I was being sarcastic. My point was that studies can not prove anything. At best they can show the probability that the observed test statistic is at least as extreme the value that was actually observed. In other words what is the probability that the results that were observed can be attributed directly to the condition being observed and not to random environmental variables. Research could show that the study supports a 95% confidence level that laptop top use does reduce sperm count but it can not definitively prove it. The real problem with the study though is even if you show a high confidence level supporting your theory how do you single out laptop use as the primary causality.
In a given population of men who use laptops on their laps a certain number of them will be sterile, but is that number statistically significant when compared to the number of men who are sterile in the population of men who use laptops at a desk, or the number of men who do not use laptops. How do you eliminate the other factors that may have been the cause of the sterility.
The problem is that the results of studies such as this get reported because they make good news print but the methodology and context of the studies gets no more explanation then "research shows" or "experts believe". Its been said there are three kinds of lies; lies, **** lies, and statistics". I'm not saying that its not a possibility but its not something I'm very concerned about either. We live in a warning label happy society with a legal profession always looking for the next band wagon to jump on. Why then are there no warning labels on laptops or class action suits against Apple, and Dell for making men infertile.
