Does Laptop Wi-Fi Lower Sperm Counts?

Does Laptop Wi-Fi Lower Sperm Counts?
4.56 (91.16%) 43 votes

Should laptops not be on laps? What is the effect of WiFi exposure on sperm motility and DNA damage?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“It is impossible to imagine a modern socially-active man who does not use [cell phones] and…Wi-Fi…” Might that be “harmful for male fertility…?” In my last video, I talked about how the sperm of men who use Wi-Fi tend to not be getting along as swimmingly well, but that was an observational study. You don’t really know if Wi-Fi actually damages sperm until you put it to the test.

The title kind of gives it all away, but basically, “this [was] the first study to evaluate the direct impact of laptop use on human sperm….” Here’s the DNA fragmentation in samples near and far away from a laptop with an active Wi-Fi connection—suggesting one might not want to position a Wi-Fi device “near the male reproductive organs.”

Yeah, Wi-Fi exposure may decrease human sperm motility, and increase sperm DNA fragmentation, but the effect is minor. I mean, is having 10% fewer good swimmers really going to make a difference? Fertile men release hundreds of millions. What has yet to be done is a study looking at bouncing baby endpoints—do men randomized to a certain exposure have a tougher time having children? It’s actually a harder study to perform than one might think. You can’t just have men avoid cell phones and laptops for a day. Yes, we make millions of new sperm a day, but they take months to mature. The sperm with which you conceive today started as a preconceived notion months before. So, you can imagine why such a study has yet to be done: you’d have to randomize men to essentially avoid wireless communications completely, or maybe come up with some kind of Faraday-cage underwear.

Another reason why one may not want to use a laptop computer on your lap is just the heat generated by the laptop itself—Wi-Fi or not—[can warm men’s scrotums], undermining the whole point of scrotum possession in the first place. This all dates back to a famous series of experiments back in 1968.

It was an illuminating study, one might say. Sometimes, they’d add a reflector to boost the heat, “though the bulb alone was just as effective,” but they had to move it closer to the skin. Much simpler, but more likely to result in a Jerry Lee Lewis song. (“Great Balls of Fire!”)

But now, we have nice cool fluorescents. But, heated car seats remain a “testicular heat stress factor.” Saunas aren’t a good idea for men trying to conceive. Sperm counts before, and after—apparently cutting sperm production in half—and still down, three months later. But apparent full recovery by six months. But, that’s why boxers, not briefs—or, go all commando. Who makes money on that, though? That’s why we need a “scrotal cooling device” industry, though this review noted that “more acceptable scrotal cooling techniques” really need to be developed. Why? Whatever are they referring to?

It seems the devices currently on the market are not so practical, day to day. There’s the “curved rubber collar filled with ice cubes.” Another was just like a freezer gel pack inserted in the guy’s underwear every night. Not to worry though; it thaws in three to four hours, tops. Holy Snowballs, Batman!

Do not, I repeat, do not put an ice pack on your scrotum. A few frozen peas and carrots, and you can frostbite yourself. See, sometimes, even vegetables can be bad for you. Then, there’s the schvitzer that keeps the scrotum damp, and finally, attached with a belt, achievement of scrotal cooling with “a continuous air stream.”

With so many options to choose from, do laptop users really need protection from scrotal hyperthermia? You don’t know, until you put it to the test. And indeed, an “[i]ncrease in scrotal temperature [was] found in laptop computer users”—scrotal temperatures up a feverish five degrees Fahrenheit.

A little scrotal warmth doesn’t sound that bad, though. Then, I read this case report: “a previously healthy 50-year-old scientist,” typing out a report one evening. “Sitting comfortably in [his favorite] …chair,…laptop [in] lap,” but woke up the next day with blisters—penile and scrotal blisters that then broke, and “developed into infected wounds that caused extensive [oozing pus].”

Even third-degree burns have been reported, requiring surgical intervention with skin grafts. The guy drank 12 units of vodka, and passed out while watching a film on his lap, and the laptop burned through his leg. The surgeons call for “a public education campaign” to educate the public “against the risks of using a laptop in its most literal sense.” Uh, how about educating the public instead against drinking 12 units of vodka?

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: rawpixel.com via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“It is impossible to imagine a modern socially-active man who does not use [cell phones] and…Wi-Fi…” Might that be “harmful for male fertility…?” In my last video, I talked about how the sperm of men who use Wi-Fi tend to not be getting along as swimmingly well, but that was an observational study. You don’t really know if Wi-Fi actually damages sperm until you put it to the test.

The title kind of gives it all away, but basically, “this [was] the first study to evaluate the direct impact of laptop use on human sperm….” Here’s the DNA fragmentation in samples near and far away from a laptop with an active Wi-Fi connection—suggesting one might not want to position a Wi-Fi device “near the male reproductive organs.”

Yeah, Wi-Fi exposure may decrease human sperm motility, and increase sperm DNA fragmentation, but the effect is minor. I mean, is having 10% fewer good swimmers really going to make a difference? Fertile men release hundreds of millions. What has yet to be done is a study looking at bouncing baby endpoints—do men randomized to a certain exposure have a tougher time having children? It’s actually a harder study to perform than one might think. You can’t just have men avoid cell phones and laptops for a day. Yes, we make millions of new sperm a day, but they take months to mature. The sperm with which you conceive today started as a preconceived notion months before. So, you can imagine why such a study has yet to be done: you’d have to randomize men to essentially avoid wireless communications completely, or maybe come up with some kind of Faraday-cage underwear.

Another reason why one may not want to use a laptop computer on your lap is just the heat generated by the laptop itself—Wi-Fi or not—[can warm men’s scrotums], undermining the whole point of scrotum possession in the first place. This all dates back to a famous series of experiments back in 1968.

It was an illuminating study, one might say. Sometimes, they’d add a reflector to boost the heat, “though the bulb alone was just as effective,” but they had to move it closer to the skin. Much simpler, but more likely to result in a Jerry Lee Lewis song. (“Great Balls of Fire!”)

But now, we have nice cool fluorescents. But, heated car seats remain a “testicular heat stress factor.” Saunas aren’t a good idea for men trying to conceive. Sperm counts before, and after—apparently cutting sperm production in half—and still down, three months later. But apparent full recovery by six months. But, that’s why boxers, not briefs—or, go all commando. Who makes money on that, though? That’s why we need a “scrotal cooling device” industry, though this review noted that “more acceptable scrotal cooling techniques” really need to be developed. Why? Whatever are they referring to?

It seems the devices currently on the market are not so practical, day to day. There’s the “curved rubber collar filled with ice cubes.” Another was just like a freezer gel pack inserted in the guy’s underwear every night. Not to worry though; it thaws in three to four hours, tops. Holy Snowballs, Batman!

Do not, I repeat, do not put an ice pack on your scrotum. A few frozen peas and carrots, and you can frostbite yourself. See, sometimes, even vegetables can be bad for you. Then, there’s the schvitzer that keeps the scrotum damp, and finally, attached with a belt, achievement of scrotal cooling with “a continuous air stream.”

With so many options to choose from, do laptop users really need protection from scrotal hyperthermia? You don’t know, until you put it to the test. And indeed, an “[i]ncrease in scrotal temperature [was] found in laptop computer users”—scrotal temperatures up a feverish five degrees Fahrenheit.

