Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Hints That Wi-Fi Near Testes Could Decrease Male Fertility

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the does-not-bode-well-for-me dept.

Medicine 307

Pierre Bezukhov submits news of a report that "a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility," writing "'[The scientists who conducted the research] placed healthy sperms under a laptop running a Wi-Fi connection. After four hours, the Wi-Fi exposed sperms showed 'a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation' compared to healthy sperms stored for the same time in the same temperature away from the computer. That is, the sperms exposed to Wi-Fi were less capable of moving towards an egg to fertilize it and less capable of passing on the male's DNA if it does fertilize an egg.' The scientists blamed the damage on non-thermal electromagnetic radiation generated by the Wi-Fi." However, the experiment was based on sperm outside the body; the researchers (here's the abstract from their study) note that "Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to prove this contention."

cancel ×

307 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's not a bug, it's a feature (-1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201792)

Does this mean that all those douchebags out in the quad with their Macbooks won't be able to reproduce? You know, the pricks who seem to do nothing all day but tell everyone that they don't even *OWN* a TV and preach about how big corporations are destroying America while crying to videos of the Steve Jobs memorial service with absolutely no sense of the irony. So this is going to lessen the chances that they will ever produce another generation to take up every goddamn table in the coffee shop all day while actual paying customers can't get a fucking seat?

I say we leave this particular health threat alone.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201832)

I think these people are a figment of your imagination.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201968)

I think these people are a figment of your imagination.

I know it is hard to imagine, but there is a big huge WORLD beyond the door that leads out of your mom's basement. A world which sadly meets the OP's description to a T.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202244)

Most of them I see are raving frothing at the mouth android owners who cant afford iDevices.

God, just STFU about your fricking phone, nobody cares about it. I dont run around rubbing my iphone in your face whenever I see you talking on yours. Yet you haveto announce to the whole world, "Look there's another apple sheep" while I stand there making a business call.

Makes me think all Android owners are immature children.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (-1, Offtopic)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201838)

Slashdot. Rage from nerds. Stuff that doesn't matter.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201848)

Trolling aside, this experiment doesn't sound like it had a control group, ie a laptop with no wi-fi being held over your balls. Heat in that area is known to decrease fertility. The experiment as described in the summary has nothing to do with wi-fi.

(no, I didn't RTFA).

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (2)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201878)

Nor, it seems, did you RTFS.

Quote, with relevant portion highlighted:

The scientists blamed the damage on non-thermal electromagnetic radiation generated by the Wi-Fi.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201948)

"Non-thermal electromagnetic radiation" means that electromagnetic radiation caused the effect through a nonthermal mechanism. It's a common idea in EM fear circles (because the output from EM devices is too low to cause damage by a thermal mechanism). It doesn't say anything about heat, one way or another. You can have thermal damage from EM radiation without any application of heat. That's what your microwave oven does.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202032)

Thanks for explaining the difference. I hadn't thought through the subtleties.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202106)

To quote:

compared to healthy sperms stored for the same time in the same temperature away from the computer

That looks like it says a lot about heat to me, of course, I understand that you are thinking about the amount of heat put off by a laptop but it seems like they controlled for this by putting the wifi close but not putting the laptop directly on top of the sperm.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202154)

Well yeah, that would be gross and messy.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202186)

I'm not sure that the "same temperature" is really what they measured. All the abstract says is that they were incubated under the same conditions.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (4, Interesting)

Niedi (1335165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202422)

They put the laptop 3CM above the sperm and tried to control the temperature from below and via air conditioning. If I got it right while skimming through it, they also measured sperm temp every 5min using an infrared thermometer.

However the control was NOT a laptop with the wifi turned off but a setting with no exposure to electrical equipment at all. Which is not a control for WiFi but a control for a "Laptop with Wifi on".
Which leads me to think that the reason they chose this setup was that they couldn't get a useful result when using a laptop without WiFi as a control. The effect could in theory be caused by any part or combination of parts inside the laptop.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202150)

Maybe I'm not as up to date with the fancy physics talk as I use to (or even should) be, but going back to my old college courses...

Isn't 'thermal' fancy physics talk for 'heat'?

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202212)

Yes, but it also has more nuanced meanings, and there's one that is very pertinent to this field.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202264)

It doesn't say anything about heat, one way or another.

