Dr James Hotaling, an expert in male fertility and andrology at University of Utah Health, remains unconvinced by existing evidence.

Published Jan 19, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 19, 2026 | 7:00 AM

Representational image. Credit: iStock

Synopsis: Social media videos warn that keeping mobile phones in pockets harms male fertility through electromagnetic radiation, claiming reduced sperm motility, DNA fragmentation, and lower counts. While some lab and animal studies suggest potential effects, human evidence remains inconsistent and weak due to biases, small samples, and confounders. Recent reviews show no robust link; experts advise precaution but stress proven risks like age, diet, exercise, alcohol, and tobacco far outweigh phone placement concerns.

Hundreds of videos circulating on Instagram warn men that keeping mobile phones in their pockets could damage their fertility. But how much of this advice is backed by solid science?

Social media has become flooded with medical professionals and fitness influencers cautioning men about electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones. Dr Keshav Malhotra of Rainbow IVF told his followers that “radiation emitted by mobile phones affects sperm quality” and leads to reduced sperm motility, DNA fragmentation, and lower sperm counts.

“Keeping mobile phones in your pocket not only tightens your pants but also slows down your sperm,” Dr Malhotra said in an Instagram video.

“Do not keep mobile phones in your front pocket as it can affect your future fertility. Here are some quick tips: keep mobile phones in your front pocket, back pocket or in your bags. When you are not using mobile phones, you can switch off your mobile phone’s Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. If you sleep with your mobile phone at night, it can also affect your fertility.”

Similar warnings have come from other content creators. But what about the science behind it?

Also Read: Inside Hyderabad’s fertility scam: DNA test exposed baby swap

What science actually shows

When asked about the studies supporting these claims, Dr Malhotra cited two key pieces of research. The first was a 2014 Ukrainian study published in the Central European Journal of Urology, which examined direct mobile phone radiation effects on human sperm in laboratory conditions.

The study analysed semen samples from 32 healthy men, exposing them to mobile phone electromagnetic radiation for five hours. Researchers found that sperm exposed to mobile phone radiation showed a significant reduction in progressive motility and a time-dependent increase in DNA fragmentation, with most damage occurring in the first two hours.

“A correlation exists between mobile phone radiation exposure, DNA fragmentation level and decreased sperm motility,” the study concluded.

However, the research came with significant limitations. It was conducted entirely in vitro, meaning sperm samples were exposed directly to phones under artificial laboratory conditions that don’t reflect real-world use. The sample size was small, the exposure was short-term, and crucially, researchers didn’t account for major factors known to affect sperm quality such as alcohol consumption, tobacco use, diet, stress, or heat exposure. This is particularly relevant in Ukraine, where alcohol drinking rates are high and smoking remains common.

The second study Dr Malhotra referenced was a systematic review of animal experiments examining the effects of mobile phone radiation on testes and sperm parameters. After screening more than 750 papers, the authors analysed results from 18 animal studies involving rats, mice, and rabbits.

Across many of these studies, exposure to mobile phone electromagnetic radiation was associated with structural damage to testicular tissue and worsening sperm quality. Reported effects included reduced diameter of seminiferous tubules, lower sperm count, reduced motility and viability, and abnormal sperm morphology.

Whilst these findings sound alarming, the review’s authors acknowledged that animal studies cannot be directly extrapolated to humans. The experiments used artificial exposure conditions that don’t mirror typical phone use, and again, didn’t control for real-world factors like lifestyle habits.

Earlier evidence and its limitations

An earlier 2008 observational study at a male infertility clinic examined 361 men undergoing infertility evaluation. Participants were grouped based on daily active mobile phone use: no use, less than two hours per day, two to four hours per day, and more than four hours per day.

The study found a progressive decline in sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology with increasing daily mobile phone use. Men using phones for more than four hours daily had the poorest semen parameters.

