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.
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.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 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.
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.
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
Aimed at a fingertip it hurt like anything. An electronic component so treated curls up it's pins and just dies as if hit by lightning...which, effectively, it has been.
I'm assuming that the terrorists didn't chip themselves in advance.
Your best move? Just hand it to whoever and smile. Don't mention it at all. Preemptive explanations are suspicious.
If asked, just say it just got burned, don't volenteer more. If pressed, you've got pleanty of options to choose:
A ciggarete.
A hot lighter.
Kid held it up to a candel.
Fell into the campfire.
A radiater.
A heater.
The stove.
I don't know. It wasn't burned when we left the states!
But if you're in trouble just say, "I'm a little paranoid, so I put it in the microwave to destroy the RFID chip. I didn't want someone to clone my ID with a portable scanner.", then shrug and give a weak smile
Yeah... let's assume for a second that this is totally 100% true. Even then, I don't see many people getting "666" tattooed on their foreheads or hands unless they are hardcore satanists. Seriously, all you'd have to do is get this "mark of the beast" on your left hand and you'd be all good. It's not a very well thought out plan frankly.
You will needs:
-Electromagnet
DO NOT TRY W/ PACEMAKER. BAD IDEA.
Lets see...
The electromagnet generates a magnetic field that become induced (like a transformer) into the RFID chip, frying it. Yum! Fried RFID...
or use a soldering iron to melt through the card, or very gradually until you reach about half way through the card.
Seems easy enough to make.
Also, FYI, stores like walmart will have RFID sewn into clothes. Ya know those 'alarm' scanners that you walk by to get in/out of the store?
Those could be easily used to determine who comes into the store, who leaves, their criminal and financial records, RACE, etc. And problems could easily ensue.
Let's say you were a stupid kid that got caught shoplifting at age 18 and a day. Walmart could determine by any RFID chip on your ID or clothing you bought with a check, credit card, or debit card, that you were once convicted of theft.
They could instantly sound alarms and flashing lights announcing over the loudspeaker - 'Convicted Shoplifter!' and BAR you from the premises!
Let's say that you went shopping in a rather ahem bad neighborhood (or any really). Let's say that the shop keeper needed a tax write off. You get close to his scanner, and his recorder gets your info. He then steals your information, uses you as a tax write off, and the IRS comes beating at your door. While this happens, the shopkeeper is on his way to his home country...
Anyway, does anyone know what coil those RFID chips use? I am sure is is a fairly standard RFI choke of sorts.
Knowing the size, shape, number of turns, there is a way to determine the amount of power it can generate.
Please note: The government will require you to have one. It will make it a major crime to tamper with it or disable it - similar to those breath machines drunks have to put into their cars or the ankle bracelets home incarceration people have to wear. If your RFID chip fails to 'phone home' for more than a specified time, they will prevent your car from starting, your accounts will be frozen, and a capias will be issued for your arrest.. Soon, credit cards won't work without it.
While it is fanciful to dream about having privacy, it just isn't going to be as easy as everyone thinks.
You can play now with the ability to disable them, but in real life, all governments will see this as a gold mine to control everyone.
How many of you can really live in total isolation? Nothing electrical. No ability to buy anything. On the run all the time.
This is coming. Best way isn't to destroy the chips but to reprogram them with the information YOU want them to have.
Anyone got a box of spare RFID chips that are blank? And a program machine? And a guide on how to program or reprogram one?
That will be your best defense. Until they get you for having a fake identity...
I do care when the government has this information. Time and time again, democratic or dictatorial, governments have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with any of this information. On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy for my medical history to be an open book because it shows the negligence and ignorance of those who are living off our tax money in the name of "public health".
There are many people out there who can't keep their ***** in their pants, but that doesn't mean they're equally prone to turning over the till.
As demonstrated in "Brazil" the government is quite capable of getting Buttle and Tuttle confused with each other and then failing to accept the consequences of the actions that have been taken.
There is NO WAY these can hold your personal information - once they leave the factory they are finished - they spit up their codes only, they cannot take information in. One-way communication.
Answers to your proposals -
The tags require medium frequency waves to operate the chip inside it, the tape demagnetisers Radio Yack used to sell ran at the North American line frequency of 60Hz.
RFID patches are not sewn in, they are stuck on since the piercing of the metallic antenna would either reduce its effectiveness or kill it entirely.
Stores would NEVER be able to gain information like your criminal history, personal finance info and CERTAINLY NOT your race!!! I'm very curious about your reasoning for the race issue. I'm hoping you are joking about the loudspeaker part. This is all impossible because of privacy laws**.
The shopkeep story is pure fantasy, even if personal information *was* on these devices (which it isn't), there would be no way someone could directly access your financial wealth - nor would it be reasonable to assume that such information would secure enough money from a single source, off a single person, to promise a shopkeep a better life back "in his home country". There's the race thing again(!)
Now - there has been a lot of talk and "leaked" information (that I personally believe) that we will be soon on our way to a cashless society, where everything we do will be tied to the information contained in a non-removable implant that DOES contain all of our personal information, including debit card functionality. Yes, I believe that the government (and other unnamed entities) have the perverted and sick capability of using this technology as a means to enslave - absolutely. But those days are not here yet, and it won't be for quite a while - especially now that such plans are out into the sunlight where everyone can see them. The "undesirable and evil entities" we are all aware of NEVER counted on the internet to be the information exchange it has become.
Knowledge is POWER - and we MUST guarantee that NOTHING stands in the way of free information exchange, and we MUST ensure that we ABSOLUTELY preserve this freedom, NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION OR CENSORSHIP of any kind should be permitted. Several bills have been
recently introduced under the ridiculously-thin guise of "copyright protection" and to "fight piracy", while trying to sell it with the over-used "for the safety of your children" buzz-phrase that people are finally waking up to. Paid-off media lays the groundwork of making piracy and copyright protection such a hot topic by grossly exaggerating its impact on Hollywood - but in reality the percentage is in the single-digits - it is NOT a problem, it's a lame excuse to limit online content. Naturally, it may begin with only a very, very small portion that everyone could agree to - but once that ball starts rolling, it will pick up speed VERY quickly.
