Cell phones lower sperm count?

[chrisberez]

What do you think of this new study that just came out claiming cell phones lower sperm count? Honestly I don't buy it. It was claimed that there was a link between cell phones and brain tumors, and that's complete bunk.

There's a blurb here.

As far as the study being a load of bull, there's a CNN story stating just that here.

Of course, like the whole second hand smoke thing, people will freak out and cite this study anyway and ignore the fact that it has been debunked.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Roger Coghill has provided good, strong evidence for the negative effects of chronic EM exposure.

You can find his lab at www.cogreslab.co.uk

 

[chrisberez]

Roger Coghill has provided good, strong evidence for the negative effects of chronic EM exposure.

You can find his lab at www.cogreslab.co.uk

Are you joking? How am I supposed to take seriously a guy who does research into magnet therapy, and has a statement like the following on this website?

Some of the research we have conducted at our laboratories is also included, but should not be taken as having been peer reviewed unless indicated.

Research that has NOT been peer-reviewed. Hmmm, I wonder why that is...

His website doesn't seem to be any different from the other pseudoscientific woo-woos. He talks the talk (or tries to at least) but does not walk the walk.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Are you joking? How am I supposed to take seriously a guy who does research into magnet therapy, and has a statement like the following on this website?



Research that has NOT been peer-reviewed. Hmmm, I wonder why that is...

His website doesn't seem to be any different from the other pseudoscientific woo-woos. He talks the talk (or tries to at least) but does not walk the walk.

Ah, for a minute I thought you were asking a serious question, I had no idea you were a 'fundie' in disguise.

 

[juryjone]

Chris,

I don't know if you're seen the thread on Bioelectromagnetics, but if you had, you'd know that cogreslab is only slightly more coherent than Luci. If you haven't, I don't recommend trying to make your way through all 58 pages of it. I salute the people who have the stomach for that sort of thing.

 

[steenkh]

It is also interesting that Luci apparently subscribes to the scientific garbage that Coghill produces.

It has always surprised me that people who claim to have an open mind apparently leave it so wide open that the critical sense has left through it.

 

[chrisberez]

Chris,

I don't know if you're seen the thread on Bioelectromagnetics, but if you had, you'd know that cogreslab is only slightly more coherent than Luci. If you haven't, I don't recommend trying to make your way through all 58 pages of it. I salute the people who have the stomach for that sort of thing.

Thanks, I figured as such. I looked around the website, and it was pretty clear there was nothing to it.

Ah, for a minute I thought you were asking a serious question, I had no idea you were a 'fundie' in disguise.

If by "fundie" you mean someone who doesn't believe something for which there isn't any shred of evidence for, then yeah, I guess I'm a "fundie" and proud of it.

 

[Vitnir]

Actually it's not that easy to outright reject an association between mobile phones and cancer. Hardell has done a few studies indicating increased risk using mobile and cordless phones. There is no consensus either way, personally I'm not afraid of using mobile phones.

 

[Wudang]

The New Scientist article on it pointed out that there did not seem to be any account taken of confounding factors, in particular that men who use mobiles more are more likely to have stress jobs and stress can be a factor in lowered sperm count.

 

[Pragmatist]

Actually it's not that easy to outright reject an association between mobile phones and cancer. Hardell has done a few studies indicating increased risk using mobile and cordless phones. There is no consensus either way, personally I'm not afraid of using mobile phones.

I agree you can't reject the possibility, but these epidemiological studies cannot show a direct association, only a correlation.

The conclusion in the abstract you cited was: "CONCLUSION: The ipsilateral use of an analogue cellular phone yielded a significantly increased risk for malignant brain tumours."

And that does NOT follow from the data. The conclusion is faulty. At best they can say there is a correlation between the data and the CLAIMED phone usage . It does NOT automatically follow that there is a direct association between the cancers and the phones. And without that nobody can possibly claim any "risk".

This is one of my main objections in this area, people are indiscriminately misusing statistics to make definitive statements that there is little basis for.

 

[Rob Lister]

I agree you can't reject the possibility, but these epidemiological studies cannot show a direct association, only a correlation.

The conclusion in the abstract you cited was: "CONCLUSION: The ipsilateral use of an analogue cellular phone yielded a significantly increased risk for malignant brain tumours."

And that does NOT follow from the data. The conclusion is faulty. At best they can say there is a correlation between the data and the CLAIMED phone usage . It does NOT automatically follow that there is a direct association between the cancers and the phones. And without that nobody can possibly claim any "risk".

This is one of my main objections in this area, people are indiscriminately misusing statistics to make definitive statements that there is little basis for.

