Harm most plausibly attributed to cell phone transmitters emitting spikes of 180% of flesh heating threshold on the water tower adjacent to our home include: my wife's stroke after 2 hours of planting shrubs within 100 ft thereof, immediate neighbor's degenerative disease upon his retirement and 24/7 presence in his home vs. part time exposure prior, forcing its sale and his relocation, sudden death of trees ranging from 2" to 20" in diameter, inability to grow multiple varieties of vegetables within 200 ft despite best practice cultivation methods, obligatory wearing of protective head wear when outdoors, fetching mail, taking out garbage, recycling etc., mental anguish and torment over the cruel imposition of this radiation without consent on the entire residential zone whose homes are without the protection of Faraday shielding built into our home 115 years ago. The City of Milford pledged to cease leasing the water tower for transmitters in 2022 after petitioning by residents but a new administration renewed the lease without notice to the public in 2025. Objection to this by proximate residents is nearly universal.
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