A little scrotal warmth doesn’t sound that bad, though. Then, I read this case report: “a previously healthy 50-year-old scientist,” typing out a report one evening. “Sitting comfortably in [his favorite] …chair,…laptop [in] lap,” but woke up the next day with blisters—penile and scrotal blisters that then broke, and “developed into infected wounds that caused extensive [oozing pus].”

Even third-degree burns have been reported, requiring surgical intervention with skin grafts. The guy drank 12 units of vodka, and passed out while watching a film on his lap, and the laptop burned through his leg. The surgeons call for “a public education campaign” to educate the public “against the risks of using a laptop in its most literal sense.” Uh, how about educating the public instead against drinking 12 units of vodka?

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: rawpixel.com via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

This may not just be an issue for men, as I described in my last video, Do Cell Phones Lower Sperm Counts?

Other cell phone videos include Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?Cell Phone Brain Tumor Risk?, and Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function? with more to come!

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

92 responses to “Does Laptop Wi-Fi Lower Sperm Counts?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

    1. “There was no association between saturated fats and health outcomes in studies where saturated fat generally replaced refined carbohydrates, but there was a
      positive association between total trans fatty acids and health outcomes.” Essentially this is saying that if we make foods low-fat and then add sugar to make them tasty, it doesn’t help improve mortality.

      1. Even that’s not entirely true. Sugar in the Western diet is often linked to very poor overall dietary patterns. It may not be the sugar. We don’t really know how a really low-fat, plant based diet with some extra sugar would fare in terms of cardiovascular health. The Rice Diet seemed to do ok. That being said it’s probably best to keep away from large amounts of added sugar because they are empty calories low in nutrients and can rot teeth.

    2. If you read the responses underneath there are two from Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish that tear that study to shreds. It’s a pretty dishonest study really. They simply overadjusted the data: even adjusting for LDL. In the unadjusted data saturated fat was actually strongly linked to overall mortality and heart disease. It wasn’t done by the WHO, it was merely funded by them.

    3. Alissa

      You have to read the whole study not just the abstract. It is a very professional study that deserves careful reading. However, it is not an easy read. That said, the study pretty much concludes that saturated fat is more unhealthy than a range of replacement nutrients eg PUFAs, high quality carbohydrates. This why the saturated fat advocates – or at least the smarter ones – seldom mention it.

      It states “Overall, the certainty of the estimates for the association between saturated fats and all outcomes was very low, mainly because of low precision and high inconsistency (appendix 5).” and the following quote makes it clear that the observed lack of association between CVD and saturated fat intake is unlikely to be true:

      ‘The GRADE approach offers a methodological advance in evaluating the quality of the body of evidence in a transparent fashion, and thus a “non-combinable” estimate can still inform our judgment of the presence, strength, and direction of an effect. Therefore, because of this inconsistency, we document the inconsistency between this finding (positive) and that of the pooled prospective cohort studies (null), and rate the confidence we have in a true quantitative “null” association as “very low.”’

      It also points out for example:

      “A Cochrane review of randomized trials of reduced saturated fats and cardiovascular events found a 17% reduced risk with lower saturated fat intake (risk ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96; 13 studies with 53?300 participants; moderate GRADE).8 Methodological advantages of randomized controlled trials over prospective cohort studies include the balancing of known and unknown confounders and better measurement and finer control of dietary fat levels.”

      It further concludes eg

      “The analysis of data from the largest prospective study to examine carbohydrate quality, as measured by glycemic index, suggests that replacement of saturated fat with high glycemic index carbohydrate increased the risk of CVD, but replacement with low glycemic index carbohydrate (such as whole fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains) decreased risk.11”

      and
      :
      “Risks associated with higher or lower intakes of macronutrients are sensitive to choice of replacement nutrient(s). In a pooled analysis of 11 prospective cohort studies (not included in our quantitative syntheses to avoid duplication of data), replacement of saturated fats with polyunsaturated fat reduced coronary risk by 13%,111 consistent with results of randomized controlled trials112 113 114”

      Hope this helps?

  1. I find that a laptop on my lap is too low for comfortable viewing and typing, so I used a cushioned lap desk or even just a throw pillow to raise it up some. But then, I’m not a guy, and I use my laptop mostly at home — and mostly on tabletops or desks. (But maybe an inflatable lap desk would work?)

    1. Dr J…..air flow should be tried to be maintained around a lap top. It may not seem like it but they do have internal cooling features which may be compromised by things like pillows….They even sell believe it or not laptop cooling pads for one to put the laptop on….
      Thought I’d mention that. To my dismay I think those on this site have little concern for computers ;)

      When AI takes over you all will regret it ;)

  2. Well as others have mentioned I am all for it. More than two children is probably environmentally irresponsible and we really should not have any. If I was younger I would have none. I have had two but back then things did not seem as dire nor certain global warming concerned as they are now. I did restrict to two for those reasons.

    I continue to think heat is the main concern.

    1. Ron: Re “heat” — But a smartphone in the pocket (see previous video) doesn’t get especially hot. So how can that be the main concern?

      1. The amount of heat involved is really like 3 degrees. So if not controlled for in study it could be as simple as a phone in a pocket stopping these things from getting away from the body by making the pants tight. They then may stay closer to the body, like the old thing of brief underware. Not saying for sure but I wonder if the studies accounted for such variables. .I have seen enough poorly designed studies to fill a boat. Why should this be different?

        There is a very probable connection with cell phones to certain types of cancer…this I don’t know study design is so important.

      2. PJK- Smartphones don’t have to be “especially hot” to raise scrotum temperatures enough to damage sperm. The testicles are only 2-3 degrees F cooler than body temp so even a degree or two extra near the groin causes measurable changes in semen quality.

        That’s why even briefs raise the temperature enough to cause sperm damage versus boxers.

      1. Was that polite and considerate Scott? Would you feel comfortable speaking to someone that way in front of people you admire and respect?

      2. Hey I resemble that remark..I mean resent that remark :)

        Does he mean me….please qualify Scott and please as doc says…put it to the test…..and provide study of a published sort to substantiate this claim ;)

        1. Most popular comment on this thread I believe..which may say a bit about the quality of the audience.
          You are a complete idiot!

          America hath no shame,nor concern for others by majority as I read it .

  3. How about DNA damage to the bone marrow in the femur (leg)? That would connected to cancer since the bone marrow makes the cells of the immune system.

    1. Good point Panchito.

      I see no reason why one should assume that WiFi microwave radiation would only cause DNA fragmentation in sperm cells, but would instead assume that it can cause DNA fragmentation in the cells of ANY exposed tissues. And an agent than can cause DNA fragmentation more than likely can cause DNA mutations as well – something that may adversely affect the genetic expression even in sperm that still have normal motility and can fertilize the egg..

      Many technological devices emit microwave radiation. For comparison, a listing of the commonly used microwave frequencies radiated by some of these in GigaHertz:

      Cell phones 0.9 GHz, 1.8 GHz, and 2.7 GHz

      WiFi 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz

      Cordless phones 0.9 GHz, 1.9 GHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz.

      Smart Meters 0.9 GHz and 2.4GHz

      Microwave Ovens 2.45 GHz

        1. Wondering if there is a cumulative effect?

          My generation was television oriented.