I haven't read the study (boy/wolf/frequency problem) but tell me if the phrase "requires more research", or a similar phrase appears anywhere within it. This is really the only conclusion that's important (to the researchers). It's sad that many researchers are not really in it for the knowledge so much as they are in it for the funding.

 

[flyboy217]

Of course, like the whole second hand smoke thing, people will freak out and cite this study anyway and ignore the fact that it has been debunked.

Hold up. Secondhand smoke is not bad for you?

 

[Vitnir]

...

The conclusion in the abstract you cited was: "CONCLUSION: The ipsilateral use of an analogue cellular phone yielded a significantly increased risk for malignant brain tumours."
...

Ok I don't know how much you know about epidemiology, I don't know that much myself but I don't think that quote says there is a causal connection. If you run an analysis you always get a X gives a increased risk for Y.

 

[Stumpy]

The conclusion in the abstract you cited was: "CONCLUSION: The ipsilateral use of an analogue cellular phone yielded a significantly increased risk for malignant brain tumours."

The numbers quoted in the article actually show that there is no signifcant statistical risk from the use of mobile phones. Epidemiology does not accept risk ratios of less than 3 generally, to take account of natural statistical outcomes and biases inherent in the study. The best source of info on this is John Brignell's numberwatch site. His latest book actually focuses on epidemiology and is surprisingly accessible. Both of his books, available on his site are essential skeptical resources.

 

[Vitnir]

What isn't evident from the abstract is that Hardell used a method he got a lot of critique for. I'm not familiar with the details of his work but he's been named Swedish champion of unecessary cancer alarms by his heaviest opponents.

From people a little more familiar with his work than journalists I have learned however that he's not quite so unproffesional that some might want to think. I'm also a bit sceptical about drawing the line at relative risks of 3. If you have a number of studies all showing an increased risk of 1.4 for cancer using mobile phones you can't just reject it by saying it's not significant. It is not sure that Hardells methods hold up to scrutiny as being the first study showing such an increased risk, we will just have to wait for further studies made in other parts of the world.

 

[Stumpy]

I'm also a bit sceptical about drawing the line at relative risks of 3. If you have a number of studies all showing an increased risk of 1.4 for cancer using mobile phones you can't just reject it by saying it's not significant. It is not sure that Hardells methods hold up to scrutiny as being the first study showing such an increased risk, we will just have to wait for further studies made in other parts of the world.

The main groups at risk from brain tumours are those least likely to use mobile phones - the very old and the very young. How do you balance four postive studies against those that find no correlation?.
Not only can you reject studies showing relative risks of less that 3, you MUST! It's a complex subject, but if I can again commend the John Brignell books, you will see exactly why you must.

 

[Lucianarchy]

The main groups at risk from brain tumours are those least likely to use mobile phones - the very old and the very young.

Meaning? They don't matter. or something? The young, and we are talking kids as young as 8, quite frequently use mobiles in the UK. In fact kids are one of the largest consumers on the phone market.

 

[Vitnir]

Well I'm sorry but that is strictly John Brignells opinion, there is no such defined limit for relative risks. In addition it depends entirely on the study if you can achieve such high relative risks. If you have a yes/no exposure then yes you can get that high. One step in increased exposure (exposure vs no exposure) will then get you a relative risk of maybe as high as 3. But imagine that you have continous exposure data and one step of increased exposure is one year, to demand an increased risk of 3 for each year of exposure, well you soon will realize that you will come close to a infinite risk.

 

[cogreslab]

This isn't my thread, and I am under some pressure to get back to dealing with my own (Bioelectromagnetics), but I was mentioned in it. So far as I know this study was not yet peer review published, but only scheduled to appear at some conference. I think we should withold judgenment until it is properly published. However, I do recall a study by Lancranjan, Maionescu et al, (1976 I think) which examined 32 male Yugoslavian airmen exposed to RF/MW which found the same loss of spermatogenesis and lowered libido.

This lowering of sper=matogenesis has been going on ever since the 1950s when EMF usage increased substantially. We cannot dismiss the possibility, but there are plenty of confounders too.

 

[Rolfe]

This lowering of sper=matogenesis has been going on ever since the 1950s when EMF usage increased substantially. We cannot dismiss the possibility, but there are plenty of confounders too.

Actually, when the available data are correctly analysed, it transpires that there is no evidence that there has been any fall in human sperm count, and the analysis tends to suggest that it has in fact remained constant.

I can't link to this, as it was part of a paper on how to analyse published results intelligently, which was given at a scientific conference I attended. However, the speaker was Dr. Andrew Moore, an expert on meta-analysis and evidence-based medicine, and he made his point very well.

Rolfe.