RFID implants linked to cancer in lab tests

As if pain, conspiracy, big brother, and lack of necessity weren't already enough to deter you, the average Joe or Jane, from getting a subcutaneous RFID chip implant, a number of studies over the past decade have amassed which link the chips to malignant tumors in animal tests. Besides the potential foul play going on at the FDA and VeriChip Corp. that got the chips approved for human use in 2004, studies showing as little as 1% cancer rates in lab animals led researchers to note that the aggressive tumors which immediately encased RFID implants with cancerous cells were "clearly due to the implanted microchips", and not random occurrences. That isn't to say RFID itself is dangerous -- we put far more powerful radios up to our heads every day using a cellphone or even a Bluetooth headset. But implants are still looking mighty sketchy all of a sudden; probably not the news some 2,000 US RFID implantees (including Mythbuster Kari Byron, who got a chip injection on-camera last week) want to hear, but the sooner you can deal with it, the better, says we.

[Joshua A Walters @ Sep 9th 2007 1:28PM]

I swear, if that chip kills Kari, heads will role.

[mattclarkie @ Sep 9th 2007 1:36PM]

Let's start a fund in case she does get cancer. I am sure if we all put in $1 we'd soon have millions.

[Phour ZwanZig @ Sep 9th 2007 2:01PM]

Yeah, I agree..

Poor Kari, Hope ya had it removed after the show..

[david @ Sep 9th 2007 5:06PM]

I'm sure she'll have it removed PDQ if not already. She's a smart girl!

[Eric @ Sep 9th 2007 8:26PM]

It's too late, she's one of "them" now.

[[e-mail] @ Sep 9th 2007 8:48PM]

if only RFID required batteries

Mans arm explodes and bursts into flames, Sony Sued over faulty batteries.

[dcny @ Sep 9th 2007 1:34PM]

who in the hell would put that in there body anyway

[MARSHAK @ Sep 9th 2007 11:57PM]

anyone who wants to keep their high paying job with an employer with twisted rules.

[imacmatt09 @ Sep 9th 2007 1:37PM]

If i was Kari I would get it removed ASAP. Also I would never get one put in me.

[Adam @ Sep 9th 2007 1:37PM]

I honestly don't care. The more bad news RFID implants get, the better. The last thing we need in this day and age of big brother, NSA wiretaps, and satellite surveillance is RFID implants.

No thanks!

[jerry Ullman @ Sep 9th 2007 1:39PM]

giggidy giggidy

[Charlie Calhoun @ Sep 9th 2007 8:37PM]

goo

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 9th 2007 1:42PM]

What about all the "chipped" pets?

[Phour ZwanZig @ Sep 9th 2007 2:03PM]

Good question.. Have the Vets been seeing a rise in cancer in the pets they treat?

[Bloobie @ Sep 9th 2007 2:03PM]

It would most likely affect them as well, since the cancer studies were done on lab mice.

[BigD145 @ Sep 9th 2007 2:32PM]

Your pets are already getting shorter lives thanks to commercial based pet foods. It's hard to link one chip to cancer when there's so many other things that also cause cancer. The location of the cancer isn't enough evidence in a court of law.

[dom.rout @ Sep 9th 2007 4:35PM]

I'm sorry, Wha'? Why would this be in a court of law? I don't get it, What made you think of that?

[mattclarkie @ Sep 10th 2007 5:27AM]

My dog got cancer in her tail at the age of 7, safely removed and she seems fine. She wasn't chipped, and only gets name-brand dog food, we thought it was because she loves laying in the sun, or maybe it is my wifi network.

[BLuckey @ Sep 9th 2007 2:04PM]

Hi Mom!

[PI$$Y @ Sep 9th 2007 2:07PM]

Me and my brother are both tagged with a rfid chip in out right hand, i have had mine for almost 2 years now, me thinks it is time to get it taken out :(

[Justin B @ Sep 9th 2007 2:20PM]

Why in the world did you ever get one!?

