Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Privacy Businesses Your Rights Online

Implanted RFID Chips Linked To Cancer 247

Posted by kdawson
from the probably-too-late-to-sell-verichip dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Implanted RFID Chips Linked To Cancer

Comments Filter:
  • by Limburgher (523006) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:51PM (#20522371) Homepage Journal
    Didn't she get one implanted in one episode?
    Makes me think twice about wanting one for my dog. . .
  • 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 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)

      by evilviper (135110) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:07PM (#20522501) Journal

      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.
      • by raduf (307723)
        The received power decreases with the cube of the distance. So a phone at 1-2 cm away (plastic and skin) may have less effect then a n embedded RFID. Not that it means radio waves do cause cancer.
      • Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:28PM (#20522675) Homepage Journal

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by poopdeville (841677)
          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 random (if limited) directions).
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by RepCentral (1059932)
          OK, here's how it works. (Worked with all types of passive RFID in the past)

          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
          • I tried in another post to convey the same thing. Passive RFID tags do not really emit anything. All they do is modulate their impedance to the RF signal which the scanning circuit sees as changes in impedance to its own antenna.

            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
        • by pilgrim23 (716938)
          In the same way a string tuned to a harmonic of one string on a musical instrement will vibrate when another strng a octave away is plucked the RFID would "vibrate" when its "harmonic is induced, that is when any source of a frequency that is a harmonic of it is generated. This hapens on purpose when the RFID is scanned and can occur other times when that frequency is generated by a radio, cell phone, micorwave, cosmic rays, or a host of other sources. We know what happens when certain frequencies are
      • Reflect it??? No, they emit it. Just because they are powered by RFI means that they do not emit RFI. Reflect means to bounce back w/o change.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by LinuxGeek (6139) *
        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 energy in the coil will collapse which will generate a fairly strong local magnetic pulse and possibly a narrow-band high frequency EMR pulse of its own.

        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)

      by Original Replica (908688) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:09PM (#20522511) Journal
      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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by weg (196564)
      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 cancer indicates that it's extremely accurate!
      • by gweihir (88907)
        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!

        You have no clue how medical statistics works, do you?
    • by Cadallin (863437)
      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 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.)

    • 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.

    • by The Monster (227884) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:27PM (#20522663) Homepage
      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.
      • There is no talk about it, because it seems none of the studies cited in the article actually set out to determine the increase in cancer due to RFID devices, but rather tagged it on, perhaps to grab a few extra citations. Since they were designed as trials of other factors, there was no attempt to introduce a no-RFID control group. From TFA:

        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)

    by mh1997 (1065630) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:57PM (#20522417)

    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.
    • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:32PM (#20522705) Homepage Journal

      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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:57PM (#20522421)
    Hasn't it been common practice to inject pets with RFIDs for many years now?
    Have these implants been causing cancer too?
    • by Chmcginn (201645) * on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:06PM (#20522489) Journal

      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.
      • by ceoyoyo (59147)
        They claim a 1 to 10% increase in cancer, right at the site of the implant. Methinks vets would have noticed that if it was happening in pets.
    • I had 2 pets injected in 1992. Both died in 2004, niether from cancer. The new dog got injected in 2004. He is fine as of this writing.
      • Everyone please post whether your pets are okay too. With enough anecdotes, we'll have hard data!
  • 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 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)

    by Lisandro (799651) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:00PM (#20522445)
    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bender0x7D1 (536254)

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

      • by Lisandro (799651)
        Most pets don't have the skill to remove or swap-out their own RFID implants.