RTFA. Hell, read the fscking summary: "... compared to healthy sperms stored for the same time in the same temperature away from the computer."

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202394)

That made me wonder who had to clean off the thermometers, or did they just measure air temp?

wrong! (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202478)

A microwave oven works by passing non-ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (GHz)—a wavelength of 122 millimetres (4.80 in)—through the food. Microwave radiation is between common radio and infrared frequencies. Water, fat, and other substances in the food absorb energy from the microwaves in a process called dielectric heating. Many molecules (such as those of water) are electric dipoles, meaning that they have a partial positive charge at one end and a partial negative charge at the other, and therefore rotate as they try to align themselves with the alternating electric field of the microwaves. Rotating molecules hit other molecules and put them into motion, thus dispersing energy. This energy, when dispersed as molecular vibration in solids and liquids (i.e., as both potential energy and kinetic energy of atoms), is heat.

(emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Principles [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201994)

The abstract specifically states that the control group was a set of identical samples, under the same incubation regime, without the laptop. So no, they didn't control for the idea that the laptop alone could've caused the effect

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202120)

Here's the kicker - they ran the laptop with the wifi switched off, but only measured the RF output of the laptop [msn.com] in that state. They didn't perform - or performed, but didn't publish - the obvious control experiment.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202136)

What? It says right in the summary: compared to healthy sperms stored for the same time in the same temperature away from the computer

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202300)

Therefore did not test to see if any gasses released from the plastics in the laptop could be the effect. They are testing cells exposed to the environment not inside of it's intended sealed container.

Lots of variables they did not account for.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202498)

Entirely possible. But he didn't say 'other variables', he said 'heat', which they did account for.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202342)

Temperature of what? Room? Container? Actual sperm?

A less than honest person could use room temperature to mask the obvious idea that heat from the laptop was the primary reason. Given they didn't publish the obvious control to prevent this (laptop with wifi turned), consider me suspicious.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202148)

this experiment doesn't sound like it had a control group, ie a laptop with no wi-fi being held over your balls.

You should indeed RTFA: "A separate test also showed that merely placing sperm near a computer (without Wi-Fi) does not cause nearly the same damage."

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202232)

That news report is wrong. The seperate test in question evaluated the RF output of a laptop with its wifi switched off, but it did not measure sperm motility after exposure to that laptop:

"A separate test with a laptop that was on, but not wirelessly connected, found negligible EM radiation from the machine alone."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45469130/ns/health-mens_health/#.TtT0PlabUlT [msn.com]

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202388)

If the radiation from the machine itself was negligible then it means that a test with just the machine would not really matter. There is nothing wrong with the news report.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (2)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202488)

Yes, yes it does matter. You have just begged the question (by the real meaning).

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202170)

Nor did you even RTFS. The control is mentioned *right there*.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202258)

Not sure about this article, but another article I read did say that they had a laptop with WiFi disabled and a second control with no laptop at all and didn't see the drops that they saw on the WiFi laptop.

My complaint would be that one does not usually store one's sperm directly under the laptop. There's usually some flesh between the laptop and the sperm. Would that flesh be enough to absorb the WiFi radiation? I'm thinking probably since WiFi's penetration is only millimeters. A few millimeters of skin/tissue should protect your sperm.

Then again, my wife and I are done with having kids (stopping at 2), so perhaps I should look at this as birth control. ;-)

Laptop in Name Only (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202412)

Laptops are called such simply because you could hold them on your lap.

I suspect that the number of people who regularly work with them actually sitting in their lap is miniscule given the piss poor ergonomics involved.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202274)

And it's as accurate as the "hottubbing makes you infertile" fake stories from the 80's, 90's,00's and 10's...

At least in a hottub my nuts are kept at 108-110 degrees for 1-2 hours 3 times a week. far FAR more of a temperature rise for a far longer time than any heat from a laptop can generate.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202310)

Why is this modded insightful? It is wrong

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201856)

You seem to have accomplished quite the feat: posting a comment that is less intelligent than the non-existent beings you describe. Bravo.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202072)

Sounds like you need a hug. *hug*

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202442)

Yes, it does, but it's irrelevant as it's pretty much known fact that Macintosh users are all flaming homosexuals.

We now need... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201824)

...a nerd who agrees to have his balls for four hours under a laptop.

Its a study that admits its incomplete (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201828)

and still people will use this as FUD for the next 3 decades.

