For reference, this sentence is in the abstract:<p>&gt; <i>Talking for ≥1 h&#x2F;day and during device charging were associated with higher rates of abnormal semen concentration (60.9% versus 35.7%, P &lt; 0.04 and 66.7% versus 35.6%, P &lt; 0.02, respectively).</i><p>The problem is that if you make a survey with too many questions, it increase the probability of finding an spurious correlation with a low p. Obligatory xkcd: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;882&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;882&#x2F;</a><p>Previous discussion of the original article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11033516" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11033516</a> (143 points, 17 days ago, 86 comments)<p>I´ll copy partially two comments cherrypicked from that thread:<p>From evils <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11033918" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11033918</a><p>&gt; <i>If I interpret the abstract correctly, the change in sperm they observed was only correlated to talking on a cell phone whilst charging it (that is, holding it next to your head), where keeping it right next to the groin did not show any significant influence?</i><p>&gt; <i>That doesn&#x27;t sound like a plausible outcome of radiation having any influence.</i><p>From cozzyd <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11036852" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11036852</a><p>&gt; <i>I think you can pretty much reproduce their study from the percentages with the following table (they claim 26 of the 106 did not meet study eligibility criteria, but the total seems to be 79? but then the total isn&#x27;t consistent between the two categories; I didn&#x27;t read carefully enough to see if the discrepancy is explained)</i><p>&gt; <i>It&#x27;s interesting to note that they actually collected more data than &lt; 1h and &gt;1h (they more finely categorized it as 0-30, 30-60, 60-120 and 120+). The freedom to choose the boundary there should count against the p-value.</i><p>&gt; <i>Of course, it would be nice if they treated hours talking on phone as a continuous variable instead of a discrete &lt;1h and &gt;1h. With the freedom to set that boundary (if they had that), it would reduce the associated p-value.</i>