Note: I think this study was presented at a conference, EAU 14th Central European Meeting (CEM), so only the following abstract is available at this time. The decrease in sperm motility due to RF exposure has been observed in many previous studies.
Banyra O., Gorpinchenko, O., Nikitin O., Shulyak A. C33: Does cell phones radiation have a bad effect on semen quality? European Urology Supplements. 13(6):e1230. Nov. 2014. doi:10.1016/S1569-9056(
INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: It is unreal to imagine a modern socially-active man who does not use cell phone at all. The influence of mobile phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFEMR) on semen quality is the subject of contemporary interest. We aimed to evaluate the direct in vitro influence of cell phone RF-EMR on semen parameters in healthy men with normozoospermia.
MATERIAL & METHODS: 32 healthy men with normal spermograms were included into the study. Each sperm sample was divided into two equal portions (A and B). Both portions of all participants were placed in two different thermostats. Into a thermostat with portions B also a mobile phone in standby/talk mode was placed. After 5 hours of incubation the semen samples from both thermostats were re-evaluated regarding basic parameters. The presence of DNA fragmentation in both A and B portions of each sample was determined using a standard sperm chromatin dispersion test followed by calculation of sperm DNA fragmentation index.
RESULTS: Sperm count and the percentage of dead sperm in groups A & B during 5 hours did not change in general and was not statistically different from each other: 92.3 ± 22,7 x106 /mL vs 90.8 ± 24,2 x 106 /mL; (p >0.05) and 9.1% ± 3.7% vs. 9.6% ± 4.1%; (p >0.05) respectively. The number of spermatozoa with progressive movement in group B, under the influence of RF-EMR, is statistically lower than the number of spermatozoa with progressive movement in group A with no effect of a mobile phone (66.5% ± 6.3% vs 81.3% ± 7.2%, p <0 .05="" 2.5="" 3.3="" 7.4="" a="" and="" b="" between="" differences="" groups="" motionless="" no="" number="" of="" p="" reported="" sperm="" spermatozoa="" the="" vs.="" were="" with="">0.05), while the number of non-progressive movement spermatozoa was significantly higher in group B, that was under the influence of cell phone radiation (25.3% ± 4.7% vs. 12.8% ± 5.8%, p <0 .05="" 1.8="" 2.2="" 4.2="" 5="" 8.8="" about="" after="" are="" by="" characterized="" control="" dna="" exposed="" finally="" fragmentation="" group="" hours="" in="" index="" of="" p="" parameter="" rf-emr="" samples="" span="" sperm="" the="" this="" to="" was="" while="">
CONCLUSIONS: Semen exposure in the area of mobile phone RF-EMR for 5 hours leads to a decrease in the number of sperm with progressive movement and an increase in those with non-progressive movement. Sperm DNA damage due to RF-EMF exposure occurs too. Thus, it looks that for men readying themselves for fatherhood it would be better to avoid holding the cell phones closely to testes.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Center: http://cfch.berkeley.
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Safe
News Releases: http://pressroom.
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
Does cell phones radiation have a bad effect on semen quality?
Banyra O., Gorpinchenko, O., Nikitin O., Shulyak A. C33: Does cell phones radiation have a bad effect on semen quality? European Urology Supplements. 13(6):e1230. Nov. 2014. doi:10.1016/S1569-9056(
INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: It is unreal to imagine a modern socially-active man who does not use cell phone at all. The influence of mobile phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFEMR) on semen quality is the subject of contemporary interest. We aimed to evaluate the direct in vitro influence of cell phone RF-EMR on semen parameters in healthy men with normozoospermia.
MATERIAL & METHODS: 32 healthy men with normal spermograms were included into the study. Each sperm sample was divided into two equal portions (A and B). Both portions of all participants were placed in two different thermostats. Into a thermostat with portions B also a mobile phone in standby/talk mode was placed. After 5 hours of incubation the semen samples from both thermostats were re-evaluated regarding basic parameters. The presence of DNA fragmentation in both A and B portions of each sample was determined using a standard sperm chromatin dispersion test followed by calculation of sperm DNA fragmentation index.
RESULTS: Sperm count and the percentage of dead sperm in groups A & B during 5 hours did not change in general and was not statistically different from each other: 92.3 ± 22,7 x106 /mL vs 90.8 ± 24,2 x 106 /mL; (p >0.05) and 9.1% ± 3.7% vs. 9.6% ± 4.1%; (p >0.05) respectively. The number of spermatozoa with progressive movement in group B, under the influence of RF-EMR, is statistically lower than the number of spermatozoa with progressive movement in group A with no effect of a mobile phone (66.5% ± 6.3% vs 81.3% ± 7.2%, p <0 .05="" 2.5="" 3.3="" 7.4="" a="" and="" b="" between="" differences="" groups="" motionless="" no="" number="" of="" p="" reported="" sperm="" spermatozoa="" the="" vs.="" were="" with="">0.05), while the number of non-progressive movement spermatozoa was significantly higher in group B, that was under the influence of cell phone radiation (25.3% ± 4.7% vs. 12.8% ± 5.8%, p <0 .05="" 1.8="" 2.2="" 4.2="" 5="" 8.8="" about="" after="" are="" by="" characterized="" control="" dna="" exposed="" finally="" fragmentation="" group="" hours="" in="" index="" of="" p="" parameter="" rf-emr="" samples="" span="" sperm="" the="" this="" to="" was="" while="">
CONCLUSIONS: Semen exposure in the area of mobile phone RF-EMR for 5 hours leads to a decrease in the number of sperm with progressive movement and an increase in those with non-progressive movement. Sperm DNA damage due to RF-EMF exposure occurs too. Thus, it looks that for men readying themselves for fatherhood it would be better to avoid holding the cell phones closely to testes.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Center: http://cfch.berkeley.
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Safe
News Releases: http://pressroom.
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
No comments:
Post a Comment