The herbicide glyphosate induces human cancers. 
 The radiation used for wireless induces human cancers.
  Victims of both glyphosate and wireless radiation demand compensation!
Glyphosate Everywhere:
45 Years of Deadly Environmental Pollution
    Monsanto brought glyphosate to market for agricultural use in 1974 under the trade name Roundup. Farmers quickly adopted glyphosate for weed control, especially after Monsanto introduced genetically engineered glyphosate seeds (soy, corn, alfalfa), enabling famers to kill weeds without killing their crops. Glyphosate-based formulations may contain a number of proprietary adjuvants and these formulations have been found loaded with toxic metals, including arsenic and lead. [1]
    By 2007, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the U.S. agricultural sector and the second-most used (after 2,4-D) in home and garden, government and industry. From the late 1970s to 2016, there was a 100-fold increase in the frequency and volume of application of glyphosate-based herbicides worldwide, with further increases expected in the future, partly because glyphosate-resistant weeds require greater application. Glyphosate is now found in many commercial foods. The non-profit Environmental Working Group found that 43 out of 45 popular breakfast cereals contained glyphosate, 31 of them at dangerously high levels. The highest concentration of glyphosate is found in non-GMO wheat, barley, oats and beans because farmers spray these crops just before harvest to facilitate the drying process. [2]
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as
" probably carcinogenic."

  Early studies showed that glyphosate-based herbicides cause life-threatening heart arrhythmias plus electrophysiological changes in the cardiovascular systems of test animals. Glyphosate is also documented to damage agricultural soil and cause nutritional deficiencies in crops. [3]
   In 2019, a group of scientists representing five U.S. agencies/universities published a meta-analysis of later glyphosate studies, including the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study cohort published in 2018. They analyzed five additional case-control studies published in 2019. This composite data shows a multitude of biological ramifications including: increased risk of immune suppression, chronic inflammation, endocrine disruption, genetic alterations and susceptibility to pathogens. It also documents a "compelling link" between exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. [4]

* In June 2018, Dewayne Johnson, a 46-year-old California worker dying of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma sued Monsanto, alleging that the company spent decades hiding the cancer-causing dangers of its Roundup herbicides. The judge ordered that jurors be allowed to consider both scientific evidence related to the cause of Johnson's cancer and allegations that Monsanto suppressed evidence of the risks, with possible punitive damages. The jury awarded Johnson $289 million in damages, reduced to $78 million on appeal. This liability is apparently the responsibility of Bayer which bought Monsanto just before the Johnson case was finalized. [5]


*In March 2019, another litigant was awarded $80 million in a lawsuit claiming Roundup was a substantial factor in his cancer. This case resulted in many stores discontinuing Roundup sales. The judge hearing the case stated that the behavior of Monsanto showed a lack of concern about the risk that its product might be carcinogenic and that the evidence "easily supported a conclusion that Monsanto was more concerned with tamping down safety inquiries and manipulating public opinion than it was with ensuring its product is safe." [6]


* In May 2019, a jury in California ordered Bayer to pay a litigant $2 billion in damages after finding that the company had failed to adequately inform consumers of the possible carcinogenicity of Roundup. On July 26, 2019, a judge cut the settlement to $86.7 million, stating that the judgment by the jury exceeded legal precedent. [7]


* In October 2019, Bayer reported that the number of U.S. plaintiffs suing over glyphosate-linked cancers had reached a staggering 42,700. [8] Paid messages on national media now advertise the availability of funds to cover glyphosate damages and urge Roundup-exposed victims with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to apply for compensation. 

   Glyphosate herbicides are currently banned or restricted in about 18 nations worldwide. Sri Lanka banned them after finding that exposed rural populations suffered chronic kidney disease. [9] Several states and cities across the US also ban or restrict glyphosate usage. In 2017, California listed glyphosate in its Proposition 65 registry of chemicals known to cause cancer.
   However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had labeled glyphosate as a carcinogen back in 1985, announced in 2019 that its most recent review of glyphosate reaffirms absolutely no risk to public health. Meantime, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture has reported that the USDA applauds EPA’s decision to uphold the continued use of agricultural glyphosate, consistent with the findings of other U.S. regulatory agencies that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans. [10] So with the blessing of federal regulators, glyphosate remains legal for nationwide infusion into agricultural soils and resulting food products, while the average consumer may continue to spread this easily-obtained carcinogen all over parks, yards and school grounds where pets and children play.