          The younger generation watches everything on their smart phones and tablets.

          Luckily, I am old enough that I can’t see the screen properly for that.

          1. “Wondering if there is a cumulative effect?”

            Yes. Although our cells have amazingly good systems for repairing DNA and for correcting errors, these systems do not repair 100% of the damage, but only something like 99.999999% of it. Which means that if you increase the rate of damage to DNA, you will also increase the rate of cumulative damage.

            1. Thanks Alef!

              I have watched a few videos on DNA damage, but hadn’t thought it through.

              Your answer makes perfect sense.

              And the technology damage multiplied by the dietary damage might even have an extra level effect.

              1. It may not be that simple. Alef1’s statement sounds reasonable enough but he provides no evidence to back his claim. However, there is in fact evidence – albeit from animal studies – that single or multiple doses of low level radiation may be protective against DNA damage.

                Some non-human experiments, for example, suggest that low dose, low rate radiation actually protects sperm from damaging mutations

                “The mutation frequency in the sperm irradiated with a low dose at a low rate was significantly lower than that for controls, whereas irradiation with a high dose and rate resulted in a significant increase in the mutation frequency (i.e., hormetic response; low-dose protection and high-dose harm)”
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390804/

                The whole article is well worth a read but how this translates into practical advice for humans on EMF exposure, I have no idea.

                1. Is that article related to microwave radiation? I did not see it mentioned (quick F search). If not, where is the evidence you are presenting to respond to what Aleft1 wrote? And there is no microwave radiation in nature.

        2. This from Wikipedia speaks about DNA damage. It is perhaps necessary to keep this in mind..DNA damage occurs from various sources literally thousands of times daily..
          Types of DNA Damage[edit]
          Damage to DNA that occurs naturally can result from metabolic or hydrolytic processes. Metabolism releases compounds that damage DNA including reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species, reactive carbonyl species, lipid peroxidation products and alkylating agents, among others, while hydrolysis cleaves chemical bonds in DNA.[8] Naturally occurring oxidative DNA damages arise at least 10,000 times per cell per day in humans and 50,000 times or more per cell per day in rats,[9] as documented below.
          Oxidative DNA damage can produce more than 20 types of altered bases[10][11] as well as single strand breaks.[12]
          Other types of endogeneous DNA damages, given below with their frequencies of occurrence, include depurinations, depyrimidinations, double-strand breaks, O6-methylguanines and cytosine deamination.
          DNA can be damaged via environmental factors as well. Environmental agents such as UV light, ionizing radiation, and “

          1. Wow!

            10,000 times per cell per day!

            That tells me as technology increases and pollution of water and air and soil increases.. It is going be a major factor.

            1. Cellls can self repair and or they self destruct. If the is to large the cells just die off. This prevents the occasion of dna in sperm from translating the defect into offspring. Though on occasion they do transmit the defect. Usually they do not. By my read it is not a haphazard mechanism but a mechanism(the dying off part) of design to prevent a inordinate amount of cells with DNA variant presence in a organism. And then to descendents.

              Suchly we don’t see the gigantic monsters of the fifties classic radiation exposure movies, nor in Chernoble. And DNA damage to offspring is not as common as we may think.

      1. Thank you Dr Greger for this important video. I hope the young generations become more conscious of these issues. I think being able to refer to the scientific studies that you analyzed might be a way to make them think more carefully about these issues.
        Alfe1 thanks for sharing radiation scale do you have the reference for that. Thank you.

        1. Radiations and concentrations differ…nothing suggest cell phone radiation causes any bone marrow damage.
          If it does produce the published study to show this….

    2. P radiation of all sorts is absorbed by mass.
      The testes are pretty much out there as to surface areas exposed. Nothing suggests cell phone radiation causes bone marrow disfunction nor femur cancer. Study supports a connection to brain cancer perhaps. Because the transmitting element is held close to the head normally.

      1. You don’t need studies because the strength of bonds that hold together the DNA are exactly the same in all cells. It is only a question of location. The stem cells are the ones that cause cancer when DNA is damaged and not repaired because they have fast divisions. And bone marrow is rich on stem cells. The potential damage does not only cause cancer (over many years, accumulation, opportunity, weak immune system, etc) but protein malfunctions (DNA) which are behind many diseases.

        Do you have studies to support your conclusion? If not, then by using your reasoning you are wrong.

        1. yes 32 from a list of those evaluated by WHO on non thermal damage by this form of radiation…
          ” list of the 32 studies WHO by way of their subgroup made determinations of non hazard by not thermal radiation effect..
          “WHO EMF Studies
          The following 32 WHO EMF studies conclude that there are no non-thermal effects for all non-ionising EMF radiation.
          Repacholi MH 24 Studies
          Kheifets L 15 Studies
          van Deventer TE 10 Studies
          Repacholi MH, Cardis E (1997) Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 72:305-312.
          Repacholi MH (ed) (1998) Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 19:1-19.
          McKinlay AF and Repacholi MH (eds) (1999) Exposure metrics and dosimetry for EMF epidemiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 83(1-2):194.
          Repacholi MH and Greenebaum B (eds) (1999) Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with living systems: Health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 20:133-160.
          Foster KH, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH (2000) Science and the precautionary policy. Science, 288:979-981.
          Kheifets L (2001) Electric and magnetic field exposure and brain cancer. Bioelectromagnetics 5: S120-S131.
          Kheifets L (2001) Electric and Magnetic Fields and Occupational Health. Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Fifth Edition 100: 141-198.
          Kheifets L, Greenberg R, Neutra R, Hester G, Poole C, Rall D, Banerjee G (2001) From epidemiology to policy: An EMF case study. American Journal of Epidemiology 154(12): S50-59.
          Kheifets L, Hester G, Banerjee G (2001) The Precautionary Principle and EMF: Implementation and Evaluation. Journal of Risk Research 4(2): 113-125.
          Mezei G, Kheifets L (2001) “Is There any Evidence for Differential Misclassification or Bias Away from the Null in the Swedish Childhood Cancer Study?” Letter to the Editor, Epidemiology 12(6):750.
          Repacholi MH (2001) Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters 120: 323-331.
          Foster KR, Osepchuk JM, and Repacholi MH (2002) Environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies. Environmental Health Perspectives
          Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Comments on the paper “Long-term exposure of Em -Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” Radiation Research. Radiation Research 158: 357-364.
          Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Further comments on “Long-term Exposure of E&mgr;-Pim1 Transgenic Mice to 898.4 MHz Microwaves Does Not Increase Lymphoma Incidence” by Utteridge et al., Radiation Research 158, 357-364 (2002)
          Kheifets L, Thrall N (2002) Electromagnetic Fields and Health. Macmillians Guide to Pollution
          Litvak E, Foster KR, and Repacholi MH (2002) Health and safety implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 300 Hz to 10 MHz., Bioelectromagnetics, 23(1):68-82.
          Mezei G, Kheifets L (2002) Clues to the possible viral etiology of childhood leukemia. Technology 9: 3-14.
          Repacholi MH (2002) Assessment of the Health Effects of EMF Exposure. The Radio Science Bulletin 301: 14-24.
          Sahl J, Mezei G, Kavet R, McMillan A, Silvers A, Sastre A, Kheifets L (2002) Occupational magnetic field exposures and cardiovascular mortality in a cohort of electric utility workers. American Journal of Epidemiology 156:913-918.
          Dewhirst MW, Lora-Michiels M, Viglianti BL, Dewey WC, and Repacholi MH (2003) Carcinogenic effects of hyperthermia. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):236-251
          Goldstein LS, Dewhirst MW, Repacholi MH, and Kheifets L (2003) Summary, conclusions and recommendations: adverse temperature levels in the human body, International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):373-384
          Kheifets L, Repacholi MH, and Saunders R (2003) Thermal stress and radiation protection principles. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):215-224
          McKinlay A, Repacholi MH (2003) (eds) Weak electric fields effects in the body. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 106 (4) 2003
          Repacholi MH (2003) WHO’s health risk assessment of ELF fields. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 106(4):297-299
          Riadh W. Habash Y, Brodsky LM, Leiss W, Krewski D, Repacholi MH (2003) Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields. Part I: Evaluation and Assessment of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Critical Review in Biomedical Engineering, 31(3&4):219–273
          van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2004) Effet de la Téléphonie mobile su la santé humaine: état des connaissances scientifiques, Droit de l’environnement dans la pratique, 8, 708-724
          Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer TE (2005) Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields, Pediatrics, August 2005, 303-313
          Kheifets L, Sahl J, Shimkhada R, Repacholi MH (2005) Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 µT or 0.4 µT cut points from EMF epidemiologic studies, Risk Analysis, 25 (4), vol. 5, no.1, 927-935
          van Deventer TE, Saunders R, Repacholi MH (2005) WHO health risk assessment process for static fields, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 87, 355-363
          Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Lundel G, Swanson J (2006) Le principe de précaution et les champs électriques et magnétiques : mise en œuvre et évaluation, Environnement, risques et santé, Jan-Feb 2006, 43-53
          van Rongen E, Saunders R, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2006) Static fields: Biological effects and mechanisms relevant to exposure limits. Health Physics, June 2007, vol. 92, no. 6, 584-590
          Valberg P, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2007) Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2007, vol. 115, no. 3, 416-424
          van Deventer TE, Simunic D, Repacholi MH (2007) EMF standards for human health, chapter in Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 3rd ed., Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, F. Barnes and B Greenebaum, eds., 277-292
          van Deventer E, Foster K (2008) Risk Assessment and Risk Communication for Electromagnetic Fields: A World Health Organization Perspective, chapter in book The Role of Evidence in Risk Characterization: Making Sense of Conflicting Data, P. Wiedemann and H. Schütz, eds., WILEY-VCH, 13-24″

