{"title":"Comments on: Effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) Exposure on Apoptosis, Sperm Parameters and Testicular Histomorphometry in Rats: A Time Course Study","authors":"S. Mortazavi, H. Mozdarani","doi":"10.22074/CELLJ.2016.3848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We read with great interest an article \nby Shokri et al. entitled \"Effects of Wi-Fi \n(2.45 GH z) exposure on apoptosis, sperm \nparameters and testicular histomorphometry \nin rats: a time course study\" that is \npublished in the latest issue of the Cell \nJournal (Vol.17, 2015: 322-331). In this \narticle, Shokri et al. have presented their \nfindings obtained in an experiment on an \nanimal model. These researchers exposed \nrats to the 2.45 GHz radiation in a chamber \nwith two Wi-Fi antennas on opposite \nwalls of a box. The exposed animals in \nthis study showed a decrease in sperm \nparameters. We have previously shown \nthat exposure to electromagnetic fields \ngenerated by Wi-Fi routers or mobile \nphone jammers can adversely affect the \nsperm quality (1-3). The paper published \nby Shokri et al. is seriously flawed. The \nfirst major shortcoming of this paper is \nits exposure geometry. The authors stated \nthat their exposure system was \"a chamber \n(180 cm×80 cm×70 cm), designed for \nwhole-body exposure of free-moving rats \nto a Wi-Fi signal. Two Wi-Fi antennas \n(NanoStation Loco M2, 2.45 GHz, 8.5 \ndBi, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. USA) were \nplaced at the center of two sides of the \nchamber\". It should be noted that in this \ncase, the power density can be calculated \nusing the below equation: \nS=P•G/4πR2 \nWhere \nS=Power density \nP=Power input to antenna \nG=Antenna gain \nIn this light, the geometry used in the \nstudy of Shokri et al. makes a very inhomogeneous \ndistribution of power densities. \nThe second shortcoming comes from \nthis point that the authors claimed that \ntheir study was performed on a basis that \ncould not affect the hormonal balance \"A \nprevious study applied a restrainer to fix \nspace between antenna and rat. Since it \nwas a stressful condition that could probably \naffect hormonal balance of animals, \nwe tried to assess the effect of radiation \non the free moving animals\". However, \nthese authors only had a control group \nand did not use a sham-exposed group \nto control the animals’s stress and its \nsubsequent hormonal changes. Furthermore, \nanother shortcoming comes from \nthis point that \"NanoStation Loco M2\" \nis not a standard Wi-Fi router. As manufacturer \nreports this device is a compact \noutdoor communication unit that can be \nused for devices such as cameras \"NanoStation \nLoco M2 is a compact outdoor \nunit which includes 2×8 dBi antenna \n(MIMO) for the 2.4 GHz band”. Therefore, \nit is misleading to claim that in this \nstudy the effects of Wi-Fi exposure on \napoptosis are investigated and the title \nof this paper is indeed incorrect \"Effects \nof Wi-Fi (2.45 GH z) exposure on \napoptosis, sperm parameters and testicular \nhistomorphometry in rats”. We hope \nthat these comments are helpful to make \nmore reliable results in the future.","PeriodicalId":9692,"journal":{"name":"Cell Journal (Yakhteh)","volume":"14 1","pages":"755 - 755"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cell Journal (Yakhteh)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22074/CELLJ.2016.3848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We read with great interest an article
by Shokri et al. entitled "Effects of Wi-Fi
(2.45 GH z) exposure on apoptosis, sperm
parameters and testicular histomorphometry
in rats: a time course study" that is
published in the latest issue of the Cell
Journal (Vol.17, 2015: 322-331). In this
article, Shokri et al. have presented their
findings obtained in an experiment on an
animal model. These researchers exposed
rats to the 2.45 GHz radiation in a chamber
with two Wi-Fi antennas on opposite
walls of a box. The exposed animals in
this study showed a decrease in sperm
parameters. We have previously shown
that exposure to electromagnetic fields
generated by Wi-Fi routers or mobile
phone jammers can adversely affect the
sperm quality (1-3). The paper published
by Shokri et al. is seriously flawed. The
first major shortcoming of this paper is
its exposure geometry. The authors stated
that their exposure system was "a chamber
(180 cm×80 cm×70 cm), designed for
whole-body exposure of free-moving rats
to a Wi-Fi signal. Two Wi-Fi antennas
(NanoStation Loco M2, 2.45 GHz, 8.5
dBi, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. USA) were
placed at the center of two sides of the
chamber". It should be noted that in this
case, the power density can be calculated
using the below equation:
S=P•G/4πR2
Where
S=Power density
P=Power input to antenna
G=Antenna gain
In this light, the geometry used in the
study of Shokri et al. makes a very inhomogeneous
distribution of power densities.
The second shortcoming comes from
this point that the authors claimed that
their study was performed on a basis that
could not affect the hormonal balance "A
previous study applied a restrainer to fix
space between antenna and rat. Since it
was a stressful condition that could probably
affect hormonal balance of animals,
we tried to assess the effect of radiation
on the free moving animals". However,
these authors only had a control group
and did not use a sham-exposed group
to control the animals’s stress and its
subsequent hormonal changes. Furthermore,
another shortcoming comes from
this point that "NanoStation Loco M2"
is not a standard Wi-Fi router. As manufacturer
reports this device is a compact
outdoor communication unit that can be
used for devices such as cameras "NanoStation
Loco M2 is a compact outdoor
unit which includes 2×8 dBi antenna
(MIMO) for the 2.4 GHz band”. Therefore,
it is misleading to claim that in this
study the effects of Wi-Fi exposure on
apoptosis are investigated and the title
of this paper is indeed incorrect "Effects
of Wi-Fi (2.45 GH z) exposure on
apoptosis, sperm parameters and testicular
histomorphometry in rats”. We hope
that these comments are helpful to make
more reliable results in the future.