In this Instructable I will describe different ways to block or kill RFID tags. RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification. If you do not know about this technology yet, you should definitely start familiarizing yourself with it, because the number of different devices that utilize these types of tags is growing exponentially.

RFID chips are very similar to barcodes in the sense that a certain amount of data is contained within them, and then transmitted to a reading device which then processes and utilizes the information. The major difference is that barcodes have to be physically visible to the reading device, which is usually only able to scan them at a distance of a 12 inches or less. RFID tags, on the other hand, do not have to be visible to the reading device. They can be scanned through clothes, wallets, and even cars. The distance from which they can be read is also much greater than that of a barcode. At DEFCON an RFID tag was scanned at a distance of 69 feet, and that was back in 2005, the possible reading distance now is probably much greater than that.

There are a few different categories of RFID tags, but the most common ones, and the ones we will be dealing with in this instructable, are the "passive" type. Passive RFID chips contain no internal power supply. They contain an antenna which is able to have a current induced in it when within range of the RFID reader. The tag then uses that electricity to power the internal chip, which bounces its data back out through the antenna, where it will be picked up by the reader.

For more information on RFID tags check out the wikipedia entry.

Step 1: Reasons for Blocking / Destroying RFID Chips

The main reason someone would want to block or destroy RFID chips would be to maintain privacy. In the last step I explained that RFID tags can be read from very long distances. The potential for abuse of this technology grows as more and more products and devices are being created with these tags built in.

Companies are getting consumers to blindly accept many RFID tagged products with the promise of convenience; however, most of the devices that contain RFID tags don't really need them. The tags may save a few seconds, but sacrifice an enormous amount of privacy and security. It is now possible for someone, with relatively simple equipment, to walk down a busy sidewalk and pickup the personal information of people carrying RFID tagged devices, without them even knowing.

Being able to block or destroy these chips allows people to decide what type of information they are willing to sacrifice for convenience.

Step 2: Where Can RFID Chips Be Found

As RFID chips become cheaper, the number of devices that include them grows.

Currently there are RFID tags in:

- US passports: The RFID tag contains all the information that is written in the passport, along with a digital picture

- Transportation payments: Things like New York's EZ Pass, Florida's Sun Pass, and California's Fast Trak are all RFID based toll payment systems.

- Access control: Many buildings and schools require RFID tagged cards to be used for entry.

- Credit cards: Chase, and a few other banks, now issue credit cards embedded with RFID chips, called "blink". They are able to convince people it is an added convenience, but in reality it is a huge security risk.

There are many other devices which contain RFID tags; however, the ones listed are the most common and offer the greatest security risk.

Step 3: How to Block a RFID Tag

Luckily RFID tag signals can easily be blocked. This means that you will have the option to use the tag whenever you want, and prevent others from being able to read it.

The signal sent out by a RFID tag is easily blocked by metal. This means that placing the RFID tag inside of a Faraday cage will prevent the information from being read.

There are already two Instructables on how to build RFID blocking containers:

RFID Secure Wallet

Make a RFID Shielding Pouch Out of Trash

Or if you would rather spend money on something you could build, head over to Think Geek for their RFID blocking wallet and RFID blocking Passport Holder.

Step 4: How to Kill Your RFID Chip

In this step I will describe a few ways to permanently disable or kill an RFID chip. Most products that you own that contain RFID tags belong to you, so you have the right to destroy them; however, tampering with a US passport is a federal offense. Luckily there are ways to kill an RFID tag without leaving any evidence, so as long as you are careful, it would be pretty hard to prove that you did anything illegal.

-The easiest way to kill an RFID, and be sure that it is dead, is to throw it in the microwave for 5 seconds. Doing this will literally melt the chip and antenna making it impossible for the chip to ever be read again. Unfortunately this method has a certain fire risk associated with it. Killing an RFID chip this way will also leave visible evidence that it has been tampered with, making it an unsuitable method for killing the RFID tag in passports. Doing this to a credit card will probably also screw with the magnetic strip on the back making it un-swipeable.

-The second, slightly more convert and less damaging, way to kill an RFID tag is by piercing the chip with a knife or other sharp object. This can only be done if you know exactly where the chip is located within the tag. This method also leaves visible evidence of intentional damage done to the chip, so it is unsuitable for passports.

-The third method is cutting the antenna very close to the chip. By doing this the chip will have no way of receiving electricity, or transmitting its signal back to the reader. This technique also leaves minimal signs of damage, so it would probably not be a good idea to use this on a passport.