          1. I think your re mixing in the pot studies that do not relate to the discussion of microwave radiation, which is an EMR (electro magnetic radiation) with an specific frequency range. Whereas EMF is electromagnetic field, which is produced by electrically charged objects in physics which happens just around anywhere even in all atoms. Many studies measure the effect on cancer, but this is a wrong proposition since cancer has many steps independent of the damage.They need to measure the effect on DNA damage to see if it concerns health.

            Here is a study that relates to the discussion:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9467086

            “These findings suggest that RF exposures are potentially carcinogenic and have other health effects. Therefore, prudent avoidance of unneeded exposures is recommended as a precautionary measure. “

            1. I am not mixing a thing. And you are producing one study I am producing 32. And these all are straight from WHO. They have a grouping of scientists who look at EMF radiation which anyone can see who looks at the list includes cell phones.

              And your study shows some potential cancer risks…we know that and Who affirms that in study….cell phones may cause cancer it is a possible.
              And your study is in the main focused on military and commercial applications such as traffic controllers.

              That has nothing whatsoever to do with cell phones causing bone marrow cancer which is your earlier claim. WE are given lead aprons when getting xrays for a reason….this area and sperm cells are inordinately inclined for DNA disruption as I have shown here in other study.
              I am not fielding any personal attack at all here. It is just fact you are wrong in your personal interpretation of this and are exaggerating risk and consequence as is alef.

              1. This is where those studies came from WHO, here is the program from their site….
                The International EMF Project
                In response to growing public health concerns over possible health effects from exposure to an ever increasing number and diversity of electromagnetic field sources, in 1996 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a large, multidisciplinary research effort. The International EMF Project brings together current knowledge and available resources of key international and national agencies and scientific institutions.
                Conclusions from scientific research
                In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research
                .”

                That is where I got all the studies. That is their source for determination.

                One of these gaps to be specific is cell phones. A special group is and has addressed that issue to the extend they have determined they are a possible cancer causing agent and they have produced guidelines on use.
                It amazes me peoples are all in when WHO says things like lunch meat causes cancer but are all out when they say…microwave ovens…wait a second not so fast.

                It is clear to me WHO is not paid off and are taking on the most powerful interests in the world, apple and the meat industry.

                1. Lets see. You commented to my post of DNA and then posted lots of studies. Just by going through the titles, none of the studies you posted talked about DNA damage caused by microwave radiation. Instead the studies generalize using terms like disease, EMF, etc. That is muddying the waters instead of showing proof. And mobile phones in 2001 or earlier where 450Mhz or lower, a very low ‘microwave’ frequency compared to for example 5 GHz. Higher frequency carries more energy.

                  To make it simple, please put a study that says that microwave radiation does not cause DNA damage, which is something concrete and scientific and can be measured.

                  1. Microwave radiation does cause DNA damage..put your hand in a operating microwave and your hand will not only heat but due to warming of the water within molecules DNA damage will occur..

                    So how can one produce such a study????
                    The thing is you are applying a basic fact that fact and over using it applying it to other contexts which it has no application.
                    All those 32 are from WHO All are used to determine this form of radiation is not harmfull when used in its normal context. That group of scientists was established to study this exact issue.Their conclusion was in normal use microwave exposure for the average person is not a problem. Sure it is dangerous.Stick your head in a microwave oven turn it on and DNA damage and death will soon occur….but that does not mean we can get bone marrow cancer by using a cell phone….it just does not. .

                    Go to the WHO site…on this specific..that is my reference point and it remains that. If you don’t believe me in this go to their site yourself and you will find 32 studies showing what I have copied cut and pasted.. ..

                    You asked for one study and I produced 32…now you say I should produce one more?

                    1. Here this from WHO is the first link in the study of microwave energy…Start here and eventually one comes into the specific of studies which I have referenced…

                      But you have to start here to get a understanding of it..
                      http://www.who.int/topics/radiation_non_ionizing/en/

                      I am not making this stuff up…read it….it is from their site the WHO.

                    2. Here is WHO general standards developemental process..

                      Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
                      EMF Home
                      About electromagnetic fields
                      EMF Project
                      Research
                      Standards
                      EMF publications & information resources
                      Meetings
                      Standards and Guidelines
                      See also
                      Framework for developing health-based EMF standards
                      Model Legislation
                      A number of national and international organizations have formulated guidelines establishing limits for occupational and residential EMF exposure. The exposure limits for EMF fields developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – a non-governmental organization formally recognised by WHO, were developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including thermal and non-thermal effects. The standards are based on evaluations of biological effects that have been established to have health consequences. The main conclusion from the WHO reviews is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.
                      The WHO has compiled a database which includes worldwide standards for countries who have legislation on exposure to electromagnetic fields. Please click on the link, below:
                      Link to the WHO’s Global Health Observatory (GHO) data

                      ICNIRP works with WHO in a subsidiary fashion to assist WHO in their guidelines and development of those. ICNIRP identifies specific acceptable exposure ranges by attention to study which meets their criteria.
                      Every section in their site is clickable. Click on a item and it puts you there. One can then explore every area of consideration going as in depth as one wants.

