39 ms·
The Decline In Male Fertility
- Tycho 13y agoMobile phones?
- atestu 13y agoUnlikely if you look at the chart that goes with the article http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-YE989_MFERTI_G_20130716114103.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-YE989_MFERTI_G_... cell phones weren't common in France in the early 90s yet that's when the biggest drop occurred.
- McUsr 13y agoDow Chemichals got rid of its stock of some very effective pesticides in the late 80's, on the term that they would never be sued.
- 3am 13y agoMarijuana. Seriously? WSJ desperately trying to suggest multiple causes to sidestep blaming the obesity epidemic. Reading between the lines that sounds a lot more correlated with the trend than what I would assume is pretty consistent pot usage over the last, say, 50 years. EDIT: remember, the idea isn't to figure out what causes reduced male fertility, it's to see which of those causes correlates best with the observation. EDIT 2: of course by the same logic, sugar intake is what's causing the obesity epidemic (the fatty foods comment in the article is unimpressive) EDIT 3: DanBC, excellent point about THC concentration. I didn't think of it. I can't find any data about consumption, nor am I committed enough to the subject to dig for it :)
- DanBC 13y ago(I'm strongly in favour of legalising drugs.) There are a few studies showing links between cannabis use and infertility in men. Smoking cannabis is a double whammy, because tobacco use is a leading cause of erectile dysfunction. > what I would assume is pretty consistent pot usage over the last, say, 50 years. That's a big assumption. I'd be interested to see any numbers to support it. Certainly in the UK it feels like people smoke more, smoke more often, and start earlier. But I don't have any numbers, this is just my opinion. I'd also be interested to see if modern cannabis actually is stronger than cannabis used in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.
- carbocation 13y ago>I'd also be interested to see if modern cannabis actually is stronger than cannabis used in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/UMPMC-quarterly-monitoring-report.pdf http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/UMPMC-quarter... Check out Table 2. (Seized) marijuana from the late 2000s has 10x as much THC as that from the mid-1970s.
- jlgreco 13y agoI suspect that most of the reason it seems that everybody is smoking is that the stigma (and concrete consequences) of being known to smoke are dropping so more people are willing to admit to it. It's legal for me to smoke, but I don't. Ten years ago it wasn't, but I could have if I were inclined. I don't think that legalization efforts or the like are really increasing the number of people who smoke, either you want to and did regardless, or you don't anyway. Maybe there was a temporary drop in the number of smokers before the kids that grew up on D.A.R.E. learned how to use the internet (and subsequently learned that no, pot won't kill you with just one hit...), but otherwise I would hesitate a guess that we are still around 1960's level consumption.
- hkolek 13y agowhat a crock of shit. THC levels are not rising. http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-information/33637-marijuana-myths.html http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-information... also watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039647/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039647/ > Smoking cannabis is a double whammy, because tobacco What? You can smoke cannabis without tobacco.
- DanBC 13y ago> what a crock of shit. calm down, it's a common suggestion that THC levels are rising and rather than just repeating it I asked if it is, in fact true. A simple "no" is better. Your first link does not support your point as strongly as you seem to think. Your second link is obviously a joke - no one would present such an obviously biased source with so many cherry picked reports seriously.
- fein 13y ago"Young men's marijuana use is linked to decreased sperm count, but not alcohol or cigarettes." Wow that's actually kinda nuts. I have no idea why on earth they would even bring alcohol and cigs into the mix. This is on the edge of saying smoking and drinking is absolutely OK. I guess booze has a pretty high chance of giving you kids you never knew about...
- crazygringo 13y agoAlso, fatty foods, seriously? I could understand correlation with obesity, but correlation with "high-fat diets" just seems misleading and irresponsible. I mean, presumably most of whatever correlation there is is coming from their level of obesity. They want me to believe that something like the paleo diet, of all things, is supposed to reduce sperm count in people of healthy weight?
- fein 13y agoEh, its probably more of the same "everything gives you cancer" nonsense, only now its sperm count. 3 weeks later and we find out the study was somehow horribly flawed.
- DanBC 13y agoIt's interesting seeing people form and then support their cognitive biases.
- CamperBob2 13y agoAnd downright scary when scientists do.
- darkarmani 13y agoMore likely to be the availability of porn than anything.
- hrktb 13y agoActualy it should help you keep fresh and healthy sperm[1] [http://ivf.net/ivf/daily-sex-helps-to-reduce-sperm-dna-damage-and-improve-fertility-o4272.html http://ivf.net/ivf/daily-sex-helps-to-reduce-sperm-dna-damag...]