Re:Its a study that admits its incomplete (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202334)

You know, you're right. After reading TFA, you're even more right. Then again, I normally don't stick anything like wi-fi antenna's next to my sack. But considering the fetishes of some people out there, I'm sure this will be the next hot thing.

Re:Its a study that admits its incomplete (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202490)

As if it matters. This study doesn't indicate any long term damage only making the current crop of sperm impotent. Just dump a load and start to replenish stocks and the effect is gone.

Insufficient data. (5, Funny)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201836)

They don't say what the compute was displaying. Porn has been known to effect the movement of sperms.

Re:Insufficient data. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202114)

According to the summary the experiment was based on sperm outside the body (but obviously very close to the computer) which might indeed indicate that porn was displayed

Re:Insufficient data. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202174)

I was going to correct you on the usage of affect/effect, but I realized that both work.

Re:Insufficient data. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202312)

And, in fact, "effect" is more amusing.

Great fodder for the pro-lifers (-1, Troll)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201844)

It's the new contraception: one that even God can get on board with! Just fry yer nuts and you won't have to worry about making God quite irate.

Re:Great fodder for the pro-lifers (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202142)

I believe I've read of tribes in some locations (the Amazon?), in which it is common practice for men to immerse their testes in very hot water one (or more?) times a day as a contraceptive method. By itself, I imagine it's not tremendously effective, and I wonder what the failure rate is. Anybody want to dig through pubmed?

Re:Great fodder for the pro-lifers (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202270)

It may be tangentially effective. As in: they're in so much pain that they can't get it up...

This calls for... (5, Funny)

Shirogitsune (1810950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201846)

...a tinfoil codpiece!

Re:This calls for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202078)

...a tinfoil codpiece!

A lead codpiece would be better.

I use a laptop all day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201854)

It's the: "Don't worry, baby. We don't need a condom. I know what I'm doing..." for the 21st century!

Awesome (1, Funny)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201860)

Awesome I'm going to connect my jewels to the web!

Maybe then my wife won't keep pestering me to get snipped.

Re:Awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201958)

Get snipped - it's an out patient procedure and quite painless really. The alternative of your wife having her tubes tied is more involved and some complications can arise from it.

Re:Awesome (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202048)

that's foolish, to do surgical damage to the body when so many near 100% effective alternative to either ligation or vasectomy exist (which themselves are not 100% effective either).

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202216)

Condoms are less effective and less enjoyable. The long-term effects of taking the Pill are not great for most women. We're done having kids, but not done having sex.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202390)

So use the coil.

Re:Awesome (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202354)

A correct vasectomy is 100% effective. The pussy ones that are reverse-able are the ones that are not.
My doc cut out 1/2 inch of Vas on each, and then cauterized the ends, folded them over and tied them. they would have to untie each other, flip back and regrow a large distance to lose any effectiveness.

Guys should man up and get a real vasectomy instead of the pussy out version that is reversible. Real men get snipped, it's the lesser men that refuse to.

Re:Awesome (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202480)

I would love to hear what your near 100% effective alternatives are.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202066)

and there are even more complications for both of you if you have a(nother) "surprise baby".

Re:Awesome (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202302)

If we wanted a permenant solution. Yes.

However- we're both young- both early 30s- whereas a vasectomy is sometimes reversible- it isn't 100%.

If God forbid something happened to our kids or my wife- I can seea scenario where I might want to have kids again- or have kids with a new wife if something bad happened to my wife,

An IUD is at least reversible and a better idea in my mind.

Re:Awesome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202260)

You could just throw it in her ass, but you might have a republican if you're not careful.

Re:Awesome (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202322)

Maybe then my wife won't keep pestering me to get snipped.

Go ahead and do it. It's been five years for me and it's great. Everything still works.

Of course, don't even consider it unless you already have children and you are in a long-term committed and successful relationship.

Nowadays, they do it with laser beams and you don't have have sore nuts for a week or anything. My doctor gave me a tootsie pop (seriously) after he was done and it was great! I'd go do it again, but it would be kind of redundant, I think. Man, I loved that tootsie pop. It was the grape, which is my favorite.

Good (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201868)

Free contraception!

Re:Good (2)

ChristW (18232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202082)

Didn't work for me...