-The last (and most covert) method for destroying a RFID tag is to hit it with a hammer. Just pick up any ordinary hammer and give the chip a few swift hard whacks. This will destroy the chip, and leave no evidence that the tag has been tampered with. This method is suitable for destroying the tags in passports, because there will be no proof that you intentionally destroyed the chip.
How would you kill a rfid chip that is injected under the skin? They put these in crazies and people with Alzheimers desease. Got any idea? Magnets maybe?
I too would like that info. I don't think magnets will? I have a dog with one. I really don't want to cut it out. there must be some way.
if i were yo i would get the chip removed. it has been proven in lab studys that canceruos tumor a very common sideefect of these chips
If your dog ever was picked up by animal control, that chip is likely the ONLY way you would have of ever getting it back. Collars and tags come off all the time. That chip only contains an ID number. That number can then be looked up by registered owners of scanners, but it doesn't contain any information than what you freely shared to start with. The ability for your dog to be able to be returned to you, solely because of that chip, saves millions of animal lives a year!
Yes it is returned to you, in a cancerous state.....<br />
That is just outright wrong!&nbsp; RFID&nbsp;chips are no more dangerous than digital watches, and to even attempt to claim that microchips are dangerous to dogs is TOTALLY inappropriate, and completely wrong.&nbsp; Comments and ill informed beliefs like that are blatantly ignorant of the facts, and harmful to the millions of animals which are saved every year by RFID microchips in pets.<br /> <br /> Please, try and produce just ONE peer reviewed scientific and/or medical paper which proves your point.<br />
here is the link you asked for ..<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html</a><br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html</a><br />
Yourr understanding of &quot;Peer Reviewed&quot; is interesting, none the less, yes, that is a published paper...&nbsp; I'm not seeing anything in the way of peer review, and that &quot;study&quot; looks more like a PR piece than actual scientific study.&nbsp; I&nbsp;would recommend spending a few minutes educating yourself about what a REAL peer review study is:<br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review</a><br /> But here is the summary boiled down to the brass tacks:<br /> &quot;<em><strong>Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.</strong></em>&quot;<br /> The referenced &quot;paper&quot; is nothing more than an interpretation of other reports, has NOT been reviewed by an impartial panel, a has targeted and pre-determined conclusion.&nbsp; That's not SCIENCE, and that is NOT a peer reviewed paper.<br /> <br /> Never the less...&nbsp; Congratulations are due however.&nbsp; You indeed have managed to produced a link which did allow me to do further research on the matter.&nbsp; After pouring through 6 of the papers, and checking THEIR references and credentials of reviewers, the summary of them basically states that very rarely the introduction of a foreign body (be it an RFID&nbsp;chip, a surgical pin, a lego block for that matter, a surgical sponge, or the surgeons wrist watch)&nbsp;can induce a fibrosarcoma (yes, a tumor) in connective tissue due of a surgical incision and/or injection of a foreign body.&nbsp; Let's say that again:&nbsp; Introduction of a foreign body, ANY foreign body, can in very rare instances induce a fibrosarcoma.&nbsp; It doesn't seem to matter what the particular foreign body is.&nbsp; This has been a known fact for a VERY long time.&nbsp; <em><strong>What this does NOT prove is that RFID Chips</strong></em><em><strong> cause tumors.</strong></em>&nbsp; Don't believe me, do the same research I&nbsp;just did.&nbsp; ACTUALLY&nbsp;read them, and check the reviewers references.&nbsp; Are the reviewers impartial?&nbsp; What are their credentials?&nbsp; How respected are they in their field?<br /> <br /> All the papers attempt to prove is that introduction of a foreign body (ANY foreign body!) can have an adverse reaction in the form of infection or fibrosarcoma.<br /> <em><strong>This is NOT news, and it is NOT unique to RFID&nbsp;chips.<br /> </strong></em><br /> What do you know, sticking something foreign in a living being can have possible unintended side effects.<br /> <br /> Your referenced article (oh, sorry, &quot;Peer reviewed paper&quot;, NOT!) do NOT prove is that _RFID_Chips_ cause cancer.&nbsp; <strong><em>The RFID CHIP does NOT!</em></strong>&nbsp; The IMPLANTATION of a foreign body <em>may</em>, in very rare instances, and has the EXACT same risks as ANY injection or surgery.<br />
your comment: &quot; What this does NOT prove is that RFID Chips cause tumors. &quot; is not true. What would be true is that 'foreign bodies' can cause tumors. The RFID is a foreign implanted body. Therefore, it can cause tumors. Your agreeing that the device is a 'foreign body' within your own context *is* the proof that you require. The only debatable point seems to be the frequency with which such tumors arise. And therefore, licensed practitioners (who are the only people allowed by law to implant devices in the human body) must so advise the recipient of this potential risk. J. anderson, md oh yeah: that's 'Doctorate of Medicine', not the state of Maryland