[PI$$Y @ Sep 9th 2007 2:26PM]

to automate task, i.e unlocking car and starting car without any keys and keyless entry to my house (both of these i haven't had time to implement due to work) i do however use the tag daily to log into websites etc via rfid key

[Jesse S @ Sep 9th 2007 2:47PM]

Well, that was dumb. RFID is highly insecure, unless you implement it correctly, which costs a lot more than just a chip spewing out information. Know how countries like Japan have RFID in the public transit passes? Know how the info gets stolen all the time, so they have to get RFID blocking wallets and/or bags?

You should have gone smart-card, that's what I'm doing.

[PI$$Y @ Sep 9th 2007 3:07PM]

not really, as i said at the moment i only use if for logging into websites, the read range is only about 2 inch's so i *think* i would realise if someone is trying to steal my tag ID

[Othello @ Sep 9th 2007 4:32PM]

Why not just make an RFID ring?

[Dilbert @ Sep 10th 2007 7:34AM]

One ring to ID them all?

[Phyte @ Sep 10th 2007 1:48PM]

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666" (Rev. 13:16-18)

[PI$$Y @ Sep 10th 2007 1:52PM]

and in English.....

Othello: i don't where ring so that option was a no no

[BigD145 @ Sep 9th 2007 2:32PM]

I'm so glad to hear this. It's too bad it won't stop RFID lobbyists from greasing some palms and getting that much closer to mandatory tagging.

[Billy Gun @ Sep 9th 2007 2:35PM]

And those big localizators that they put in some animals to localize them?

I just cant understand these guys.

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 9th 2007 3:02PM]

if these cause tumors I really wonder about cellphones then. the difference being these are ALWAYS in you once you have it, a cell is not always against your skull... but over enough time I'm sure it has the same effect. glad I only use pay as you go....

[Tom @ Sep 9th 2007 3:13PM]

Pay-as-you-go has lower radiation levels?

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 9th 2007 3:51PM]

it means I use it less

[Mile @ Sep 10th 2007 12:22PM]

My cellphone spends most of the day and evening in my pants pocket. Not too far from some very important personal equipment. :(

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 9th 2007 3:05PM]

the other thing, is I'm sure they'll be a counter study done by the rfid manufacturers saying this is "perfectly safe" and discrediting this study.

they wouldn't want to lose all that money on pesky health issues. it's far easier to placate people by lying.

we WANT to beleive our technology is safe, and we'll do whatever it takes to beleive that.

the only reason this gets any play is that no one uses these thigns so they don;t really care about admitting they could be dangerous.

publish a study like this about cellphones and everyone would freak out and call it a lie.

[siriusfox @ Sep 9th 2007 5:04PM]

RFID DOES NOT TRANSMIT anything. RFID is a chip that is in a small tube under the skin. When a scanner passes within a few inches or feet (depending on the design) of the chip chip, it is given enough power to transmit a very small amount of information. We've been doing this in dogs for quite some time now.

If it was an active transmitter then I might think that there is a slim chance that this studies conclusion might be true, but this has nothing to do with it being a microchip. It has everything to do with it being a foreign object under the skin.

[Brian @ Sep 10th 2007 2:16AM]

You're forgetting that everything is not much more than energy masses. And that our bodies are not only great conducter of electricity, but are also filled with electrical currents. So to say that you need to have a special scanner to activate the RFID chip is inconclusive. There have been no studies that say that a living creature don't cause the chip to activate. And animal studies don't neccissarily translate what will happen happen in humans. Different things interact differently to other things.

And to say that there is only a slim chance of something happening after someone does a study that says something does happen is arrogent. Sure, it will take someone else to reproduce the results to prove that this is true, there is nothing that says or doesn't say that someone else will get the same results. Let's not jump to any conclusions before someone has a chance to check things out.

