Today in the Washington post there is an article about implantable RFID chips causing tumors in animal testing. Yet, the Bush FDA has approved them for use in humans.

From the article:

"Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

"We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities," Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was "not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats," but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems.

"In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product."

The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.

"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview."

....and ....

"Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip's approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

"The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe," she says, "but if they're not doing that, who's covering our backs?"

Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

"At the time we reviewed this, I don't remember seeing anything like that," he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search "didn't turn up anything that would be of concern."

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, "even if it's adverse information."

Watson added: "The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device."

...finally....

"After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson's actions "unacceptable" even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

"A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it's like the Wild West," said the group's executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.

In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits _ and the ease _ of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:

"I'm sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?"

"Absolutely," Thompson replied. "Without a doubt."

"No concerns at all?"

"No."

But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself."

-Kerry O.

OMG KerryO .. Bush bashing again? get a haircut and ditch the hat .. might help with the dating thing chip me!!! LOL

Quite alright, Mr. Robbins. What would GWB have to say about someone who posts no information, no picture and the marital status of 'separated' *really* being up to by posting to a dating site? An exemplar of family values while he trolls for reactions?

I think not. :) Of course, Bush 43's administration is pretty secretive too, isn't it?

-Kerry O.

You tell 'em, Kerry

Does the coyote ever catch the Roadrunner? :)

But it is a lot of work. Especially having to come up with new Family Oriented repartee since people like **** Cheney have used up all the good ones. You know, like the one he used on Senator Leahy on the floor of the Senate?

I really worry about that. What if some Republican pre-schoolers had been watching C-Span that day? :::shudder:::

-Kerry O.

no chip for me

RFID devices are passive. The do not emit an endless stream of RF waves. The only time they emit any waves at all are when in the presence of a RFID reader device.

The RFID chip gets its power from the receiver. When the receiver generates the proper carrier wave the RFID device uses that signal, like a little tiny transformer to generate the power for the RFID device to respond. So basically the device is benign from an electrical stand point except for perhaps some immeasurable .0001% of the time or such. Then when they do transmit, the response is a tiny mirror of a huge original signal. The amount of power into the device is hugely greater than the power out. Therefore if the signal is dangerous then anyone in presence of the device designed to read the RFID would get an enormously greater risk than the person actually carrying the device beneath their skin.

Now if the RFID device were encapsulated in toxic material, there may be some risk from the encapsulation material. Presently the FDA closely regulates what sorts of materials can be implanted within the human body. There are certain materials which are accepted as being low risk (non-toxic) Some examples are certain forms of silicone, certain forms of polyurethane, titanium and teflon.

I think you are chasing a red herring here. I'm asking the questions "Why?" and "If someone is stirring up this question, what are they diverting attention from?"

I absolutely guarantee that one minute with your cell phone is many times the output of an RFID device even when compared to the RFID device over a very extended period of time..

Hey philospher isn't silicone made from silica? Because silica is a cancer causing agent.

Speaking about chips being implanted in people I rented a religious right-wing movie where the people in the world are implanted with chips that monitor their thoughts. It supposedly is a source of pleasure and it also controls emotional reactions. Aparently in the movie the anti-christ is now the president of the world and the way he tries to conquer the world. He does it by implanting the chips with the uses of deception, say it will help will stresses of life and health monitoring.
I didn't see the whole movie but just by hearing news of a politican helping get past a implant to do just about the same thing and ran for the president is just eerie.

oh by the the movie's title was "The Mark Unleased." If you saw it please tell me how it ends.

watch out for flying saucers

Hey Philoshper you didn't answer my question. Isn't silicone made from cancer causing silica?

Silica is silicon dioxide (SiO2), commonly found in sand and quartz.
Silicone is a synthetic polymer, or macro-molecule, whose backbone is a repeating chain of Si-O molecules, with various organic groups attached to the silicon
Silicon is the chemical element, always found in nature in combination with other atoms making up molecules

Certain forms Silicone have long been accepted as implantable compounds. There is an extensive process for approval and there has been a long history of use. Silicone breast implants were long considered safe, then considered unsafe, then considered safe again. If you want some silicone implant breasts you can get them now, so don't despair.

Ok just kidding.

There is a long history of silicone usage, however many still prefer certain forms of polyurethane. These also must undergo significant testing before approval.

I have heard that silica has been considered a cancer risk in some cases, however, silicone is not made from silica, silicone and silica are different compounds containing silicon as a fundamental building block.

Oh don't bother answering I found the answer is YES!

Read below or cut paste link


http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/ethics/cases/dcc/dccpart2.html

Part 2: SILICONE ??? [6]

Silicon, silica, silicone--what’s the difference? Silicon is a chemical element, one of the 109 known substances that constitute the universe's matter. Second only to carbon in its presence on earth, one-quarter of the earth’s crust is silicon. Carbon is also the only element capable of producing more compounds than silicon; thus, silicon possesses immense potential for commercial application. One of the premier semi-conducting elements, silicon is used in many electronic devices, such as transistors and computers.