<p>I must know some of your close friend maybe a relative my name is Mr. Plewa how have you been?</p>
Doc, <br> <br>I really get irritated at that sort of pedantic, semantic nit-picking! You know very well that what he meant was he wrote: that ANY IMPLANTED OBJECT ITSELF carries a small, but demonstrable, risk of such occurances, but that the &quot;RF&quot; portion of the RFID technology has NEVER ONCE been CONVINCINGLY shown, through ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHODS, to be &quot;carcinogenic&quot;.
If you go to the FDA's website and look up info on RFID's it explicitly states that RFID's are know to possibly cause cancer in animals and humans. That's the FDA who approved the use of them in humans. I think you can't&nbsp; get a more peer reviewed group out there.<br />
Oh well, since you say so, it MUST be true &lt;/sarcasm&gt;<br /> <br /> Once again, please furnish a peer reviewed reference one can examine for themselves and reach an informed conclusion by, if you want to be taken seriously.<br /> <br /> The burden of proof is not mine to debunk the (false) statement that &quot;RFID&nbsp;chips cause cancer.&quot;&nbsp; They do not.&nbsp; Also, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that the chips do by providing evidence which support that theory.&nbsp; I&nbsp;would refer you to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" rel="nofollow">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method</a> for examples of how this process is supposed to work:&nbsp; &quot;<em>Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.</em>&quot;<br /> <br /> Anybody can claim any ol' thing they want to.&nbsp; Doing so doesn't make it true, and pointing to a marketing puff piece dressed up to look like science isn't science simply because they reference a lot of studies.&nbsp; Studies that do NO support their claims I&nbsp;might add.&nbsp; The burden of proof is on those who refute the theory to prove it wrong.&nbsp; Only ONE piece of evidence to the contrary disproves the whole theory.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; That's how it works, and is what makes science so great!&nbsp; Only the best theories survive the test of peer reviewed SCIENCE!&nbsp; Thus far, no one has been able to provide a single piece of scientific EVIDENCE as to support this hypothisis that the chips cause cancer.&nbsp; They do not, and no-one has been able to prove they do...&nbsp; not even once.&nbsp; {shrug}<br /> <br /> And yes...&nbsp; I&nbsp;_did_ try searching the FDA site for evidence to support your claim.&nbsp; I&nbsp;didn't find anything.&nbsp; If you would care to furnish said paper tho, I would appreciate it.&nbsp; I'm betting no such article exists however.<br /> <br />
Here it is:&nbsp;http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf<br /> <br /> It lists adverse tissue reaction as a possible side effect. I did a cursory search for Adverse Tissue Reaction, and found a lot of sites that explain it, but this was from a UK&nbsp;medical journal that summed it up pretty well: <br /> <br /> <p><strong>What is a serious adverse reaction (SAR)?</strong></p> <p>A serious adverse reaction is defined as &quot;an unintended response, including a communicable disease, in a donor of tissue or cells intended for human application or a recipient of tissue or cells, which may be associated with the procurement or human application of tissue or cells and which is fatal, life-threatening, disabling, incapacitating or which results in, or prolongs, hospitalization or morbidity.&quot;<br /> <br /> http://www.hta.gov.uk/licensingandinspections/faqsonseriousadverseeventsandadversereactions.cfm<br /> <br /> Of course&nbsp; the word &quot;cancer&quot; isn't stated, but as most doctors will tell you &quot;cancer&quot;&nbsp;is a generic term for a variety of illnesses, each with different and varied factors which lead to the cancer. The fact that the FDA states that there could be an ATR, which, as we can see from the UK site, could potentially lead to death, should cause some concern. </p> <br />
:) Did you READ the study you cited? Yes, it lists Adverse Tissue Reaction as a POSSIBLE side effect (Page 6, Section 3, Risks To Health, Identified Risk, Adverse Tissue Reaction) of which it lists three mitigation measures:<br>Biocompatibility - See Mitigations Section A<br>Sterility - See Mitigations Section J<br>Labeling - See Mitigations Section L<br><br>All three of these mitigations are standard for medical devices and would be the same for anything implanted, be it a surgical screw, pace maker, or yes, an RFID chip.<br><br>Also, the cited risk, and your cited explanation are not for the same two medical problems. &quot;Adverse Tissue Reaction&quot; != &quot;Serious Adverse Reaction&quot;. The devils in the details.
<p>You Wookies is not no joke I seen you before my name is Mr. Plewa</p>
