Implanted RFID Chips Linked To Cancer 247
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press is reporting that microchip implants have induced cancer in laboratory animals and dogs. A series of research articles spanning more than a decade found that mice and rats injected with glass-encapsulated RFID transponders developed malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers in up to 1% to 10% of cases. The tumors originated in the tissue surrounding the microchips and often grew to completely surround the devices. To date, about 2,000 RFID devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp." We recently discussed the California ban on companies requiring such implants.
Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes me think twice about wanting one for my dog. . .
Carrie? (Score:2)
Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (Score:5, Insightful)
Her health ought to be first priority. Her dreamaliciousness must come second. Er, . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw her at Dragon-Con a couple of weeks ago
Re: (Score:2)
Christ, the standard is really slipping.
Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't you nervous that the "myths" surrounding your penis might get "busted"?
Besides, the implantation might trigger the explosive growth of a colony of cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Someone better tell Kari from MythBusters (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing to do with radio waves at all, more to do with being a foreign body implanted into fast-growing tissue. You get exactly the same thing around bits of glass left in wounds after accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing more bioicompatible is Teflon.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, teflon is considered a 'likely carcinogen'.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=teflon+carci
No talk about RFI (Score:2, Interesting)
This may answer the issue of cell phone cancer.
Of course, the cell phone company will claim that it only happens if you have the phone (headset) to your ear for 6 hours a day. And of course, the manual says that they only recommend no more than 4 hours of use a month.
Re:No talk about RFI (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because they assume their readers aren't idiots...
RFID chips don't emit electromagnetic radiation, they only (really) reflect it. What's more, the energy levels are far lower than any number of other day-to-day activities, in the same frequency ranges as other signals all around us, and RFID chips are only scanned for a couple seconds at a time, and only on occasion.
If the small and occasional radiation from RFID chips could cause cancer, we'd all be lucky to survive for a few months after birth before dying of cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First, the tags in question are passive. No battery, so they require the reader to
supply the tag with the energy.
The implantable chips work in or near the LF (low frequency) 125-134KHz band.
Due to this frequency, the tags work strictly on near field magnetic waves.
The tags contain a IC chip with 40 to 50 feet of hair-thin copper strand wound around
a core. This inductive coil converts oscillating magnetic fields into a voltage for
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unlike the drag on a generator/alternator when you connect or disconnect a load across it.
The transmitter scanning circuit supplies the power the RFID tag needs to operate in the RF field emitted by the scanner. While the RFID tag is powered up by the RF field, the tr
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/180304_RFID_article.h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These things would happen very frequently if worn out in the real world and that would concern me greatly
Re:No talk about RFI (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wouldn't doubt this study. The fact that they've determined that "about 1% to 10%" of the sample suffer from cancer indicates that it's extremely accurate!
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue how medical statistics works, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
I say: 1. No more implants in people. 2. More Study.
What exactly is your proposed mechanism for RF signals causing cancer? I remain convinced that the "Cellphones Cause Cancer" people are a mixture of Schizophrenics and Hypochondriacs (both natural, and amphetamine induced.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have liked to see the results of 'dead' chips versus 'live' chips.
All RFID chips are "dead" except when being read. So, unless the pet lived at a vet's office and curled up under the RFID reader everyday, it wouldn't get and radio frequency radiation from the chip. Which is probably the kind of situation they put the lab animals through.
Also no talk about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.
Nothing fishy here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing fishy here (Score:5, Informative)
Yet another amazing coincidence. If I could just pay a dollar in taxes every time this happens, somebody sure could get rich.
August 8, 1983-- Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.
September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Fall 1983-- The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.
What about pets? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have these implants been causing cancer too?
Re:What about pets? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 6000 chipped dogs the article would be predicting between 60 and 600 would develop "fast growing, lethal" cancers, at the site of the chip.
That would compete pretty well with the natural rate of cancer... surely vets would notice if every other case of canine or feline cancer they saw was a t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Practise (Score:2, Interesting)
We make compromises on health all the time for convenience and aesthetics -- while most cosmetics are not technically harmful, spraying aluminium on your underarms* or using make-up is not going to give you health benefits. It's easier to take the car to work not cycle
I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, here's an interesting Wired article [wired.com] on the subject.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Most pets don't have the skill to remove or swap-out their own RFID implants.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither they have the skill to remove or swap their nametags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got her chipped because I knew that if she were to get outside that she would likely be without tag
Re: (Score:2)
How fast does she go now? Have the chipping increased her emissions?
Re: (Score:2)
sorry for the godwin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the little detail that your driver license is not lodged into yourself, nor carved with laser in your arm. There are very valid (and useful) applications for RFID, but human tagging is not one of them, IMHO. There's already a shitload of id that one carries with himself all the time - passports, driver licenses... retinas, thumbprints and even their teeth.
Big ol Thanx (Score:2, Funny)
Radio shack isn't that bad (Score:3, Funny)
Name address and phone number is all they ask from me when I buy stuff there, and they don't insist if I'm paying cash. They haven't demanded I let them implant a RFID chip yet.
one thing remains clear... (Score:2)
Only a judge can decide on such important scientific matters (can you taste the sarcasm?)
