NEWS: Heavy mobile use 'damages sperm' [not a joke]

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>

Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
suggested.

Researchers found those men who used a phone for four hours or more a
day had fewer sperm and those they had moved less well and were of
poorer quality.

The Ohio study involving 364 men was presented to the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine in New Orleans.

But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
sedentary was the cause.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
>
> Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
> suggested.
>
> Researchers found those men who used a phone for four hours or more a
> day had fewer sperm and those they had moved less well and were of
> poorer quality.
>
> The Ohio study involving 364 men was presented to the American
> Society for Reproductive Medicine in New Orleans.
>
> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
> they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
> sedentary was the cause.
>
> [MORE]

Don't carry your phone in your jock strap!

--
..

On 2006-10-24, ©®©@®.©®© <©®©@®.©®©> wrote:

>> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to
>> blame, as they were in use and not near the testes, and it
>> may be being sedentary was the cause.
>>
>> [MORE]
>
> Don't carry your phone in your jock strap!

The point was that the low/bad sperm count didn't correlate to
_carrying_ a phone. It correlated to _talking_ on a phone. The
more time spent _talking_ on a phone the worse the sperm count.

That means that as the time the phone was carried in the pocket
dropped, sperm count did as well. The conclusion is therefore
_Do_ carry your phone in your jock strap. And don't take it
out to talk on it.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Now KEN is having
at a MENTAL CRISIS beacuse
visi.com his "R.V." PAYMENTS are
OVER-DUE!!

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-10-24, ©®©@®.©®© <©®©@®.©®©> wrote:
>>> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to
>>> blame, as they were in use and not near the testes, and it
>>> may be being sedentary was the cause.
>>
>> Don't carry your phone in your jock strap!
>
> The point was that the low/bad sperm count didn't correlate to
> _carrying_ a phone. It correlated to _talking_ on a phone. The
> more time spent _talking_ on a phone the worse the sperm count.

Don't talk on the phone in your jock strap!

--
"...by March 2000, President Clinton informed Congress he could no longer
certify that 'North Korea is not seeking to develop or acquire the capability
to enrich uranium.'"
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/northkorea/nuclear.html>

<©®©@®.©®©> wrote in message news:20061024153724.583$B6@newsreader.com...
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
> >
> > Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
> > suggested.


Your typical cellphone does not put out enough rf energy to be a health
risk. Also the frequencies used at the power levels of the typical cellphone
make them very harmless to human health.
A few years back, some nut started saying that cell phone use would cause
brain damage as well because of holding the cell phone by the ear.

On 2006-10-24, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2006-10-24, ©®©@®.©®© <©®©@®.©®©> wrote:
>>>> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to
>>>> blame, as they were in use and not near the testes, and it
>>>> may be being sedentary was the cause.
>>>
>>> Don't carry your phone in your jock strap!
>>
>> The point was that the low/bad sperm count didn't correlate to
>> _carrying_ a phone. It correlated to _talking_ on a phone. The
>> more time spent _talking_ on a phone the worse the sperm count.
>
> Don't talk on the phone in your jock strap!

With a bluetooth headset you could if you wanted to...

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Spreading peanut
at butter reminds me of
visi.com opera!! I wonder why?

On 24 Oct 2006 19:36:58 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , ©®©@®.©®©
wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
>>
>> Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
>> suggested.

The way I read this was that the sort of person who spends 4h+ on his
phone each day is the sort of person who never meets women anyway, and
to whom Nature has deliberately given damaged sperm so they can be
removed from the gene pool....

Maybe phones are the new Flash Car....
--
Mark McIntyre

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:28:03 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2006-10-24, ©®©@®.©®© <©®©@®.©®©> wrote:
>>>> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to
>>>> blame, as they were in use and not near the testes, and it
>>>> may be being sedentary was the cause.
>>>
>>> Don't carry your phone in your jock strap!
>>
>> The point was that the low/bad sperm count didn't correlate to
>> _carrying_ a phone. It correlated to _talking_ on a phone. The
>> more time spent _talking_ on a phone the worse the sperm count.
>
>Don't talk on the phone in your jock strap!

For some people, talking out of their arse is something they can't avoid.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell
Eridani Star System

MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Mail Me Anywhere - http://www.MailMeAnywhere.com/ - Mobile email

"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4q2tj219etr1cfu06ekag504me2hkfmiv2@4ax.com...
> On 24 Oct 2006 19:36:58 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , ©®©@®.©®©
> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
>>>
>>> Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
>>> suggested.

I suppose I could conduct a study that says the crow of a rooster CAUSES the
sun to rise. It is a very repeatable experiment and the correlation is very
strong.

David

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
>
> Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
> suggested.
>
> Researchers found those men who used a phone for four hours or more a
> day had fewer sperm and those they had moved less well and were of
> poorer quality.
>
> The Ohio study involving 364 men was presented to the American
> Society for Reproductive Medicine in New Orleans.
>
> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
> they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
> sedentary was the cause.
>
> [MORE]


Is the the infamous "taliking out of your ass" syndrone?

--
..