                      Basically who are you going to trust WHO or somebody on a discussion board. Listen to all of course by all means….but make your own conclusions by not a equal weight to all evidence but a consideration of the weight of evidence by authority and perponderance…
                      I can produce the same from the FDA but I do admit at times they are politically influenced.

                    3. Here is a way to access several thousand more studies on the issue…
                      “Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
                      EMF Home
                      About electromagnetic fields
                      EMF Project
                      Research
                      Standards
                      EMF publications & information resources
                      Meetings
                      EMF research databases
                      Germany’s EMF-Portal
                      The EMF-Portal (www.emf-portal.org) is a scientific literature database on the effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields on human health and biological systems. This open-access website is operated by the Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu), part of the Institute of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
                      The EMF-Portal is, worldwide, the most comprehensive scientific literature database on biological and health-related effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (frequency range 0-300 GHz) with unrestricted access. As of April 2015, the database included a total of approx. 21,000 scientific paper entries and other relevant publications (e.g. laws, recommendations, and guidelines) that can be found by a sophisticated search tool. Detailed summaries of the biomedical content exist for more than 4,800 articles.
                      Users of the EMF-Portal can get additional information via the extensive directly text-linked glossary (2,900 entries), graphical and tabular overviews on specific research topics, and a database of electromagnetic field emitting sources. The web portal will be of use to, equally, scientists, politicians, physicians, lawyers, journalists, and the general public. On request, femu provides tailored packages or lists of EMF literature, serving specific needs of international working groups”

                      And all of this leads to one conclusion….this type of radiation excluding cell phone risk does not present any abnormal risk for cancer in normal not industrial or professional use..

            2. Panchito

              This is a study about the effects of radar. Those things pump out a lot more energy than your mobile phone or wifi-router.

              The sceptics dictionary is appropriately sceptical about the claims concerning EMF/EMR effects in domestic environments (not to be confused with the septic’s dictionary ie the Merriam Webster)
              http://skepdic.com/emf.html

              1. People keep mixing emf with microwave radiation. Why? Are they trying to confuse everybody by bringing emf studies to diminish microwave studies?

                Look:

                emf = moving charge particle
                microwave radiation = zero particle (photon)

            3. Panchito

              You wrote “I think your re mixing in the pot studies that do not relate to the discussion of microwave radiation, which is an EMR (electro magnetic radiation) with an specific frequency range. Whereas EMF is electromagnetic field, which is produced by electrically charged objects in physics which happens just around anywhere even in all atoms.”

              I am no expert but I think that your comment may not be entirely correct. My understanding is that EMR is simply a type of EMF. That is. all EMRs are a type of EMF but not all EMFs are EMRs. The World Health Organization has a good primer on this topic

              http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

              1. They are different.

                EMR = electromagnetic WAVE (radiation)
                EMF = electromagnetic FIELD

                A field is understood as a range with proximity, whereas a wave propagates carrying energy. For example, the power source of your computer emits a field (unintentionally). But a radio with an antenna emits a wave that propagates intentionally. Fields are weak (safe) and usually happen unintentionally. Whereas a wave was made to carry energy, and was launched through a matched antenna (wavelength) so that there is maximum efficiency. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy.

          2. This list seems irrelevant. If you want to disprove the therory that “all crows are black” you only need to produce one white crow.

            If you want to disprove the theory that “At non-thermal levels microwaves do not have any biological effects” one needs only to have one solid research study showing that they do. And at this point hundreds of such studies have appeared, including the two studies featured in this video and the one before it showing DNA damage in sperm from cell phone and WiFi microwave radiation at non-thermal levels.

            And if you want to see more of them, check the references at the end of
            this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242331926_Electromagnetic_fields_act_via_activation_of_voltage-gated_calcium_channels_to_produce_beneficial_or_adverse_effects

            or more recently, the U.S. goverment’s own NTP study, just confirmed by another large study by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, that alsso found that microwave radiation at non-thermal levels caused both DNA and cancer in rats.

            “A second large study has found tumors in the Schwann cells —schwannomas— in the hearts of male rats exposed to cell phone radiation.
            The new finding comes from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy.

            The malignant schwannomas of the heart seen in the Italian study are the same as those described by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) earlier this month as the basis for their concern that cell phone radiation can lead to cancer.“ http://microwavenews.com/news-center/more-coincidence

            1. Rats have significantly different DNA structure and damage potential than humans. There is application but not of a strict sort….

