J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013 Apr-Jun; 6(2): 124–128.
PMCID: PMC3778601
Male reproductive health under threat: Short term exposure to radiofrequency radiations emitted by common mobile jammers
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Modern life prompted man to increasingly generate, transmit and use electricity that leads to exposure to different levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Substantial evidence indicates that exposure to common sources of EMF such as mobile phones, laptops or wireless internet-connected laptops decreases human semen quality. In some countries, mobile jammers are occasionally used in offices, shrines, conference rooms and cinemas to block the signal.
AIMS:
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effect of short term exposure of human sperm samples to radiofrequency (RF) radiations emitted by common mobile jammers.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS:
Fresh semen samples were collected by masturbation from 30 healthy donors who had referred to Infertility Treatment Center at the Mother and Child Hospital with their wives. Female problem was diagnosed as the reason for infertility in these couples.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
T-test and analysis of variance were used to show statistical significance.
RESULTS:
The motility of sperm samples exposed to jammer RF radiation for 2 or 4 h were significantly lower than those of sham-exposed samples. These findings lead us to the conclusion that mobile jammers may significantly decrease sperm motility and the couples’ chances of conception.
CONCLUSION:
Based on these results, it can be suggested that in countries that have not banned mobile jammer use, legislations should be urgently passed to restrict the use of these signal blocking devices in public or private places.
KEY WORDS: Electromagnetic fields, male reproductive health, microwave, mobile jammers, radiofrequency, sperm motility
INTRODUCTION
Male infertility is a very common problem caused by factors such as low sperm generation, low sperm motility or obstructions, which prevent sperm delivery.[1] Over the past decades, it was widely believed that male infertility can be caused by known factors such as some diseases, injuries, chronic health problems, life-style choices and unknown factors (idiopathic male infertility). Modern life prompted man to increasingly generate, transmit and use electricity that leads to exposure to different levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
Substantial evidence indicate that exposure to common sources of EMF such as mobile phones,[2,3,4] laptops or wireless internet-connected laptops[5] decreases human semen quality. It is worth mentioning that in 2010, Mortazavi et al. for the first time reported that laptop computers might decrease sperm count and sperm motility and ultimately affect male reproductive capabilities.[6] Currently, mobile phones are essential tools for effective communication in our daily life. Mobile jammers are radiofrequency (RF) transmitters that deliberately block mobile communications. As jammers also block critical and emergency communications, in many countries there are strict rules that inhibit marketing, selling, or using these devices. US Federal Communications Commission has declared that “a single violation of the jamming prohibition can result in tens of thousands of dollars in monetary penalties, seizure of the illegal device, and imprisonment.”[7] Theater and restaurant owners in some countries use a cell phone jamming devices to limit the disruption caused by inappropriate mobile phone use. In countries that using mobile jammers is not prohibited by law, these devices are occasionally used for blocking mobile phone calls, text messages and Wi-Fi internet communications. In some countries, mobile jammers can be bought in electronic markets without any license; mobile phone jammers are occasionally used in universities to prevent students from cheating (receiving calls or text messages from other students who are taking part in the exam or other persons outside the university). Over the past several years, our laboratory has focused on investigation of the bioeffects of exposure to common sources of EMFs such as mobile phones,[8,9,10,11,12,13] cavitrons,[14,15] magnetic resonance imaging[16] and laptops[6] as well as non-biological effects.[17] This study is an attempt to investigate the effect of short-term exposure of human sperm samples to RF radiations emitted by common mobile jammers on their motility character. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the effects of short term irradiation of human sperm with mobile jammer RF radiation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Mobile jammer
The mobile jammer used in this study (MB06-Mobile Blocker) was designed to work in four different frequency range (global system for mobile communications [GSM], digital cellular service, code division multiple access, third-generation). Shielding radius for this jammer was announced to be 10-40 m.
Semen samples
Fresh semen samples were collected by masturbation from 30 healthy donors who had referred to Infertility Treatment Center at the Mother and Child Hospital, with their wives. Female problem was diagnosed as the reason for infertility in these couples. All participants in this study signed the informed consent form that was prepared according to the ethical codes. WHO criteria[18] were used for defining normal semen analysis (lower reference limit: Sperm concentration 15 × 106/ml, total sperm count 39 × 106, progressive motility 32%). Standard swim-up technique for collection of motile and active sperms was used. The semen samples diluted and centrifuged at 2000 revolutions per minute (RPM) for 3-5 min and the pellet loosened and overlaid with pre-warmed 1 ml of Ham's F-10 culture medium supplemented with 5% human serum albumin for 30 min. Motile sperm samples were divided into six aliquots of nearly 5 × 106 sperms.
