How to block/kill RFID chips

Picture of How to block/kill RFID chips
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.
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up
mdanto6 months ago
Can someone please help with the following.

I am a distributor who ships product all over the world. Some of the product I am now being told is RFID chipped. Is there some sort of RFID reader out on the market that can tell if a chip is present in both high and low frequency?

What is the best way to deactivate these chips if they are in the rubber sole of footwear????
2dMaxf5 years ago
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?
G MAN 2dMaxf5 years ago
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.
I had my dog injected with a chip when she was at the vet for pneumonia. I should have waited to get the chip done and saved $80. She died two days later at the Vet. I asked him if he could remove the chip - he said that the body moves them around, and finding something smaller than a grain of rice would be very expensive.
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.
Apparently that vet was lying to you...the chip doesnt move around like that. usially it is implanted in the back of the animal and stays there...why do you think that police n animal control swipe the microchip reader down their back? the damn vet was just being lazy. all he would have to do is use a chip reader to locate it, then cut it out after preperation of the animal.
Sorry - they do move. My cats had them injected in the back. We had one go missing, only to have a vet contact us about the cat we still had at home. They said they couldn't initially find any chip, until the cat swatted at the scanner - it had moved into one of her front legs.
On the contrary, as the animal grows, the chip can be found to have moved significantly. My next-door neighbor's dog went missing, and it was by luck that it was identified because it "wasn't chipped". The neighbor insisted that the dog was chipped, and the chip was eventually found down near the tail, not under the collar where it had been placed when a puppy. So the swipe "down the back" would be the movement vs growth factor.
hmm funny. well he still could have done a full sweep on the poor dog. its not impossible to find. same basic principal as a metal detector.
I would be happy to make a small incision with antiseptic equipment given the proper parameters. No big deal.
Hmm, my parents have had their dog "chipped," and I've noticed he has a lump the size of a thumbnail on each side of him. I wonder if it's because of the tag? The veterinarian told them it's just lumps of fat and it's nothing to worry about, but I don't know about that. The lumps feel hard, and if it was fat I'd think they would be soft.
its not fat...its likely a tumor...or a cyst.
anubreed G MAN5 years ago
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.....
That is just outright wrong!  RFID 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.  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.

Please, try and produce just ONE peer reviewed scientific and/or medical paper which proves your point.
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?  Things other than radio energy.  Like antimony, gallium, lithium, and a host of other "toxic" chemicals that are commonly used in electronics.  Even things like copper can lead to metal poisoning.

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.
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.
Hey Das
Go to "talking it  An interview w/ Kathreen Albreck.  She has researched this and will prove the point!
An RFD is the "Mark of the Beast"?!?!  Give me a break.  That was a TOTAL waste of 1 hour of my life I'll never get back.

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!
a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!!
@DAS_WOOKIE – You’re not alone, pal. I’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 “signs of the apocalypse” doom-saying at the other. And I’m sure there’s a whole lot more like us out there. However, amicus curiae (below) is quite correct – the corrupt, psychotic Reagan and Bush regimes slashed the FDA’s budget to the point where they could hardly “test” anything themselves, and had to rely on the industries they’re supposed to be regulating to “play nice” and NOT lie through their teeth for fun and profit at every opportunity… that is, when the political hacks those so-called “presidents” appointed weren’t just blatantly taking massive bribes to pass-off any old poison as “conditionally approved”….
there IS no peer reviewed info as the companies got them passed with their own shoddy trials, if you read the time spans?
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.
Here's "The Mark of the Beast": 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.
The person in doubt needs to prove the point for themselves! thank you.
Yourr understanding of "Peer Reviewed" is interesting, none the less, yes, that is a published paper...  I'm not seeing anything in the way of peer review, and that "study" looks more like a PR piece than actual scientific study.  I would recommend spending a few minutes educating yourself about what a REAL peer review study is:
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.
(removed by author or community request)
there were 6 pins and 5 screws surgically embedded in my horse's pelvis and right rear leg. He died. 2 years ago, at 32, of natural causes. The pins and 'bailing wire' were there for about 20 of those years. I have had wire holding my chest together due to By Pass surgery for the last 12 years. I also have 9 stents in my arteries. I am sure that many thousands of people and pets have many miles of wire and pins and pace makers and all sorts of things 'installed' in their bodies. I wonder what the cancer/tumor rate is in all those 'animals' . I would bet my life the numbers are very low. OOPS . . . I DID bet my life on it.
mijdtr Questor3 years ago
do all them wires emit or receive rf??
Questor mijdtr3 years ago
most all metallic objects "receive" RF
Lego Blocks don't save your pets life when their collar/tags slip off and they end up in a shelter with 3 days to live before being euthanized, if THAT long.