              As to studies Ok I’ll bite… these are WHO studies on EMF drawing the conclusion of no harm to EMF in normal use of devices that produce them.. That does not imply that EMF may be hazardous in other applications.
              EMF Project Scientific Articles
              in chronological order
              Repacholi MH, Cardis E (1997) Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 72:305-312.
              Repacholi MH (ed) (1998) Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 19:1-19.
              McKinlay AF and Repacholi MH (eds) (1999) Exposure metrics and dosimetry for EMF epidemiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 83(1-2):194.
              Repacholi MH and Greenebaum B (eds) (1999) Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with living systems: Health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 20:133-160.
              Foster KH, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH (2000) Science and the precautionary policy. Science, 288:979-981.
              Kheifets L (2001) Electric and magnetic field exposure and brain cancer. Bioelectromagnetics 5: S120-S131.
              Kheifets L (2001) Electric and Magnetic Fields and Occupational Health. Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Fifth Edition 100: 141-198.
              Kheifets L, Greenberg R, Neutra R, Hester G, Poole C, Rall D, Banerjee G (2001) From epidemiology to policy: An EMF case study. American Journal of Epidemiology 154(12): S50-59.
              Kheifets L, Hester G, Banerjee G (2001) The Precautionary Principle and EMF: Implementation and Evaluation. Journal of Risk Research 4(2): 113-125.
              Mezei G, Kheifets L (2001) “Is There any Evidence for Differential Misclassification or Bias Away from the Null in the Swedish Childhood Cancer Study?” Letter to the Editor, Epidemiology 12(6):750.
              Repacholi MH (2001) Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters 120: 323-331.
              Foster KR, Osepchuk JM, and Repacholi MH (2002) Environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies. Environmental Health Perspectives
              Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Comments on the paper “Long-term exposure of Em -Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” Radiation Research. Radiation Research 158: 357-364.
              Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Further comments on “Long-term Exposure of E&mgr;-Pim1 Transgenic Mice to 898.4 MHz Microwaves Does Not Increase Lymphoma Incidence” by Utteridge et al., Radiation Research 158, 357-364 (2002)
              Kheifets L, Thrall N (2002) Electromagnetic Fields and Health. Macmillians Guide to Pollution
              Litvak E, Foster KR, and Repacholi MH (2002) Health and safety implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 300 Hz to 10 MHz., Bioelectromagnetics, 23(1):68-82.
              Mezei G, Kheifets L (2002) Clues to the possible viral etiology of childhood leukemia. Technology 9: 3-14.
              Repacholi MH (2002) Assessment of the Health Effects of EMF Exposure. The Radio Science Bulletin 301: 14-24.
              Sahl J, Mezei G, Kavet R, McMillan A, Silvers A, Sastre A, Kheifets L (2002) Occupational magnetic field exposures and cardiovascular mortality in a cohort of electric utility workers. American Journal of Epidemiology 156:913-918.
              Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer E, Repacholi M. (2003) Comments on “Long-term exposure of Emicro-Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” by Utteridge et al., Radiat. Res. 158, 357-364 (2002). Radiat Res. 2003 Feb;159(2):275-6; author reply 276-8. No abstract available.
              Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, Van Deventer E, Repacholi M. (2003) Further comments on “Long-term exposure of Emu-Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” by Utteridge et al. (Radiat. Res. 158, 357-364 2002). Radiat Res., 2003 Jun;159(6):835; author reply 835-6. No abstract available.
              Dewhirst MW, Lora-Michiels M, Viglianti BL, Dewey WC, and Repacholi MH (2003) Carcinogenic effects of hyperthermia. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):236-251
              Goldstein LS, Dewhirst MW, Repacholi MH, and Kheifets L (2003) Summary, conclusions and recommendations: adverse temperature levels in the human body, International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):373-384
              Kheifets L, Repacholi MH, and Saunders R (2003) Thermal stress and radiation protection principles. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):215-224
              McKinlay A, Repacholi MH (2003) (eds) Weak electric fields effects in the body. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 106 (4) 2003
              Repacholi MH (2003) WHO’s health risk assessment of ELF fields. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 106(4):297-299
              Riadh W. Habash Y, Brodsky LM, Leiss W, Krewski D, Repacholi MH (2003) Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields. Part I: Evaluation and Assessment of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Critical Review in Biomedical Engineering, 31(3&4):219–273
              van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2004) Effet de la Téléphonie mobile su la santé humaine: état des connaissances scientifiques, Droit de l’environnement dans la pratique, 8, 708-724
              Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E, Kheifets L. (2005) Guest editors’ introduction: is EMF a potential environmental risk for children? Bioelectromagnetics, 2005;Suppl 7:S2-4. No abstract available.
              Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer TE (2005) Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields, Pediatrics, August 2005, 303-313
              van Deventer TE, Saunders R, Repacholi MH (2005) WHO health risk assessment process for static fields, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 87, 355-363
              Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E, (2005) The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics, 2005 Aug;116(2):e303-13.
              Kheifets L, Sahl J, Shimkhada R, Repacholi MH (2005) Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 µT or 0.4 µT cut points from EMF epidemiologic studies, Risk Analysis, 25 (4), vol. 5, no.1, 927-935
              Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Lundel G, Swanson J (2006) Le principe de précaution et les champs électriques et magnétiques : mise en œuvre et évaluation, Environnement, risques et santé, Jan-Feb 2006, 43-53
              van Rongen E, Saunders R, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2006) Static fields: Biological effects and mechanisms relevant to exposure limits. Health Physics, June 2007, vol. 92, no. 6, 584-590
              Valberg P, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2007) Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2007, vol. 115, no. 3, 416-424
              van Deventer TE, Simunic D, Repacholi MH (2007) EMF standards for human health, chapter in Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 3rd ed., Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, F. Barnes and B Greenebaum, eds., 277-292
              van Deventer E, Foster K (2008) Risk Assessment and Risk Communication for Electromagnetic Fields: A World Health Organization Perspective, chapter in book The Role of Evidence in Risk Characterization: Making Sense of Conflicting Data, P. Wiedemann and H. Schütz, eds., WILEY-VCH, 13-24
              van Deventer E, van Rongen E, Saunders R, (2011) WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields. Bioelectromagnetics, Jul;32(5):417-21. doi: 10.1002/bem.20660.

              1. Who professes as I have innumerably stated, multiple times through out this discussion …..cell phones do have a possibility of cancer producing cause with normal application particularly amongst children. AS such they have produced special guidelines for use.
                The FDA has not stated that to my opinion as they are politically influenced. Though admittedly that is a personal opinion.

                Will they in the future I hope so but doubt it will be on the basis of rat study.

                1. This is from the FDA as of end of year 2017…

                  Is there a connection between certain health problems and exposure to radiofrequency fields via cell phone use?

                  The results of most studies conducted to date indicate that there is not. In addition, attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection have failed.
                  According to current data, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence does not show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from cell phones and adverse health outcomes. Still, there is consensus that additional research is warranted to address gaps in knowledge, such as the effects of cell phone use over the long-term and on pediatric populations.

                  The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer Classified Radiofrequency Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans on May 31, 2011.
                  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), through the Monographs program, seeks to identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of cancer in humans. IARC uses the following categories to classify environmental agents:
                  Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.
                  Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans.
                  Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans.
                  Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
                  Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans.
                  IARC has classified radiofrequency fields in Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans.
                  IARC interprets the 2B classification as meaning there is limited evidence showing radiofrequency carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”
                  :

                  The FDA then goes the extra step which I have not copied out here to attempt to discredit WHO’s stand and dilute its meaning.
                  Point being FDA and WHo significantly differ in this thing of cell phone radiation. Other things microwave ovens..not at all.
                  The state of California agrees with WHO. It is clear to me the FDA is wrong in this cell phone thing.
                  But that also does not mean WHO or anyone else thinks cell phones or ovens for that matter do things like alter human stem cells DNA found perhaps in bones or marrow.

  4. Great information that I will pass on to my 25 yr old son.

    Of course the Scots have had it down for ages- wear that kilt commando or not and you are all set! I have even seen men in very stylish skirts in other parts of the world- Fiji for example. Cool those nads, men.

    A healthy and proud monthly supporter of Nutritionfacts.org

  5. Good point.

    I see no reason why one should assume that WiFi microwave radiation would only cause DNA fragmentation in sperm cells, but would instead assume that it can cause DNA fragmentation in the cells of ANY exposed tissues. And an agent than can cause DNA fragmentation more than likely can cause DNA mutations as well – something that may adversely affect the genetic expression even in sperm that still have normal motility and can fertilize the egg..

    Many technological devices emit microwave radiation. For comparison, a listing of the commonly used microwave frequencies radiated by some of these in GigaHertz:

    Cell phones 0.9 GHz, 1.8 GHz, and 2.7 GHz

    WiFi 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz

    Cordless phones 0.9 GHz, 1.9 GHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz.

