⚠ WIRELESS RADIATION HEALTH RISK! ⚠

Section 704, RF Emissions, and the Constitution:

Why the Fifth, First, and Tenth Amendments all point to immediate repeal

Core thesis (one sentence): Section 704’s health‑effects preemption functions as a federal gag on local governance, creates serious Takings risk by authorizing continuous RF intrusions onto private land, and warps federalism by dictating what reasons state and local governments may not use—so Congress should repeal § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) now. GovInfo

What Section 704 actually does (the hinge of everything)

Congress preserved local zoning over wireless siting except it forbids state or local decisions “on the basis of the environmental effects of [RF] emissions” where facilities meet FCC limits. In the same paragraph, it micromanages process (written reasons, “substantial evidence,” expedited review). This is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). Legal Information Institute+1

Why this matters: In the real world, that one sentence removes health from local decision criteria even when families live feet from antennas. If emissions are “compliant,” boards must pretend health is irrelevant. Legal Information Institute

The Fifth Amendment: “RF Easement” takings—why Congress should repeal 704 to avoid liability

Takings rule of thumb: When government authorizes a continuous, directed physical invasion of private property—even by intangible forces—courts treat it like an easement and require just compensation. The Supreme Court has compensated for low overflights (Causby), flight‑path easements (Griggs), and tunnel fans channeling smoke/gases onto a specific parcel (Richards). RF is a physical field that can be main‑lobed, continuous, and parcel‑specific; if the state authorizes it, it fits that template. Justia Law+2Justia Law+2

Why repeal now: The D.C. Circuit already held the FCC failed to reasonably explain retaining 1996 limits regarding non‑cancer and environmental effects, remanding for better reasoning. Yet §704 forces localities to accept that baseline and bars them from acting on health even while that baseline is under judicial remand. Congress should repeal the gag to reduce federal Takings exposure and restore normal police powers while the science and federal standards are reconsidered. Justia Law

Bottom line: If the federal government both (a) disables local health‑based denial and (b) authorizes 24/7 emissions that cross onto private land, that looks like a de facto RF easement—a compensable taking risk Congress can (and should) avoid by repealing 704’s gag and letting local risk‑reduction happen upstream. Legal Information Institute

The First Amendment: repeal the federal gag on truthful risk governance

Section 704 guarantees that health evidence presented at hearings is legally irrelevant to the decision—an explicit, topic‑based prohibition in the very forum where communities govern themselves. The Ninth Circuit once allowed Berkeley’s factual point‑of‑sale notice, but after the FCC’s 2019 RF order a federal court enjoined the ordinance as preempted, illustrating how the current regime suppresses even modest, factual health disclosures. Repeal ends this chilling effect and restores local capacity to inform and protect. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+1

Courts have said 704 doesn’t ban speaking (e.g., Santa Fe Alliance rejected a broad 1A claim), but that only shows why legislative repeal is the right lever: it restores decision‑relevance of health evidence without litigating abstract speech doctrine. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Tenth Amendment: after Murphy, Congress shouldn’t micromanage what reasons states may not use

The Supreme Court’s anti‑commandeering rule forbids federal direct orders to state lawmakers; in Murphy v. NCAA, even a federal “may not authorize” command to states was unconstitutional. Section 704 tells local governments they “may not regulate… on the basis of [RF] environmental effects” when facilities are FCC‑compliant—a negative command about the content of state/local lawmaking and adjudication. Regardless of how courts have historically treated §704 as “preemption,” Congress should remove this post‑Murphy constitutional irritant and restore federalism’s proper balance. Supreme Court+1

(Yes, courts like the Second and Ninth Circuits have upheld the federal framework against Tenth‑Amendment attacks as “preemption,” not commandeering. That’s precisely why Congressional repeal is the efficient fix: it cures the federalism friction without waiting for a Supreme Court test case.) Justia Law+1

Science that helps judges and lawmakers see RF as a material physical invasion

You do not need to prove health harm to win a taking—but showing RF is a non‑trivial physical force helps courts analogize to Causby/Griggs/Richards.

