews.com this seems to be the case. A lot of research show some kind of effect (negative and positive), while others don't.
Sadly many scientists do not know much about both biology and antennas. They usually talk about ionization and heat, which are not the problem at all. It is actually very stupid to see that as the problem.
I do not think that EM-radiation is totally bad. It is just something that is damaging on the long term due to stress and disturbance of the biological processes and systems (when they resonate with the specific frequencies of the signals).
What I propose is standard antenna science. Something needs to resonate with the biological systems. In artificial antennas there are free electrons. In biological bodies there are ions and polar molecules. Most proteins are diamagnetic, except when they are in reaction. These are the things that we need to concentrate on.
There are also new discoveries that show that biology uses quantum super position states in some of the important proteins. This allows these proteins to be far more sensitive to electromagnetism. For example: the magnetic sense of birds depend on it. Another example is chlorophyll, which becomes more sensitive to light (which is an EM-wave) than usual. Other discoveries show that DNA might be a conductor. And in combination with EM-radiation the functioning of parts of the DNA can be reduced or enhanced. This is new science which clearly shows that we were wrong about the effect of electromagnetism and biology before.
Also interesting are processes in biology that have certain frequencies of themselves like the firing of neurons. And other repetitive processes like the transcoding of DNA to RNA and of RNA to proteins.
Note that all these antenna possibilities depend on certain frequencies. On some frequencies we might see no result at all, while on others it affects a certain process in a negative or even positive way. And looking a the actual research at http://www.microwavenews.com this seems to be the case. A lot of research show some kind of effect (negative and positive), while others don't.
Sadly many scientists do not know much about both biology and antennas. They usually talk about ionization and heat, which are not the problem at all. It is actually very stupid to see that as the problem.
I do not think that EM-radiation is totally bad. It is just something that is damaging on the long term due to stress and disturbance of the biological processes and systems (when they resonate with the specific frequencies of the signals).
Scientific evidence proving my point:
http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2016/2/3-31891_Study-Uncovers-H...
Good! There's too many of us already.
6.8 billion phones today means 6.8 billion pieces of high tech garbage a couple of years later, leaking all kinds of toxic shit into the water, plus 6.8 billion new devices manufactured while digging up all kinds of precious materials out of the ground and using oil to transport them all over the world, then burning coal, heating oil and natural gas to melt and glue shit together, and then burn more oil to transport the finished devices to customers all over the world.
That helps climate change, which leads to droughts in places like Brazil, determining people to use bathtubs to catch every drop of rain, were mosquitos breed and then fly around spreading Zika.
More phones and more porn, that's what's needed for a happy future.
/sarcasm
6.8 billion phones today means 6.8 billion pieces of high tech garbage a couple of years later, leaking all kinds of toxic shit into the water, plus 6.8 billion new devices manufactured while digging up all kinds of precious materials out of the ground and using oil to transport them all over the world, then burning coal, heating oil and natural gas to melt and glue shit together, and then burn more oil to transport the finished devices to customers all over the world.
That helps climate change, which leads to droughts in places like Brazil, determining people to use bathtubs to catch every drop of rain, were mosquitos breed and then fly around spreading Zika.
More phones and more porn, that's what's needed for a happy future.
/sarcasm
It really is disgusting how temporary cellphones are built. Where are the modular personal computers?
Europe [1]. I was very interested when I first saw some Fairphone 2 buzz online a couple months ago, but I'm a little apprehensive about water resistance and the price (525 EUR). Also, most people probably wouldn't have this problem, but I'd have to switch to a different cell provider to use an FP2.
[1] https://www.fairphone.com/phone/
[1] https://www.fairphone.com/phone/
Other studies show significantly decreased mobility and sperm quality as well (some in-vitro with microscope).
Anecdotally, I'm quite confident this was a factor with our 2nd child. With our 1st, I didn't own a cell phone and he was conceived literally the first try.
I bought a smart phone when he was 1, which I carried in my pocket. A few years later, we wanted another child - tried for 10 months with no results! Frustrating. I randomly found some studies covering this exact subject in mid July. I started putting my phone into my backpack. August, our 2nd was on his way.
For anyone who's having troubles, I would strongly advise to take the phone out of your pocket. It might even be best for everyone to do so - who knows the long term effects.
Anecdotally, I'm quite confident this was a factor with our 2nd child. With our 1st, I didn't own a cell phone and he was conceived literally the first try.
I bought a smart phone when he was 1, which I carried in my pocket. A few years later, we wanted another child - tried for 10 months with no results! Frustrating. I randomly found some studies covering this exact subject in mid July. I started putting my phone into my backpack. August, our 2nd was on his way.
For anyone who's having troubles, I would strongly advise to take the phone out of your pocket. It might even be best for everyone to do so - who knows the long term effects.
Fertility decreases with age, especially in women. That your second child took longer to conceive than the first is no evidence of anything and even less of the influence of cell phone ownership. You might just as well claim that having your first child decreased your fertility, or anything else that happened to you in between. (Bought a new car? A new TV? Different brand toothpaste?)
[deleted]
Crest is notorious for decreasing sperm motility. /s
> I'm quite confident this was a factor with our 2nd child.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that - you're more likely to be wrong than right.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that - you're more likely to be wrong than right.
[deleted]
The long term effects _could_ be lower rates of cancer, so taking this advice would be a bad idea.
I've pretty much always had my phone in my pocket for the last 15 years. Two years ago, my wife and I had a child - no problems. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you need a much greater pool of data before making claims.
I've pretty much always had my phone in my pocket for the last 15 years. Two years ago, my wife and I had a child - no problems. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you need a much greater pool of data before making claims.
> Some studies have shown a continuous decline in semen quality since the beginning of the 20th century.
Studies also indicate a continuous decline in testosterone (in males) over 20th century. I'd welcome someone correct my biological knowledge, but I would guess that testosterone influences production of sperm, not the other way round. So they're probably studying the wrong thing.
> One postulated contributing factor is radio frequency electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones.
So... how do you then explain the decline from 1900 until 1990?!?
> Questionnaires accessing demographic data and characteristics of cell phone usage were completed by 106 men
Trying to do statistics on a small, ...
> referred for semen analysis
... biased sample, seriously?!
I'm too paranoidly afraid of the negative effects of radiation, but even I'm inclined to call bullshit on this study.