However, as an observational study conducted at a fertility clinic, it introduced selection bias. Phone usage was self-reported, exposure levels were not measured, and lifestyle or environmental confounders could not be fully excluded.

Also Read: When DNA test for passport exposed Srushti Fertility’s shocking baby swap scandal

Genetic vulnerability factor

One study that offers more compelling evidence comes from West Bengal, where researchers examined 1,348 men including 708 azoospermic patients and 640 fertile controls. The research identified variants in three meiosis-related genes: SPO11, RNF212, and SYCP3.

The study found that men carrying these genetic variants face a significantly higher risk of azoospermia, and that this risk rises sharply when combined with prolonged exposure to non-ionizing radiation from mobile phones and laptops. The effect was strongest in men aged 30 years and above.

Using a gene-environment interaction model, the authors showed that genetic variants alone increase infertility risk, but radiation exposure multiplies this risk many times over, suggesting a synergistic effect. The findings support the idea that electronic radiation may worsen underlying meiotic defects and push genetically vulnerable men toward irreversible spermatogenic failure.

However, this too had limitations. Radiation exposure was based on self-reported habits rather than direct measurement, and the analysis didn’t fully incorporate other known fertility modifiers such as alcohol consumption, tobacco use, diet, obesity, and stress.

What recent reviews reveal

More recent systematic reviews paint a different picture. A WHO-commissioned review analysing human observational studies examining mobile phone and RF-EMF exposure in relation to semen parameters found no consistent or robust association between RF-EMF exposure and sperm concentration, motility, morphology, or total sperm count. The certainty of evidence was rated low to very low, mainly due to exposure misclassification, confounding, and heterogeneity between studies.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis published in Environment International examined 117 animal studies and 10 in vitro studies on human sperm. In animals, meta-analyses showed reduced pregnancy rates in mating experiments, reduced sperm count and vitality, and testicular tissue damage in some studies. However, most studies used RF-EMF exposure levels far above everyday human exposure.

In human sperm tested in vitro, only small and inconsistent effects were observed, mainly a slight reduction in sperm vitality, with no consistent DNA damage.

Critically, a 2025 corrigendum to this review identified data extraction errors and misclassification of study quality. The corrected analysis showed a smaller pooled effect, and the apparent reduction in pregnancy rates was largely driven by a single study using extremely high exposure levels. When that study was excluded, the association weakened and crossed statistical null values.

Also Read: 1 in 4 pregnant women in South India has gestational diabetes

Expert perspectives: Caution without certainty

Dr Venkata Sujatha Vellanki, Regional Medical Head and Fertility Specialist at Oasis Fertility, emphasises the need for evidence-based discussion.

“What we need to understand is that whenever we discuss such issues, we must rely on evidence. There are two key questions here. One is whether electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones can cause an effect on sperm, and the other is whether the heat generated by the phone is responsible,” Dr Vellanki explained to South First.

“If we consider heat, it would mainly matter when a phone is kept in the front trouser pocket, not the back pocket. When it comes to electromagnetic radiation, studies have produced differing conclusions. Some research suggests that electromagnetic waves may affect sperm motility. In these studies, researchers compared infertile men with fertile controls and observed a reduction in sperm motility associated with electromagnetic exposure.”

However, she notes the limitations: “We still do not have enough high-quality laboratory evidence to clearly define how much electromagnetic radiation is involved or whether radiation from Wi-Fi, laptops, or mobile phones causes significant damage to sperm. At present, the available data are not strong enough to conclusively state that such radiation directly damages sperm.”

She adds that context matters: “Using a phone in a trouser pocket alone is unlikely to cause infertility. However, when combined with other risk factors such as prolonged sitting, long working hours at a computer, and keeping a phone in the front pocket while it remains continuously active through hands-free devices, the cumulative effect may matter.”

Dr Pramod Krishnappa, an andrologist at NU Hospitals in Bengaluru, offers a pragmatic perspective on the limitations of current advice.

