
The Decline In Male Fertility - jkuria
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578607641775723354.html
======
radicalbyte
It's worth adding that the variation in testing is extremely high.

When my wife and I had trouble getting pregnant, I was tested twice.

In the first test, my count of live critters was under the minimum threshold.
In the second test, the count was at the top of the range.

All other variables were the same (time between production/delivery, time
between previous production and test production and volume).

Oh, and we're expecting our first kid in 8 weeks :)

~~~
wavefunction
Congrats! Pretty interesting that your testing results would land at the
extremes.

------
crazygringo
> _In general, men produce upward of 60 million sperm per milliliter of semen.
> ...But below that threshold and particularly under about 20 million per ml,
> their ability to help conceive drops. It may take a couple longer than a
> year to conceive..._

I can't even intuitively understand how going from 60 _million_ to 20
_million_ would make any difference at _all_. There are _millions_ there, you
know.

I can understand how dropping by 99% might affect things, but how on earth
could a drop of 2/3 result in taking a _year_???

Does anyone know of an explanation?

~~~
lmkg
Fertilization is actually an accretive process. While only a single sperm will
actually fertilize the egg, a single lone sperm is not capable of
accomplishing the task. The ovum has a layer of protection that prevents
access. Sperm cells, in turn, have some sort of enzyme payload that breaks
down this barrier. It takes a lot of this enzyme before the barrier is
weakened enough for a sperm to gain access. Not enough sperm, no one's getting
through.

Additionally, the female reproductive tract is generally a hostile
environment. This is by design, in order to weed out sperm cells with defects.
Since this is a biological system, you're going to have some variation and
some females are going to have a lower sperm survival rate than others. I have
no idea what the range is, but I would be entirely unsurprised to learn the
variation spreads over several orders of magnitude.

~~~
fallse7en
Wow, so you're saying the UMP game in Starcraft 'Break the Condom' was
actually fairly accurate.

------
3am
Marijuana. Seriously?

WSJ desperately trying to suggest multiple causes to sidestep blaming the
obesity epidemic. Reading between the lines that sounds a lot more correlated
with the trend than what I would assume is pretty consistent pot usage over
the last, say, 50 years.

EDIT: remember, the idea isn't to figure out what causes reduced male
fertility, it's to see which of those causes correlates best with the
observation.

EDIT 2: of course by the same logic, sugar intake is what's causing the
obesity epidemic (the fatty foods comment in the article is unimpressive)

EDIT 3: DanBC, excellent point about THC concentration. I didn't think of it.
I can't find any data about consumption, nor am I committed enough to the
subject to dig for it :)

~~~
DanBC
(I'm strongly in favour of legalising drugs.)

There are a few studies showing links between cannabis use and infertility in
men. Smoking cannabis is a double whammy, because tobacco use is a leading
cause of erectile dysfunction.

> what I would assume is pretty consistent pot usage over the last, say, 50
> years.

That's a big assumption. I'd be interested to see any numbers to support it.
Certainly in the UK it feels like people smoke more, smoke more often, and
start earlier. But I don't have any numbers, this is just my opinion. I'd also
be interested to see if modern cannabis actually is stronger than cannabis
used in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.

~~~
hkolek
what a crock of shit. THC levels are _not_ rising.

[http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm](http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm)

[http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-
information...](http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-
information/33637-marijuana-myths.html)

also watch
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039647/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039647/)

> Smoking cannabis is a double whammy, because tobacco

What? You can smoke cannabis without tobacco.

~~~
DanBC
> what a crock of shit.

calm down, it's a common suggestion that THC levels are rising and rather than
just repeating it I asked if it is, in fact true. A simple "no" is better.

Your first link does not support your point as strongly as you seem to think.
Your second link is obviously a joke - no one would present such an obviously
biased source with so many cherry picked reports seriously.

------
300bps
Since frequency of emission leads to sperm count changes, it would be
interesting to see a plot of sperm count against easy availability and
societal acceptance of porn.

~~~
hrktb
It would be interesting, bu migh not relevant in regard of fertility. Sperm
count decreases, but sperm health increases and the consensus is that daily
ejaculation sould be OK

source: [http://ivf.net/ivf/daily-sex-helps-to-reduce-sperm-dna-
damag...](http://ivf.net/ivf/daily-sex-helps-to-reduce-sperm-dna-damage-and-
improve-fertility-o4272.html)

------
mullingitover
Given that we have 7 billion people on the planet and climbing, we definitely
do need to figure out what's causing the infertility so we can promote it
throughout the world.