<font size="2"> <p>&nbsp;</p> </font>sorry for some reason the link didn't appear with the text, .. try again ..m<a href="http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html" rel="nofollow"><font color="#810081" size="2"><u><br /> <br /> http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html</u></font></a>
Single incident reports do not make a case study.<br /> <br /> Listen, if RFID&nbsp;chips caused cancer, you would see a pronounced uptake in the number of deaths in animals as well as vets seeing it time and time and time again and start to dissuade people against them.<br /> <br /> ANY implantation, be it an RFID&nbsp;chip, surgical pin, sliver of metal, what have you can induce a reaction by the body in an attempt to isolate it.&nbsp; This is the normal immune system response.&nbsp; In VERY&nbsp;rare instances, particularly with smooth bodies (for some reason jagged surfaces don't cause this as often), a fibrosarcoma can result because the immune system response goes haywire.&nbsp; Take a foreign body which has a smooth surface which is made of any substance which would not dissolve, like most plastics and metals, and inject it into a living subject.&nbsp; There is a VERY small chance that the bodies immune system won't react to it appropriately.&nbsp; This doesn't have anything to do with the foreign body being an RFID&nbsp;chip with an antenna capable of sending a signal back with a number.<br /> <br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> Lets try breaking this down into an even more simple experiment:<br /> <br /> 1)&nbsp; Injection into the subcutaneous fat layer an RFID&nbsp;chip into a statistically large group, say 10,000 dogs.<br /> <br /> 2)&nbsp; Take the same sized control group, but this time make the test injection made of the same material and coating of an RFID&nbsp;chip, but this time it is solid material<br /> <br /> 3)&nbsp; Take a third similar sized control group, with the RFID pellet having a non-uniform / jagged surface.<br /> <br /> 4)&nbsp; Take a third similar sized control group, with the pellet with a non-uniform / jagged surface but again like in group 2 make the pellet a solid material.<br /> <br /> Now, monitor these three groups for set intervals of time:&nbsp; 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years.<br /> <br /> Collect the evidence of this experiment and your conclusions, and then publish the results for an impartial group of your peers to review.&nbsp; Can a fibrosarcoma occur in those results, sure!&nbsp; Has there been incidents of fibrosarcoma in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4?&nbsp; Were these numbers of fibrosarcoma between group 1 and 2 statistically different from those in 3 and 4?&nbsp; Are these numbers between groups 1 and 3 statistically different from groups 2 and 4?&nbsp; Was the incident rate reduced in groups 3 and 4?&nbsp; Can the results be independently reproduced?&nbsp; Were the two groups large enough to exclude statistical noise?&nbsp; Was the experiment well designed to produce meaningful data?&nbsp; THAT is science!&nbsp; THAT&nbsp;is peer review!&nbsp; and THAT&nbsp;is the only type of science which can meaningfully support your claim.<br /> <br /> What you WILL&nbsp;find is that the incident rates do NOT differ statistically between groups 1 and 2, nor between groups 3 and 4.&nbsp; Meaning that a non-uniform surface produces less incidents of fibrosarcoma.<br /> <br /> You WILL find that the rate is statistically insignificant between groups 1 and 3, and 2 and 4.&nbsp; Meaning, that RFID&nbsp;chips, regardless of surface composition, is NOT different than a solid slug of material.&nbsp; You WILL&nbsp;find that the test pellet being an RFID chip does not factor into the incidents of fibrosarcoma.<br /> <br /> So, why are RFID&nbsp;chips manufactured with a smooth surface intead of a non-uniform / jagged surface...&nbsp; cost.&nbsp; It's very difficult to industrially manufacture non-uniform items in a mechanized fashion.&nbsp; This adds cost, and while there would be a reduction of fibrosarcoma from the injection of said devices, the incident rate is so incredibly insignificant it wouldn't justify the expense.&nbsp; Plus, with a non-uniform surface, you stand the risk of the part &quot;migrating&quot; in the body, potentially out of the subcutaneous fat layer into an organ or out of the skin entirely...&nbsp; how many times have you had a sliver &quot;work itself out&quot; eventually?&nbsp; This is because it had a non-uniform texture and the motion of cells rubbing against it gradually forced the object to the surface.&nbsp; Your immune system doesn't &quot;push&quot;&nbsp;it out, it works out on it's own because the barbs and jagged edges cause it to climb out of the body just as a barbed fishhook can only be easily moved in one direction.&nbsp; A non-uniform surface would induce more problems than it would solve, so, we have smooth surface microchips which stay where they were put (generally, some may have a nick / jagged non-uniform edge and &quot;wander&quot;) and can in extremely rare instances can possibly induce a fibrosarcoma...&nbsp; no different than if said pellet was a useless solid lump of the same material, size, and shape.