[Tr@mb @ Sep 9th 2007 4:08PM]

Why people need it at all?
Iris recognition systems are fine enough, or someone can still your eye? (I believe fingerprint can be stolen.. even with finger, but not the eye)

[Stephen Tordoff @ Sep 10th 2007 2:13AM]

Fingerprinting technology is now capable of detecting if the finger is dead (ie removed from the person), providing it is over 15 minutes since the event

[John @ Sep 9th 2007 4:43PM]

Your eye can be stolen as well. It's also a bit higher on the list of "things I'd rather not lose" than a finger.

[flyy @ Sep 9th 2007 8:37PM]

Minority report..? Resident Evil 4? yeah your eye can be stolen =)

[Bill Koslosky, MD @ Sep 9th 2007 4:27PM]

Several things to keep in mind:

None of these studies using rats and mice used controls. They can't be used to prove causality.

You can't apply those results to dogs, cats, or humans. The headlines that are saying something like "RFID may cause cancer" are misleading. It's similar to those "Patients in Peril" reports about the use of cell phones in hospitals.

Pets have been chipped for over 15 years now, with no tumors reported, AFAIK.

Conspiracy theories don't contribute to certainty about this question.

http://billkosloskymd.typepad.com/wirelessdoc/2007/09/questions-arise.html

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 9th 2007 5:25PM]

I think the fact the tumors encased the RFID implants leaves little for imagination or conspiracy theory.

[Bill Koslosky, MD @ Sep 9th 2007 5:47PM]

I don't believe in a slamdunk conclusion from any source. Were controls used with inactive chips?

My first reaction is always skepticism, until I'm presented with an argument that will convince me. It's called the null hypothesis.

What type of study would it take to prove that RFID causes or doesn't cause malignant cancer in humans?

You could get into a long discussion about perception of risk or opinions, but in the long run it doesn't increase your knowledge base.

[appnnee @ Sep 9th 2007 7:55PM]

If they didn't even use a control group, I see no reason why I should listen to this report at all. Crap studies happen all the time, and as much as I think big corporations are evil, I really doubt rfid chips could be linked to cancer in humans. Wait for real studies before you get all freaked out.

[Bill Koslosky, MD @ Sep 9th 2007 8:49PM]

It comes down to a risk vs benefit analysis. If you're talking about a potentially lifesaving device such as a defibrillator or enabling device such as a cochlear implant, it's easier to justify the risks even if it's not clear what they are.

The near future will see a great number of medical wireless implanted devices and sensors. If the public's immediate reaction is that "They said that causes cancer," it puts the manufacturer in a difficult position to prove that over decades of use, this or any other adverse event will never happen, at least no more than what normally occur without the device.

Still, the public should seek out and be given all the known information before making a decision.

[Mile @ Sep 10th 2007 12:24PM]

It's the "AFAIK" part of your post that worries me.

[Bill Koslosky, MD @ Sep 10th 2007 12:31PM]

I ran across one case report of a bulldog who had a tumor at the implantation site:
http://billkosloskymd.typepad.com/wirelessdoc/2007/09/case-study-of-b.html

[Matt @ Sep 9th 2007 4:33PM]

So much for the Gates family. And they've had theirs in them for a good long while now.

[mark @ Sep 9th 2007 7:06PM]

Stop trying to scare people.

RFID is only active when it is being queried. You receive much more radiation from flying a plane or using a cell phone.

Any implanted object can trigger a foreign body response which looks a lot like cancer. Biocompatible materials minimize this but the body will still usually encase objects in a layer of tissue to seal it off. I've still got a splinter in my hand from middle school to prove it.

If it is in fact cancer, it is probably from a faulty seal in the packaging, potentially exposing the body to harsh chemicals from the fabrication process.

Next why don't you post a story on how people with pacemakers need a knob coming out their chest to adjust it (this one goes to 11?). Yes, pacemakers use the exact same communication method as RFID, albeit more "dangerous" because it needs a battery to keep the heart going. Hey at least sony doesn't make those, right?

Have all the arguments you like about whether its a good idea for society to get an ID tag. Just don't scare people to get your point across. There are still plenty of legitimate uses for the technology.