~~~
xentronium
Given the distribution, western societies already know how to not reproduce.
Now we need the opposite.

~~~
AutoCorrect
it's pretty simple: quit educating the females.

Think I'm joking? There are studies proving an inverse correlation between
education and number of progeny.

------
DigitalSea
I've been writing up a blog post on the subject of extinction for a little why
now and my theory is essentially this happening. Mankind could theoretically
go extinct because we get to a point where we can no longer naturally
reproduce. Sure science in reproduction has come a long way, but because it's
a manual and drawn out process, I don't think science could even remedy
reproduction issues faster than the population starts to decline.

Is it really a surprise sperm rates are lowering given the number of chemicals
in our food, pollution and exposure to hazardous materials on a daily basis?
Sperm counts aren't the only factors in reproduction but rather environment
variables also play an important part in the process. What we eat, what we
breath and how we live are also other serious factors and given the modern
diet is anything but nutritional for a lot of people, it spells disaster in
the long run.

Reading an article like this kind of scares me. Because it kind of gives what
I've been debating internally inside of my head for the last few weeks. The
day we stop being able to naturally reproduce is the day mankind is in some
serious trouble.

~~~
EdiX
> Is it really a surprise sperm rates are lowering given the number of
> chemicals in our food, pollution and exposure to hazardous materials on a
> daily basis?

Why would it affect sperm count but not longevity?

~~~
DigitalSea
We might be living longer, but that doesn't mean we're any healthier. I think
longevity has something to do with medicine reaching a point where we can keep
terminally sick people alive for years before they die.

------
gadders
One thing I've heard that fertility surgeons joke about is that by providing
ICSI
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracytoplasmic_sperm_injectio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracytoplasmic_sperm_injection))
they are "breeding more work for their sons."

Basically, people/genes that would have died out are being helped to continue
in the gene pool.

------
lettergram
I wonder if it could just be that porn is more accessible... AKA release one
payload, take some time to recover fully?

------
qubitsam
This is an old discussion around the topic:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891885](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891885)

------
deepvibrations
I love how everyone is so worried about male fertility and how it is referred
to as a sperm count 'crisis'. The real elephant in the room which is never
spoken about is overpopulation of our planet. This is far bigger problem and
in my opinion, any slight percentage drop in male fertility would be a
blessing in disguise!

------
everettForth
My guess: Skinny Jeans.

------
shirro
Get everyone out in the cold air wearing kilts. The testicles hang on the
outside for a reason.

BTW have my third kid due in a couple of months. So survival of the fittest is
working out fine for me.

------
ChrisNorstrom
I'd like to see more studies on the effects of having a cell phone in your
pocket all day long because:

[http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/05/16/131324.htm](http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/05/16/131324.htm)

Plant sprouts won't germinate when placed near a wireless router. Also
sleeping with a cell phone next to your head apparently affects concentration
the next day.

~~~
diminoten
> Plant sprouts won't germinate when placed near a wireless router. Also
> sleeping with a cell phone next to your head apparently affects
> concentration the next day.

If I germinated a plant sprout in my room near a wireless router, would you
stop going around making this claim?

~~~
lostlogin
I'd happily have nothing germinate near my router if it would just route
properly. It updates new firmware every time I reset it. Turns out this can
cause problems. Who'd have thought? Thanks Orcon, New Zealand.

------
piptastic
Is marijuana the answer to overpopulation???

~~~
Ygg2
No, giving women education and right to abort does.

------
Qantourisc
And this is bad why ? :) We don't need more people on this globe, less would
be better !

------
McUsr
I'd like to see if the pattern of decline correlates with Banana Consumption.

This isn't a joke.

------
Tycho
Mobile phones?

~~~
atestu
Unlikely if you look at the chart that goes with the article
[http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-
YE989_MFERTI_G_...](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-
YE989_MFERTI_G_20130716114103.jpg) cell phones weren't common in France in the
early 90s yet that's when the biggest drop occurred.

~~~
McUsr
Dow Chemichals got rid of its stock of some very effective pesticides in the
late 80's, on the term that they would never be sued.

------
rorrr2
We have much bigger problems than not as many humans being born (assuming the
study is correct).

