An RF Safe commentary argues that radiofrequency emissions from cell towers should be treated as a “physical invasion” of private property under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The author claims courts and agencies have misframed RF exposure as a regulatory issue rather than a per se physical occupation, citing Supreme Court takings precedents (e.g., Loretto and Cedar Point). The piece also asserts that federal law (referencing Section 704) limits objections on health grounds, strengthening the need for a takings-based legal theory.

RF Safe argues for a transition from microwave-based wireless (cellular/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) to light-based communications (e.g., Li‑Fi) to reduce indoor RF exposure. The piece claims chronic, low-level RF exposure may pose health risks beyond heating and calls for a precautionary approach, while also criticizing U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks it says limit local control and rely on older, heat-focused assumptions.

This RF Safe article argues that Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) functions as a federal “gag clause” that prevents state and local governments from considering health or environmental effects of RF emissions when making wireless facility siting decisions, so long as FCC exposure limits are met. It contends this preemption suppresses public-health arguments in local hearings and court challenges and frames the provision as constitutionally problematic under the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. The piece proposes a legal strategy centered on Fifth Amendment takings claims, analogizing RF exposure to other intangible intrusions (e.g., noise, smoke) discussed in past U.S. Supreme Court cases.

RF Safe argues that U.S. RF exposure limits remain based on avoiding short-term heating (“thermal-only”) effects and have not been meaningfully updated since the FCC’s 1996 guidelines. The piece links this regulatory approach to community concerns about cell towers near schools, citing reported cancer clusters and claiming that compliance with FCC limits may not equate to safety. It also highlights Telecommunications Act Section 704 as limiting local opposition to tower siting on health or environmental grounds.

RF Safe publishes an advocacy guide arguing that current wireless RF/MW exposure limits are “thermal-only,” outdated since 1996, and insufficient to address claimed non-thermal biological effects from pulsed/modulated signals. The guide summarizes mechanistic arguments (e.g., voltage-gated ion channel timing disruption), cites animal studies and reviews it says link RF exposure to cancer and other harms, and calls for regulatory and technological reforms (including Li‑Fi) plus exposure-reduction strategies. The piece frames the issue as urgent and precautionary, presenting its synthesis as evidence-grounded but primarily as advocacy rather than a single new study.