The only way we can prevent our private information from being available to just anyone is by SAFEGUARDING THE INTERNET. It's our LAST line of defense against being enslaved. (I'm not exaggerating) Information spreads from one end of the country to the other in mere minutes, we all need to watch out for one another and have his/her backs. There is going to be a massive SHOWDOWN coming, and I know everyone's instinct can feel it coming. Think about that.
Peace!!
P.S. I apologise for the "rant", but it seemed a reasonable forum to educate slightly as it dealt with privacy theft, the direction it is headed, and what we can do to limit the damage. Also, I don't want to debate this publicly (you may send me a message if you like), so if you don't agree, just ignore it - there is TONS of information out there that DOES agree.
Turns out, it was the Joe Rocket armored motorcycle jacket I bought from a riding buddy. I wore it any time I was on my bike. Not stolen, just never deactivated. It was sewn into an area around the zipper between several layers of ballistic nylon, and cowhide.
The sticker-type such as pictured above contains no chip, it is just an induction coil that alerts the reader that it's still alive - going through a cashier's lane with a deactivation pad overloads the antenna and blows a fuse so the security system sees it as being "dead"
My comments above were about the types of these similar stickers, and other types of plastic devices that are used, that transmit their codes by activation via cashier's reader and security systems.
More advanced RFIDs such as those in credit cards, can contain a simple code to verify that the information on the magstripe is valid, or they can spit up larger volumes of encrypted information. Passports have a larger amount of personal information that is also highly-encrypted. They are capable of both read and write operations, but do not contain financial details.
At the moment, most RFIDs are basic and provide a simple code (like access control) to be referenced to a lookup table, unless they are used in important documentation instruments.
After seeing these on YouTube I contacted my bank, supplied them with a variety of URLs, and stated that under no circumstances would I allow my account to be accessed by an RFID enabled device.
Thx in advance for your answers.
Strong electrical fields are capable of overloading the circuits within the chip, causing burnouts. That's why these things are limited on the distance they can be picked up. No matter how they build them later, there are always limitation on power handling capabilities. By using a signal generator and a transmitter, you can determine the frequency of the chip, and by increasing the output of the signal, you can burn out the chip.
Once you think you have defeated the chip. simply reduce the power and monitor the chip to see if it repowers up after reducing the output current. If it doesn't you're home free.
or can't you use a RFID writer? i seen somethig on this site a while agot about that.
Remember that an EM Pulse is erroneously named. It is actually a Charged Particle Pulse. Those confused electrons and protons can overload the PN junctions in semiconductors and render them inoperative.
Alpha Radiation is made up of 'naked' Hydrogen and Helium Neuclei.
Beta Radiation is made up free-flowing electrons in search of a Nucleus.
BOTH of which are Charged Particles.
Read up on the reaction that occurs in the PN junctions of semi-conductors. If it were truly an EM pulse, then you would not be able to place a transistor anywhere near an inductor.
The fact that transistors can co-exist with inductors at ridiculously high frequencies in items such as switch mode power supplies demonstrates that the EM Pulse that can be generated by a collapsing inductor field is NOT ionizing radiation, although some of those frequencies, if too close to the resonance of an organic circuit, can lead to flesh damage, just as microwaves can do.
The classic "EM Pulse" that occurs in relation to fission detonation is the mass distribution of uncontrollable charged particles. The Wikipedia article on EMP is very informative even if the authors do not agree on particles vs magnetic fields. But pay close attention to the goings on inside the semi-conductor when exposed to this radiation.
Now let's turn our attention to the charged particle theory of EMP. Let's suppose that a fission weapon comprising 22Kg of plutonium is detonated 100 miles away ... in the atmosphere say. What is the particle flux density through one square centimeter perpendicular to the blast assuming a spherical blast, all of the fissile material participates and produces 10 (charged) fragments for each atom of fuel? How does this flux differ from normal cosmic ray flux at sea level? How does this flux differ from that normally experienced in SpaceLab?
As stated previously if it were purely magnetic fields that caused the damage then no transistor would survive in the vicinity of high-power inductors inside a switch mode power supply, unless that poor transistor is suddenly spiked by back voltage. I shan't introduce ElectroMotive Force, lest we end up with confusion over which acronym means what.
Are you reading this on a "classic" TFT LCD monitor lit with CCFL? As the thin-film-transistors on the LCD panel are so extremely delicate, have you or anyone else ever observed discoloration because the inverter coils (EMF) are affecting the TFTs?
RFID is several magnitudes more sensitive because it is powered by that field, overloading the antenna with EMF or the circuitry with CPP should be very easy. The firing of s Xenon tube scatters a great deal more than just visible light.
As you are only wishing to split hairs, I see no point in maintaining this argument which is verging on off-topic.
sOUNDS WORTH A TRY WHEN THE TIME COMES.
Photons (electromagnetic radiation) a.k.a. light is what is emitted, not charged particles. They excite the electrons in electronics to the point where they escape the metal and the metal becomes so hot from the rapidly moving electrons that it melts and burns whatever is touching it.
Nuclear decay , fusion, or fission produce nuclear radiation in the form of charged particles. Some is ionizing radiation. Our earths magnetic field deflects these coming from our sun making life possible. Some charged particles "fall into" the poles giving us aurora borealis and aurora australis. When the charged particles strike the gases in the atmosphere they excite them and they glow much as a neon light does.
The point to a EMP is to strategically knock out electronic devices minimizing casualties. otherwise just use an A Bomb you get both EMP and nuclear charged particle radiation.
My suggestion is relying on the "super-sensitivity" of RFID chips. They rely on an induced current to commence operation, so a good whack about the electronic antenna should be pretty painful.
The alternative of modifying a microwave oven to attack that part of the body infested with a chip is extreme, haphazard and could do long term damage.
If these chips are to be embedded in the back of the hand, I see chain-mesh gloves suddenly becoming fashionable.