    Smart Meters 0.9 GHz and 2.4GHz

    Microwave Ovens 2.45 GHz

    1. Sperm cells are unique in their ability to have DNA damage as this study reference copy shows…
      “Aetiology of sperm DNA damage
      DNA integrity is defined as the absence of both single strand or double strand and breaks absence of nucleotide modifications in the DNA [44]. The loss of integrity in sperm DNA may occur at any level from the transformation of the spermatogonial germ cells to the ejaculated sperm, thereby the DNA damage may be present in the testicular sperm, epididymal sperm or the ejaculated sperm.
      In transformation of mitotic spermatogonia to spermatocytes in meiosis, the DNA double strand breaks (DSB’s) are introduced and normally ligated after the crossing over. An unligated nick may transfer the DSB to the next phase of cell cycle i.e. round spermatids which if unrepaired in successive steps may be present in the ejaculated sperm. During spermiogenesis which is marked by conversion of round spermatid to elongated spermatid, the replacement of histones by protamines and the compaction of the genome take place. Improper chromatin packaging makes the sperm DNA more prone to damage. To relieve the torsional stress during protamination, both single strand breaks (SSB’s) and DSB are introduced in elongating spermatids [29, 30, 45, 46]. These breaks are temporary and are repaired in a healthy sperm but if unrepaired, they may lead to increased DNA fragmentation in the mature ejaculated sperm. During epididymal maturation, the protamine disulfide cross linking is completed, confering a highly compact structure to sperm chromatin. If the disulphide cross linking is incomplete it may lead to suboptimal compaction and therefore high degree of DNA fragmentation [47]. DNA damage incurred during sperm transit and storage in epididymis or post ejaculation cannot be repaired by sperm because post spermiogenesis there is negligible transcription and translation [28, 48].
      Studies by Greco et al. [49], have shown that sperm DNA damage is higher in ejaculated sperm as compared to testicular sperm which supports the premise that sperm DNA damage load increases as the sperm transits from testis to epididymis and then to ejaculate.
      As the sperm pass through epididymis it is exposed to ROS (free radicals), which are released by leukocytes, immature sperm or by dysfunctional mitochondrial metabolism. The electron loss from mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC) in sperm leads to mt DNA mutations which further enhances ROS production [12] and leads to mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage [25].
      During the sperm maturation most of the antioxidants which are localized in the cytoplasm are lost so, antioxidant defense against the free radicals is mainly conferred by the seminal plasma. And if the seminal antioxidants are also compromised the sperm has a higher susceptibility to oxidative stress induced DNA damage [26].
      The abortive apoptosis of fas expressed cells also contributes to sperm with DNA damage in the ejaculate. This dysfunctional apoptosis is responsible for presence of defective sperm in fertile men [50–52].
      The damage in sperm DNA may not always be in the form of single or double strand breaks. The oxidizing capacity of ROS, produces nucleotide modifications or base loss. These cause aberrations in the chromatin packing and expose the genome to further oxidative insult [22, 44].”

      1. From this source….

        Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13(11), 14026-14052; doi:10.3390/ijms131114026
        Types, Causes, Detection and Repair of DNA Fragmentation in Animal and Human Sperm Cells
        Clara González-Marín 1, Jaime Gosálvez 2 and Rosa Roy 2,*

        Received: 31 July 2012 / Revised: 16 October 2012 / Accepted: 18 October 2012 / Published: 31 October 2012
        (This article belongs to the Section Biochemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology) source..:

  6. I would love for Dr. Greger & team to look into the mineral Shungite and the incredible findings on Shungite deflecting/absorbing EMF. Shungite is only found in Karelia, Russia; there have been numerous studies showing that not only does Shungite stop the effects of EMF on our bodies but it even changes tap water and removes nasties like pharmaceuticals, chlorine, other heavy metals etc. Ever since I placed a piece of Shungite next to my pillow (between my phone and my head), my sleep quality has went up tremendously. For the first time in ages, I remember my dreams again.
    This has happened with many others too including children who are in smart classrooms with WiFi always on. From headaches and other symptoms to no headaches, to a complete absence of the symptoms they were experiencing prior to Shungite!

    1. Visitor, the fact that it is so difficult to get away from these technologies now I suspect trying to find anything possible to deflect or absorb EMF will be the future.

      A few years ago, people could more successfully avoid the technologies, but now people don’t have land lines and the government forces people to put things on-line. It is harder to stay low-tech.

      My work has half of the building with wifi and half without it. Feels good that I work away from the cell phones and lap tops and wifi, but those hours and sleep are the only times I am away from it.

    1. From the guardian//
      “Alcohol can cause irreversible genetic damage to stem cells, says study
      Link between drinking and cancer clarified by study which indicates alcohol causes cancer by scrambling DNA in cells, eventually leading to mutations
      Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
      @hannahdev
      Wed 3 Jan 2018 13.00 EST
      Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 16.33 EST”

      Cessation of smoking is probably the most singular thing one can do if the intention is to prevent DNA damage in a elective fashion. Damage occurs everyday all the time during the day normally by preponderance from oxidative stress.

  7. Or the blisters on private parts, burned leg, etc.?

    Now insert 7 year old.

    The seven year old who I play with when she is in town has her own laptop and brought it to watch a person getting trapped in the body of a cat video. If she was a little boy, would there be problems by the end of the movie? Or would it have to be a double feature before I would have to call the parents?

  8. I don’t know where to put the comment, but I love reading your science discussions!

    I find it very entertaining.

    And I didn’t enjoy it when people were just insulting each other, but this makes me smile.

    1. This was a letter to the editor from a group of Australian researchers. Unfortunately, the livestock industry is an important part of the Australian economy and very influential politically. It receives money from the Australian Government to fund research. It is not clear where the funding for this particular study came from.

      The letter was about an observational study that merely identified an association. A previous European study also identified an association between vegetarian diets and “mental disorders”. However, that study also looked at the dates that people began a vegetarian diet and the dates that they were diagnosed with a mental disorder. It found “The analysis of the respective ages at adoption of a vegetarian diet and onset of a mental disorder showed that the adoption of the vegetarian diet tends to follow the onset of mental disorders.”
      https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67

      In other words, people may have given up meat eating in response to mental or physical health diagnoses or other such concerns. That makes sense. Certainly, many of the people on this forum commenced a vegetarian diet after encountering health problems of one kind or another. This might be the explanation for the association in this Australian study. We don’t know. Certainly, some other studies of people who adopt vegetarian diets for religious reasons,rather than as the result of a health crisis, have delivered contrary findings The 7th Day Adventists are one such group.and there vegetarians experience significantly less negative emotion than omnivores.
      https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-9-26

      In any case, this is all an attempted distraction from the undeniable fact that the World Health Organization has looked at all the evidence and concluded that (red) meat is probably carcinogenic. They even know this in Australia

      “The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, bacon and frankfurts – as a Group 1 carcinogen which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer.”
      https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639/cancer-information/cancer-risk-and-prevention/healthy-weight-diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer/

      For reasons that one can only speculate about, this does not seem to be reflected in the Australian Government dietary guidelines. Or in this Australian study you cite for that matter.

  9. Jacca one of the main participants of this study has issued a paper in regard to the current standing of nutrition as regards the psychological. Keep in mind the study you reference was from 7 or so years ago.
    This comment by Jadda was 2017.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396417300798

    The conclusion I read in it is that things at present are indeterminate. As he was a major participant in your study I can only guess the original study has its limitations in application.
    I find it odd a seven year old study is receiving attention especially as the contributors have produced more current study and reporting.

      1. His writing that I link can serve as a good template for the consideration of adversarial and contributory study on the issue. He examines and conflicts the findings of many of them to include the austrailian study..

  10. I found some articles on making the kombucha mother (scoby) into leather and, well, food. I am finding it impossible to locate nutritional information on the However it seems like it is a topic that vegans would be interested in,

  11. Here is a interesting lecture about photons and vision (vitamin A). It explains how the eyes ‘see’ photons (in the visible light frequency) which is the same as microwave radiation but at a higher frequency as compared to microwave radiation. Notice that it does not work by heating the eyes ! ja ja

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1967/wald-lecture.pdf

    “when any single geometrical isomer of retinal in solution is exposed to light, it
    rapidly isomerizes to a steady-state mixture of all the possible isomers, in
    proportions that depend upon the wavelength of the light, and even more
    upon the polarity of the solvent 37,38b.”

