Implanted RFID Chips Linked To Cancer

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

Didn't she get one implanted in one episode?
Makes me think twice about wanting one for my dog. . .

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters

Hey now, that's really crude. Here I am expressing a legitimate concern for the health of another human being where it may very well be warranted, and all you can do is make 5th-grade level jokes.

Her health ought to be first priority. Her dreamaliciousness must come second. Er, . . .

Re:

Kari is attractive because she's not only cute, but smart. Major points for the slashdotter guys. I'm not a guy, but I recognize that appeal.
I saw her at Dragon-Con a couple of weeks ago :D w00t.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters

I, for one, would like to implant my penis into her vagina.

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:Someone better tell Kari from MythBusters

You can see that more on MythBusters TOO HOT FOR TV COMING SOON ON DVD!

No talk about RFI

There was no talk whether it was the container or the RFI emission. I would have liked to see the results of 'dead' chips versus 'live' chips.

This may answer the issue of cell phone cancer.

Of course, the cell phone company will claim that it only happens

Re:No talk about RFI

There was no talk whether it was the container or the RFI emission.

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.

Serious question

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 they reflect radiation in the same frequency ranges as other signals all around us, don't they reflect that energy all the time, not just on occasions when they are purposefully scanned?

Re:

From a physical point of view, it doesn't matter. The average energy flux through a given point is going to be the same whether the implant is there or not. (First order approximation, depends on the convexity of the reflector, and that energy comes from

Re:

RFID packages don't reflect EMR, the process is a bit more involved.

1. Tuned coil builds energy from transmitted RF.
   
2. Energy is used to power chip, calculate response and transmit the answer (more RF, local this time).
   
3. When the reader RF ceases, the stored en

Re:No talk about RFI

I immediately thought of the RFI emissions as the culprit. Wouldn't having the precisely the same RF transmissions going through precisely the same tissue over and over again cause much greater damage over time then a varied transmission or transmitting from a varied location? I'm thinking of the damage kinda like harmonics: if you tap the same place on structure at the right frequency you get resonance, if you tap at the same frequency but randomize the location and direction of each tap you get no resonance, if you randomize the tap so there is no set frequency you get no resonance. Whatever little DNA bit that happens to be effected by the RFI emission is going to get the exact same assault over and over until it is eventually destroyed.

Re:

There was no talk whether it was the container or the RFI emission. I would have liked to see the results of 'dead' chips versus 'live' chips.

I wouldn't doubt this study. The fact that they've determined that "about 1% to 10%" of the sample suffer from can

Re:

I'd be willing to bet it is the container. Shockingly there do seem to be people sensitive to Silicon and Silicon based compounds (see the controversy over Silicone breast implants.)

I say: 1. No more implants in people. 2. More Study.

What exact

Also no talk about...

So "up to 1% to 10% of cases" (whatever the hell that means) got cancer. Did they mention what percentage of mice that weren't implanted with RFID tags got cancer? It really matters what the baseline is, you know.

Nothing fishy here

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options. Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag. "I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.

Yet another amazing coincidence. If I could just pay a dollar in taxes every time this happens, somebody sure could get rich.

Re:Nothing fishy here

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.

"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.

Yet another amazing coincidence. If I could just pay a dollar in taxes every time this happens, somebody sure could get rich.

Looky, it's the aspartame approval process all over again!

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?

Hasn't it been common practice to inject pets with RFIDs for many years now?
Have these implants been causing cancer too?

Re:What about pets?

Hasn't it been common practice to inject pets with RFIDs for many years now?

Yes.

Have these implants been causing cancer too?

Don't know. If the increase is small enough, and takes upwards of a decade to take affect, it would be difficult to notice outside of trials.

Re:

Cattle are probably not a good representative population since the majority of them die long before their natural lifespan would be up. But pets are well cared for and usually live well past their natural lifespans.

In 6000 chipped dogs the article would b

Standard Practise

It's not surprising that interfering with a living thing in a very clumsy manner causes problems. It is -- and always has been -- about what is a tolerable level of damage to do. I don't know, but I can't think cattle branding is very healthy.

We make compr

I still don't get it

What's the point of RFID implants? RFIDs are simple devices which can be fairly easily falsified and/or duplicated. Never mind that the implant itself can be removed and swapped. It's an intrusive security layer which offers no security whatsoever. And on top of that, it introduces privacy concerns... we have ubiquitous cameras all over major cities, why not RFID scanners?

BTW, here's an interesting Wired article [wired.com] on the subject.

Re:

Most pets don't have the skill to remove or swap-out their own RFID implants.

Big ol Thanx

Just wanted to drop a quick line to those testing these devices themselves.. A big heartfelt thank you for risking your life testing these awkward little gizmos. Guess I won't be rushing on out to the local Radio Shack to inflict myself, or pressuring my b

Radio shack isn't that bad

Guess I won't be rushing on out to the local Radio Shack to inflict myself,

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...

We wont know if its real or not until someone with an RFID ends up with cancer and wins millions (billions?) of dollars from verichip.

Only a judge can decide on such important scientific matters (can you taste the sarcasm?)

Normal activity for the body

I have studied cancer for quite some time and I do know that *sometimes* a tumor is the body trying to put a barrier around something it doesn't know what to do with. In fact, tumors, unless they are doing damage to an important organ, or grow very large, usually won't kill you. It is only when they start to metastasize that you run into trouble pretty quick.

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.

Re:Normal activity for the body

How dare you try to bring reason to our alarmist discussion?!