Furthermore, Without a significant fluctuation in the surrounding MAGNETIC field an overload current will not be induced in the sensitive RFID chip. Simply hoping escaped electrons from a device designed to create visible light, I would bet my life, is not adequate to fry an RFID. Just think of the thousands of cells and layer of fat not to mention the capsule around the chip that can absorb or deflect the incoming electrons. We are talking billions of atoms in the way.
Please name the race that tagged you.
Please also provide Registration and Vehicle type, along with photos of the formerly implanted device.
tHESE THINGS ARE MUCH MORE COMPICATED IN FACT.
https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/static/r/f/i/RFID-Zapper(EN)_77f3.html
Its the only way (besides the hammer method) that leaves no trace that you destroyed the chip.
The Microwave is bad idea, it can happen that the place where the chip looks slightly burned.
1) the technology is too expensive to deploy on such a massive scale
2) the technology used is much older than RFID
3) there are several designs, but most use a tuned coil (with no chip), or an electromagnetic "flutter" design (think relay style component).
The basic idea is that current tech looks for variations in a static field to detect the tag. That is why sometime the sensors go off without an actual tag tripping it. Things like cellphone antennas, metal loops on a purse, etc.
The register deactivators are basic EMP emitters that fry the crap out of the coil and blow a simple fuse inside of it. That is why you don't want to put you credit card on one of those pads.
Those pads emit a field several times larger than the RFID zapper.
The problem would be just as bad in humans - and I certainly don't want to go cutting around in my arm if I ever get forcibly injected (or wherever else they decide to put it). But I certainly would like to be able to block or 'zap' it.
Please can we get back to blocking or disabling them - I am pretty sure removal without the aid of a fully equipped hospital isn't viable.
@anubreed: Chips implanted in people for commerce are likely to be 30 and forty times a day--transport fares, office door security, that cup of cofee on the way to work, the newspaper -- this is when health risks start to become serous.
Subcutaneous microchip-associated tumours in B6C3F1 mice: a retrospective study to attempt to determine their histogenesis.
Le Calvez S, Perron-Lepage MF, Burnett R.
Ecole Nationale Veterinaire, Unite d'Anatomie Pathologique, 44307 Nantes, France.
Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2006 Mar;57(4):255-65.
Tumors in long-term rat studies associated with microchip animal identification devices.
Elcock LE, Stuart BP, Wahle BS, Hoss HE, Crabb K, Millard DM, Mueller RE, Hastings TF, Lake SG.
Bayer Corporation, Toxicology Department, Stilwell, Kansas 66085, USA.
Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2001 Feb;52(6):483-91.
Transponder-induced sarcoma in the heterozygous p53+/- mouse.
Blanchard KT, Barthel C, French JE, Holden HE, Moretz R, Pack FD, Tennant RW, Stoll RE.
Department of Toxicology and Safety Assessment, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877, USA.
Toxicol Pathol. 1999 Sep-Oct;27(5):519-27.
Subcutaneous soft tissue tumours at the site of implanted microchips in mice.
Tillmann T, Kamino K, Dasenbrock C, Ernst H, Kohler M, Morawietz G, Campo E, Cardesa A, Tomatis L, Mohr U.
Institute of Experimental Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Germany.
Exp Toxicol Pathol. 1997 Aug;49(3-4):197-200.
Fibrosarcomas Associated with Passive Integrated Transponder Implants.
T.E. Palmer, J. Nold, M. Palazzolo and T. Ryan.
Covance Laboratories, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, 53704.
Foreign-body tumorigenesis: Sarcomas induced in mice by subcutaneously implanted transponders.
Keith A. Johnson.
The Toxicology Research Laboratory, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland MI, 48674.
Vet Pathol 33:5 (1996).
There are some breeds worth a lot of money and theft is rife!
If its a matter of changing address then it can be done at the place off implant by phone or letter!
Please, try and produce just ONE peer reviewed scientific and/or medical paper which proves your point.
www.antichips.com
they have the lab reports and info that proves tumours.
I know 2 people whos dogs developed tumours on the rfid site.
my dogs are chhipped as I fell for the same lies re safety.
many dogs with chips are destroted at pounds, not all readers read all chips.
ear tattoos are much safer.
removal will cost hundreds as the sharp plastic batbs embed into muscle, removal is not simple.
imaging a sharp irritating itch all your life?
and they do migrate. i had 13 pups done ALL moved from the neck area, to shoulders under neck lower ribs etc.
Nasty, and the only good is to verizons pockets.
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. Also, studies in the past have been shown to be wrong at times. So, if there is a study that shows risk, then it could be inaccurate.
Toxicol Pathol. 1999 Sep-Oct;27(5):519-27.Transponder-induced sarcoma in the heterozygous p53+/- mouse.
Department of Toxicology and Safety Assessment, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877, USA. kblancha@rdg.boehringer-ingelheim.com
Heterozygous p53+/- transgenic mice are being studied for utility as a short-term alternative model to the 2-yr rodent carcinogenicity bioassay. During a 26-wk study to assess the potential carcinogenicity of oxymetholone using p-cresidine as a positive control, glass/polypropylene microchips (radio transponder identification devices) were subcutaneously implanted into male and female p53+/- mice. During week 15, the first palpable mass was clinically observed at an implant site. This rapidly growing mass virtually quadrupled in size by week 25. Microscopic examination of all implant sites revealed that 18 of 177 animals had a subcutaneous histologically malignant sarcoma. The neoplasms were characterized as undifferentiated sarcomas unrelated to drug treatment, as indicated by the relatively even distribution among dose groups, including controls. An unusual preneoplastic mesenchymal change characterized by the term "mesenchymal dysplasia" was present in most groups and was considered to be a prodromal change to sarcoma development. The tumors were observed to arise from dysplastic mesenchymal tissue that developed within the tissue capsule surrounding the transponder. The preneoplastic changes, including mesenchymal dysplasia, appeared to arise at the transponder's plastic anchoring barb and then progressed as a neoplasm to eventually surround the entire microchip. Capsule membrane endothelialization, inflammation, mesenchymal basophilia and dysplasia, and sarcoma were considered unequivocal preneoplastic/neoplastic responses to the transponder and were not related to treatment with either oxymetholone or p-cresidine.
