Page: 1 2 3 4

RFID tags (34)

This post is on the SM/Bondage/Fetish web board.

HarmCandy wrote:
Cancer rates for RFID-tagged dogs are 50% more than normal. Same goes with other animals. The chips themselves are 2-way, so they can both send and receive signals. They use microwave-based technology; there's a fairly significant link between EM radiation and cancer.

Please quote your source(s) for the cancer rates. Something in a reputable journal and that refers to a 50% increase in cancer rates in dogs. Something that has some actual evidence and a methodology we can all look at and assess as well as a statement of a "result". Many people on the site will have micro-chipped pets and you may well be causing them great concern, so you have a duty to support your claims. No reply will be equivalent to no useful source(s).

The identity chips used are passive responders that have to be pinged to be read. They use radio frequencies, not microwaves. Unless pinged, they do not transmit anything.

There is of course a link between some EM radiation and cancer. UV and X-rays certainly do have a link. But they are at the other end of the EM spectrum to radiowaves (and microwaves). They have higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths than visible light and radiowaves.

Edited 7 May 11, 6:23 PM by DrTaps

7 May 11, 6:12 PM
bohnanza
UK(FK), 12 yrs

DrTaps wrote:

Please quote your source(s) for the cancer rates. Many people on the site will have micro-chipped pets and you may well be causing them great concern, so you have a duty to support your claims. No reply will be equivalent to no sources.

The report he is using is at http://www.antichips.com/cancer/albrecht-microch... Interestingly it is written by someone with no medical or veterinary qualifications and posted on a website called antichips.com rather than somewhere with a bit more weight like bva.co.uk.

Rohypnol means never having to say "Would you like another coffee?".
Religion: It makes good people do bad things.

7 May 11, 6:16 PM
mroberts
UK(EH), 6 yrs

tiggerGlasgow wrote:

bohnanza wrote:

sjs77bi wrote:
…having said that 3D barcodes are still better. Wallmart tried to force this on its suppliers in the States but many kicked back against using them due to the technology still being flaky at best.

Not true. 2D barcodes, eg Datamatrix and PDF 417, are more reliable having error correction built in to them. Marks and Spencers have been using Datamatrix on some of their products for over a year. Almost all drugs companies are using Datamatrix, or 2D Pharmacodes as they call them, and they are paranoid about things going wrong.

Airport check in systems manage to read barcodes printed by potato on a bit of paper which has been folded, shoved into a pocket and run through a washing machine.

Is it wrong that I get all quivery when people try to argue with @bohnanza on one of his pet subjects?

I was thinking the exact same thing - this is one of those situations where it's easier to concede

7 May 11, 6:20 PM
DrTaps
AQ, 10 yrs

bohnanza wrote:

DrTaps wrote:

Yes, I had seen that one before I replied and that Dr Albrecht's work is not specifically biological. Not reliable. I amended my request for evidence to make it more specific. I await the reply.

HarmCandy's reply to you with the link to that article stated

"Their recommendations correlate exactly to my thoughts. Woot."

which sounds like he may have only found it after making his statement about cancer rates in dogs, which may be only his "thoughts".

Edited 7 May 11, 6:40 PM by DrTaps