Sperm motility scoring
Sperm motility was determined by study of at least five microscopic fields to categorize minimum 200 sperms (×400 magnifications). The motility was graded into four levels; i.e. rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile. Approximately 200 sperms were assessed and categorized based on their motility (defined as a percentage). For the first time, to better evaluate the effect of mobile jammer radiations on motility of human sperms we defined a new parameter as the total motility score (TMS). The TMS of each sample was calculated as follows:
We used standard swim-up technique for collection of motile and active sperms. The supernatant was discarded and the pellet was suspended in pre-warmed 1 ml of Ham's F-10 culture medium supplemented with 5% human serum albumin. In this technique, sperm samples were centrifuged at 2000 RPM for 3-5 min.
Semen samples of each participant were divided into six aliquots. Two aliquots from each participant were exposed to mobile jammer RF radiation at a distance of 50 cm from its antenna. The exposure time for one aliquot was 2 h while the 2nd aliquot was exposed for 4 h. Two other aliquots from each participant were exposed at a distance of 100 cm. The exposure time for one aliquot from each of the above interventions was 2 h while the other aliquot was exposed for 4 h. Sperm motility scores were assigned by a qualified scoring expert.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed by using appropriate statistical tests such as t-test and analysis of variance.
RESULTS
The mean power density at distances of 50 and 100 cm from jammer were 10.4 ± 5.2 and 2.3 ± 0.9 μW/m2, respectively. In sperm samples sham-exposed to jammer RF radiation for 2 h, the mean (±SD) percentages of sperm graded as rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile were 25.53 ± 18.92, 48.97 ± 18.64, 17.40 ± 8.19 and 8.13 ± 5.04, respectively. On the other hand, in sperm samples exposed to jammer RF radiation at a distance of 50 cm from the jammer antenna for the same duration (2 h), the percentages of sperm graded as rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile were 13.83 ± 11.79, 40.20 ± 12.31, 38.30 ± 12.00 and 7.73 ± 5.66, respectively. Furthermore, in sperm samples exposed at a distance of 100 cm for the same duration (2 h), the percentages of sperm graded as rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile were 16.60 ± 15.07, 42.27 ± 14.16, 32.60 ± 10.40 and 9.17 ± 5.58, respectively.
On the other hand, in sperm samples sham-exposed to jammer RF radiation for 4 h, the mean percentages of sperm graded as rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile were 19.77 ± 16.01, 48.77 ± 17.11, 23.43 ± 9.32 and 8.47 ± 5.44, respectively. Moreover, in sperm samples exposed to jammer RF radiation at a distance of 50 cm from the jammer antenna for the same duration (4 h), the percentages of sperm graded as rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile were 9.40 ± 8.58, 38.43 ± 11.38, 43.87 ± 13.43, and 8.373 ± 5.50, respectively. In addition, in sperm samples exposed at a distance of 100 cm for the same duration (4 h), the percentages of sperm graded as rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile were 12.53 ± 12.33, 40.10 ± 11.51, 38.57 ± 13.36, and 8.83 ± 6.71, respectively.
The TMS for the sperms sham-exposed for 2 h, exposed at 50 cm and exposed at 100 cm for the same duration (2 h) were 31.99 ± 4.19, 26.70 ± 3.73, and 27.82 ± 4.33, respectively. In addition, the TMS for the sperms sham-exposed for 4 h, exposed at 50 cm and exposed at 100 cm for the same duration (4 h) were 30.04 ± 3.65, 24.82 ± 3.04, and 26.07 ± 3.46, respectively. Figure 1 shows the percentages of rapid progressive (Panel a), progressive (Panel b), non-progressive (Panel c), and immotile sperms (Panel d) in samples sham-exposed for 2 h, exposed at a distance of 50 cm from the mobile jammer antenna for 2 h and exposed at a distance of 100 cm for the same duration. Figure 2 shows these percentages in samples exposed for 4 h. The TMSs in sperms sham-exposed or exposed to jammer RF radiations at a distance of 50 or 100 cm from the mobile jammer antenna for 2 or 4 h are indicated in Table 1.
The percentages of rapid progressive (Panel a), progressive (Panel b), non-progressive (Panel c), and immotile sperms (Panel d) in samples sham-exposed for 2 h, exposed at a distance of 50 cm from the mobile jammer antenna for 2 h and exposed at a distance ...
The percentages of rapid progressive (Panel a), progressive (Panel b), non-progressive (Panel c), and immotile sperms (Panel d) in samples sham-exposed for 4 h, exposed at a distance of 50 cm from the mobile jammer antenna for 4 h and exposed at a distance ...