PMID: 10528631 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Blanchard KT, Barthel C, French JE, Holden HE, Moretz R, Pack FD, Tennant RW, Stoll RE.http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.htmlhttp://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html
http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
But here is the summary boiled down to the brass tacks:
"Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review."
The referenced "paper" is nothing more than an interpretation of other reports, has NOT been reviewed by an impartial panel, a has targeted and pre-determined conclusion. That's not SCIENCE, and that is NOT a peer reviewed paper.
Never the less... Congratulations are due however. You indeed have managed to produced a link which did allow me to do further research on the matter. 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 chip, a surgical pin, a lego block for that matter, a surgical sponge, or the surgeons wrist watch) can induce a fibrosarcoma (yes, a tumor) in connective tissue due of a surgical incision and/or injection of a foreign body. Let's say that again: Introduction of a foreign body, ANY foreign body, can in very rare instances induce a fibrosarcoma. It doesn't seem to matter what the particular foreign body is. This has been a known fact for a VERY long time. What this does NOT prove is that RFID Chips cause tumors. Don't believe me, do the same research I just did. ACTUALLY read them, and check the reviewers references. Are the reviewers impartial? What are their credentials? How respected are they in their field?
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.
This is NOT news, and it is NOT unique to RFID chips.
What do you know, sticking something foreign in a living being can have possible unintended side effects.
Your referenced article (oh, sorry, "Peer reviewed paper", NOT!) do NOT prove is that _RFID_Chips_ cause cancer. The RFID CHIP does NOT! The IMPLANTATION of a foreign body may, in very rare instances, and has the EXACT same risks as ANY injection or surgery.
"and has the EXACT same risks as ANY injection or surgery."
If I have to choose between the small but POSSIBLE chance of a fibrosarcoma and my pet living and my being able to retrieve them, I'll choose their life saved by a chip... EVERY time.
The simple fact of the matter is, folks wearing their tinfoil hats are going to go on and on and on about possible risks and whatnot.... but here in the REAL world where I live and work daily in animal rescue, chips save lives EVERY day.!
...but, it's a personal decision, and everyone should make it for themselves. I SHOULD have known better than to have been lured into this discussion to start with, and have done my best to refrain and be drawn back into arguing about it from the standpoint of RFID CHIPS ARE EVIL AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE DESTROYED instead of a calm an rational point of that nothing is pure evil or pure good. Everything has benefits and side effects. A chip in your pet MAY cause a fibrosarcoma and yes the chip may wander. There is even a smaller chance that it may cause a health problem due to it interfering with something internal, just as a seed head to spear grass or some other natural item encountered may. These things happen.
There is also the chance that if and when your pet bolts out the front door, or wanders out when a worker leaves a gate open, or neighbor kid accidentally drops a leash, or whatever and they get away and the pet gets picked up by animal control before you can find it... and they scan it... an ID number comes back, they look up that number in the database, find your info you provided, you get a call, and presto... Fido is home and safe again hours later! I see this happen EVERY DAY! Lives saved! If you asked ANY one of those people if they would trade that chip in for a reduced chance of a fibrosarcoma they would think you're insane.
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 "RF" portion of the RFID technology has NEVER ONCE been CONVINCINGLY shown, through ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHODS, to be "carcinogenic".
sorry for some reason the link didn't appear with the text, .. try again ..mhttp://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html
Listen, if RFID 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.
ANY implantation, be it an RFID chip, surgical pin, sliver of metal, what have you can induce a reaction by the body in an attempt to isolate it. This is the normal immune system response. In VERY 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. 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. There is a VERY small chance that the bodies immune system won't react to it appropriately. This doesn't have anything to do with the foreign body being an RFID chip with an antenna capable of sending a signal back with a number.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets try breaking this down into an even more simple experiment:
1) Injection into the subcutaneous fat layer an RFID chip into a statistically large group, say 10,000 dogs.
2) Take the same sized control group, but this time make the test injection made of the same material and coating of an RFID chip, but this time it is solid material
3) Take a third similar sized control group, with the RFID pellet having a non-uniform / jagged surface.
4) 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.
Now, monitor these three groups for set intervals of time: 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years.
Collect the evidence of this experiment and your conclusions, and then publish the results for an impartial group of your peers to review. Can a fibrosarcoma occur in those results, sure! Has there been incidents of fibrosarcoma in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4? Were these numbers of fibrosarcoma between group 1 and 2 statistically different from those in 3 and 4? Are these numbers between groups 1 and 3 statistically different from groups 2 and 4? Was the incident rate reduced in groups 3 and 4? Can the results be independently reproduced? Were the two groups large enough to exclude statistical noise? Was the experiment well designed to produce meaningful data? THAT is science! THAT is peer review! and THAT is the only type of science which can meaningfully support your claim.
What you WILL find is that the incident rates do NOT differ statistically between groups 1 and 2, nor between groups 3 and 4. Meaning that a non-uniform surface produces less incidents of fibrosarcoma.
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. You WILL find that the test pellet being an RFID chip does not factor into the incidents of fibrosarcoma.
So, why are RFID chips manufactured with a smooth surface intead of a non-uniform / jagged surface... cost. It's very difficult to industrially manufacture non-uniform items in a mechanized fashion. 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. Plus, with a non-uniform surface, you stand the risk of the part "migrating" in the body, potentially out of the subcutaneous fat layer into an organ or out of the skin entirely... how many times have you had a sliver "work itself out" eventually? This is because it had a non-uniform texture and the motion of cells rubbing against it gradually forced the object to the surface. Your immune system doesn't "push" 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. 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 "wander") and can in extremely rare instances can possibly induce a fibrosarcoma... no different than if said pellet was a useless solid lump of the same material, size, and shape.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 served on the board of directors for), have ALL had microchips injected into them. Every Single One of them. 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. 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. 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. That's lives saved, BECAUSE of that supposedly evil RFID chip. 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. 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... 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!