Malignant vs non-malignant (benign)

Firstly there are all sort of tumor, but as far as this only means "abnormal tissue growth". The one which metastases and invade all tissue are malignant and left untreated as far as I can tell, always kill you, either by destroying utterly the organ they originate from or by metastasis. What you are thinking of is some sort of benign tumor which surround a foreign body. I dunno how often it happens, but usually what surround a foreign body is scar tissue, or even necrotic tissue, not tumoral tissue (biologist correct me). Tumoral tissue in that specific would happens only when the signal triggering the scar growth run awry or the stop signal is not detected sufficiently.

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.

I guess it Just goes to show you

When all your friends jump off a cliff, and you follow, you are just as phucked as they are.

Lack of Science.

"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." The AP (and the Slashdot post) report this as if it were a fact that RFID emissions cause cancer. You cannot intelligently draw that conclusion from these studies, since there was no control group with inert RFIDs implanted. This is yet another inaccurate portrayal of an inconclusive, pseudo-scientific paper as fact. When I am emporer, I will require all journalists to take a remedial science course. "studies have shown..." == "here comes a crock..."

Seems like a planted story to me..

In the early 1980s RG Serle was in trouble. Their animal studies showed that Aspartame caused brain cancer. A Researcher for the company blew the whistle and Congress was investigating. RG Serle brought in a problem solver who began by throwing having the rats with brain cancers removed from the studies. The whistle blower, for some reason, reversed his statements. The acting head of the FDA approved Aspartame for human consumption, then resigned. A few weeks later he was announced as the head of the legal department of the new Nutrasweet corporation. His two assistants were the lawyers Congress assigned to investigate the RG Serle problem.

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:

Aspartame is on my do-not-ingest list. Along with the other artificial sweeteners.

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

Re:

You've been reading Betty Martini, haven't you? Reading Betty's work is like reading Noam Chomsky's politics: the level of delusion is so consistent that people take it seriously, and start citing other people as cites when you can trace the cite back to t

Re:Seems like a planted story to me..

IF by "you" you are refering to me, then the answer is no. I've never heard of her.

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 never gave artificial sweeteners a second thought. As I continued teaching and writing registration, recruiting, accounting, grading and payroll packages for the college, and installing and setting up hardware, networking, etc., In 1989 I was voted runner up Teacher of the Year by the student body. I gradually increased the quantity of diet Dr. Pepper I was drinking in order to combat the fatigue and sleepiness. Within three years I was consuming about 6-8 liters per day. I don't remember exactly when the headaches began but by 1990 they were constant, as was the red and oily skin. I never related it to the diet soda. I also noticed other problems, which I associated with the work load and pressure - lose of memory and depression. By 1992 I finished the computer work, was an emotional wreak, and totally exhausted. I had trouble remembering elements in the Periodic Table, the names of students in my classes, and even the names of my two children! One other problem gradually appeared. Even though I was drinking diet soda to avoid putting on sugar weight, I began experiencing a craze for popcorn and other carbohydrates. By 1992 my weight had ballooned from 215 lbs to 265 lbs.

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

I've seen modblog

http://modblog.bmezine.com/ [bmezine.com]

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?

from the submission: up to 1% to 10%

"up to" is the equivalent of "maximum". How can you have a range for a maximum value?

LS

Foreign object, with a coating...

The chip is a foreign object in the body, a glass capsule. It's not surprising that the body reacts to it in some way, trying to encapsulate it. These devices also include a coating to promote growth of connective tissue in the vicinity of the device so as to anchor it and prevent movement of the capsule.

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?

Well California will just have

to come up with a new sign.
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

Anyone here old enough to remember the Dalkon Shield [wikipedia.org] implants? Sold by the millions, recommend by doctors as ideal and healthful. A.H Robbins is no more.

Return of the Anonymous Idiot

A few minutes with Google shows clearly that the corporation filed chapter 11, and that those proceedings protected the assets of corporate officers and other significant assets worth at least 900 million dollars, and furthermore the bankruptcy court denie

On the bright side...

Researchers now have a new lead in the fight against cancer. If the stats prove consistent then we may be able to find a link between certain types of foreign molecules in the body and cancer risk.

Your comment kinda reminds me of the asbestos revelations.

More junk science for your junk science

ANY physical contact that somehow disturbs a tissue causes cancer in the long run. Thats why many inert particles cause cancer when continuously taken in for over long periods of time.

Try - just take a small needle and continue to keep poking it in the

I find it interesting though

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?

If it somehow increases the risk of cancer (even minus the RF stuff) more than the usual studs

Re:

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 t

Re:Competely ridiculous

More junk science.

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:

RFID does not emit radio signals. It absorbs them selectively and the RFID scnner/transmitter senses the change to the emitted field to know what the RFID is saying. But the RFID tag (passive tags) just basically sit there and alternately go high impedance

Re:

RFID chips do emit radio signals when sending data back to the transmitter. A receive-only RFID is kinda pointless...

That's just silly.

Pointless? On the contrary, it would be very useful, like write-only memory [wikipedia.org]!

Re:

Checking over the descriptions of the papers, it looks like they were trialling chips in large numbers of mice for other reasons, and apparently decided to knock out an extra paper with the "omg cancer!" angle to get some extra citations and some more fund

Re:No control group? WTF? Read TFA?

They had control groups. The control groups were chipped too. They were using the RFIDs as a book keeping device for data collection and control. The cancer was noted empirically and independently of the research they were undertaking. The appearance o