They're claiming it's not thermal damage (4, Insightful)

bandy (99800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201884)

Yet every modern laptop has its wifi antennas carefully routed alongside the screen so that their polarization will match the WAP's polarization. Laptops get hot. Sperm want to live at 97F (definitely not at 98.6, which is average body temperature). What have they previously published? I smell an agenda.

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201984)

Should be easy to rule that out by using a USB wifi dongle on an extension near one sample, and a temperature-controlled object of the same size over the control (those dongles do heat up a little bit, not much, but you gotta be sure).

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202074)

Ha. You said "dongle."

it's a USB cable, I'll explain it later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202092)

those dongles do heat up a little bit

heh heh

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202068)

Isn't the body of the laptop just a really big EMF shield anyway? So the one place where you wouldn't have exposure to the wifi signal is the underside?

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202320)

Not really. In fact most newer laptop bodies are nearly 100% plastic, they only have a little metal in the hinges, no metal frames like in years gone by.

Although most newer ones with removable underplates that give you full access to the internals also have a layer of aluminum foil sheeting on the underplate to help keep the bottom cool, that would probably shield anything under the laptop from the wifi antennas in the screen.

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202102)

Laptops get hot. Sperm want to live at 97F (definitely not at 98.6, which is average body temperature).

"...compared to healthy sperm stored for the same time in the same temperature away from the computer." So, if they didn't just screw up (always a possibility), the difference in motility cannot be due to the increased temperature near the laptop.

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202180)

Well they said that they have already controlled the temperature to be the same in each test.

So either their methods are hopelessly flawed or this result doe snot have to do with heat.

Re:They're claiming it's not thermal damage (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202386)

"doe snot"

What does Doe Snot have to do with it? is that a slang term for woman juice?

Natural selection (1, Interesting)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201900)

If you spend too much time on the computer, you're not having a full life.

Reproduction should belong to those who can balance their interests.

Re:Natural selection (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202060)

because sex-obsessed people have the lowest birth rates of all?.....

Now available,... (1)

BonzoGariepy (2520446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201930)

... wi-fi routers in a drugstore near you!

Meh (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201932)

Non-AC'd cars, cell phones, now wi-fi...but I'm not worried. You only need to conceive a child a few times in your whole life anyways, worst-case scenario, you forgo the motorcycle and the big TV and lay down the cash for an artificial insemination procedure.

(Can feel mom's hopes for grandchildren fading...)

Re:Meh (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202330)

Back in the 1970s tight underpants and tight jeans used to be the big threat to male fertility. Health scares move with the times.

Hmm (4, Funny)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201956)

Most things placed near testes tend to decrease male fertility.

Briefs, jeans, angry women...

All my plans in ruins! (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201986)

There goes my business venture for wireless-enabled codpieces.

Sure it is the Wifi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201992)

Skyrim or WOW on a PC has been known to lower male fertility as well.

Re:Sure it is the Wifi? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202056)

The Atari 130XE and collection of sci-fi novels my dad gave me access to probably did long-term damage to my fertility.

Re:Sure it is the Wifi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202176)

You mean I wasn't the only person with a 130XE? And yet I have two children...

Sweet (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202026)

At 24 I'm absolutely fine with being less fertile. I really don't need a kid right now or soon :P

Re:Sweet (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202130)

Good news for you, plenty of much more effective alternatives to bathing your genitalia in microwaves exist, research an ancient technology known as Birth Control. Effective versions of the condom, diaphram, IUD, and oral contraceptives have existed for millennia. You too can prevent your little swimmers from reaching an ovum!

Stupid. Wearing PANTS decreases fertility... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202090)

As does a hot tub.

Use of laptops in the lap.

Anything that raises the temperature above 85-90 degrees Fahrenheit will reduce fertility - and passing 104 for an hour or two will reduce it to near zero for a couple of days.

Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202104)

No problem. Those with Wi-Fi resistant balls will survive, the rest will disappear.

Re:Evolution (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202220)

You could bedazzle your balls with aluminum sequins, that will maintain full sack flexibility while guarding your nuts from the wifi waves, and you'll have DISCO BALLS! XD

Doesn't everybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202108)

Doesn't everybody show a decrease in motility after hanging out online for 4 hours?

Only the Strong Shall Survive! (2)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202128)

May all the weak Wi-Fi afflicted sperm perish as their superior Wi-Fi resistant brethren overtake the womb!