Hi there .. I really don’t need to get into this discussion, but you are obviously wanting to make a point here so let’s see if we can put the issue to bed. As far as I myself am concerned, I don’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’s owner. However the injection or placement of a chip beneath the skin isn’t the only way to accomplish this.
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?.
Now it’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
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.
The burden of proof is not mine to debunk the (false) statement that "RFID chips cause cancer." They do not. Also, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that the chips do by providing evidence which support that theory. I would refer you to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method for examples of how this process is supposed to work: "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."
Anybody can claim any ol' thing they want to. 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. Studies that do NO support their claims I might add. The burden of proof is on those who refute the theory to prove it wrong. Only ONE piece of evidence to the contrary disproves the whole theory. Period. That's how it works, and is what makes science so great! Only the best theories survive the test of peer reviewed SCIENCE! 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. They do not, and no-one has been able to prove they do... not even once. {shrug}
And yes... I _did_ try searching the FDA site for evidence to support your claim. I didn't find anything. If you would care to furnish said paper tho, I would appreciate it. I'm betting no such article exists however.
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 medical journal that summed it up pretty well:
What is a serious adverse reaction (SAR)?
A serious adverse reaction is defined as "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."
http://www.hta.gov.uk/licensingandinspections/faqsonseriousadverseeventsandadversereactions.cfm
Of course the word "cancer" isn't stated, but as most doctors will tell you "cancer" 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.
Biocompatibility - See Mitigations Section A
Sterility - See Mitigations Section J
Labeling - See Mitigations Section L
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.
Also, the cited risk, and your cited explanation are not for the same two medical problems. "Adverse Tissue Reaction" != "Serious Adverse Reaction". The devils in the details.
Here is a link that you will find much more interesting, I didn't read all of the paper, (full paper) .. http://www.scribd.com/doc/944125/Albrecht-Microchip-Cancer-Full-Paper peer review
Go to "talking it over@moody.edu. An interview w/ Kathreen Albreck. She has researched this and will prove the point!
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.
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!
only one or two dogs had them in place for more than a short time.
not the 10 to 15 years a normal animal lives.
vets are NOT required to report either.
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.
Doesn't quite work.
(posted 56:26:08:22/02/2011)
(imagines ball hitting poor pooch at lightning speeds, pooch flies away from california all the way to iraq and gets shot by some stupid doushebag holding an RPG)
Photo become unreadable...((
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Dr6poEl_0
On the other hand, I will never agree to have one implanted into me. I refuse to be tracked 24/7.
2. Patent an adhesive-backed foil skin patch to place over the sub-dermal transponder as a Faraday shield, get rich.
3. Instructable readers will claim the foil patch causes cancer.
4. Eek.
"arphids". just made me insane.
My dog has a microchip (standard pet chip which is ISO RFID chip operating at 125khz inserted just under the skin between the shoulder blades) and I have fears we are being watched / recorded / studied due to this - and alot of the research Ive done on the subject has lead me to find lots of stories of tracking / tracing / research and other breaches of privacy due to these pet chips. I no longer agree with the idea of my dog having this "chip" active inside him.
I have enquired at my vet about removal, which is not possible and even if I found someone who would do it, due to his extremely small size, the anaesthetic needed to operate under is more likely to kill him, and he has a high risk of infection on the area - I will not put his life at risk - surgery is not an option. Is there anyway I can deactivate / destroy / disable the RFID chip, without injuring my dog?
PLEASE HELP
Thankyou so much for taking the time to read this!
However, if you do wish to destroy the chip for any reason and you can't remove it surgically, a powerful EM burst should do it. This could be done by connecting enough capacitors in parallel with a coil and switch. Charge the capacitors, place the coil as close to the tag as possible, and flip the switch. If the pulse is powerful enough (ie. enough turns in the coil and enough capacitance in the capacitors), the RFID chip's antenna will pick up too much power and the device will short. Use an RFID reader (borrowed or built) to check your work.
I am under lightworker Margaret Schutz. I want to help you and share a lot of helpful info with you about the rfid chip and your pet. Your pet is in serious danger and is being tormented by that chip and it causes cancer, cancerous tumors and bleeding.
I have the info and the links for you. I have the evidence and the proof with news reports and photos with the cancerous tumors wich were removed by animals who were affected by the rfid chips biohazardous affects!!! Please contact me asap. I want you to get the info you need! I am totally against all RFID technologies!
I have so much to help you with all this and your pet can get surgery! That was a lie on the vet's part! I want to help you and your family member, your pet, your baby, a living creature which is just an innocent victim of the rfid chip experiment! I want to hear from you soon! Thank you!
Margaret
Cancer - Tumors - yeah. Think about your tissue being heated up around these little chips. The heating alone is abnormal and can cause tumors and why not cancer. After all if you don't remove a tumor it can turn cancerous - No?
For REAL LIFE information you can see for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY75w7nlbJk&feature=channel_video_title
Classic RFID cards do not pose any risk , it's such a small power and it's at least in your hand when in use. And hands doesn't have cells, that can mutate, except for skin ones, that are pretty resistant.
Implanted ones can pose a risk , because their location does not change, so when often in use, they can 'possibly ' mutate stem cells around the chip, when used often.
US Government intentions:
- Use a medical records and system as a cause and as a testing stage for a state-wide implementation
- While implanting chips, develop and test tracking mechanisms
- Then use it for security purposes
- Then use it to track all movement, things, transactions, whole lifes
- Aka 'Mark of The Beast'
RFID will open a 'new' era , as computers did, when developed enough. (This 'sentence' is my personal thought, beside the rest, based on facts)
If you seek more info, Youtube and internet will tell you about New World Order (NVO) plans. Some of them are not true, some of them are little or more 'hyped', but most are true facts.
And about Obama: For him it's better not to resist the NVO plans. Noone want 'serious' problems.
Power corrupts. And absolut power corrupts absolutely.
Hope it (whole text) sums it all.
And yeah, they are already tracking our medical records and far more, and when the whole thing merges, like Robert Patrick's silvery globules in Terminator II, we'll WISH the computers had taken over instead.