        Neither they have the skill to remove or swap their nametags.
        • Have you really had a pet? My parents had dogs that manage to squeeze out of their collars on occasion.
        • My cat removes any collar or harness I put on her so far. The only thing she kept on for more than a day or two was a necklace that I gave her, which she liked. Seriously.
          I got her chipped because I knew that if she were to get outside that she would likely be without tag
          • by Gnavpot (708731)

            My cat removes [...]
            I got her chipped

            How fast does she go now? Have the chipping increased her emissions?
    • What's the point of RFID implants?
      The point is to be able to give people a number [holocaustr...roject.org] without the mediapathic [everything2.com] effect of a visible mark.
      • It's also safe for the humans, fast, cheap, and easy to scan in a busy loading dock or port without the cooperation of the animal. This is especially handy if the animal is ill, or the animal is from another country where rabies, antrax, or bird flu are active health risks.
  • by synonymous (707504)
    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 buddies into the latest fad of RFID chip. Sorry to hear about the health problems. Best wishes.
    • 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.

  • 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?)
  • by transporter_ii (986545) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:06PM (#20522487) Homepage
    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.

    • by DrEldarion (114072) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:13PM (#20522545)
      How dare you try to bring reason to our alarmist discussion?!
      • Well this guy has a good point. Companies should prepackage the RFID devices inside tumors at the factory so we don't have to grow our own. At the very least they should try to staple them into existing tumors.

        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)

      Yes, benevolent tumors exist. The summary specifies 'malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers', though, which sounds pretty bad.
      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.
    • by aepervius (535155) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:39PM (#20522763)
      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.
    • by Pigeon451 (958201)
      Good point. But the study mentions the tumours are fast growing, malignant and lethal. Perhaps in this study, the animals already had cancer and it chose to metastasize around the implant. Hmmmm, that really has lots of potential applications (early detection, removal, etc), unfortunately, I doubt that's the case!
  • When all your friends jump off a cliff, and you follow, you are just as phucked as they are.
  • Now one cancer free with every 10th RFID implant!

    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?
  • but, we implanted one of these RFID chips while you were passed out last night. Tough luck, dude! But, seriously, couldn't there be a percentage of people that don't remember or don't even know they have these chips? That would be a scary thought...
  • Lack of Science. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by edibobb (113989) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:34PM (#20522711) Homepage
    "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..."
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by JoelKatz (46478)
      It's not unusual to perform a study with no control group when you are looking for something rare and don't expect to find it. It's a lot cheaper and easier, and nine times out of ten provides equally good results. However, this is that one time in ten when it doesn't.

      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.
  • by Jerry (6400) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:34PM (#20522713)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PMBjornerud (947233)
      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 on Humans" (TM), and there seem to be plenty of other people out there happily being my my guinea pigs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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 the same deluded source.

      For evidence of the delusional nature of Betty's claims, check out http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp [snopes.com].
      • by Jerry (6400) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @10:46PM (#20525703)
        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
  • Because of the Orwellian overtones of implanted RFID chips I'd say people are more likely to give these kind of research results more credence than they deserve. Even if, as seems most likely, this research is proved to be very flawed, RFID-chips-cause-cancer (RC^3) will be a meme that lives on and will resurface many times regardless of any validity.

    Humans often believe things because the want to, not because they are true.
  • Immigrants not only do jobs Americans won't do, they can be implanted with chips Americans won't take prior to embarking for the US.
  • Bioactive glass is a group of ceramic materials that are currently the subject of various studies related to bone-replacement and reconstructive surgery for (among others) persons who have had bone removed due to cancer.

    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)

    by ShatteredArm (1123533)

    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)

    by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <vincent,jan,goh&gmail,com> on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:56PM (#20523183) Homepage
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LS (57954) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:09PM (#20523257) Homepage
    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
  • by mpaque (655244) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:48PM (#20523497)
    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?
  • I admit I haven't RTFA'd, but as far as I know, it may be not linked to radio frequencies but instead to a known effect in pathology. Basically, it has been known for a while that implanting any artificial matter in mice or other laboratory animals will increase and most likely induce the formation of tumors.
    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
  • I imagine having a radio transmitter inside your body might do this.

    OTH, it might be a trace element in the glass.
  • by JohnnyGTO (102952) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @09:33PM (#20525329) Homepage
    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?

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...