Normal activity for the body (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, I have talked to several people that knew people that had tumors for many, many years and never had any trouble, but after their doctors talked them into removing the tumors and doing radiation/chemo treatment, they were dead within a year. Things that make you go hmmmmm.
So a tumor around a foreign body like that doesn't shock me too much.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't these stupid scientists just come up with a protein that emits or absorbs specific RF frequencies based on regions of amino acids generated from a nonconserved segment of coding DNA which acts as a barcode? That would be so much easier.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can't find that exact quote in the article itself, nor anything specifically mentioning fast-growing and lethal, but they're pretty clear on the tumors in question being cancerous and malignant.
Malignant vs non-malignant (benign) (Score:4, Insightful)
Now about tumor which removed, and suddenly become mortal (your second part). I call bullshit on that one. Some benign tumor might turn malignant with timem on their own, but not due to medicinal intervention as you seem to pretend. I can't also imagine a tumor left for many years and suddenly the doctor says "oh we need to take that out now, radio therapy and chemio !". I would say it is rather that the doctor detected that the tumor did go from benign to malignant and my guess is that since they knew he/she had a tumor for years most probably it is a skin tumor easy to detect and can be deadly if change are not detected quick enough (it happens. I had a naevus (big sort of mole 4 cm wide) which changed of texture when I was 13. Out of concern the oncologue ordered immediate chirurgy and a biopsy. From what I gathered it can happens that such a big mole with time turn malignant. Turn out that had to take a LOT of my left muscle out over 13 cm and more than 2 cm deep, but biopsy was negative. Relief ensured).
Bottom line : you are mixing up cause and effect. It was not the therapy which was caused your friend tumor to grow malignant, it was the tumor growing malignant which caused your friend go get a therapy which failed and he died.
PS: I say friend above, but it seems after rereading your post it was only an acquaintance , and thus the quality of the info your present is even doubly doubtful.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it Just goes to show you (Score:2)
The pleasures of early adoption (Score:2)
Seriously, early adopters often get screwed, but it is their own fault. Remember all that X-Ray mania and how careful you have to be with X-Rays now?
Well, sorry Charlie... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lack of Science. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This will have to be followed up with larger studies with control groups and double-blind protocols. The reaction to this study should be to demand more and better studies.
Seems like a planted story to me.. (Score:5, Informative)
Shortly after that stories linking Saccharine with cancer flooded the media while the Nutrasweet corp flooded the media with stories about Nutrasweet and its safety. Within months the use of Saccharine plummeted to single digit figures and Nutrasweet took over the artificial sweetener market.
For his leadership RG Serle gave Donald Rumsfeldt a $6M retiring bonus.
I am waiting to hear of a competitive RFID chip entering the market. One that is "cancer free". Then I'll know who planted this story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me crazy, but when I don't want sugar... I drink and eat things that aren't sweet. Mindboggling, I know...
I'll pass on the RFID for a while, too. I like my stuff "Tested on Humans" (TM), and there seem to be plenty of other people out there happily being my my guinea pigs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For evidence of the delusional nature of Betty's claims, check out http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp [snopes.com].
Re:Seems like a planted story to me.. (Score:4, Interesting)
My knowledge is personal. I am one of at least 10% of the population with a sensitivity to Aspartame.
Within 30 minutes after drinking a can of soda sweetened with Nutrasweet I get a severe headache, the skin on my face and upper body turns beet red and gets oily because of excessive sebaceous gland activity. Several people have tested this response (some deliberately, some by accident) by giving me candy sweetened with Nutrasweet.
I discovered the link between these symptoms and Aspartame by accident. I had my own computer consulting business between 1980 and 1997. In 1987 I was asked by an old college acquaintances who had been hired as academic dean at a small private college in the central part of this state to come and teach science and math. I agreed as long as I could continue with my consulting business on the side. Later in that year the college pres heard about my consulting after I consulted with the city that the college was in and asked me to computerize the college. I agreed but the load rose to about 70-80 hours per week. In addition commuted 55 miles a day from my home. To avoid getting sleepy during classes and programming sessions I began drinking Dr Pepper. To avoid gaining weight due to the sugar content in a can of Dr. Pepper I decided to drink diet Dr. Pepper. Even though I hold a Master's Degree in Biochemistry, with major hours in Chemistry, Physics, Math and Biology (I was a "professional student"
I resigned from the college and decided to take six months off. I also started drinking tea instead of diet sodas. Within a few weeks the headaches vanished, the red and oily skin disappeared and my mood improved considerable. My memory, however, never came back to its former level, which was semi-photographic. One day about three months later my wife came home from shopping with a carton of diet Dr Pepper because she thought I'd like a can once in a while. I drank a can and within 30 minutes the symptoms I had been having for several years reappeared. Within 24 hours they were gone. A few days later I tried another can and the symptoms appeared again. I set up double blind tests with regular and diet sodas and established to my satisfaction that it was indeed the diet sodas causing the problems. Since then I have avoided anything with Aspartame in it and the symptoms have never reappeared.