How to plead (and win) the Fifth Amendment claim today

Claim: Government effected a taking by authorizing a continuous physical invasion of Plaintiff’s land by high‑intensity RF energy, creating a de facto RF easement.

Prove with:

Model paragraph (ready to paste):
“Section 704’s preemption—combined with FCC licensing and local permits—has created a government‑authorized, continuous invasion of private property by radiofrequency energy. Like the overflight and smoke easements in Causby, Griggs, and Richards, emissions from the [SITE] cross the boundary of neighboring parcels 24/7, appropriating an RF easement that directly and peculiarly burdens those properties. The Takings Clause requires just compensation for this permanent physical invasion; at minimum, compensation under Causby for direct, immediate interference with use and value.” Justia Law+2Justia Law+2

What local governments can still do today (and should do, hard)

Even before repeal, locals can win on non‑health grounds—if they build proper records: aesthetics/design/concealment/spacing/height, ROW safety, noise, power/back‑up plans, tree/street impacts, photo‑simulations, and written denials backed by substantial evidence. The Ninth Circuit’s City of Portland preserved most FCC streamlining but rejected parts of the “objective aesthetics” mandate; Roswell requires reasons in writing. Train boards; adopt clean templates. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+1

Why First/Tenth still matter for repeal messaging

Model repeal text (drop‑in bill section)

Sec. __. Repeal of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
(a) Strike 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
(b) Savings clause. Nothing in this Act preempts a State or political subdivision from adopting or enforcing health or environmental protections related to RF emissions for wireless facilities, in addition to any federal minimums, provided such measures do not impose technical requirements that prevent compliant operation.
(c) Transparency clause. States and political subdivisions may require factual, non‑misleading RF safety disclosures to the public and workers, consistent with federal device certifications.
(d) No effect on emergency service. Nothing herein constrains reasonable, nondiscriminatory measures needed to ensure reliable public‑safety communications.

Fast evidence blueprint (communities can run this playbook now)

Anticipate (and answer) the usual pushback

One‑page leave‑behind (ready to hand to staff)

Ask: Repeal 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) this Congress.
Why:

  1. Takings risk: Federal policy authorizes continuous RF intrusions while disabling local health protections—inviting Causby‑style easement claims. Justia Law

  2. Speech & governance: 704 gags local boards from using health evidence; even factual consumer notices get crushed by preemption (see Berkeley). Courthouse News

  3. Federalism: After Murphy, negative commands to state/local decisionmakers are a constitutional minefield; repeal avoids unnecessary litigation. Supreme Court

  4. Unsettled baseline: D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s 2019 decision on non‑cancer and environmental harms; don’t hard‑wire a gag to a moving target. Justia Law
    Solution: Repeal the gag; retain a federal floor, but let states/localities add prudent, non‑technical health protections and require truthful RF disclosures.

Citations (quick reference)

1) Science: exact findings, no wiggle room

WHO‑commissioned animal SR (Environment International, 2025).
The review explicitly rates the certainty of evidence (CoE) as “high” for gliomas in male rats and malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. That is the review’s own language:

“The CoE for an increased risk in glioma was judged as high… Based on 2 bioassays… the CoE was judged as high for an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats.” PubMed

U.S. NTP (final reports, 2018; updated 2025 page).
NTP’s official summary uses the program’s formal categories: “Clear evidence” for malignant heart schwannomas (male rats) and “Some evidence” for malignant gliomas (male rats). Those are the exact words NTP uses on its public-facing page. National Toxicology Program

Bottom line: WHO SR = high CoE for glioma and heart schwannoma (male rats). NTP = clear evidence (heart schwannomas, male rats) and some evidence (gliomas, male rats). Both sets of statements are accurate and fully compatible. PubMed+1

For completeness on the far‑field/base‑station analogue: Ramazzini (2018) reported increased male‑rat heart schwannomas at the highest exposure, directionally aligned with NTP. PubMed+1

Mechanism (non‑thermal). The ion forced‑oscillation model lays out how polarized/pulsed RF can dysregulate voltage‑gated ion channels, driving oxidative stress and downstream damage—an extensively described, peer‑reviewed framework you can cite when judges ask “what’s the physical interaction?” PMC

2) Law: what the Ninth Circuit did (and did not) do in League of California Cities v. FCC (2024)

The decision you cited is real and important—but let’s characterize it precisely so your advocacy can’t be undercut on a technicality.

