I would point out these are rather subjective measurements. In that a person is physically looking though a microscope and making a judgement call. Worse, sperm are highly impacted by temperature and negative studies get little attention and often don't get published.
Why such attention? Well in most cases the radiation needs to go through your freaking leg which if your cells are absorbing this em radiation should act as significant shielding for some vary weak radiation.
Compare this to this plant experiment which is blatantly obvious.
agreed (except that pretty sure radio waves will go through your leg). Also of note is that Ames tests on cellphone radiation are completely inconsistent.
Comments
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7219/does-the-pr...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21799142
I would point out these are rather subjective measurements. In that a person is physically looking though a microscope and making a judgement call. Worse, sperm are highly impacted by temperature and negative studies get little attention and often don't get published.
Why such attention? Well in most cases the radiation needs to go through your freaking leg which if your cells are absorbing this em radiation should act as significant shielding for some vary weak radiation.
Compare this to this plant experiment which is blatantly obvious.
PS: And just for fun, compare with the unharmed levitating frogs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E
agreed (except that pretty sure radio waves will go through your leg). Also of note is that Ames tests on cellphone radiation are completely inconsistent.
http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/v15/n2/full/aja2012104a.ht... (at least, it's quite good if you have access)