The total motility score in sperms sham-exposed or exposed to jammer radiations at a distance of 50 or 100 cm from the mobile jammer antenna for 2 or 4 h
DISCUSSION
Results obtained in this study clearly showed that the motility of sperm samples exposed to jammer RF radiation for 2 or 4 h were significantly lower than those of sham-exposed samples. Although the percentages of rapid progressive, progressive, non-progressive and immotile sperms in samples sham-exposed or exposed at a distance of 50 or 100 cm from the jammer for 2 or 4 h show some unexpected variations (partly due to statistical fluctuations), the differences in TMSs can be easily interpreted. In this light, regardless of the exposure time (2 or 4 h), the lowest and highest TMSs were observed in samples exposed at a distance of 50 cm and those sham exposed, respectively. The TMS of the samples exposed at a distance of 100 cm was between the scores of the sham-exposed samples and those exposed at a distance of 50 cm from the jammer.
These results are generally in line with findings reported by investigators who assessed the effect of sperm exposure to EMF sources such as mobile phones,[2,3,4,19,20] laptops or wireless internet-connected laptops.[5] Our results are especially in line with observations reported by Mailankot et al.who showed that rats exposed to 900 or 1800 MHz GSM RF radiation (1 h/day for 28 days) exhibited a significantly significant reduced percentage of motile sperm.[21] Our findings can also be supported by reports of Salama et al. who indicated that exposure to 800 or 900 MHz GSM RF radiation (8 h/day for 12 weeks) in standby mode caused a significantly significant decrease in sperm motility.[22,23]
On the other hand, Avendano et al. in 2012 also reported that sperm samples from each patient exposed to an internet-connected laptop by Wi-Fi for 4 h showed a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility and an increase in sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragmentation. Avendano's paper had some severe methodological flaws. Authors had divided each sperm suspension into two aliquots; one sperm aliquot (experimental) from each patient was exposed to an internet-connected laptop by Wi-Fi for 4 h and the second aliquot (unexposed) which was used as control, incubated under identical conditions without being exposed to the laptop. The authors were not aware of the fact that the EMFs generated by laptop (without any Wi-Fi connection) may play a basic role in alterations in sperm motility. This is exactly what we have reported earlier. Based on the results reported in our paper published in July 2010 in the Journal of Reproduction and Infertility,[6] a significant decrease in sperm motility was showed for animals kept in areas over a laptop with a relatively stronger magnetic field. On the other hand, Avendano et al.[5] were possibly unaware of the fact that RF fields in Wi-Fi band varies at different distances from the Wi-Fi client card in a laptop during uploading and downloading.[24] In this regard, the RF level in any point they placed the sperm samples must be reported. Shortcomings of Avendano's report prompted us to take these confounding factors into account in all of our studies on Wi-Fi and jammer bands.
International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection has established limits to protect the public from exposure to RF radiation[25] (specific absorption rates (SAR) of 1.6 and 2.0 W/kg as the limits of radiation exposure from a mobile phone in the US and Europe, respectively.[25,26] Substantial evidence indicate that RF radiation from cell phones at these SAR levels do not cause thermal effects. However, non-thermal effects such as alterations in cell plasma membrane,[27,28,29,30] increase in annexin V (a marker of apoptosis) staining,[30] and increased production of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species by human spermatozoa,[31] have been widely reported after exposure to RF radiation. It seems that potential mechanisms such as vulnerability of human sperms to oxidative stress due to abundant availability of substrates for invasion by free radicals and lack of cytoplasmic space to accumulate antioxidant enzymes that have been proposed by researchers who studied the bioeffects of mobile phone radiations,[31] play a similar critical role in detrimental effects of exposure of sperms to radiations of mobile phone jammers. In this light, mobile jammers possibly induce oxidative stress in sperms that leads to decreased fertilization capacity and sperm DNA damage.
CONCLUSION
This is the first study to investigate the effect of short term exposure of human sperm to RF radiations emitted by common mobile jammers. Altogether, findings of this study indicate that the semen samples exposed to radiations emitted by a common mobile jammer showed significantly lower sperm motility. In this light, it can be concluded that in countries that have not banned mobile jammer use, legislations should be urgently passed to restrict the use of these signal blocking devices in public or private places.
Footnotes
Source of Support: The Center for Research on Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
REFERENCES
1. Willets AE, Corbo JM, Brown JN. Clomiphene for the treatment of male infertility. Reprod Sci.2013;20:739–44. [PubMed]
2. Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: An observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:124–8. [PubMed]
3. Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, Sabanegh E, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1318–25. [PubMed]
4. Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, Komesli G, et al. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: An in vitro study. Arch Med Res. 2006;37:840–3.[PubMed]
5. Avendaño C, Mata A, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Doncel GF. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:39–45. e.2. [PubMed]
6. Mortazavi SM, Tavassoli A, Ranjbari F, Moammaiee P. Effects of laptop computers Electromagnetic field on sperm quality. J Reprod Infertil. 2010;11:251–8.