No one knows how many people in North America have been or will be
sickened/killed by excessive glyphosate exposure.

Wi-Radiation Everywhere:

36 Years of Deadly Environmental Pollution  
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF/microwave radiation as a possible carcinogen. Since 2011, an avalanche of new scientific data has confirmed that microwave radiation used for wireless technologies meets Bradford Hill criteria as a confirmed human carcinogen. The federal NTP studies published in 2016 settled the debate, providing clear evidence of the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation.
  In 1984, the first transportable cell phone became available to U. S. consumers. Today a massive scientific data base documents disastrous health effects from an environmental blizzard of radiation that plumes from:  wireless personal devices, microwave antennas on street corners, smart meters on homes and Wi-Fi antennas located inside buildings everywhere across North America. This same carcinogen is also spewed by many newer vehicles transformed into beaming radar installations. The oncoming 5G project will add millions of new small cell antennas, along with the more potent millimeter wave radiation to hugely increase human exposure to inescapable wave carcinogen.
  Wireless microwave radiation from numerous sources is linked to a broad list of cancers, including hemolymphatic (HL) cancers that arise from blood cells or lymphoid tissues. HL cancers include: four kinds of leukemia, a long list of lymphoma diseases (such as the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma linked to glyphosate) plus myeloma (cancer of the plasma cells in bone marrow).  Each year, about 180,000 people in the U.S. get a new diagnosis for one of the gruesome HL cancers. [11]
   In 2018, researchers with the Hebrew University in Israel published a study on radiation-related human cancers produced by occupational and military settings. They focused on the extraordinary number of HL cancers linked to communication and radar microwave frequencies which are part of the microwave spectrum used today for wireless technologies. The study analyzed published data from a group of cancer patients with a history of  prolonged exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including radar microwaves, plus three additional cohort studies of heavily irradiated military and industrial workers in various countries. These groups all suffered high HL cancer rates. The Israeli scientists state in their abstract:  "Overall, the epidemiological studies on the excess risk for HL and other cancers, together with brain tumors in cell phone users and experimental studies on RFR and carcinogenicity make a coherent case for a cause-effect relationship and classifying RFR exposure as a human carcinogen (IARC Group 1A)." [12] This fact is especially germane to the new vehicle driver assist radar systems, DOT's upcoming vehicle-to-vehicle communication project and the myriad microwave antennas deployed by driverless (autonomous) vehicles. 
  So far, the intrepid Wi-industry has paid no court-mandated compensation to victims who have suffered or died from microwave radiation across the last 35 years of wireless mania. The first cell phone cancer suit was filed in 1992 (Reynard vs. NEC). The plaintiff lost his case because the court declared that his attorneys had failed to demonstrate medical causation of the lethal tumor. A series of subsequent suits since Reynard have met numerous legal obstacles. Reynard inspired the Telecom industry to buy itself the Telecom Act of 1996 --rubber-stamped by the US Congress-- which preempts (exempts from tort suits) all cell phones manufactured after 1996. Looking back, it seems that Monsanto would have been wise to buy itself a Glyphosate Act of 1974.

  Continuing is a U.S. lawsuit consolidating some 29 brain cancer litigation cases naming 46 defendants including Motorola, Verizon, AT&T, Nokia etc. This suit seeks compensation for older cancer cases arising from the use of cell phones sold before 1996.  Four legal consortiums are still working their way forward on this class action suit after a 2016 appeals court decision held that a different legal standard for evidence must be applied in future hearings. [13] This appeals ruling reversed an earlier 2014 court ruling that experts for the plaintiffs had met Dyas/Frye legal standards and could offer valid testimony related to injury causation and health effects from cell phone radiation. The 2016 appeals ruling fairly stinks of obstruction on behalf of the Wi-industry.