Why this still helps you: League shows a Ninth Circuit appetite to check FCC overreach when the agency strays procedurally or substantively. That climate matters when you press due‑process and federalism critiques tied to Section 704’s health‑effects gag. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

3) Fifth Amendment takings (your core lever): keep it crisp and forceful

4) En banc path: how to set it up correctly in the Ninth Circuit

What en banc is for (FRAP 35): “exceptional importance” or to maintain intra‑circuit uniformity. You’ll need a clean vehicle that squarely tees up the constitutional problem §704 creates post‑EHT remand and post‑Loper Bright (Chevron overturned). Supreme Court

Clean vehicle (two realistic routes):

  1. Direct constitutional challenge to §704’s health‑effects preemption (as‑applied): a locality denies or conditions a site on health grounds because the federal baseline is under judicial remand and the record shows parcel‑specific high‑field intrusion; the carrier sues under §332(c)(7); the city defends by arguing §704—as applied—violates due process (irrationality/blindfolding) and effects a taking by authorizing an RF easement while foreclosing upstream mitigation. Panel loss ⇒ petition en banc on constitutional “exceptional importance.”

  2. Takings case (inverse condemnation) where the facility is in the public right‑of‑way: sue the governmental proprietor on a Griggs theory; build a merits record that forces the question whether §704’s gag creates federal liability exposure by authorizing continuous parcel invasions without local recourse. Parallel amicus briefing flags the EHT remand and WHO/NTP evidence to show the invasion’s materiality. If the panel ducks the constitutional issues, seek en banc on the Fifth‑Amendment question of intangible but physical invasions in the RF context.

Why 2024–25 Ninth Circuit context helps:

Don’t overclaim: League did not vacate shot‑clock rules wholesale and did not address fee caps; keep your characterizations tight so opponents can’t tag you as inaccurate. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

5) Tight, reusable language (drop‑in)

6) Quick accuracy checklist for your draft (what to fix so it’s bullet‑proof)

7) Why repeal of §704(b) is still the cleanest fix

Even if you win tactical battles (APA, interpretive limits, or a takings judgment), Congressional repeal of § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) removes the gag at its root, lets states/localities adopt prudent health protections, and reduces federal takings exposure from government‑enabled RF easements—especially while the FCC remains under the EHT remand cloud. Justia Law

Trial Strategy Memorandum: Constitutional Assault on 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) – A Tripartite Offensive Under the First, Fifth, and Tenth AmendmentsTo: Client Consortium (Municipal League of Cities, Environmental Health Trust, et al.)