I'll try to keep my balls off the phone. :0)

"Sarge" <sarge@36db.com> wrote:
> I'll try to keep my balls off the phone. :0)

Do not use your phone as a jock strap!

--
..

<©®©@®.©®©> wrote in message news:20061025013729.848$76@newsreader.com...
> "Sarge" <sarge@36db.com> wrote:
>> I'll try to keep my balls off the phone. :0)
>
> Do not use your phone as a jock strap!
>
It's all good as long as it is set to vibrate ;)

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:

><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
>
> Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
> suggested.

Oh-oh. My phone is heavier than most.

> Researchers found those men who used a phone for four hours or more a
> day had fewer sperm and those they had moved less well and were of
> poorer quality.

Sheesh. Welcome to junk science. Reading the article, what
apparently was done was interview 364 men in India and ask them how
many hours per day they used their cell phone. Of course, everyone
lied, but that's acceptable if everyone lies equally with the same
bias. The survey was also preformed at fertility clinics in India
which is a rather limited sample of the general population. They
could easily have asked what was their favorite color, and conjured a
similar worthless correlation.

> The Ohio study involving 364 men was presented to the American
> Society for Reproductive Medicine in New Orleans.

Ohio? New Orleans? From the article, I read:
The team from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio
tested the sperm of 364 men who were being treated at
fertility clinics in Mumbai, India, with their partners.
The study may have been funded and run from Ohio, but the sample came
from Mumbai, India.

> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
> they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
> sedentary was the cause.

Sure? What type of person yacks on the phone for 4+ hours per day?
Probably an unemployed loafer with a sedentary lifestyle and
independent means. Busy and active people don't have time to talk
that long. Presumably, they also have an unlimited rate plan and a
lifetime supply of batteries implying that they have more money to
burn than the light users. Of course, since they have an unlimited
plan, they tend to yack more. Since they're all at a fertility
clinic, I presume they're all 20-30 years old.

I think a more appropriate headline would be: "Young, affluent and
unemployed users, with damaged sperm, tend to talk more". Or perhaps:
"Cell phones used for birth control".

Of course the traditional tag line includes "more research is
necessary" which is the standard hint that a research grant is being
solicited.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:25:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<na6vj2po4n5jr9gfeh8vl1g9qcnotsgbgr@4ax.com>:

>> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
>> they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
>> sedentary was the cause.
>
>Sure? What type of person yacks on the phone for 4+ hours per day?
>Probably an unemployed loafer with a sedentary lifestyle and
>independent means.

Or a phone sex operator. :)

>Busy and active people don't have time to talk
>that long.

You must not be a parent -- my daughter easily exceeds that, as do most
of her friends.

>Presumably, they also have an unlimited rate plan

MetroPCS.

>and a
>lifetime supply of batteries implying that they have more money to
>burn than the light users.

Rechargeable.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:47:22 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:25:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
><na6vj2po4n5jr9gfeh8vl1g9qcnotsgbgr@4ax.com>:
>
>>> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
>>> they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
>>> sedentary was the cause.
>>
>>Sure? What type of person yacks on the phone for 4+ hours per day?
>>Probably an unemployed loafer with a sedentary lifestyle and
>>independent means.
>
>Or a phone sex operator. :)

The study for on 364 *MEN* not women. If they were all phone sex
operators, then methinks India has a big problem.

>>Busy and active people don't have time to talk
>>that long.
>
>You must not be a parent -- my daughter easily exceeds that, as do most
>of her friends.

Again, your daughter doesn't qualify. These are men, not women. I'm
assuming that men don't yack all day long on a cell phone.

Incidentally, you're correct. I don't have any children (that I know
about).

>>Presumably, they also have an unlimited rate plan
>
>MetroPCS.

In India? Googling...
http://cellphones.about.com/b/a/257218.htm
How would you like lifetime unlimited incoming calls for
a one-time fee of $21.75. Or how about $30 for a handset
and unlimited talk time for 2 years. That's the kind of deal
cell phone users get in India, a booming market that outpaced
China last month, adding 5.9 million new customers just last
month.
Well, maybe it is possible to have an unlimited plan in India and not
be rich.

>>and a
>>lifetime supply of batteries implying that they have more money to
>>burn than the light users.
>
>Rechargeable.

I was thinking of one of the "battery booster" plug in contraptions.
Yeah, it's possible to do a marathon cellular yack session with the
appropriate plan and the appropriate technology.

Are you sure this was not a joke?

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

probably fewer brain cells too


"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:28bsj2tjcqvct4tgg05vp36dbdeirg7mm5@4ax.com...
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6079782.stm>
>
> Heavy use of mobile phones may damage men's fertility, a study has
> suggested.
>
> Researchers found those men who used a phone for four hours or more a
> day had fewer sperm and those they had moved less well and were of
> poorer quality.
>
> The Ohio study involving 364 men was presented to the American
> Society for Reproductive Medicine in New Orleans.
>
> But a UK expert said it was unlikely the phones were to blame, as
> they were in use and not near the testes, and it may be being
> sedentary was the cause.
>
> [MORE]
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

<<< What type of person yacks on the phone for 4+ hours per day? >>>

How about an Indian employee of the outsourced US call center?