26110081722
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110081722
I am writing as a Monterey, California resident to request a thorough, transparent reassessment of radiofrequency exposure standards in light of credible scientific findings published since the current limits were adopted. Several major research efforts deserve particular consideration. The National Toxicology Program’s externally peer-reviewed animal studies found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation. The peer-reviewed Ramazzini Institute study, published by Falcioni and colleagues in Environmental Research in 2018, also found a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas in male rats at its highest tested exposure, using a different exposure approach intended to represent emissions from cellular base stations. More recently, the 2025 systematic review by Mevissen and colleagues in Environment International evaluated 52 animal studies and rated the evidence as high certainty for increased gliomas and malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. These findings warrant careful consideration alongside human studies, including those that have found no increased cancer risk. I recognize that animal findings do not establish that everyday wireless exposure causes cancer in people. Differences in exposure intensity, duration, and whole-body versus localized exposure require careful evaluation. Nevertheless, these limitations should be addressed through a clear scientific assessment of what the findings mean for public protection. Please publicly explain how this evidence affects the adequacy of the FCC’s exposure limits, device testing procedures, and safety margins. That explanation should address long-term exposure, children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and whether compliance testing adequately represents actual device use, including direct contact with the body. If the Commission concludes that existing standards remain protective, it should explain how it accounted for these findings and the remaining uncertainties. If the evidence supports changes to limits, testing, or research priorities, those changes should be identified and pursued. The public deserves standards supported by a current, transparent evaluation of the full body of evidence. Sincerely, Raymond Meyers Monterey, California