Re: Multi-Pronged Constitutional Challenge to RF Emissions Preemption in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – Path to Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Bar, and Legislative RepealEsteemed colleagues and clients: As we stand at the precipice of 5G’s inexorable densification—now exceeding 2.5 million small-cell nodes nationwide amid the FCC’s protracted nonfeasance on its 2021 Environmental Health Trust v. FCC remand—we confront not merely statutory overreach, but a constitutional abomination. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), hereinafter “the Gag Clause”) erects an impermeable bulwark against local police powers, mandating that state and municipal zoning authorities shall “not” regulate wireless facilities “on the basis of the environmental effects of [radiofrequency (RF)] emissions” if compliant with FCC limits. This negative commandment, engrafted upon the Act’s procedural carapace of shot-clocks, substantial-evidence mandates, and deemed approvals (see T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, 574 U.S. 293 (2015)), transmogrifies federal preemption into a species of compelled abdication.Our strategy: A blitzkrieg of as-applied and facial challenges in fora primed for federalism revival—the Ninth Circuit (post-League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024), vacating FCC overreach on collocation timelines) and D.C. Circuit (leveraging the EHT remand’s stasis). We prosecute under the First Amendment’s bulwark against compelled silence in the public square; the Fifth’s proscription on uncompensated physical invasions via de facto easements; and the Tenth’s anti-commandeering sine qua non, invigorated by Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018). Success cascades: Interim injunctive relief halts deployments in high-exposure zones; declaratory judgment guts the Gag Clause; and congressional repeal—via NDAA rider or standalone bill—becomes inexorable, unburdened by carrier rent-seeking.This memorandum delineates, seriatim, our doctrinal armory, evidentiary playbook, procedural vectors, and endgame. We assay not abstract grievances, but concrete deprivations: Parcel-specific RF main-lobe incursions (EIRP exceeding 1,000 W, power densities 10-100 µW/cm² on bedroom façades); chilled deliberative fora where health affidavits are ritually disregarded; and commandeered municipal adjudicators reduced to scrivener’s apprentices. With the EHT remand languishing—petitioners’ August 2025 compliance petition unanswered, non-cancer effects (e.g., NTP’s “clear evidence” of rodent schwannomas) unaddressed—the Gag Clause’s irrationality ripens to per se unconstitutionality. Let us proceed, scalpel in hand.I. FIRST AMENDMENT: THE GAG CLAUSE AS VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION AND PRIOR RESTRAINT ON LOCAL DELIBERATIVE SPEECHDoctrinal Foundation: The Gag Clause contravenes the First Amendment’s core edict against government-compelled silence or selective muting of discourse in quintessential public fora—here, municipal zoning hearings as extensions of the “town hall” archetype (see Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 105-06 (2017) (elucidating internet-enabled civic speech as presumptively protected)). Absent strict scrutiny, it effects a content- and viewpoint-based prohibition: Health/environmental rationales—precisely the “disfavored” evidence adduced by residents (e.g., WHO 2025 animal systematic review’s high-certainty signals for RF-induced schwannomas)—are categorically excised from decisional matrices, while aesthetics or spacing enjoy plenary play (City of Portland v. FCC, 969 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2020)). This is no neutral time/place/manner stricture; it is a surgical prior restraint, chilling the “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” exchange demanded by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).Precedent pivots on CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 648 (2019), where a panel rebuffed compelled-speech calumnies against Berkeley’s point-of-sale RF warnings, deeming them “purely factual and uncontroversial” under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985). Yet post-FCC’s 2019 RF Order—reaffirming 1996 limits sans remand compliance—the district court enjoined the ordinance as preempted, a ruling emblematic of the Gag Clause’s extrajudicial muzzling (CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, No. 18-cv-02411, 2020 WL 5572041 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)). Our vector: As-applied challenges transmute this into a speaker-based discrimination claim, where § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) compels municipalities to elide “truthful, non-misleading” disclosures (Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 566 (2011)), effecting a de facto heckler’s veto on resident testimony.Strategic Arsenal:

  • Evidentiary Thrust: Amass hearing transcripts evincing “categorical blindfolds”—e.g., boards’ ritual incantation of irrelevance despite NTP/Ramazzini data (clear/some evidence of gliomas/schwannomas at non-thermal levels). Bolster with expert affidavits on RF’s “material physicality” (ion forced-oscillation mechanisms inducing oxidative stress, per PMC reviews), rendering suppression not mere omission but active falsehood.
  • Procedural Roadmap: File § 1983 actions in federal district courts (N.D. Cal. for Ninth Circuit pipeline), seeking declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Gag Clause is facially void as-applied to small-cell sitings within 500 feet of dwellings. Motion for preliminary injunction per Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008): Irreparable harm (chilled civic discourse amid EHT remand’s “legal doubt”); likelihood of success (intermediate scrutiny yields, as in Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986)); balance of equities (public health v. carrier profits).
  • Appellate Escalation: Cert petition post-panel affirmance, teeing Sorrell‘s commercial/non-commercial hybrid for en banc or certiorari—framing as “post-EHT viewpoint gerrymandering” to exploit SCOTUS’s 2025 agency-skepticism (Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024)).
  • Collateral Estoppel Dodge: Distinguish Santa Fe Alliance for Fair Elections v. N.M. Dep’t of Transp., 2020 WL 6121985 (D.N.M. Oct. 16, 2020) (dismissing broad 1A claims pre-merits), via parcel-specific records obviating traceability hurdles.