<br /> <br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> Every one of our animals for my personal pets, and the THOUSANDS of animals (~200 animals a year * 15 years == ~3000 animals) I've helped rescue in the three animal rescue groups I work with (two of which I&nbsp;served on the board of directors for), have ALL had microchips injected into them.&nbsp; Every Single One of them.&nbsp; Not ONE animal has had a problem with their chip, and probably 10% of them at one time or another had their lives saved by the microchip when the animals got out.&nbsp; Many times, new owners don't change the registration of the microchip to them, or they move and don't update it so our rescue gets contacted about the animal trying to locate the owner.&nbsp; We either notify the owners if we still have valid contact data for them, or we pull them from the shelter and put them on our website, thus far we have always managed to eventually reconnect the dog with the owners.&nbsp; That's lives saved, BECAUSE of that supposedly evil RFID&nbsp;chip.&nbsp; Not a single one has developed a fibrosarcoma in the location of the microchip and not a single one has died (I've been doing dog rescue for almost 15 years, which is longer than the lifespan of the breeds I work with which is generally 8 to 12 years) because of a fibrosarcoma induced by said chip, not one.&nbsp; Next time I'm at the vet tho, I'll ask what his observed incident rate is as he deals with hundreds of animals a month, and would have far more observable evidence to draw conclusions from and a more informed opinion...&nbsp; but he's injected our last three personal dogs and the hundred or so dogs we've brought him via rescue without nary a pause, and he's VERY cautious and the best vet we've ever had!<br />
<span> <p>Hi there .. I really don&rsquo;t need to get into this discussion, but you are obviously wanting to make a point here so let&rsquo;s see if we can put the issue to bed. As far as I myself am concerned, I don&rsquo;t have a problem accepted the argument you put forward, in essence it is that ... any foriegn body injected under the skin has the potention to result in a sarcoma .. I accept that .. so your point is, this does not mean that because the alien body is a chip ( RFID, passive, active, or inoperative) it is more likely to produce cancer. .. I accept that, even though some people suspect or feel that the evidence they have might substantiate such a suspicion. .. That leave us with just one point to tidy up .. can injecting a chip under the surface of the skin result in a cancer? .. and I think we have already agreed that it can, so .. it would follow that it would be better not to inject/ place foriegn bodies into living organisms, animals/people. I think we would both agree on that. The point you wish to make about weighing up the balance, whether having the animal safeguarded by use of the chip, should be a personal decision, but I accept (health issues to one side) that it is a good thing to be able to re-establish a lost pet to it&rsquo;s owner. However the injection or placement of a chip beneath the skin isn&rsquo;t the only way to accomplish this.</p> <p>There is just one more thing I want to mention. From what I understand when my dogs were chipped, they had smooth chips (ordinary bioglass) which migrated, shortly afterwards verichip began using a bio-coating to stop this problem. My vet told me that the bio-coating was exactly that, a seperate coating on the chip causing the body tissue to grow onto it to prevent the migration. If this is indeed so, in the tests and data under discussion has this been taken into account, the possibility that chips with different characteristics may be involved?.</p> <p>Now it&rsquo;s been fun, but I hope someone else will take over where I have left off because I need to get back to my work .. meg</p> </span>
<p>Check out my web site <a href="mailto:ChildSlavery@1and1americanheros" rel="nofollow">ChildSlavery@1and1americanheros</a> and <a href="http://www.destroytheslavechip.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">www.destroytheslavechip.blogspot.com</a> tell as many friends as possible I need all the support I can get oh! and please comments.</p><p>Thank You! </p>
Getting in an automobile *can* lead to death. But you still do it.
Your observations are valuable contributions here, but for the record, let us comment upon your views on 'scientific investigation'. To quote you, &quot;You WILL find that the rate is statistically insignificant between groups 1 and 3, and 2 and 4. Meaning, that RFID chips, regardless of surface composition, is NOT different than a solid slug of material.&quot; I must compliment you on having such insight into the bio-physical world as not to need experiments. With your profound (and all-too-commonly expressed) ability to know what the results of some experiment &quot;will&quot; be, you will without doubt be able to save investigators much money and time: they need but to ask you for your conclusions, and then be done. No need here to actually do the experiments at all. I dare say your value to society will be rewarded enormously by the gazillions of pharmacy companies who, until now, must spend billions of dollars on unnecessary safety studies.
Hmmm... so much for the &quot;be nice&quot; policy....