“See, radiation is everywhere. Even a microwave oven in the kitchen emits radiation. Wi-Fi emits radiation. You are sitting under Wi-Fi all the time. If you keep sperm in a laboratory and place a Wi-Fi device nearby, and then conduct a study, you may observe some effect on the sperm,” Dr Krishnappa told South First.

“Now the question is, where do we keep our phones? Most people keep them in their trouser pockets. As andrologists, we advise against that because it may affect fertility. But if you put it in a shirt pocket, a cardiologist may say it could affect the heart. So where do you keep the phone? The truth is, exposure is everywhere.”

He acknowledges uncertainty: “Does it affect fertility? Possibly, yes. Is there an easy solution? No. We are living with technology, and these are some of its side effects.”

Dr James Hotaling, an expert in male fertility and andrology at University of Utah Health, remains unconvinced by existing evidence.

“I’ve never seen conclusive data that would lead me to advise a patient against carrying a cellphone in his pocket,” Dr Hotaling said in a statement, noting several possible flaws in previous studies, including selection bias from recruiting participants at fertility clinics and the natural variation in sperm count that occurs from hour to hour and day to day.

“Rather than focus on the insignificant variable of cellphone use, it’s more important to look at other, more easily modifiable factors when it comes to determining male fertility. Diet and exercise are two such examples. However, there is one factor that matters most: age. People are waiting until later in life to conceive, so infertility is on the rise.”

Also Read: Not just late pregnancy: Diabetes is hitting women in the first trimester, Indian studies warn

Real picture of male infertility in India

Meanwhile, a comprehensive study led by the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health has shed light on the actual clinical causes of male infertility in India.

The research found that male factors contribute to approximately 20 percent of all infertility cases. Among men undergoing IVF treatment, the leading clinical cause was oligospermia (low sperm concentration), accounting for 36 percent of cases. Other significant conditions included asthenospermia (reduced sperm motility) at 22 percent, and azoospermia (total absence of sperm) at 51 percent in the broader infertility treatment group. Varicocele accounted for 7 percent and teratozoospermia for 2 percent.

The study also revealed that 33 percent of men seeking general infertility treatment reported alcohol consumption and 16 percent reported tobacco use, though these were recorded as demographic characteristics rather than direct causes. Additionally, 13 percent of men in the IVF group had a history of diabetes.

The emotional weight of the condition is also significant. The study found that 50 percent of husbands reported experiencing slight to moderate anxiety and depression due to infertility issues.

Perhaps most striking was the financial burden documented by the research. The average out-of-pocket expenditure for a single IVF cycle was approximately ₹1,09,671 in public hospitals and ₹2,30,668 in private facilities. The report classified these costs as “catastrophic,” with 88.5 percent of IVF patients spending more than 10 percent of their annual household income on a single treatment cycle. To cope, 58 percent of participants required financial support, with many forced to borrow from friends or take out bank loans.

Bottom line

The scientific evidence on mobile phones and male fertility remains inconclusive. Whilst some laboratory and animal studies suggest potential effects of mobile phone radiation on sperm quality, particularly under high-exposure conditions, human evidence remains inconsistent.

As Dr Vellanki suggests, a precautionary approach may be reasonable: “As a precaution, it is advisable to avoid keeping a phone in the pocket for long periods, especially while sitting for extended hours. Placing the phone on a table instead is a simple preventive step. Along with this, lifestyle measures, supplements, and other protective strategies can help minimise potential harm.”

However, for men concerned about fertility, established risk factors such as alcohol consumption, tobacco use, age, diet, and exercise remain far more significant than mobile phone placement. Infertility is usually the result of multiple contributing factors rather than a single cause.

Until more rigorous research emerges that directly measures exposure levels, controls for lifestyle confounders, and examines real-world fertility outcomes rather than laboratory markers alone, the dramatic warnings circulating on social media should be taken with considerable caution.

(Edited by Amit Vasudev)