7. FCC. Commission Document: Enforcement bureau steps up education and enforcement efforts against cellphone and GPS jamming. Targeted education and outreach coupled with strict enforcement: Federal Communications Commission. 2011
8. Mortazavi SM, Ahmadi J, Shariati M. Prevalence of subjective poor health symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields among university students. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28:326–30.[PubMed]
9. Mortazavi SMJ, Habib A, Ganj-Karimi AH, Samimi-Doost R, Pour-Abedi A, Babaie A. Alterations in TSH and thyroid hormones following mobile phone use. Iran J Med Sci. 2009;34:299–300.
10. Mortazavi SMJ, Atefi M, Bagheri S, Bahaedini N, Besharati A, Eslami J. The ability of GSM mobile phone users in detecting exposure to electromagnetic fields and the bioeffects of these fields on their vital signs. J Kerman Univ Med Sci. 2010;17:257–67.
11. Mortazavi SMJ, Raygan-Shirazi K. Maternal exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiations during pregnancy with low birth weight in 1200 newborns: A 15 month study. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertility.2010;13:1–8.
12. Mortazavi SM, Rouintan MS, Taeb S, Dehghan N, Ghaffarpanah AA, Sadeghi Z, et al. Human short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones decreases computer-assisted visual reaction time. Acta Neurol Belg. 2012;112:171–5. [PubMed]
13. Haghani M, Mortazavi SMJ, Sardari D, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Mansouri A, Mahbudi A. Assessment of the role of specific absorption rate on the induction of microwave-induced survival adaptive responses after exposure to lethal doses of gamma radiation. Int J Radiat Res. 2012 In press.
14. Mortazavi SM, Vazife-Doost S, Yaghooti M, Mehdizadeh S, Rajaie-Far A. Occupational exposure of dentists to electromagnetic fields produced by magnetostrictive cavitrons alters the serum cortisol level. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2012;3:60–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Mortazavi SM, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Tavassoli AR, Taheri M, Mehdizadeh AR, Namazi SA, et al. Increased radioresistance to lethal doses of gamma rays in mice and rats after exposure to microwave radiation emitted by a GSM mobile phone simulator. Dose Response. 2013;11:281–92. [PMC free article][PubMed]
16. Mortazavi SM, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, Vazirinejad R, et al. Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci. 2008;11:1142–6. [PubMed]
17. Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Mortazavi SM, Nasri H, Baradaran A, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi HR. Mobile phone radiation interferes laboratory immunoenzymometric assays: Example chorionic gonadotropin assays. Pathophysiology. 2012;19:43–7. [PubMed]
18. WHO. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. 5th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
19. La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D’Agata R, Calogero AE. Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: A review of the literature. J Androl. 2012;33:350–6. [PubMed]
20. Falzone N, Huyser C, Becker P, Leszczynski D, Franken DR. The effect of pulsed 900-MHz GSM mobile phone radiation on the acrosome reaction, head morphometry and zona binding of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 2011;34:20–6. [PubMed]
21. Mailankot M, Kunnath AP, Jayalekshmi H, Koduru B, Valsalan R. Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from GSM (09/18 GHz) mobile phones induces oxidative stress and reduces sperm motility in rats. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2009;64:561–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Salama N, Kishimoto T, Kanayama HO, Kagawa S. The mobile phone decreases fructose but not citrate in rabbit semen: A longitudinal study. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2009;55:181–7. [PubMed]
23. Salama N, Kishimoto T, Kanayama HO. Effects of exposure to a mobile phone on testicular function and structure in adult rabbit. Int J Androl. 2010;33:88–94. [PubMed]
24. Foster KR. Radiofrequency exposure from wireless LANs utilizing Wi-Fi technology. Health Phys.2007;92:280–9. [PubMed]
25. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Phys. 1998;74:494–522. [PubMed]
26. WHO. WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields. Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO); 2006.
27. Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation. 2002;70:120–9. [PubMed]
28. Cleary SF, Du Z, Cao G, Liu LM, McCrady C. Effect of isothermal radiofrequency radiation on cytolytic T lymphocytes. FASEB J. 1996;10:913–9. [PubMed]
29. Lai H, Singh NP. Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996;69:513–21. [PubMed]
30. Buttiglione M, Roca L, Montemurno E, Vitiello F, Capozzi V, Cibelli G. Radiofrequency radiation (900 MHz) induces Egr-1 gene expression and affects cell-cycle control in human neuroblastoma cells. J Cell Physiol. 2007;213:759–67. [PubMed]
31. De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One. 2009;4:e6446.[PMC free article] [PubMed]
Articles from Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences are provided here courtesy of Medknow Publications
No comments:
Post a Comment