Wavelength (2)

jimmyswimmy (749153) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202140)

How is a signal with a wavelength of 5" (wifi is around 2.4 GHz, 2.4E9/3E8*39.37in/m=4.9") supposed to interact with a human sperm, which, according to wikipedia, is comprised of a head 5 um long and a tail 41 um long, all of which total 0.002 inches. These arguments never ever make any sense to me.

Re:Wavelength (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202248)

Microwave ovens operate on roughly 4-5" wavelength. They interact with water molecules just fine and water molecules are MUCH smaller than sperm. But that's a thermal reaction.

Going call bull pucky on this one (1)

The-Blue-Clown (1261404) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202164)

I'm an admin and have been using a wireless laptop since wireless b came out. My wife and I couldn't have kids for the longest time so we went and got tested. I'm told normal sperm count is 50-60 million. Mine's 480 million. I would think the heat from an improperly vented laptop would be more of a negative that any radio waves. -m-

Re:Going call bull pucky on this one (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202294)

Just to play devil's advocate (not that I accept the study - I think it's flawed), one data point does not equal proof. Perhaps your sperm count would have been 600 million had you not been using the laptop.

I do agree that the heat is likely a bigger issue than any WiFi radiation.

Re:Going call bull pucky on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202382)

Well, one guy's freak-like ball population is definately enough evidence for me to close the case.

More Wi-Fi! (1)

MoronGames (632186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202172)

More Wi-Fi will make more less fertile men. Many people believe that we currently have overpopulation issues, so this could be an excellent way to fix it. Free laptops for every male!

Not entirely shocking if it was. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202182)

Most EM radiation is inherently dangerous in long term exposures, including visible light.
Hell, Ultravoilet can destroy your skin surface in a few hours on a sunny day, more so if you are at the equator.

Certain frequencies could vibrate molecules or chains of them to pieces, even multiple frequencies working together could do it by creating interference with each other, if exposed over a long period of time in the right doses.
We know this works because it is essentially the implementation basis of microwave ovens.
Although they go further and actually use the dielectric effect to significantly increase the moving of energy in to the material.
Is it so hard to realize that a "lesser optimized" radiation source is capable of doing lesser damage, and is much rarer too?
I don't want to give anymore fuel to the idiots who use this to push some sort of agenda down everyone's throat, but let's be serious here, EM can and does do damage to things whether we want it to or not. Biology certainly ain't immune to those effects either.

I still don't understand why the wireless cards aren't built in to the monitors.
What's the deal with that? Huge plastic frame could have an antenna in it too, "nope, can't be doing that, too smart, we like our frames empty and useless."
The things are tiny, they could easily be made tall and thin rather that more or less square-ish.
All for 1 or 2 extra wires coming through the socket. Its not like laptop users for the most part care about the extremely tiny increase in latency of not being directly slotted in to the board.

Sperm ex vivo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202222)

From the abstract:

Donor sperm samples, mostly normozoospermic, exposed ex vivo during 4 hours to a wireless internet-connected laptop showed a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility

If your sperm are outside your body and exposed to a laptop, then... ummm... that was a nice web site... but umm... after 4 hours they are kind not viable sperm any longer. I question how much this study tells us.

Not buying it. (1)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202256)

In addition to the usual arguments about wave and particle energy density of light in the radio spectrum, there's another reason this result is extremely unlikely to be true: sperm are not built out of custom parts. Other parts of the body, for example the inside of the lungs, contain beating filaments which are almost identical (except for length and pattern of motion) to the tails of sperm.

If wifi caused serious problems with sperm motility, it would also cause very obvious respiratory problems or other issues throughout the body.

Stupid (2)

Trevorm7 (1082535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202276)

This is retarded. They could have aimed a corded wi-fi antenna at it, but instead they just put the whole computer next to it and "blamed" the wi-fi.

More Wifi in the Bible Belt, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202398)

I think we need a whole lot more Wifi in the "red states"! Lots and lots of powerful, tissue-penetrating wifi for all! Maybe on belt-buckles or fanny packs. Maybe sell Wifi crotch warmers. I'm sure some marketing genius can make this happen.

Maybe you could literally make a rechargeable "Bible belt" product with Wifi. I'm not sure what the belt would do, apart from bathe the crotch with microwave radiation, but I'm sure some holy purpose could be served with networked belts.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>