How much do you know about your mobile phone? Did you know that the first cell phone call ever made was in 1973 on a Motorola 2.2 lb. The first cell phone hit the market in 1984 at a cost of $4,000, with a battery life of just 30 minutes. There are currently more cell phones in America (>400 million) than people and there are over 1 million apps available. With all their addictive features and computing power, it’s no wonder there’s a word to describe cell phone addiction: nomophobia.
But do cell phones affect male fertility?
Radiation Primer
The issue at stake here is the “radiation” of cell phones. Our public opinion of radiation is generally unhealthy, possibly a consequence of Oppenheimer and the “Atomic Age” that has permeated our thinking for the past century. Certainly, there are forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation that are truly “radioactive” or “ionizing,” meaning that they are strong enough to ionize atoms and dislodge electrons from elements. These EM waves have incredibly short, high-energy wavelengths and are used to create deadly bombs, treat cancer, or take x-rays. But there is another form of radiation with much longer wavelengths and lower energies called radio frequency (RF) waves that are “non-ionizing” and do not carry enough energy to break chemical bonds. In their low-, medium-, and high-frequency forms, RF waves give us AM radio, short-range, and aerial communication. Push the RF frequency even further into the very high, ultra high, and ultra high range, and we have FM radio, TV broadcasts, and radar. Beyond the radar are the microwaves that help us heat up our remains.
So where do cell phones and Wi-Fi live in this spectrum? Right next to the non-ionizing RF levels used for FM radio. This fact is somewhat reassuring, at least to me, and is the basis for the federal exposure limits currently in place for EM and RF radiation.
Electropollution?
Research in the area of cell phones and male fertility is relatively new and limited in scope. Most of it focuses on animal exposure models, laboratory exposures of human sperm, or human epidemiologic studies that correlate actual exposures and sperm quality. Notably, the holy grail of studies, those that follow subjects over time and that look at actual human fertility (ie, baby-making rates) as outcomes, are non-existent.
From animal research and human sperm studies, it has been variably and inconsistently observed that cell phone exposure decreases sperm volume, sperm count, shape, motility, viability, and testosterone levels (rats) and increases oxidative stress, sperm DNA fragmentation, and “genomic instability.” It is unclear whether any of these findings are related to thermal (ie, heating) or nonthermal effects of RF exposure. What limits the ability accurate interpretation of such studies are:
- a) the unclear relationship between the effects of exposure in animals and humans (ie, an issue of biological complexity;
b) inconsistency in the dose, duration and frequency of radio frequency exposures (transmitters) and the exposure zone, shape, geometry and orientation of the exposed object (antennas). (Called study design heterogeneity, the most obvious of these variables is the distance between the RF transmitter and the receiving object as RF waves dissipate dramatically with distance).
c) a vague understanding of how accurately the experimental and real exposures (pulse and modulation) actually correlate.
d) failure to control for confounding environmental toxins that may have had an effect (ie pooled adverse effects).
e) poor assessment of actual RF absorption rates (ie, factors such as frequency, intensity, polarization and duration of exposure).
f) questionable clinical or real-world relevance of the measured results (eg, sperm count decreases by 25% with RF exposure, but usually varies by 25% normally).
I could go on, but you get the point.
From human epidemiological studies, statistical associations have emerged between cell phone use and sperm count, motility and DNA fragmentation. The effects of RF exposure on testosterone levels were unclear. More recently, a large study (n=2886) of Swiss soldiers found that sperm counts were higher among men who reported cell phone use only once a week compared to those who used cell phones > 20 times a day. Interestingly, however, there was no correlation between carrying phones in your pants and lower sperm quality. A major weakness in this study is the “contamination” of the results by hundreds of other, real-world variables that can affect sperm count, such as diet and lifestyle choices, stress, varicocele, medications, recreational use drugs and the like. Also realize that whether these claimed associations are truly causal or biologically linked cannot be determined from correlational studies. For example, just because rates of both human infertility and cell phone use are increasing does not necessarily mean they are causally linked or related. Worth studying for sure, but not by any means!
In summary, there is cause for concern, but not alarm, about cell phone radiation exposure and male reproductive health. And, while a significant body of research suggests that RF waves are generally safe for the general public, excessive exposure, such as heavy cell phone use, may not be. With that said, here are some general precautions to keep in mind:
- Because distance from the transmitter is important, use hands-free devices or speakerphone whenever possible and avoid putting the phone in your front pocket.
- Texting instead of calling also keeps the phone further away from your body.
- Cell phones only emit radiation when they make calls or receive signals. To reduce exposure, limit the duration of calls and use airplane mode (no radiation) whenever possible.
- Ditch older cell phones for newer models, as older phones have higher RF emissions.
In the words of Albert Einstein, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” Energy is all around us, so let’s learn to channel it wisely.
