you knew this was coming ... link between WiFi and sperm count
Thread Starter
#CustomUserTitle
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 63,855
Likes: 1
From: glass case of emotion
you knew this was coming ... link between WiFi and sperm count
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15943816
I would always laugh when I'd see guys using bluetooth ear pieces.
Me: Why are you using that?
Them: I'm scared of the radiation.
Them: *cellphone in their front pocket*
Me: :facepalm:
I would always laugh when I'd see guys using bluetooth ear pieces.
Me: Why are you using that?
Them: I'm scared of the radiation.
Them: *cellphone in their front pocket*
Me: :facepalm:
12:00AM Atlanta time...
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
From: Prince Edward Island
The ironic thing is the computer sitting on the guys lap. That is a MAJOR cause of low sperm counts, and why laptops are now called "notebooks"
When you heat up your nuts, they have to descend to keep your sperm from dying - if your legs are closed with a laptop on them, they can't. So remove the laptop from your groin and you should be good to go.
When you heat up your nuts, they have to descend to keep your sperm from dying - if your legs are closed with a laptop on them, they can't. So remove the laptop from your groin and you should be good to go.
Last edited by lowbrow; Nov 29, 2011 at 08:47 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,152
Likes: 0
From: Golden, CO
I've got the full article in PDF, but can't attach it because it's 562k and the attachment limit is 488k. If anybody wants it, PM me your e-mail addy and I'll e-mail it to you.
As per usual, the reporting on this scientific article (as well as the article itself) is a little misleading. The primary conclusion of the paper should be "There were no differences in the percentage of viable sperm between the test and control groups (Fig. 3A)." Basically, the number of live sperm was not different between the two samples. However, the number of "motile sperm" was reduced in the test group by approximately 15%, and there were more dna-damaged sperm in the test group (3.3% vs. 8.3%, but the confidence intervals on these 2 numbers overlap so I'm not sure how they are calling this a statistically significant result). So while the number of living sperm didn't change, the laptop may have reduced the sperm's effectiveness somewhat.
I also would have rather seen this as an in vivo test instead of in vitro. Seems like it would be relatively easy to obtain sperm samples from men before and after laptop use, rather than in an artificial lab environment. The small sample size also begs for this to be replicated in another lab before declaring this result to be true.
As per usual, the reporting on this scientific article (as well as the article itself) is a little misleading. The primary conclusion of the paper should be "There were no differences in the percentage of viable sperm between the test and control groups (Fig. 3A)." Basically, the number of live sperm was not different between the two samples. However, the number of "motile sperm" was reduced in the test group by approximately 15%, and there were more dna-damaged sperm in the test group (3.3% vs. 8.3%, but the confidence intervals on these 2 numbers overlap so I'm not sure how they are calling this a statistically significant result). So while the number of living sperm didn't change, the laptop may have reduced the sperm's effectiveness somewhat.
I also would have rather seen this as an in vivo test instead of in vitro. Seems like it would be relatively easy to obtain sperm samples from men before and after laptop use, rather than in an artificial lab environment. The small sample size also begs for this to be replicated in another lab before declaring this result to be true.