The Forbes article “Is 5G Making You Sick? Here’s What Experts Say” – The True Red Herring

The Forbes article “Is 5G Making You Sick? Here’s What Experts Say” by Emily Laurence, medically reviewed by Dr. Elliot Dinetz, thoroughly examines the health implications of 5G technology. Updated on January 12, 2024, the article adheres to Forbes’ editorial standards and is informed by its Health Advisory Board. However, incorporating perspectives from the RF Safe article “Michael Levin vs. Robert Becker on EMFs and Biological Processes – The True Red Herring” provides a more nuanced view of the debate surrounding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and health, especially in relation to 5G technology.

Key Points Including RF Safe Perspectives:

1. What Is 5G?
   • Development and Function: Introduced in 2019, 5G uses higher RF for faster data transmission. However, the biological implications of these higher frequencies, as discussed in the RF Safe article, add complexity to the understanding of 5G’s safety.
2. 5G EMF Waves and Radiation:
   • Types of EMFs: While the original Forbes article differentiates between ionizing and nonionizing EMFs, the RF Safe article suggests that even nonionizing EMFs, like those used in 5G, can have significant biological effects, as evidenced by FDA-approved medical devices using low-level EMFs to treat cancer.
3. Health Concerns Over 5G:
   • Expanding the Debate: In light of the RF Safe article, it’s clear that concerns about 5G extend beyond potential cancer risks and outdated regulations. The therapeutic use of EMFs in medical treatments suggests that 5G’s nonionizing radiation might also have unexplored biological effects.
4. 5G Fact vs. Fiction:
   • Revisiting the Official Stance: While the WHO and FDA consider 5G safe, the RF Safe article introduces a dimension of complexity regarding the impact of nonionizing EMFs on health, warranting further investigation.
5. Broader Perspective:
   • Integrating Diverse Views: The incorporation of insights from the RF Safe article suggests a more intricate relationship between 5G technology and health, highlighting the potential for both beneficial and detrimental effects of EMFs on biological processes.

Forbes Article with Integrated Perspectives:

The Forbes article, enriched by insights from the RF Safe article, presents a more layered understanding of 5G technology and its health implications. While acknowledging the technological progress 5G represents, this integrated perspective emphasizes the need for deeper research into the biological effects of EMFs, including those used in 5G. It suggests that the health impacts of 5G are a complex and evolving area of study, where discoveries in medical applications of EMFs challenge conventional understandings and call for a cautious, research-informed approach.

To grasp the full complexity and ongoing debates about 5G and health, readers are encouraged to consider both the Forbes article and the perspectives presented in the RF Safe article.

The RF Safe article “Michael Levin vs. Robert Becker on EMFs and Biological Processes – The True Red Herring” by RF Safe raises important points in the ongoing debate about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on human health. This debate is significant in understanding the impact of environmental radiofrequency radiation (RFR), particularly given the widespread use of technologies like 5G that emit EMFs.

Key Points from the Article:

1. The Controversy Between Levin and Becker:
   • Michael Levin downplays Robert Becker’s concerns about the health risks of environmental EMFs, labeling them as a “Red Herring.”
   • Robert Becker, on the other hand, emphasizes the potential health risks associated with man-made EMFs, including a possible link to rising cancer rates.
2. The Role of Bioelectricity:
   • Both Levin and Becker acknowledge the importance of bioelectricity in living organisms.
   • The debate centers around whether external EMF sources significantly influence bioelectric processes.
3. FDA-Approved Medical Devices:
   • The article highlights two FDA-approved devices that use EMFs to treat cancer, supporting Becker’s stance on the biological effects of EMFs:
     • The TheraBionic device, which uses modulation frequencies targeting different cancer types at low specific absorption rates (SAR).
     • The Oncomagnetic device from Houston Methodist Hospital, employing oscillating magnetic fields to disrupt cancer cell metabolism.
4. Implications of the Debate:
   • The effectiveness of these medical devices in treating cancer using EMFs suggests that even non-thermal levels of EMFs can have significant biological effects.
   • This finding contradicts Levin’s dismissal of Becker’s concerns and supports the idea that EMFs can impact biological systems both harmfully and beneficially.
5. Complexity of EMF Research:
   • The article underscores the complexity and ongoing nature of research into the effects of EMFs on human health.
   • It highlights the need for continued exploration and study in this field, considering the therapeutic successes of EMF-based medical devices and the potential health risks posed by environmental EMFs.

Conclusion:

The RF Safe article brings to light a critical and complex aspect of EMF research, especially in the context of the growing prevalence of 5G technology. The contrasting views of Levin and Becker, along with the therapeutic use of EMFs in medical devices, illustrate the multifaceted nature of the issue. The debate underscores the necessity for ongoing research and a nuanced understanding of how EMFs interact with biological processes, impacting human health in various ways. This is a rapidly evolving field that warrants close attention and careful scientific inquiry.