4 ms·

> Yes, there have been numerous studies showing that the radio frequencies (radiation) used by cell phones and wifi are correlated (maybe causative, but not 100

by gspr 6y ago

> Yes, there have been numerous studies showing that the radio frequencies (radiation) used by cell phones and wifi are correlated (maybe causative, but not 100% sure) to reduced sperm count and quality. Do you have some references? > This is especially true when you have your phone in your pocket or your laptop on your lap. Are you sure you're not mixing up heat and radiation here? OK, technically radiative heat is radiation, but surely that's not what you meant. Sitting outside on a warm day with a pillow on your crotch probably isn't good for your sperm either, but it doesn't seem honest to chalk that up to radiation (even though technically radiative may have warmed you in the first place). > Not to mention it seems we have more commercial exposure too. We have GPS, satellite TV, StarLink, cell towers, etc all vying for 100% coverage. However, I didn't look up the wavelengths, so these might not be an issue, or might cause some other kind of issue. I'm sorry, this is pure speculation unless you can back it up by something. "We didn't have all these things in the past" isn't an argument for anything. It's like claiming that the cumulative number of HN comments is rising while sperm quality is decreasing, hence HN is killing sperm. > I guess I'm just saying it should be no surprise that sperm count and quality is decreasing if we know that certain RF is linked to it and we are increasing that RF exposure. Do we know that those kinds of RF are linked to it? X-rays to your balls, sure! But GPS and cellphones? Evidence, please.

giantg2 6y ago
"Do you have some references?" Here's one of many if you google. https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-computers-decrease-sperm-motility-increase-sperm-dna-fragmentation.html https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-comput... "Are you sure you're not mixing up heat and radiation here?" I'm not. If you look at my other statements in my comment, you will see that distance plays an important part in RF exposure. Energy dissipates rapidly and is generally minimal beyond 6' when we are talking about sub-watt consumer devices. "Not to mention it seems we have more commercial exposure too. We have GPS, satellite TV, StarLink, cell towers, etc all vying for 100% coverage. However, I didn't look up the wavelengths, so these might not be an issue, or might cause some other kind of issue." You quoted me in the above and complained about speculation. You can see in the italics that I acknowledge that I don't know if the distant transmitters cause problems or not. "Do we know that those kinds of RF are linked to it? X-rays to your balls, sure! But GPS and cellphones? Evidence, please." I've already linked one study. I'm not going to google everything for you. You can us PubMed too. I'd also like to ask where your evidence is that it is harmless? Did you also miss the study that said specific brain cancer incidence is raised by holding a cell phone to your head? It seems your position that it's all harmless is just speculation. https://www.consumerreports.org/cell-phones/what-the-cell-phone-brain-cancer-study-means-for-you/ https://www.consumerreports.org/cell-phones/what-the-cell-ph...
- gspr 6y ago
  > > "Do you have some references?" > > Here's one of many if you google. https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-computers-decrease-sperm-motility-increase-sperm-dna-fragmentation.html https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-comput... A blog post by "Dalene Barton - Certified Herbalist, Birth Doula". Lol, you've got to be kidding me?! > You quoted me in the above and complained about speculation. You can see in the italics that I acknowledge that I don't know if the distant transmitters cause problems or not. So why bring them up? Moreover: You also don't know if the close ones do. I mean, your herbalist does, but that doesn't count ;-) > I've already linked one study. "Study". Something peer-reviewed, please. It can be done by a herbalist if you insist, but it needs to be peer-reviewed by actual experts. > I'd also like to ask where your evidence is that it is harmless? That no harm has been found. The same class of evidence you rely on when you eat a carrot and wonder whether it's poisonous or not. > Did you also miss the study that said specific brain cancer incidence is raised by holding a cell phone to your head? Glanced at it now. Please correct tme if I'm wrong, but is it really true that that they did a study with n=90 rats and used the occurrance of 2 cases of tumors in them, versus 0 in the control, as evidence???
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "A blog post by "Dalene Barton - Certified Herbalist, Birth Doula". Lol, you've got to be kidding me?!" I'm not citing the blog. The blog merely explains the results of the study. It is a peer reviewed study available through Elseiver. "That no harm has been found. The same class of evidence you rely on when you eat a carrot and wonder whether it's poisonous or not." Let's see your peer reviewed articles that prove it - that was the standard for evidence that you set in your comment. "Glanced at it now. Please correct tme if I'm wrong, but is it really true that that they did a study with n=90 rats and used the occurrance of 2 cases of tumors in them, versus 0 in the control, as evidence???" I gave you one example. Please do some research of your own instead of just trolling. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25738972/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25738972/
- SigmundA 6y ago
  Here is another later study that shows no correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5303122/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5303122/ There is a lot of speculation and no confirmed mechanism for a milliwatt microwave transmitter to damage human sperm. Would you be worried about a blinking led light near you? Thats the power levels we are dealing with and the visible light has much higher photon energy closer to ionizing being in the terahertz range. Meanwhile go take a nice walk outside under the 1000 watt per square meter nuclear fusion radiator that includes many watts of actual cancer causing near ionizing radiation.

