Cell Towers: the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause is absolutely implicated
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.
Key points
- The author argues RF energy crossing property lines and depositing energy into matter (including tissue) constitutes a physical invasion rather than a metaphorical harm.
- The post frames this as implicating the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (“private property…taken for public use, without just compensation”).
- It cites takings case law (Loretto v. Teleprompter; Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid) to support a per se taking theory based on physical occupation/access.
- The author claims courts have refused to recognize EMF/RF exposure as physical occupation, calling that refusal a “legal fiction.”
- The post asserts that “Section 704” restricts the ability to object to cell towers on health grounds, motivating alternative legal arguments.
- Overall, the item is a legal/advocacy argument rather than new scientific research on health effects.
Referenced studies & papers
Relevant papers in OpenMel
Source:
Open original
AI-generated summaries may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.
AI-generated summaries may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.
Comments
Log in to comment.
No comments yet.