To the person who quoted something from a government site (well, they always tell The Truth, right?)...I'm sure a person with a fried RFID passport will be allowed back into the country, but only after an invasive gonad-imaging or prison-style cavity search.
Everyone Uses Money? Right?
You can't BUY OR SELL without it ? Right?
It can either be in your hand. MONEY/CASH. Right?
OR IN YOUR HEAD.? Right?
Well Are n't credit cards already in your head?
You remember your Pin Number? Right. Where's that memory but inside your head?
They don't need to be an implnat which is physically inside 'em do they?
They just have to be Universally accepted as Currency. That's all you need.
How else could those in the Third World and indeed anyone who uses Money not then be affected by it?
Was n't the MARK the Currency of Germany?
But even if that occurs, there are of course some malfunctions or rare health problems, that weakens white blood cells, hence the posible, but rare cancer problem.
But even if that occurs, there are of course some malfunctions or rare health problems, that weakens white blood cells, hence the posible, but rare cancer problem.
Um.. and put your phone to at least 2.5 metres distance from your head when you sleep, or if you must have phone in bed, put it at least in your knees. Mobile phones does disturb sleep cycles. (confirmed)
Try it yourself, I must admit it is true. Why not.. Tesla had plans for some 'kind of electromagnetic' long range weapon. He burnt the plans, thank God.
I'm sorry, but I don't remember more facts, other than that mobile phone next to head caused brain frequency scan really differ at the side, where the phone was.
Transmit power for mobile phone was up to 3Watts a decade back,
but law worldwide controls and enforces limits due to issue beforesaid.
Power:
Wi-fi: tens of milliwats
Mobile phone: circa 1.0 to 1.8 Watts ... Think about it :D
At a "dollar store", you can buy a disposable flash camera. You can remove the flash bulb, and replace it with a step up voltage converter. I'm actually not sure if you use the entire converter, or just one coil. Google can help you there.
When you "fire" the device, it will generate current in any conductor within its range. Good for frying RFID tags, but can also kill your cell, tv, computer, credit card, etc.
Also, high voltage and current is dangerous, blah blah blah.
RFID is good, if not abused.. and you know the gov. .. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Dr6poEl_0
summary: Foil acts as a simple Faraday cage and as such can be used to shield almost any weak data signal.
bwahahaha..
Ya kno?
the RFID chip in the passport is specifically used to validate it.
I just renewed my passport, and they sent me an RFID blocking envelope to carry it in. Same with the New Passport Card.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html
"If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip."
Don't get caught without it !
CCTV boom has failed to slash crime, say police
Oyster Hack @ EnGadget
Now onto cancer... cancer is an abnormal cell division with unchecked growth that adversely affects health. I'm not saying these chips will cause cancer, but if you stuff something into your body with the POTENTIAL to cause adverse immune reactions, don't be surprised if some people end up with it.
One reason they are being used on pets is to show a large test group and promote safety of the devices..... one thing NOT mentioned, is that the lifespan of the pets is not very condusive to potentially developing cancer as some cancers take decades to develop..... so if you chip your kids lets say... it might take 40-50 YEARS to develop and by that time I'll bet they say it could be 'anything' other than the chip unless its one giant tumor with the chip in the center.
Last comment... some peoples immune systems are far more sensitive than others and no one can definitively predict when one or an others is going to go haywire over these things without more research.
The implanted chip would have to send out some signal, either in response to a signal by the reader or by constantly sending out a signal. Even bar codes require the reflection of the laser light to bounce back into the reader to be read.
So, whatever they do, common sense would suggest that the implanted device must have some form of transmittance, either by actively transmitting or by bouncing signals. I doubt mere bouncing signals would be strong enough to be read from the distance that this guy is talking about, so the energy from the body must be used to amplify the signal somewhat, it would seem to me.
Check yourself before you start throwing insults.
# 16 Feychting M, Ahlbom A, Kheifets L (2005). "EMF and health". Annual review of public health 26: 165–89. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144445. PMID 15760285. from wikipedia
While I agree that microwaves with relatively short wave lengths can be absorbed by the hydrogen in body tissues and cause damage by heat. I cannot agree that radio frequencies with their much longer wavelengths cause any adverse affects to the human body. No studies by reputable military or heath professionals support what you say. The waves pass right through our tissue like much of the EM spectrum does. Seriously if the military and health professionals believed this we would not have been using radio and cell phones to communicate. Do you really believe that the local rock radio station is causing you cancer? or how about the myriad cell phone towers? you had better dig a really deep hole and hide in it to avoid all those cancer causing RF's. By the way you spelled village wrong in your name which further supports my first post. great name! is that an insult or a compliment? i'll let you decide.
i have no comment on the whole cancer thing, but i really wanted to point that out
I'm not sure what of the different radiation frequencies we send out all over the place on this planet actually have been observed as a potential cause of cancer, but it's very likely all of them lose energy in the form of heat, and can burn if they're strong enough.
And if something can cause cancer in large doses, it is very feasible that it can cause cancer, albeit at a slower rate, in very small doses as well. I think that's what people here are concerned with.
/
Global warming is just as likely a natural occurrence of sun cycles as it is human-caused. And the major fact that we are so one-sided in our research of global warming and the fact that so much political power and money, or should I say funding, is so involved in global warming research proving that humans are the cause leads me to want to side with the theory that it's probably natural because science is never so certain and funding gets the proof it wants, otherwise the labs would not exist and the scientists would lose their jobs. Anytime research becomes political, it comes under suspicion because if funding is determinate upon results, then results will always favor the funding. But don't think too highly of me because I also believe evolution research has become political that such funding has something to gain from Atheism becoming a dominant faith across the entire free-world despite the danger it has proven to be in every single case it has become the dominant ideology. Read up on the atrocities of the Communists in their crusade to rid religion, primarily Christianity, from their lands.
/
I'm just telling you this so that you know I'm not saying it's a combination of things because I'm a liberal environmentalism nut, I'm saying it because it's most likely the case.
