Here in the US, and in Europe to a lesser extent, technologies are assumed to be unharmful until there is strong evidence otherwise. Cell phones, microwaves, the pill, plastics... Perhaps in the future we will take a more skeptical, cautious stance, and not immediately ostracize anyone who raises questions. By not taking these matters seriously, we leave ourselves vulnerable to any dangers, naturally. There is no one size fits all solution, as every society has its own set of circumstances and attitudes.
More narrowly, I wonder if there is any short term for solution for this. Would a case that blocks radiation also block the wireless signal? Are there substitute parts that emit less radiation? Apparently there is, but the industry doesn't want to make a big deal of it and spend more to make the same product especially when manufacturer profits are already zero outside of Apple and Samsung.
Here is a list of low and high radiation phones - http://cellphones.procon.org/view.resour...eID=003054
I don't see any clear pattern, except that Samsung tends to have lower radiation models while Nokia and Kyocera have higher ones, judging by the top and bottom 20 models ranked by radiation.
"Highlights
•The potential role of mobile phone exposure on sperm quality needs to be clarified.
•A systematic review was done followed by a meta-analysis using random effects models.
•Mobile phone exposure was associated with reduced sperm motility and viability.
•No effect on concentration was apparent.
Abstract
Mobile phones are owned by most of the adult population worldwide. Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from these devices could potentially affect sperm development and function. Around 14% of couples in high- and middle-income countries have difficulty conceiving, and there are unexplained declines in semen quality reported in several countries. Given the ubiquity of mobile phone use, the potential role of this environmental exposure needs to be clarified. A systematic review was therefore conducted, followed by meta-analysis using random effects models, to determine whether exposure to RF-EMR emitted from mobile phones affects human sperm quality. Participants were from fertility clinic and research centres. The sperm quality outcome measures were motility, viability and concentration, which are the parameters most frequently used in clinical settings to assess fertility.
We used ten studies in the meta-analysis, including 1492 samples. Exposure to mobile phones was associated with reduced sperm motility (mean difference − 8.1% (95% CI − 13.1, − 3.2)) and viability (mean difference − 9.1% (95% CI − 18.4, 0.2)), but the effects on concentration were more equivocal. The results were consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies. We conclude that pooled results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality. Further study is required to determine the full clinical implications for both sub-fertile men and the general population.
Abbreviations
CI, confidence interval, RF-EMR, radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, SAR, specific absorption rate, EEG, electroencephalography, ROS, reactive oxygen species, FEM, fixed effect model, REM, random effects model"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...2014001354
More narrowly, I wonder if there is any short term for solution for this. Would a case that blocks radiation also block the wireless signal? Are there substitute parts that emit less radiation? Apparently there is, but the industry doesn't want to make a big deal of it and spend more to make the same product especially when manufacturer profits are already zero outside of Apple and Samsung.
Here is a list of low and high radiation phones - http://cellphones.procon.org/view.resour...eID=003054
I don't see any clear pattern, except that Samsung tends to have lower radiation models while Nokia and Kyocera have higher ones, judging by the top and bottom 20 models ranked by radiation.
"Highlights
•The potential role of mobile phone exposure on sperm quality needs to be clarified.
•A systematic review was done followed by a meta-analysis using random effects models.
•Mobile phone exposure was associated with reduced sperm motility and viability.
•No effect on concentration was apparent.
Abstract
Mobile phones are owned by most of the adult population worldwide. Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from these devices could potentially affect sperm development and function. Around 14% of couples in high- and middle-income countries have difficulty conceiving, and there are unexplained declines in semen quality reported in several countries. Given the ubiquity of mobile phone use, the potential role of this environmental exposure needs to be clarified. A systematic review was therefore conducted, followed by meta-analysis using random effects models, to determine whether exposure to RF-EMR emitted from mobile phones affects human sperm quality. Participants were from fertility clinic and research centres. The sperm quality outcome measures were motility, viability and concentration, which are the parameters most frequently used in clinical settings to assess fertility.
We used ten studies in the meta-analysis, including 1492 samples. Exposure to mobile phones was associated with reduced sperm motility (mean difference − 8.1% (95% CI − 13.1, − 3.2)) and viability (mean difference − 9.1% (95% CI − 18.4, 0.2)), but the effects on concentration were more equivocal. The results were consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies. We conclude that pooled results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality. Further study is required to determine the full clinical implications for both sub-fertile men and the general population.
Abbreviations
CI, confidence interval, RF-EMR, radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, SAR, specific absorption rate, EEG, electroencephalography, ROS, reactive oxygen species, FEM, fixed effect model, REM, random effects model"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...2014001354
![[Image: wink.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/wink.gif)