by gspr 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

"Do you have some references?" Here's one of many if you google. https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-computers-decrease-sperm-motility-increase-sperm-dna-fragmentation.html https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-comput... "Are you sure you're not mixing up heat and radiation here?" I'm not. If you look at my other statements in my comment, you will see that distance plays an important part in RF exposure. Energy dissipates rapidly and is generally minimal beyond 6' when we are talking about sub-watt consumer devices. "Not to mention it seems we have more commercial exposure too. We have GPS, satellite TV, StarLink, cell towers, etc all vying for 100% coverage. However, I didn't look up the wavelengths, so these might not be an issue, or might cause some other kind of issue." You quoted me in the above and complained about speculation. You can see in the italics that I acknowledge that I don't know if the distant transmitters cause problems or not. "Do we know that those kinds of RF are linked to it? X-rays to your balls, sure! But GPS and cellphones? Evidence, please." I've already linked one study. I'm not going to google everything for you. You can us PubMed too. I'd also like to ask where your evidence is that it is harmless? Did you also miss the study that said specific brain cancer incidence is raised by holding a cell phone to your head? It seems your position that it's all harmless is just speculation. https://www.consumerreports.org/cell-phones/what-the-cell-phone-brain-cancer-study-means-for-you/ https://www.consumerreports.org/cell-phones/what-the-cell-ph...

gspr 6y ago
> > "Do you have some references?" > > Here's one of many if you google. https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-computers-decrease-sperm-motility-increase-sperm-dna-fragmentation.html https://natural-fertility-info.com/study-wi-fi-laptop-comput... A blog post by "Dalene Barton - Certified Herbalist, Birth Doula". Lol, you've got to be kidding me?! > You quoted me in the above and complained about speculation. You can see in the italics that I acknowledge that I don't know if the distant transmitters cause problems or not. So why bring them up? Moreover: You also don't know if the close ones do. I mean, your herbalist does, but that doesn't count ;-) > I've already linked one study. "Study". Something peer-reviewed, please. It can be done by a herbalist if you insist, but it needs to be peer-reviewed by actual experts. > I'd also like to ask where your evidence is that it is harmless? That no harm has been found. The same class of evidence you rely on when you eat a carrot and wonder whether it's poisonous or not. > Did you also miss the study that said specific brain cancer incidence is raised by holding a cell phone to your head? Glanced at it now. Please correct tme if I'm wrong, but is it really true that that they did a study with n=90 rats and used the occurrance of 2 cases of tumors in them, versus 0 in the control, as evidence???
- giantg2 6y ago
  "A blog post by "Dalene Barton - Certified Herbalist, Birth Doula". Lol, you've got to be kidding me?!" I'm not citing the blog. The blog merely explains the results of the study. It is a peer reviewed study available through Elseiver. "That no harm has been found. The same class of evidence you rely on when you eat a carrot and wonder whether it's poisonous or not." Let's see your peer reviewed articles that prove it - that was the standard for evidence that you set in your comment. "Glanced at it now. Please correct tme if I'm wrong, but is it really true that that they did a study with n=90 rats and used the occurrance of 2 cases of tumors in them, versus 0 in the control, as evidence???" I gave you one example. Please do some research of your own instead of just trolling. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25738972/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25738972/
SigmundA 6y ago
Here is another later study that shows no correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5303122/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5303122/ There is a lot of speculation and no confirmed mechanism for a milliwatt microwave transmitter to damage human sperm. Would you be worried about a blinking led light near you? Thats the power levels we are dealing with and the visible light has much higher photon energy closer to ionizing being in the terahertz range. Meanwhile go take a nice walk outside under the 1000 watt per square meter nuclear fusion radiator that includes many watts of actual cancer causing near ionizing radiation.