/
I'd believe the first concept of your statement if it didn't completely contradict reality.
/
If it's normally natural mutations that actually cause cancer, then why is cancer so much on the rise with human beings and their pets? Cancer is not remaining stagnant, it's increasing percentage-wise, not just as the population grows. That is a huge coincidence, too much of a coincidence, if what you said is true. There is something causing cancer to rise out there that we are doing, and it's not just an increase in smoking, if there even has been any increase in smoking. Logically, it's probably a combination of everything, the number of signals, the power they are amplified too, their proximity to dwellings, the food preservatives we use, the chemicals we use to clean our increasingly disgusting tasting tap water, the chemical pollutants in the air and ground.
/
I mean the fact that you talk like you know what cancer is and why it's happening illustrates even more how little you know about it. Why, because science has not even come out of the theory stages of even how or why cancer is started. We know more about what kills cancer than we do about how it begins. Maybe it's because cells turn into a perverted Stem-cell-like state where their structure is less controlled, maybe it's because certain protective barrier genes get knocked off the ends of the DNA strand causing it to change it's behavior, maybe it's a combination of the two or something totally different.
/
No two cancers are completely the same, no two cancers behave the same, and they arise under different circumstances from viruses, to mutations, to radiation, and to chemical reasons. Perhaps one cancer arises from one circumstance of the DNA, perhaps another arises from another issue. We don't really know for sure, and people are different, that's why research cannot produce hard evidence without some contradictory evidence as well.
/
I know that UV radiation is healthy in low doses. Yes it does help in synthesizing Vit D, and even Iguanas need a certain level of it daily to survive healthy. Even many kinds of fish need it.
/
However, many of the radiation signals we are using are not signals at levels that we are always exposed to naturally. Our atmosphere blocks the majority of all the radiation that comes out of the sun, which is presumably most of the spectrum that we are aware of. However, we cannot know the long-term implications of increasing signals our bodies are not used to. AM/FM radio is probably safe because of how long we've been using it, and AM frequency bands are created by certain sounds. However, we cannot be so sure about every single signal out there. Think about it. Every single channel is a slightly modified wave, every single station, every single individual cell phone has a unique frequency signature. We have so many different frequencies and radiations flying around this planet, and we do know that, at least, some of them are responsible for certain cancers. We cannot assume that with all these variations that we know which are or are not harmful over the long term as it concerns cancer and anyone who says that we can is either naive and not looking at the reality of the situation, or is intentionally lieing for some reason.
/
As for your comment about Warfarin, it's a powerful anticoagulant that is used as a medication, and most things in small doses can be used for some benefit under some circumstances, but not under all nor even most circumstances. No medication should ever always be taken. However, Aspirin can be good for those with heart conditions to help decrease the clotting in their arteries, or for the acute headache. I still would not recommend to everyone regularly because even with all of our research, we cannot know all that it will do.
/
As for your strengthening of the body comment, building up immunities and such, sure yeah, under controlled conditions where the circumstances are monitored by the person to ensure immunity without repercussions.
/
Building an immunity to something involves exposing your body to a potentially deadly substance in too high a dose that won't kill you, but will cause your body to react to processing it better. There are some chemicals that our body will use in trace amounts, but they are still deadly, and some of them will accumulate in the body until a lethal dose is reached. Try building an immunity to that when someone else is controlling the dosage.
/
The main issue people are having is that they, along with anyone thinking rationally, knows that we cannot possibly know everything, especially where it concerns why cancer is started. So if it's shown that one thing can cause it, that automatically brings all the similarly constructed items into suspicion.
/
The fact is, we do not know for sure why UV light can cause cancer, we only know for sure that it can in abnormally high doses. And until we know for sure, we cannot be sure of any radiation, especially, especially when they are so varied and frequency and magnitude as all of the radiation signals we use today indeed are.
/
Hey, maybe you'll be proven right in hundred years from now when we thoroughly understand cancer and radiation frequency's effects on our bodies, or maybe you'll be proven wrong. But what we do today, we have to choose to do today. We cannot wait a hundred years from now to see who's right or wrong, we have to decide today to take the risk or not too. And I think that's the concern of most of these people. We can't know for sure if it's truly dangerous, however, there is indication that it may be, and I, for one, will never feel comfortable to exposing myself, my dog, my children to a may or may not be, especially when some of it that is similar has already indicated that it does, indeed, cause cancer.
So what happens is UV excites two rings(bases) adjacent in the DNA and the energy is enough to di-merize the bases covalently bond. This causes a kink with bonds where they shouldn't be in the DNA strand. instant point mutation, may or may not cause cancer in fact most of the time just cell death. Or the cell is killed by the immune system.
the ingredients of most sunscreen contain organic ringed molecules or oxide of titanium to absorb/reflect the UV light. That's why every time you get sunburned your chance of acquiring skin cancer increase as the number of mutations increase in the dividing cells of the skin.
Sure there are also lots of chemical DNA mutagens that are far more powerful and destructive in character. Bleach for example. but who is stupid enough to soak in it or drink it?
I used to use a toxicant called the dichromate salt of potassium. It was a nasty DNA mutagen we would use it as a reference test to compare to other samples toxicity.
That guy needs to go back to his "villige".
The only reason MICROWAVES are used for cooking is because of the ease of containment and short range of dissipation.
Microwaves are line of sight only and shor distance without very high powers ( in the 100's of WATTS Range) compared to lower frequency Radio waves that can be used to communicate from London UK to Sydney Australia on as little as 5 WATTS.
Firstly let's say we're talking bout your head.
The thing that will be heating up is the water in the cells in your head. Assuming approx 70% water content (why not? it'll do for this calculation) and average head weight 2.38 kg (5.25 lbs) that's about 1.67 kg of H2O.
Let's say we want to boil the water in your head, because that would hurt!
So we need to increase T from 38 degcelcius to 100 so dT = 62
The amount of energy needed to do so is Q = dT x weight x heat capacity
Q = 62 x 1.67 x 4178 = 488 kJ
Now 1 watt = 1 J/s so it would take 97,681 seconds to boil your head at 5 watts.