  In 2009, the brain cancer lawsuit Murray vs. Motorola provoked a court ruling confirming that claims of health damage from cell phones are barred on the basis of both express and implied federal preemption under the Telecom Act of 1996. The court stated, "We conclude that federal law DOES IMPLIEDLY PREEMPT plaintiffs’ claims insofar as they seek to hold defendants liable for bodily injuries from cell phones that meet the radiofrequency (RF) radiation standard adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC)." [14]


BUT THE COURT ALSO SAID: "At the same time, we conclude that insofar as the plaintiffs’ claims are premised on allegations that they were injured through the use of cell phones that did not meet the FCC standard, the claims are not federally preempted." [14]

AND THE COURT ALSO SAID: "We conclude that the Plaintiffs' CPPA claims are not preempted by federal law." This  is important because CPPA claims derive from the Consumer Protection Procedures Act which regulates unfair and deceptive trade practices.  In the 2009 Murray case, the plaintiffs injured by cell phone radiation had cited numerous deceptive trade practices used by the telecom industry including: crucial health information withheld, false representation that their dangerous devices had approval and certification which they did not have and the false representation that research has shown that there is no risk of harm with the use of cell phones. [14]

   Fast forward to now. The Murray vs. Motorola court case ruling seems extremely fortuitous for future Wi-cancer litigation. On August 23, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California against Apple Inc. and Sumsung Electronics. A large group of plaintiffs allege bodily harm and monetary loss after a professional testing lab hired by the Chicago Tribune revealed that the popular smart phone models (iPhone, Galaxy), which plaintiffs bought from these companies, emit radiofrequency radiation that greatly exceeds exposure limits set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Samsung Galaxy S8, for example, was found to exceed US federal exposure limits by 500 percent. [15] 

  The 2019 non-compliance suit states: "These [test] results are not an aberration, but instead reflect actual emissions conducted by an FCC-accredited lab under the same conditions used by manufacturers themselves." This testing corroborates earlier studies by French scientists and also researchers at the University of Utah who reported that smart devices sold to consumers routinely excrete microwave radiation in excess of both European and US safety standards when held near (within 2 mm) or directly on the body. [16]


 The 2019 suit cites scientific evidence of severe health damage from constant and excessive exposure to non-compliant microwave emitters: "As a result, on information and belief, Plaintiffs have been exposed to harmful levels of RF radiation that could negatively affect their health for many years to come."

  This 2019 filing also includes an impressive list of state consumer statutes being violated by Apple and Samsung who allegedly sell non-compliant smart devices while fostering a false notion of safety through material omissions and deceptive advertising. Because non-compliant smart devices are NOT preempted by the Telecom Act of 1996, and because CPPA claims are also not preempted, successful plaintiffs in the future may one day recover both statutory damages and punitive damages against the deceptive and self-serving Wi-megalith. This is why many Wi-corporations now inform their shareholders that litigation related to health issues is a future possibility. [17]
   Meantime, no scientific team has yet reported on the emissions compliance of horrifically powerful Bluetooth devices worn on the head, wireless tablets, smart watches and connected eye glasses like the new Echo Frames. Hapless consumers have no way themselves to test the specific absorption rates of these devices.  And so the victims of wireless soldier on through a maze of carcinogenic devices, while depending on a legal system that has been historically tilted to ensure that justice is denied for economic preservation of the truly evil. 
  At this juncture, we hear the sage words of Dr. George L. Carlo, an epidemiologist trained in medical science and law who discovered the dangers of wireless technology back in the 1990s when he was hired by the Wi-industry to head its WTR research project (1993-1999). The project was  designed to prove the “safety” of cell phone radiation but Carlo ultimately became a whistleblower to expose the treachery of an amoral consortium that "lured the global public into buying four-billion life-threatening devices called cell phones. That slight of hand being accomplished right under the noses of a legal system avowed to protect the rights of victims while the perpetrators escape all accountability."
   In 2008, Carlo wrote: "So you say: 'If this technology is so dangerous, why isn't it portrayed that way in the news?  Do we not have scientists who study this to make the technology safe?  Do we not have regulations and government policing to keep us safe? Do we not have the news media to keep us informed?  And do we not have lawyers who will advocate on our behalf to ensure that we are treated fairly?'  Yes, we have all of those protections. But they are not working to protect us.  And there is catastrophic trouble ahead if corrective steps are not taken to stem the tide of danger being precipitated by the unbridled expansion of wireless technology." [18]
   Since Dr. Carlo issued his warning, the Wi-industry has amassed enough collective wealth to BUY legislative, regulatory and judicial systems. Therefore, informed observers will not be surprised to watch future court shenanigans designed to bypass justice for Wi-victims. Judges can be bribed/threatened and legal decisions can be maliciously skewed to confound or delay payouts, since the number of people sickened, maimed or killed by the Wi-industry is certainly in the millions.
  In a worst-case scenario, the Wi-industry's FCC pup-on-a-chain could arbitrarily raise cell phone exposure limits (SAR) in order to accommodate corrupt Wi-device makers who are literally "cooking" their uninformed customers with impunity. Of course, the industry-captured FCC has never proven with proper medical studies that its current cell phone exposure limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram actually protects human health. On the contrary, the REFLEX studies from the European Union clearly demonstrate that the FCC "safety" limit is actually DEADLY. The REFLEX scientists exposed human blood to microwaves at a SAR of 1.3 watts per kilogram for only 24 hours and those blood cells sustained the same DNA damage as if they had been bombed with 1600 chest X-rays! [19]  Besides, every honest scientist knows that there is no demonstrably safe level of exposure from any confirmed human carcinogen.
Read attorney Julian Gresser's ideas for empowering cities in the 5G era HERE