    PS retinal = vitamin A

    1. Panchito

      Thanks. That’s interesting.

      I had always thought that “retinal” was simply an adjective meaning pertaining to the retina and “retinol” was a type of vitamin A. However, now I know that retinal is the new name for retinene or vitamin A aldehyde. I learn something new here every day.

      (By the way, in English we write “ha ha” than “ja ja” which is the Spanish equivalent).

      1. ha ha ;)

        If you want to go deep, check this out. This is energy value gained by the molecules of the eye responsible for vision, which changes the molecules:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt#Energy_comparisons

        “The energy of a photon varies only with the frequency of the photon, related by speed of light constant. This contrasts with a massive particle of which the energy depends on its velocity and rest mass”

        “1.6 eV to 3.4 eV: the photon energy of visible light

        “One mole of particles given 1 eV of energy has approximately 96.5 kJ of energy”

        Note: microwave radiation increases the energy of molecules only by ~ 1 meV or less but in penetrates the body. Whereas light radiation does not penetrate (only goes as far as the back of the eye).

        Have fun

  12. re: Laptops – does it help to place a pillow under the computer on your lap? someone told me there is a cloth invented for pregnant women to protect the unborn, would those protect users? thanks.

    1. There is some suggestion in this study of increase in EMF radiation with a laptop directly on the stomach..
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22315933.
      And that does not explore nor confirm any harm to a fetus from that result. And the study in limitation does not reference radiation in any manner remote from the device.It is within the context of the laptop directly on the mother touching it with belly.

      The biggest concern seems to be with heat produced from a laptop. Certainly we do know a fetus may be negatively affected by heat.And we do know laptops produce heat.
      With that in mind a mother probably should by my read certainly not keep the laptop on their stomach putting it on some other object.Which would likely protect from a known proven harm heat and a possible remotely probable harm, radiation.

      I would doubt any cloth would protect enough from heat. It may actually serve to trap heat produced by the laptop.A pillow would seem to help more but really just putting it next to oneself may be safest and most practical.
      To be clear I am not a medical professional or offering any medical opinion. Just answering as it has been a while unanswered. Others may provide medical advice.

      The mother would be seemingly more comfortable as well with the device not on the stomach.

      1. If I was at home I would consider using a desktop with a wireless keyboard and mouse. They are way easier to move around say in bed or on a couch than any laptop. And they are very cheap nowadays 20 USD or so gets good quality. If one has a desktop at home.
        Your desktop can be connected though a HDMI port to the computer if one wants to view through a TV type screen. So one needs not to be close to anything but the keyboard and mouse.
        They typically run on a couple of AA batteries.

  13. For people concerned about carrying phones in their pocket and using laptops, do you blokes know that you can buy RF/EMF shielded underwear? Amazon carries several models I believe.

    You can even buy RF/EMF shielded caps I see – although the traditional tinfoil hat would be much cheaper.

  14. Hi,

    The NY Post wrote an article about the “Clean Label Project” protein study – http://www.cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder/ . Of course a friend sent the article to me because of concern over the study’s “results.”I can’t find info about the Clean Label Project’s funding and Snopes and Forbes point out that their studies are not peer reviewed and their raw data is not shared. What is particularly suspicious is they recommend a top 5 of best protein powders out of the 100+ tested and conclude egg-based proteins are best and plant based proteins are the worst. Are there other studies out there that test chemicals in protein powders? I would love to see some more studies before I trash my Vega and Orgain powders :)

    Thanks!

    1. You would throw away protein powder based on a NY Post article based on a non published called scientific article??
      You must then as well be believing all those poor kids who saw their classmates shot down by a merciless madman in Florida are actors.

      I know of no specific good solid study for contaminants.Perhaps others here may I do not.

      Creatine there does exist research. One form crapure from german manufacture is the only pure one to my dim recollection.All other manufactur to include US were contaminated.
      Chinese products have issues in general with contaminants. So I would take care to see to it the base materials peas whatever, do not source from China. And I would try to get organic sourced materials as well.
      The bodybuilding muscle industry is rife with corruptive influence.I would not trust any study that did not have real published validity. And even then I would examine it for bias.
      You may not buy from Amazon but usually the comment sections on protein mixes will mention something about where the stuff is sourced if not the sellers statements will.

      I would not buy off brands.ONe small manufacturer actually has a part on their labeling stateing in California by regulation this product must be labeled as containing cancer causing things. I guess they use a solvent or some such. .

      Organic, a well known company with a good track record, sourced from other than China, and one should be good to go.
      Vegan gains a you tuber did a review on a protein powder he advocates for. Likely it is a good product but likely as well he received sponsorship to promote it. So you never know.

      Boldybuilders and fitness people will sell various products. But then like with Rich Piana they drop down dead from stroke or need heart transplants like another or die of heart attack like another……they sell all sorts of stuff and don’t most of them seem to care a bit excepting caring to make some money.

      1. AS a aside in this crowd the whole food plant based crowd as for longevity IGF1 a growth hormone type thing found in meat but particularly in dairy is a strict no no. They want to live forever and anything that gets in the way of that is bad. IGF1 will promote cancer. But it also promotes growth. Many bodybuilders take overt growth hormone shots.

        IGF1 has only one source in the plant kingdom..soy. Soy used to be considered to have potential feminizing effects. That by current study is complete total nonsense. You would have to eat a boatload to have that effect every day.
        So if one wants to chance that the IGF1 cancer promoting side is overruled by the various antioxidents found in a whole foods plant based diet…there is that..

        Apparently the amounts found in dairy are enough to affect childrens growth as vegan kids to tend slightly smaller. So its potential effects can not be discounted body building wise. Growth hormone can be stimulated substantiated in study by low reps 3 or less with close to max weight.
        So there is that as well. Growth hormone without assistance seems to decline steadily that naturally produced by our bodies in the twenties.

  15. I hate to state specific products as then it appears I also have interest.
    But I do not so will. If trust was my main concern Jarrow seems the best company out there. Ease availability but one much check sourcing and qualify by what specifically is purchased performance stuff but not creatine… NOW.

    Jarrow seems by my take the most responsible of the major companies out there. Their creatine is sourced by the german manufacturing process.
    Creatine if vegan will give one more enhancement than any protein powder.
    Heavy lifting will require protein supplementation though if vegan. These whole foods plant based peoples are FOS when they state one does not need that. Sitting in a office all day one does not.Heavy lifting 2 or so hours a day..you need it.

    1. The UFC gives their fighters a list of legal supplements to not take so as not to get a positive drug test.

      Which about says it all…. Illegal substances are present throughout the supplement field. Thank Orin Hatch the Utah senator who removed FDA oversight of that field back in the 90’s.

      It is buyer beware. I took supplements back in the day that I now know by effect to have contained steroids..No other way I would have improved in that manner.
      Though I would voluntarily never take them. If a maker can produce effect and then sales by adding a thing or two..the chances of getting caught are about zero.

  16. Step 1) Put pillow on lap

    Step 2) Put laptop on lap

    Step 3) avoid 99% of the issue (besides heat) if moving from lap to chest periodically (laying down that is).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This