Victory metric: Injunctive moratorium on Gag Clause enforcement pending FCC remand resolution, restoring “factual disclosures” per your model transparency clause.II. FIFTH AMENDMENT: DE FACTO RF EASEMENTS AS PER SE TAKINGS, TRIGGERING JUST COMPENSATION AND INVALIDATIONDoctrinal Foundation: The Takings Clause—”nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”—interdicts government-authorized physical invasions that appropriate private servitudes, irrespective of “safety” protestations (United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 265 (1946) (low overflights as permanent easement); United States v. Griggs, 411 U.S. 325 (1973) (airport noise as compensable de facto easement); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (cable intrusions as per se takings)). The Gag Clause consummates such appropriations: Federal licensing (47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.), FCC’s stagnant 1996 limits (remanded for arbitrary disregard of non-cancer/environmental harms, Env’t Health Tr. v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021)), and municipal compelled issuance converge to authorize continuous, directed RF fields—main-lobed via sector azimuths, down-tilts, and EIRPs—intruding parcel-specific onto abutting properties (City of Los Angeles v. David, 538 U.S. 715, 718 (2003) (tunnel smoke channeling as “direct, peculiar, substantial” invasion)).This is no regulatory morass (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)); it is a Loretto-grade per se taking, as § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) disables opt-outs, foisting “third-party access” sans consent (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 1563 (2021) (union organizer entries as physical occupations)). Ark. Game & Fishing Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), extends to intermittent invasions; pulsed 5G waveforms (SAR >1.6 W/kg localized) qualify. Distinguish FCC v. Fla. Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245 (1987) (voluntary pole attachments); here, preemption compels acceptance, birthing an “RF easement” across boundaries.Strategic Arsenal:

  • Evidentiary Thrust: Engineer irrefutable “invasion” records: 24-hour calibrated spectrum-analyzer logs (tying power densities to site PCI/ARFCN via propagation models); sector maps evincing “directed” exposure (e.g., bedroom-facing lobes > FCC MPEs); appraisals quantifying diminution (10-30% via overflight comps, per Causby methodology). Infuse with science pack: NTP’s “clear evidence” (heart schwannomas, male rats); Ramazzini far-field replication; WHO 2025 SR (high certainty for RF carcinogenicity signals)—not for nuisance, but to limn RF’s “non-trivial physical force.”
  • Procedural Roadmap: Inverse condemnation suits in state superior courts (e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1245.245) against municipal proprietors (Griggs nexus), escalating to federal Tucker Act claims (28 U.S.C. § 1491) for federal authorization traceability. Seek partial summary judgment on per se status: No factual dispute on “continuity/directionality” (Richards v. Wash. Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546 (1914)). For facial bite, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class actions certifying nationwide homeowner classes in high-densification corridors.
  • Appellate Escalation: Circuit split bait—Ninth vs. Tenth (Santa Fe Alliance, 2020 WL 6121985, dismissed on standing, not merits)—petitioning cert under *Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) (conflict on easement doctrine post-Cedar Point).
  • Pushback Parries: “Intangibility”? RF’s electromagnetic quanta are “physical” per quantum mechanics, measurable as Poynting flux (Causby, supra). “Compliance = No Harm”? Takings pivots on appropriation, not regulatory patina—EHT remand vitiates FCC ipse dixit (Loretto, 458 U.S. at 440).