1. "Glyphosate Worse than We Could Imagine: It's Everywhere," Global Research, 04-27-2019.
2.  "Glyphosate from Monsanto's Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soil and Human Gut," Global Research, 02-16-2018. See also: "Cereal Killers: Monsanto Weedkiller That Can 'Probably' Cause Cancer Found in Children's Breakfasts,", 08-16-2018.
3.  Ibid.
4. "Exposure to Glyphosate-based Herbicides and Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-analysis and Supporting Evidence," Zhang et al., Mutation Research, July-September 2019, 781:186-206.
5. Wikipedia on glyphosate. See the section: Lawsuits Claiming Liability for Cancer.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. "Bayer Faces Huge Upsurge in Cancer-Linked Lawsuits,", 10-30-2019.
9. "Sri Lanka Bans Monsanto Herbicide Citing Potential Link to Deadly Kidney Disease,", 03-13-2014.
10. "EPA Takes Next Step to Review Process for Herbicide Glyphosate, Reaffirms No Risk to Public Health,", News Release, 04-30-2019.
11.  American Cancer Society, Facts and Statistics, 2020.
12. "Radiofrequency Radiation-related Cancers: Assessing Causation in the Occupational/Military Setting," Peleg et al., Environmental Research, Volume 63, May 2018, pp. 123-133.
13.  "Cell Phone Wireless Litigation,"  Environmental Health Trust. LINK
14.  Murray v Motorola, 982 A 2d 764 (DC 2009).
15.  Andrew Cohen et al., vs. Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Class Action Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial, filed 08-23-2019. See also: "We Tested Popular Cellphones for Radiofrequency Radiation," Chicago Tribune, 08-21-2018.
16.  To find earlier studies showing cell phone SAR non-compliance go here:  LINK
17.  To find corporate investor warnings on microwave radiation liability go here: LINK
18. "Illusion and Escape: The Cell Phone Disease Quagmire," George Carlo, The World Foundation for Natural Science, October 2008.  LINK
19. The REFLEX project was initiated by the European Union to investigate the effects of low-level RF/microwave radiation used for wireless technologies. The work was carried out by 12 research groups in seven European nations and completed in 2004. See: Report of the European Unions REFLEX Project Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods, November 2004.  An in-depth report on the REFLEX project can be found in the on-line brochure: Health and Electromagnetic Fields: EU-funded research into the Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields and Mobile Phones on Health published by the European Commission, 02-29-2008.