wouldn't you need a 5th control group with no injection at all ??
<p>Mark of the Beast is something you will do and who you will pledge your allegiance to. It's all about worship. Lucifer was kicked out of heaven because he wanted to be worshiped like God. He hasn't changed his mind. It will come a time when we will have to choose who we will worship and something on the forehead or right hand will signify that. God Bless. (Never except it whatever it is.)</p>
<p>midnight on the planes of jura bro ... jah </p>
<p>would this help? By PEER are you TALKING of producing a implantee?</p><p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html</p>
<p>Oh yeah wiki ain't peer . Only that it is open for their 2 cents. PEER WOULD MEAN &quot;I HAD A IMPLANT AND GOT CANCER&quot;. </p>
<p>So yes it's also not a good idea to stick other foreign objects in your pets body, or your own.</p>
so u say the injection of a rfid has risks well perhaps rare means nonexistent to some people.<br><br>&quot;and has the EXACT same risks as ANY injection or surgery.&quot;
hi there .. thanks for your comments, I was interested in this because my dog had a cancer close to the transponder, no proof that it was the cause but of course I shall always wonder.<br /> Here is a link that you will find much more interesting, I didn't read all of the paper, (full paper) .. <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/944125/Albrecht-Microchip-Cancer-Full-Paper" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/944125/Albrecht-Microchip-Cancer-Full-Paper</a>&nbsp; peer review
...and STILL we have no mention (at least, in the synopsis linked above) of ANYBODY putting inert-placebo modules directly up against &quot;active&quot; RFID capsules in any blind or double-blind fashion to PROVE, SCIENTIFICALLY, one way or the other, whether it's the actual RF pingers causing the problem or merely the PRESENCE of ANY &quot;foreign object&quot; injected under the skin! Perhaps the &ldquo;Full Report&rdquo; contains more of what we seek, but all we have in this &ldquo;synopsis&rdquo; is a summary of a meta-study of 11 other studies, rife with incomplete or misleading &quot;data&quot; (OK, so, in 2004 and 2006, Vascellari found 1 dog got cancer - OUT OF HOW MANY? Oh, that's right, THAT vital bit of info is conveniently ABSENT from the chart - &quot;N/A&quot; - What? That's &quot;science&quot;?!?) and &ldquo;conclusions&rdquo; which are, at best, highly debatable because, when FACTS are not available, OPINIONS can and will be freely substituted&hellip; There are plenty of VALID reasons NOT to let governments or corporations implant humans, willy-nilly. MAYBE the POTENTIAL carcinogenic effects of such implants is one more of them&hellip; then again, maybe not&hellip;. I&rsquo;m just completely UN-convinced that the kind of &ldquo;RF terror&rdquo; demonstrated in this thread is justified by the FACTS gathered so far! Right alongside DAS_WOOKIE, I am completely CONVINCED that the matter bears more, FACTUAL investigation, not by paranoid, delusional schizophrenics, not by further meta-analyses of anecdotal nonsense, not by Public Relations stooges, nor even by implantable-transponder salesmen, but by QUALIFIED, UNBIASED SCIENTISTS!
Your comments here, in your demands to see what you call 'valid scientific results' reveal considerable ignorance of the limits of clinical medicine. By your requirements you have set up conditions that are either impossible or unethical to meet. Clinical medicine does not, cannot, include rigorous science methodology for reasons that must be obvious: you simply cannot run amok injecting people with devices to prove this or that without being approved by Committees on Medical Ethics.
...and, once again, stepping well outside what was actually said, to put YOUR words into MY keyboard so you can successfully knock-down the &ldquo;straw man&rdquo; YOU created. To the contrary, even though I&rsquo;m not an &ldquo;MD&rdquo;, but merely a lowly engineer, I still know quite a lot about &quot;...the limits of clinical medicine...&quot;, the exigencies of medical ethics AND the stringency of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. (I also know quite a lot about RF technologies, since many of the forms of engineering I practice involve transmitters, with outputs ranging from a few nanowatts, like RFIDs, up to half-megawatt UHF monstrosities.) Neither DAS_WOOKIE nor I have EVER advocated that anyone &quot;...run amok injecting people with devices to prove this or that ...