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.
so u say the injection of a rfid has risks well perhaps rare means nonexistent to some people.

"and has the EXACT same risks as ANY injection or surgery."
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.
Here is a link that you will find much more interesting, I didn't read all of the paper, (full paper) ..  peer review
Dr. dB megandf3 years ago
...and STILL we have no mention (at least, in the synopsis linked above) of ANYBODY putting inert-placebo modules directly up against "active" 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 "foreign object" injected under the skin! Perhaps the “Full Report” contains more of what we seek, but all we have in this “synopsis” is a summary of a meta-study of 11 other studies, rife with incomplete or misleading "data" (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 - "N/A" - What? That's "science"?!?) and “conclusions” which are, at best, highly debatable because, when FACTS are not available, OPINIONS can and will be freely substituted… 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… then again, maybe not…. I’m just completely UN-convinced that the kind of “RF terror” 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!
tkjtkj Dr. dB3 years ago
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.
Dr. dB tkjtkj3 years ago
...and, once again, stepping well outside what was actually said, to put YOUR words into MY keyboard so you can successfully knock-down the “straw man” YOU created. To the contrary, even though I’m not an “MD”, but merely a lowly engineer, I still know quite a lot about "...the limits of clinical medicine...", 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 " amok injecting people with devices to prove this or that ...". (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 “for commerce”…) What we’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 – the list of “studies” I haven’t seen would probably fill a file cabinet (…just the LIST, not even the “reports” themselves!) – perhaps the promoters of such devices are, indeed, the “Spawn of Satan”, trying to enslave the world, and lied through their teeth to the FDA to get their poison “approved”, or perhaps these products are utterly harmless, and everybody’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’ve (I’ve – forgive me if I type out-of-turn on your behalf, WOOKIE…) simply not found it (yet). If so, I’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 “evidence” SEEMS to indicate there’s SOMETHING going on, but WHAT it is can’t be determined from the paucity of information available (…to me, at least…) 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 “report” or “study” I’ve seen so far (…so far – bear that in mind!) has NOT been rigorous “science”, but emotion-goading “pseudo-science”, 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 “studies” on various subjects turn out, “…upon further review…”, to be unmitigated “snake oil”, I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m just a TRIFLE skeptical about the results of “studies” conducted (or, at least, wholly-funded) by “interested parties”, from EITHER side – in this case, by grieving pet owners on the one hand, and by implantable-transponder-industry “marketeers” on the other. I rarely believe ANY of ‘em, until they have been PEER-REVIEWED by people who, at least, give a great ILLUSION of being impartial (…and even THEN, sometimes I still just HAFTA go and “stick my finger in the socket”, anyways, just to make REALLY sure they’re not scammin’ me…).
tkjtkj Dr. dB3 years ago
Yes, i concede, that you know much .. more than enough to be dangerous...
Dr. dB tkjtkj3 years ago
“Dangerous”? To whom? Purveyors of “snake oil”, perhaps…? I’m simply advocating a “…test-tubes and Bunsen burners…” treatment of this issue, while you (so far, anyway), seem to be taking more of a “…torches and pitchforks…” approach – who’s “dangerous”? Maybe I’m unusual in this, but I’d usually rather be dazzled with brilliance (“Here’s that definitive report – sorry it took so long, but it conclusively proves that RFID implants do / don’t cause cancer under these / those conditions.”) than baffled with BS (“Well, my sister’s cousin’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!”). If you find my preference for repeatable, verifiable facts over unsubstantiated anecdotes and opinions to be “dangerous”, then I take it as a compliment. Thank you very much!
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  get a more peer reviewed group out there.
Oh well, since you say so, it MUST be true </sarcasm>

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 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.


Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?


PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!