Which is 27 hours.
That's also assuming that all of the power in the radio wave is converted into heat energy in the cells, which it isn't.
In fact one of the main reasons microwaves are used is because water is HIGHLY absorbant around 2.4 GHz.
You may have noticed that your head isn't currently boiling despite the general abundance of 5W (and greater) RF devices thanks to public radio stations and road freight companies.
On the flip side microwaves and radio waves share that part of the spectrum so at that frequency the doco you refer to may have been stretching the terms for TVs sake.
then there is the thought: it only takes one bad to make it bad.
i recently heard that walmart was going to be using an RFID tag on blue jeans to tell the stocker how many is on the shelf , what size, style and how many they have in the back stock room
an article from computer world
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/82155/Wal_Mart_Backs_RFID_Technology
a) it is usually de-activated at the point of sale; and/or
b) It can be detached and discarded when you get the product home.
It becomes a serious issue when this technology is used in the "contactless" credit card--a netbook or smaller can be carried in a briefcase or purse and scan the data from such credit card it encounters within a few feet. A casual walk down the high street at this point in time could yield a dozen skimmed cards. As these cards become more popular, the same short walk could skim 100 such cards.
Sorry for commenting for no reason, but I HAD to reply
Secondly, a chip floating in the soft tissue of the skin (even over the spine) isn't going to hurt a pet. The spinal column is encased in bone, and I seriously doubt a trained vet would accidentally stab the cord (ever accidentally stab a toothbrush through the back of your throat? Its just about as likely).
Our family pet once managed to run away when a family member was on vacation (we assume our dog went searching). At any rate, the manner of escape left the collar neatly torn off on a fence. If not for chipping, its very probable we would not have found our dog again.
Your argument about things not being lost because they are still on earth is quite debatable - with this logic why bother look for misplaced keys, children, money or anything; they aren't lost.
The latter half of your post is incoherent, perhaps due to a lack of punctuation and many fragments; I am unsure what you were trying to say.
tiny antennae permanently. How do crazies come to be chipped? Whoever
"they" are that are doing the chipping I will bet it is being performed secretly.
Is this the scenario where PEOPLE TRACKING begins?
One way to fight a radar reading is to file a motion of discovery to find if the device used has exceeded its calibration date. civil SERVANTS are some times lax in their paperwork. If it is out of date the evidence is invalid. Also some areas require the officer to be re-qualified at certain intervals. nothing funnier than telling a cop he has to go back to school to pull a trigger :).
Meanwhile drive it like you stole it!
Here's a few good links :
An Empirical Study On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets
50 Free Internet Tools for Tin-Foil Hat Wearers
Zapato Productions - Serving The Paranoid Since 1997
if you are wondering how to get rid of ones on products
easiest way is to get it out of the shop, then simply remove it and bin it/have a pocketknife/part of a stanley knife on you, cut it with that, this can be done in a very quick movement top right to bottom left, can be done whilst picking it up and looking at it...
also if you have a satchel, lined with aluminium foil, just drop it in that and it will be totally unreadable until you take it out again, at which point you will be able to disable it being at home or somesuch
=]
Passive tags can only be read in distances less than 1 foot usually 5 inches or less.
While it's true that self-powering tags can be read from far longer distances, those are very expensive. Far too much money for them to put one in everything buy or anything like that. It would simply cost the company too much.
Also, all that is stored in an RFID tag is a long string of numbers. the RFID tag in a passport does not contain all of the information written, and Certainly not a picture. The tag transmits a string of numbers to identify it, the antenna reads those numbers, and looks them up in a database. RFID just isn't capable of transmitting data like pictures.
Same goes with, well, nearly everything, not just passports. Those tags on books, EZ / Sun passes, even those in credit cards do not contain any information that could put you at risk.
RIFD blocking wallet
Your entire second paragraph is already refuted... I refer you to http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2788.html wherein this is already done as of August 2007. Also a google search reveals that there are dozens of passive tags already that can be read at 20 feet. Sorry to burst your "superiority" bubble but RFID already *IS* capable of most of the things you deny.
Please double check your facts before you dismiss something.
Remember those key chain credit cards that you can hold up to a sensor at a gas station/fast food place? People did walk around with briefcases that contained those sensors and waved them near people's pockets.
While it'd be nice to believe that we're immune from identity theft in the form of RFID chips, it's not a reality. A frightening number of identity thefts occur every day, and RFID chips are no different from any other risk.
There is actually documentation online of people who have been able to read passport chips, and replicate them. Another very real risk of this that has been thrown out there is that of terrorists reading them and identifying areas with large concentrations of people from certain countries.
Once you can show me proof that our RFID chips are safe from theft, maybe i'll be a bit less wary. But until then, I would not risk my personal information on the assumption that our government/credit card companies must have figured out a way to prevent misuse.
And also, readers are already around.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/science/907a/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004151388_apchippingamericaiii29.html?syndication=rss
According to this report, this sort of thing isn't even regulated in the United States.
Have a great day!
real= link:this one=THIS ONE MAY BE CORRRUPT ALSO
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban/catalog/productdetail.jsp;jsessionid=B5C5C8AF6A98A4B9FFF489B5B2213771.app13-node7?itemdescription=true&itemCount=60&id=10138188&parentid=W_ACC_BAGS&sortProperties=price&navCount=70&navAction=poppushpush&color=
Books often have tags inserted in the spine, and the cashier swipes them over a big magnet to stop them triggering the alarm.
Another triumph for science over Big Brother (the 1984 version, not the waste of TV cameras)
[https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/static/r/f/i/RFID-Zapper(EN)_77f3.html RFID-Zapper]
[http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geumD5wRBIWSYBoCYDRaMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGlxBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12an7d1bm/EXP=1209144185/**http%3a//itp.nyu.edu/everybit/blog/media/rfid-zapper.pdf RFID-Zapper PDF]
On wikipedia
How to Build a Low-Cost, Extended-Range RFID Skimmer
We have to apply weeks or months in advance :-(