&quot;. (In fact, as I said in another reply in this thread, there are PLENTY of VALID reasons to NEVER allow governments and corporations to implant-tag people at will, or &ldquo;for commerce&rdquo;&hellip;) What we&rsquo;re trying to get across is, given that THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PETS (and lab-rats) have ALREADY been injected with ACTIVE devices, a vast body of raw data already exists from which one might begin to draw logical conclusions, IF that information were to be coupled with a little blind or double-blind testing of placebo devices injected under the same circumstances, and it disappoints us that, to date, NO ONE seems to have bothered even COLLECTING those data, let alone putting together a CLINICALLY TRUSTWORTHY synthesis of same. Now, in no way can I claim to have read ALL the literature available on this subject &ndash; the list of &ldquo;studies&rdquo; I haven&rsquo;t seen would probably fill a file cabinet (&hellip;just the LIST, not even the &ldquo;reports&rdquo; themselves!) &ndash; perhaps the promoters of such devices are, indeed, the &ldquo;Spawn of Satan&rdquo;, trying to enslave the world, and lied through their teeth to the FDA to get their poison &ldquo;approved&rdquo;, or perhaps these products are utterly harmless, and everybody&rsquo;s up-in-arms over nothing. It may well be that conclusive, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE proving the truth of the matter once and for all is out there, somewhere, and we&rsquo;ve (I&rsquo;ve &ndash; forgive me if I type out-of-turn on your behalf, WOOKIE&hellip;) simply not found it (yet). If so, I&rsquo;m pretty sure both WOOKIE and I will gladly accept the result, when and if we run across it, WHATEVER it may be, relieved to have finally gotten an ANSWER, instead of the current welter of OPINIONS, ANECDOTES and HYSTERIA! Certainly, the &ldquo;evidence&rdquo; SEEMS to indicate there&rsquo;s SOMETHING going on, but WHAT it is can&rsquo;t be determined from the paucity of information available (&hellip;to me, at least&hellip;) at the moment. Certainly, there SEEM to be enough suspicious outcomes to STOP doing this to humans until we figure it out! However, every so-called &ldquo;report&rdquo; or &ldquo;study&rdquo; I&rsquo;ve seen so far (&hellip;so far &ndash; bear that in mind!) has NOT been rigorous &ldquo;science&rdquo;, but emotion-goading &ldquo;pseudo-science&rdquo;, choked with implied this and insinuated that and intimated the other, pushing a pre-determined agenda without presenting one single, solitary bit of provable, repeatable, SCIENTIFICALLY-GATHERED FACT to support their contentious position! Having seen, over the course of just my own limited lifetime, hundreds of so-called &ldquo;studies&rdquo; on various subjects turn out, &ldquo;&hellip;upon further review&hellip;&rdquo;, to be unmitigated &ldquo;snake oil&rdquo;, I hope you&rsquo;ll forgive me if I&rsquo;m just a TRIFLE skeptical about the results of &ldquo;studies&rdquo; conducted (or, at least, wholly-funded) by &ldquo;interested parties&rdquo;, from EITHER side &ndash; in this case, by grieving pet owners on the one hand, and by implantable-transponder-industry &ldquo;marketeers&rdquo; on the other. I rarely believe ANY of &lsquo;em, until they have been PEER-REVIEWED by people who, at least, give a great ILLUSION of being impartial (&hellip;and even THEN, sometimes I still just HAFTA go and &ldquo;stick my finger in the socket&rdquo;, anyways, just to make REALLY sure they&rsquo;re not scammin&rsquo; me&hellip;).
Yes, i concede, that you know much .. more than enough to be dangerous...
&ldquo;Dangerous&rdquo;? To whom? Purveyors of &ldquo;snake oil&rdquo;, perhaps&hellip;? I&rsquo;m simply advocating a &ldquo;&hellip;test-tubes and Bunsen burners&hellip;&rdquo; treatment of this issue, while you (so far, anyway), seem to be taking more of a &ldquo;&hellip;torches and pitchforks&hellip;&rdquo; approach &ndash; who&rsquo;s &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo;? Maybe I&rsquo;m unusual in this, but I&rsquo;d usually rather be dazzled with brilliance (&ldquo;Here&rsquo;s that definitive report &ndash; sorry it took so long, but it conclusively proves that RFID implants do / don&rsquo;t cause cancer under these / those conditions.&rdquo;) than baffled with BS (&ldquo;Well, my sister&rsquo;s cousin&rsquo;s brother twice removed once knew a guy whose osteopath adjusted a lady whose neighbor had dinner with a nice couple from out of town whose dog died of cancer after getting one of those implant thingies!&rdquo;). If you find my preference for repeatable, verifiable facts over unsubstantiated anecdotes and opinions to be &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo;, then I take it as a compliment. Thank you very much!
<p>I know this is a really old thread, but I must say that I read those links that are posted above, and there is a LOT of info about mice getting cancer. The info about dogs lists two papers talking about one dog each getting cancer. Yes, you read that right. TWO dogs got cancer and now this is an epidemic. Two dogs out of the millions that have been chipped. That hardly makes it an epidemic. <br>Any foreign device has the potential to cause problems in either a human body or a dog's body. But two dogs getting cancer hardly seems like cause for concern. I agree with Das Wookie, the chips have saved millions of dogs lives. The people who think they are rampantly causing cancer in dogs should just go back in their prepper bunker and put their tinfoil helmet back on and not come out until 2050. Thank you.</p>
<p>For animals sure I would think a good idea, But with the way this society is going I don't think it will matter. If the desire to abuse technology for illicit acts they will have the means to circumvent any chips or watch you, Find you. You would need kill your dog to go on the run when SHTF and isn't that what you want to avoid? Mr. Wookie</p>