In 1992, IIRC, I was on Compuserve and began searching the web to find out Aspartame. The articles and research I found then settled the issue in my mind. I met on line a lady by the name of Mary Stoddard, IIRC, who had experienced problems similar to mine was was running a website on Compuserve where she posted lots of stories like mine of people who had problems with
Negative Reinforcement (Score:2)
Humans often believe things because the want to, not because they are true.
Hey Gates -- your next argument for immigration! (Score:2)
A Setback for Bioactive Glass...? (Score:2, Interesting)
New developments in making the materials with porous structures to stimulate bone growth have brought a spurt in the use of it as graft material and encouraged investigations into other medical uses, but I wonder now whether it and other silicates as a class pose a significant cancer risk,
Misleading summary (Score:2, Informative)
The Associated Press is reporting that microchip implants have induced cancer in laboratory animals and dogs.
TFA only mentions dogs in a few paragraphs, and only two cases of cancer near the chip have been reported in over 10,000 chipped dogs (only one of which is said to be linked in some way to the chip). It even says that the link between chips and cancer is not established in dogs, and that it is only something that should be studied more. So, yeah, the AP is not reporting that implants have induc
I've seen modblog (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite a few people there have implants (horns, weird shapes in the forearm, etc.) and there hasn't been any warning there of increased cancer risk. The body-mod crowd is generally about doing crazy and interesting stuff that's ultimately safe.
Of course, these things are inert in EM fields, unlike RFID chips. I know they don't transmit, but absorbing energy from a field has to generate a small amount of heat that's channelled or dissipated into the surrounding tissue, right?
Up to? (Score:3, Insightful)
"up to" is the equivalent of "maximum". How can you have a range for a maximum value?
LS
Foreign object, with a coating... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what we have here is a biologically active foreign object. This result is, unfortunately, not surprising.
So, will Citywatcher.com be laying off their data center workers as being 'at-risk' for higher future medical costs?
Hmmm.... (Score:2)
As works with prostethic arms or other artificial organs (like hearts, heart valves, etc) this is clearly not the case with humans. Not that I like RFID implants or anything, just my personal opinion on
Humans are electrical machines (Score:2)
OTH, it might be a trace element in the glass.
Well California will just have (Score:4, Funny)
This human contains materials known to cause cancer in the State of California.
I always wonder what it is about California that makes so many things cause cancer?
Dalkon Shield (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Return of the Anonymous Idiot (Score:3, Informative)
An apparently well researched and well respected source of information on the corporate fiasco that was the Dalkon Shield is this book:
Bending the Law: The Story [amazon.com]
On the bright side... (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment kinda reminds me of the asbestos revelations... there was a time when asbestos was put into cigarette filters as an advertised health feature.
Regards.
More junk science for your junk science (Score:3, Informative)
Try - just take a small needle and continue to keep poking it in the same spot in your hand continuously for a year.
I find it interesting though (Score:2)
If it somehow increases the risk of cancer (even minus the RF stuff) more than the usual studs etc then I find that very interesting. Maybe it's the shape or surface of the glass? Could be something useful to learn about cancer from this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In which case why aren't people with earrings getting lots of cancers from them? How about those people who "mod" themselves (studs etc) but not with glass RFIDs?
because earrings are outside the skin, the initial wound is allowed to be healed, and the earring touches with the exterior of the skin without inducing any wound.
everything needs to be neutral. if any material within it has surfaces that disturbs the tissue where its implanted (and it is a high possibility) or, any material within it has properties that induces any kind of other continuous effects on the nearby tissue it may be a cause. granted, there is going to be a noticeable higher concentration
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Competely ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
News flash #1: RFID chips do not emit any RF except when they're being read.
News flash #2: Glass is inert.
So is chrysotile asbestos.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, my point was that you are an idiot and I think I made that point rather well by providing a counterexample to your humorously faulty logic. Although I am glad to hear that your clit ring did not give you cancer. Maybe you can hang an RFID on it!
Re: (Score:2)
So the inertness of glass does not rule it out from causing cancer.
[PURE SPECULATION]
It is possible that the reason cancer happens in a certain fraction of the test subjects is due to the fact t
Re: (Score:2)
Another one is chromosomal damage during mitosis when DNA is getting dragged across the mitotic spindle and gets snagged on an asbestos needle. The chromosome arm never makes it into one of the daughter cells, possibly triggering cancer if the chromosome had tumor suppressor genes on it etc. The asbestos doesn't need to chemically react with anything- it just needs to hold its needle shape an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None. You can either trust me on this, or go after the Nobel Prize that's waiting for anyone who can prove otherwise.
2) As far as I know, even if an object is inert, when injected inside of the human body, the human body works to reject foreign objects. At the very least, the human body has a tendency to form scar tissue around foreign bodies. Maybe in a small number of cases either the scar tissue, or human body's natura
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just silly. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No control group? WTF? Read TFA? (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason religious fundamentalists think science is pseudo-religious is because too many "scienti