Victory metric: Compensation awards + declaratory nullification of Gag Clause as enabling uncompensated takings, forcing upstream local vetoes.III. TENTH AMENDMENT: COMMANDEERING VIA NEGATIVE PREEMPTIVE EDICTS, POST-MURPHY UNCONSTITUTIONALITYDoctrinal Foundation: The Tenth Amendment’s reservation—”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—crystallizes in the anti-commandeering canon, proscribing federal conscription of state legislative or adjudicative machinery (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)). Murphy v. NCAA radicalized this, voiding PASPA’s “negative command”—”shall not… authorize” sports wagering—as “legislation commandeering state legislative power” (584 U.S. at 471-72), scorning doctrinal alchemy distinguishing “affirmative” from “prohibitory” dictates. The Gag Clause is Murphy‘s doppelgänger: “A State or local government… may not regulate the placement… on the basis of [RF] environmental effects”—a content-specific veto on zoning rationales, conscripting municipal boards as FCC factotums, their deliberations shackled to “substantial evidence” excluding the very harms under judicial cloud (EHT, 9 F.4th at 908).Circuits’ preemption gloss (Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 414 F.3d 1332 (10th Cir. 2005)) falters post-Murphy; § 332(c)(7) transmutes Spending Clause incentives into direct edicts, warping “cooperative federalism” into subjugation (Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000), distinguished as non-legislative). Scholarly consensus flags this as “preemption-plus” overreach, inviting SCOTUS clarification amid 2025’s federalism resurgence (*see CRS Rpt. No. R46736 (May 12, 2025) (FCC authority under § 332(c)(7))).Strategic Arsenal:

  • Evidentiary Thrust: Zoning dockets chronicling “commandeered” denials—e.g., shot-clock forfeitures despite health records—juxtaposed against Roswell‘s writing mandates, evincing “irrational line-drawing” (Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016)).
  • Procedural Roadmap: Facial challenges under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), in D.C. District (FCC as defendant), seeking preemption abatement. Abstention dodge via Younger exceptions (no ongoing state proceedings implicating Gag).
  • Appellate Escalation: En banc petition in Ninth (League momentum), certifying Tenth Amendment question to SCOTUS (Sup. Ct. R. 20).
  • Pushback Parries: “Market Participant”? Municipalities are sovereigns, not vendors (Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980)).

Victory metric: Severance of Gag Clause, restoring plenary local authority sans federal ventriloquism.IV. SYNTHETIC ENDGAME: LITIGATION-TO-LEGISLATION PIPELINE AND RISK ALLOCATIONIntegrated offensive: File conjunctive complaints, cross-movants for consolidation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (MDL in N.D. Cal.). Amici: ACLU (1A), Pacific Legal Foundation (5A), National League of Cities (10A). Budget: $2.5M Phase I (discovery/motions); contingency on settlements (carrier nuisance payouts).Legislative vector: Your model repeal text as S. ___ (drop-in for 2026 FASTER Act reauth)—lobby via EHT remand publicity, framing as “Murphy for Telecom.” Politically incorrect truth: Carriers’ spectral hegemony exacts a federalism toll; our scalpel excises it.We prevail not by timidity, but audacity. Conference to marshal filings? 

Source

Related Articles

Quantacover Velcro Nonmetallic Nonmagnetic Detachable Phone Radiation Shield
The Cost Of Ignorance
Why Search Engines Promote Industry Friendly Content The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation Is Being Actively Suppressed
The Hidden Risks Of Wallet Features In Safesleeve Anti Radiation Phone Cases
Why The Quantacase Is The Ultimate Solution For Phone Radiation Protection
Millimeter Wave Rf Radiation Can Kill Covid 19 And Polio Virus Israeli Study Shows

SAR Information & Resources

Discover RF Safe’s exclusive interactive charts to compare phone radiation levels, explore how children’s exposure differs from adults, and learn practical ways to lower RF exposure. Compare All Phones

Children & RF Exposure

Kids absorb more radiation due to thinner skulls. Learn how to protect them.

See Child Safety Data
Exclusive RF Safe Charts

Compare real-world radiation data in interactive charts found only here at RF Safe.

Explore Charts
Reduce Wi-Fi & Bluetooth

Turning off unused transmitters significantly lowers your exposure.

See the Difference
🍏 Apple

View SAR

📱 Google

View SAR

📲 Samsung

View SAR