<p>I don't think digital watches induce cancers in 1-in-2000 of their wearers, but RFID chips does induce cancer at these rates in animals.</p>
<p>It's a fact that nano tubes can be programmed and change a person's DNA plus cause someone not to believe in God. Don't believe me? Look it up. Scary pyscho people out there willing to use it.</p>
Hey Das<br /> Go to &quot;talking it <a href="mailto:over@moody.edu" rel="nofollow">over@moody.edu</a>.&nbsp; An interview w/ Kathreen Albreck.&nbsp; She has researched this and will prove the point!
An RFD is the &quot;Mark of the Beast&quot;?!?!&nbsp; Give me a break.&nbsp; That was a TOTAL waste of 1 hour of my life I'll never get back.<br /> <br /> Serves me right to even have considered giving y'all the benefit of the doubt and trying to understand your reasoning and arguments to the contrary.<br /> <br /> When you have some SCIENTIFIC evidence from PEER REVIEWED research, let me know... 'till then, keep your tinfoil hat thoughts to yourself... and stop trying to get pets KILLED by telling people microchips are unsafe for pets!<br />
<p>Here's a fun article that's only FIVE YEARS OLD.</p><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/2009/08/fed-rfid/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/2009/08/fed-rfid/</a></p><p>Just imagine what kind of hacking tech is out NOWADAYS ;)<br></p><p>RFID are a lot safer for the pets than for the OWNERS who leave their contact info out there for any hacker with a cheap RFID reader.</p><p>And of course you can trust the private company with all of your private info on file. They won't get hacked like Target or ebay... or most of the other sites that got hacked with heartbleed...</p><p>Having RFID chips hanging around with tidbits of your private info stored here and there and everywhere isn't really a privacy or security risk at all...</p><p>Perfectly safe ;)</p><p>Anyone who disagrees is a &quot;paranoid conspiracy theorist&quot; (that's kind of like being a heretic or even worse... a racist).</p><p>It's like those people who were afraid of radiation in the '50s. Turns out radiation cures cancer! It's perfectly healthy! Silly people...</p>
a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!!
@DAS_WOOKIE &ndash; You&rsquo;re not alone, pal. I&rsquo;d also like to see some FACTUAL DATA down the middle on this subject, not just RFID industry puff pieces at one end of the spectrum and &ldquo;signs of the apocalypse&rdquo; doom-saying at the other. And I&rsquo;m sure there&rsquo;s a whole lot more like us out there. However, amicus curiae (below) is quite correct &ndash; the corrupt, psychotic Reagan and Bush regimes slashed the FDA&rsquo;s budget to the point where they could hardly &ldquo;test&rdquo; anything themselves, and had to rely on the industries they&rsquo;re supposed to be regulating to &ldquo;play nice&rdquo; and NOT lie through their teeth for fun and profit at every opportunity&hellip; that is, when the political hacks those so-called &ldquo;presidents&rdquo; appointed weren&rsquo;t just blatantly taking massive bribes to pass-off any old poison as &ldquo;conditionally approved&rdquo;&hellip;.
there IS no peer reviewed info as the companies got them passed with their own shoddy trials, if you read the time spans?<br>only one or two dogs had them in place for more than a short time.<br>not the 10 to 15 years a normal animal lives.<br>vets are NOT required to report either.<br>and unless its a known site, many owneres wouldnt think to ask for a complete biopsy of the tumour IF they can afford the bill for removal anyway.
Here's &quot;The Mark of the Beast&quot;: Saint John of Patmos misinterpreted his vision because he was from such a primitive culture. All he saw were fingerprints and retinal scans, which he couldn't possibly have understood.
I am not endorsing either side of this argument, but perhaps there may be other things inside of the chip that may raise the risk of cancer?&nbsp; Things other than radio energy.&nbsp; Like antimony, gallium, lithium, and a host of other &quot;toxic&quot; chemicals that are commonly used in electronics.&nbsp; Even things like copper can lead to metal poisoning.<br /> <br /> The point I'm trying to make is that just because there isn't a study that shows significant risk, doesn't mean that there isn't.&nbsp; Also, studies in the past have been shown to be wrong at times.&nbsp; So, if there is a study that shows risk, then it could be inaccurate.<br />
LOL The don't inject a printed circuit board - it's just a tiny rice-like grain made of glass that is sterile, inert and non-toxic, so the micro-electronics inside the glass are not an issue. The risks lie mostly with the required pulse of radio-transmission energy (a second or two only) that injures the surrounding cells. This will improve in the future as the transponder is made more sensitive and require less energy to operate.

About This Instructable




Bio: Taking back the world, one hacked game console at a time ... Have you ever felt like the technology you love could be used against you ... More »
More by m1k3y:Go Online without Getting Snooped: Tor (The Onion Router) How to blend in with crowds. How to lie to authority figures 
Add instructable to: