Warning to all men: Your pocket is not the best place for your cell phone.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/print/35582
Male infertility linked to cell phones
By Mitchell-Hall
Created 09/23/2008 - 16:37

NBR staff
Using a hands-free device such as Bluetooth headsets could affect your fertility if you leave your phone in your pocket next to your testes, warn US researchers in Fertility and Sterility.
WebMD reports [1] that those men who leave their cellphones in their pants, or clipped on their belt close to their gonads, may be exposing them to harmful radiofrequency electromagnetic waves.
Ashok Agarwal, PhD, warns that, “"The Bluetooth devices, which many people are using these days because of health or safety concerns, may not be always so safe. There is a downside,” he said to WebMD.
The study showed that semen exposed to harmful waves from cell phones showed higher levels of free radicals, lower sperm motility (the ability to move and swim), sperm viability (percentage of live ones) and potentially greater oxidative stress.
"Our findings appear to be in line with other concerns that environmental factors such as toxins, pollutants, and materials used in farming play a role in male infertility," Dr Agarwal said to WebMD.
However, further research is needed to validate and clarify the findings, such as the distance from the testes that are ‘safe’ or dangerous, and whether phones in silent or standby modes were also potentially dangerous.
Doctors suggest that men should not leave their phone in their pocket while talking for three or four hours a day on a hands-free device, nor should they place laptops on their laps because of the heat from the battery, and should be wary of excessive spa pool use too.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/male-infertility-linked-cell-phones-35582

Brief for the Defendants-Appellees - FACTS

On October 23, 1989, an explosion at the Phillps 66 Company’s petrochemical plant on the Houston Ship Channel in Pasadena, Texas killed twenty-three people and injured hundreds more. (R. 2) The appellants are survivors of the explosion or surviving relatives of persons killed in the explosion. (R. 2) They collectively hired appellees to file their individual lawsuits against Phillips, agreeing to a contingency fee payment arrangement. (R.2)

Appellees settled appellants’ lawsuits with Phillips, and believe the settlements were fair and adequate. (R.2-3) They claim appellants became unhappy with their settlements only after hearing rumors that other plaintiffs, with other attorneys, had received larger settlements. Appellees claim that appellants then began to believe their settlements were unfair and blamed their attorneys. (R.2-3) On the other hand, appellants claim appellees did not develop their lawsuits individually, but rather, without discussion or authority, settled their claims along with 126 other cases, in an aggregate settlement with Phillips. (R.2) Appellants allege that appellees lied and intimidated them into accepting the settlement. (R.2)


- sunil khemaney

Brief for the Defendants-Appellees

____________________________________________

In the Supreme Court of Texas

Spring Term, 1999
________________________________________________

Carol Arce, et al

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

David Burrow, et al

Defendants-Appellees
________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Court of Appeals of Texas,

14th District
________________________________________________

Brief for the Defendants-Appellees
________________________________________________


______________________________________________________

stay tuned for more.
- sunil khemaney