- Ygg2 13y agoTrue, but also if you overdo it you reduce total number of sperm.
- epsylon 13y agoI'm surprised that the article doesn't mention environmental causes. It's been known for a while that almost all water involved in human activities is polluted and contain residues of pharmaceutical drugs, pesticides and other things. It's been shown that they mess with fish sexual functions, and they are strongly suspected as a cause for the decline of human male fertility. http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2013/05/22/study-chemical-blend-lowers-fish-testosterone/ http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2013/05/22/study-chemical-blen... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090118200636.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090118200636.ht...
- radicalbyte 13y agoIt's worth adding that the variation in testing is extremely high. When my wife and I had trouble getting pregnant, I was tested twice. In the first test, my count of live critters was under the minimum threshold. In the second test, the count was at the top of the range. All other variables were the same (time between production/delivery, time between previous production and test production and volume). Oh, and we're expecting our first kid in 8 weeks :)
- wavefunction 13y agoCongrats! Pretty interesting that your testing results would land at the extremes.
- crazygringo 13y ago> In general, men produce upward of 60 million sperm per milliliter of semen. ...But below that threshold and particularly under about 20 million per ml, their ability to help conceive drops. It may take a couple longer than a year to conceive... I can't even intuitively understand how going from 60 million to 20 million would make any difference at all. There are millions there, you know. I can understand how dropping by 99% might affect things, but how on earth could a drop of 2/3 result in taking a year??? Does anyone know of an explanation?
- Centigonal 13y agoWell, the uterus is a pretty caustic environment for sperm to be in. I have no specialized knowledge about this topic, but my guess would be that a large percentage of sperm don't make it to the egg, and so a drop of 2/3 would reduce the probability of a few making it that far by a lot.
- thangalin 13y agohttp://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-long-do-sperm-live.shtml http://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-long-do-sperm-live.s... "around the time of ovulation, a healthy female body produces a particular cervical mucous that creates a protective, hospitable environment for sperm"
- redwood 13y agoMaybe a couple that bones 4 times per month (a lot of couples are this way), some percent of the time with success... Well if the average sex has a 10% chance of inducing pregnancy (this is perhaps the case for certain pairs more than others), then it will take, on average, 2.5 months to get pregnant. Perhaps the 2/3 drop plays out linearly (since it's simply remarkably rare that a sperm gets thru to the egg... Suddenly it might take an average of 7.5 months. If this is the case you suddenly have far more couples giving up, separating etc. Perhaps it's a bigger deal than we imagine. I agree tho: you'd think it'd almost be a plus... less need for birth control! win!
- 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- VladRussian2 13y ago>that we've removed ourselves from so many evolutionary selective pressures. we can't remove ourselves from evolutionary selective pressures. Some old go away, some new come, ie. the nature of such pressures just change, yet the selection continues. And as result there will always be the "fittest" specimen, it will just look and behave differently than the one for the previous version of selective pressures. >the mean of our reproductive ability will drop. with IVF, cloning, etc... that specific selective pressure may go away. On the other side - the ability to make money to pay for the best set of genes would make for nice new selective pressure.
- ChrisNorstrom 13y agoI'd like to see more studies on the effects of having a cell phone in your pocket all day long because: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/05/16/131324.htm http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/05/16/131324.htm Plant sprouts won't germinate when placed near a wireless router. Also sleeping with a cell phone next to your head apparently affects concentration the next day.
- guttermaw 13y agoAny reference on that second part? Because I'd guess that the phone wakes you up, and insufficient sleep affects concentration. IOW, you'd need to blind the experiment.
- jl6 13y agoNo disrespect to the students involved, but that experiment has not been reproduced in a rigorous test environment as far as I'm aware. It would be an extraordinary result so I would be disinclined to accept it without extraordinary evidence.
- diminoten 13y ago> Plant sprouts won't germinate when placed near a wireless router. Also sleeping with a cell phone next to your head apparently affects concentration the next day. If I germinated a plant sprout in my room near a wireless router, would you stop going around making this claim?
- lostlogin 13y agoI'd happily have nothing germinate near my router if it would just route properly. It updates new firmware every time I reset it. Turns out this can cause problems. Who'd have thought? Thanks Orcon, New Zealand.
- WalterSear 13y agoThat plants and wireless routers news article you refer to was bad reporting, nothing more.
- 13y ago
- qubitsam 13y agoThis is an old discussion around the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891885
- eeky 13y agoSome theories off the top of my head: Chemicals in the air/water/food/clothes, wireless electromagnetic waves from routers/cellphones, increase in stimulating porn/masturbation, depression, over the counter/recreational drugs, and of course faulty testing methods to acquire this data.
