Lower sperm count linked to cell phone use

Could it be that someone who spends 4 hours a day on the cell phone is probably in a higher stress situation, therefore higher blood pressure?

Obviously;
I am very surprised that the [supposedly world renowned] Cleveland Clinic is releasing such scant information.

Edit: oops, I was going to put this in Babbling.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

People who talk a lot may have more sperm.

EDIT: I mean less sperm. Perhaps they spend much of that talking time arranging reproductive activities that lower the amount of sperm they have on hand.

The real reason is the radio waves created by cell phones interfere with the government tracking chips they install in us as infants, thus invoking a sort of self-destruct mechanism in the reproductive system to ensure that those who circumvent said chips can't sneak off and start a population on some remote location which the government cannot track....


...actually i think you're explination could be fairly logical. only other one i can think is as a man, if you spend an extended ammount of time on a call it's because you're talking to your wife/girlfiend and she's rambling on about such and such and your body starts thinging "gee, do i really want to help create more of *her*?"

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Exactly what I said: "a higher stress situation"

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

And a LITTLE more from one of the competing stations FOX8

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

LoL i always love how people just love to jump onto sensationalism and the media, and make themselfs look stupid.

"I think it's true because we don't know if it is, so it must be!"

hehe. i know i know, half of my posts sound the same way. that's not the point...

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

I don't think we have an adequate sample size of your posts yet.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Well thank you, it's nice to know you're not quick to judge

Anyway to be serious on the subject:
Not that I was around when they first started broadcasting television, or radio, but I understand that the same kind of arguments came out then. Same with the microwave. Or anything else that uses a new technology that people, at least laypeople anyway, don't fully understand.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily true or untrue, but the problem with these experiments as far as I've seen is they don't differentiate between a direct corrolation or an inderrect one. Exaclty as the first post said, is it the cell phone that makes sperm count lower? or is it the stress? or something else alltogether.

I'm not sure if they've done it or not, but it would be more helpful to maybe run some cell phones near test group of animals or something (i don't wanna hear it PETA). Of course even then, electronics can evoke fear in the animal so it would still be hard to isolate just the radio waves. not impossible, just needs to be carefully tested, like anything in science.

I guess my point is that i haven't been satisfied with any of these reports yet. But when it comes to health, even professional oppinion changes every few months. *shrugs*

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

I chalk stuff like this up to sensationalism in the media. They want a story, they go find one. They want it (or the reporter) to sound more important than it really is, so you get all kinds of open speculation with descriptions that are based on only a few (if any) facts. ("Today, Johnny broke his toe. Are you at risk? Film at eleven.")

Things like this have to be taken with a grain of salt, I think. Just like the sometimes alarming studies about driving habits. Often I will see these in an American paper, when the study was conducted in a different country (with drivers from a different culture, different rules of the road, different demographics, etc.) and yet the reporting agency will blatantly extrapolate from this data and apply it to people who are completely unlike the ones the study is about.

In this case, I would sure like to know how these guys hear their phones, holding them so far from their ear. And four hours a day? When did they start making batteries that good? The more scarce the data, the more skeptical I get.

I would normally agree, but when it's the researcher jumping to the conclusion and not the reporter, then there starts to be issues.
researchers think it has something to do with radiation

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Researchers think it has something to do with radiation...

...*I* think it has something to do with all those 1-900 numbers they found in the call history log.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

You might be on to something...

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

There was a large scale worldwide longitudinal study that was supposed to end in last year or in 2004. Anyone remembers what the conclusion was or could maybe even point to the article (I'm guessing there was one)?

__________________
"The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity."

Dorothy Parker (?)