- cm2012 13y agoIf the effect is real, isn't this obviously the effect of increased masturbation, the trend being easily accessable porn? A good test would be to requiring subjects to abstain from ejaculation for a certain period of time.
- 300bps 13y agoSince frequency of emission leads to sperm count changes, it would be interesting to see a plot of sperm count against easy availability and societal acceptance of porn.
- hrktb 13y agoIt would be interesting, bu migh not relevant in regard of fertility. Sperm count decreases, but sperm health increases and the consensus is that daily ejaculation sould be OK source: http://ivf.net/ivf/daily-sex-helps-to-reduce-sperm-dna-damage-and-improve-fertility-o4272.html http://ivf.net/ivf/daily-sex-helps-to-reduce-sperm-dna-damag...
- piptastic 13y agoIs marijuana the answer to overpopulation???
- Ygg2 13y agoNo, giving women education and right to abort does.
- everettForth 13y agoMy guess: Skinny Jeans.
- rorrr2 13y agoWe have much bigger problems than not as many humans being born (assuming the study is correct).
- lettergram 13y agoI wonder if it could just be that porn is more accessible... AKA release one payload, take some time to recover fully?
- mullingitover 13y agoGiven that we have 7 billion people on the planet and climbing, we definitely do need to figure out what's causing the infertility so we can promote it throughout the world.
- xentronium 13y agoGiven the distribution, western societies already know how to not reproduce. Now we need the opposite.
- AutoCorrect 13y agoit's pretty simple: quit educating the females. Think I'm joking? There are studies proving an inverse correlation between education and number of progeny.
- roel_v 13y agoActually when you apply the correlation between rising income levels and lowering reproduction rates to the projections of rising incomes of those who are now poor and reproducing at (relatively) high rates, global population is expected to start falling in as little as 20 years (admittedly this is a political topic and these is a wide range of projections available, including many who foresee an increase to 15 or 20 billion in 100 years). Either way, what's causing infertility is quite obvious - economic prosperity does.
- shirro 13y agoGet everyone out in the cold air wearing kilts. The testicles hang on the outside for a reason. BTW have my third kid due in a couple of months. So survival of the fittest is working out fine for me.
- ekm2 13y agoCould cold showers be the solution? http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/01/18/the-james-bond-shower-a-shot-of-cold-water-for-health-and-vitality/ http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/01/18/the-james-bond-show...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- DigitalSea 13y agoI've been writing up a blog post on the subject of extinction for a little why now and my theory is essentially this happening. Mankind could theoretically go extinct because we get to a point where we can no longer naturally reproduce. Sure science in reproduction has come a long way, but because it's a manual and drawn out process, I don't think science could even remedy reproduction issues faster than the population starts to decline. Is it really a surprise sperm rates are lowering given the number of chemicals in our food, pollution and exposure to hazardous materials on a daily basis? Sperm counts aren't the only factors in reproduction but rather environment variables also play an important part in the process. What we eat, what we breath and how we live are also other serious factors and given the modern diet is anything but nutritional for a lot of people, it spells disaster in the long run. Reading an article like this kind of scares me. Because it kind of gives what I've been debating internally inside of my head for the last few weeks. The day we stop being able to naturally reproduce is the day mankind is in some serious trouble.
- EdiX 13y ago> Is it really a surprise sperm rates are lowering given the number of chemicals in our food, pollution and exposure to hazardous materials on a daily basis? Why would it affect sperm count but not longevity?
- DigitalSea 13y agoWe might be living longer, but that doesn't mean we're any healthier. I think longevity has something to do with medicine reaching a point where we can keep terminally sick people alive for years before they die.
- McUsr 13y agoI'd like to see if the pattern of decline correlates with Banana Consumption. This isn't a joke.
- Qantourisc 13y agoAnd this is bad why ? :) We don't need more people on this globe, less would be better !
- gadders 13y agoOne thing I've heard that fertility surgeons joke about is that by providing ICSI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracytoplasmic_sperm_injection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracytoplasmic_sperm_injectio...) they are "breeding more work for their sons." Basically, people/genes that would have died out are being helped to continue in the gene pool.
- deepvibrations 13y agoI love how everyone is so worried about male fertility and how it is referred to as a sperm count 'crisis'. The real elephant in the room which is never spoken about is overpopulation of our planet. This is far bigger problem and in my opinion, any slight percentage drop in male fertility would be a blessing in disguise!