However, one does not find silicon alone in nature. It always exists as silica or silicates. Silica is silicon dioxide (SiO2), commonly found in sand and quartz. A silicate is a compound made of silicon, oxygen, and at least one metal, sometimes with hydrogen, sometimes without it. Talc, all gemstones but diamond, and clays are natural silicates. The most widely recognized synthetic form is sodium silicate, or water glass, a combination of silica with sodium and hydrogen. Capable of ". . . combining chemically with most metallic oxides," 7] silica is important in both the chemical and industrial realms. It appears in a wide range of products, from glass to cosmetics to the amorphous silica gel we find with our new shoes. (Materials lacking the molecular lattice structure of a solid state are amorphous, for example, all liquids. Thus, an amorphous form of a material possesses the same atomic makeup as the crystalline version, but without a"highly ordered geometry" [8].)

Silicone is a synthetic polymer, or macro-molecule, whose backbone is a repeating chain of Si-O molecules, with various organic groups attached to the silicon. The most common silicone is PDMS, poly-dimethylsiloxane [(CH3)2Si-O), the foundation of all silicones. Silicones have been introduced into many products, from cosmetics to building materials to computers. Commercial silicones are separated into six groups according to the number of repeating units and the number of ties linking these units: ". . . fluids, emulsions, compounds, lubricants, resins, and elastomers."[9] A fluid is characterized by its uniform change in shape or direction when an outside force is applied, so that it includes all liquids. Typically, silicone fluids are straight chains of PDMS ending in trimethylsyl groups, ranging in viscosity from that of water to fluids that cannot be poured. An emulsion is a stable combination of at least two immiscible liquids, one present in the other as droplets, for example, oil in water. A compound in this context is a formulated or compounded mixture. Lubricants are "materials of low viscosity that separate moving solids, used to minimize friction and wear."[10] A silicone resin is a substance which is ". . . non-combustible, electrically nonconductive, hard and glassy when . . . cold, and soft and sticky . . . [above] . . . the glass transition point."[11] Finally , an elastomer describes a synthetic polymer which behaves much like natural rubber, i.e. can be stretched to several times its size and still snap back to its original length.

Silicone gels lie somewhere between a fluid and an elastomer. They are "lightly crosslinked" PDMS molecules, forming a three dimensional array "which . . . [is] . . . swollen with PDMS fluids to give a sticky, cohesive mass without form. . . "[12] and, thus, are more complex than a fluid; however, the gel's composition is less dense than that of the elastomer, which has only minute portions of its fluid not crosslinked. An elastomer surrounds the gel in silicone breast implants

And here is a link about Silica being placed as a knowed cancer causing agent.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/silicacrystalline/overlooked.html

Are Other Health Effects of Silica Exposure Being Overlooked?


by
David F. Goldsmith, PhD
Public Health Institute


The National Conference to Eliminate Silicosis March 23-25, 1997 in Washington DC enjoyed a splendid turnout of over 600 attendees. In my opinion, the conference attention on silicosis to the exclusion of discussion of other silica health effects was very shortsighted . However, I was delighted by the opening remarks by NIOSH Director, Dr. Linda Rosenstock, who pointed out that we now know that silica exposure is a risk factor for several "new" conditions, and that deliberations should be expanded to consider other health problems such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, nephritis and other kidney diseases, and tuberculosis (TB).

What is the evidence for these other conditions? Last month the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) changed the classification of silica from 2A (probable human carcinogen) to 1 (known human carcinogen). The change to IARC Type 1 means that occupational silica dust exposure is considered like other known human carcinogens such as asbestos, vinyl chloride, radon daughters, smoking, and DES. It means that companies are likely to change their Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDS), that workers need to be informed, and that where there are alternatives to silica (such as sandblasting) that they need to be sought out. The change in IARC status does not mean that the controversy about carcinogencity is over, but it does mean that the evidence is sufficient to convince a group of IARC experts that silica increases the risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, it goes a long way to meeting the criteria for causation we use in epidemiology. There is other evidence to suggest that silica is linked to stomach cancer, lymphatic cancers, and skin cancer, though the IARC focus was on pulmonary malignancies.

The other health effects are not "new," but we now have good epidemiology studies of recent vintage showing that silica exposure (with and without silicosis) is linked with several autoimmune conditions which previously there were only case studies: rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, Sjogrens' syndrome, and lupus. There is also accumulating epidemiology evidence that occupational silica exposure is linked with kidney diseases such as nephritis and end-stage renal disease.

With a narrow focus on silicosis, we tend to overlook serious conditions that often accompany silicosis--silicoTB and cor pulmonale (enlargement of the heart muscle). Although these two secondary effects of silicosis are declining in the U.S. (as is silicosis), they remain killers of relatively young workers in developing countries and in China and former Soviet Union. Sadly we also must acknowledge the epidemic of acute and accelerated silicosis that descended upon Mexican workers in the Midland-Odessa, Texas area in the early part of the 1990s, some 60(!!) years after the Gauley Bridge disaster. These men were vastly overexposed to silica, without any protection, in several oil pipe sandblasting operations, and they have many of the autoimmune ailments as well as fatal silicosis.

Thus, the silicosis prevention we all hope to achieve should include these other diseases: cancer, autoimmune illnesses, kidney diseases, and TB. Furthermore, the employees we need to communicate with about this hazard must receive information in languages of the workers at risk, not in English only.

David F. Goldsmith, PhD
Public Health Institute
2001 Addison Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1103 USA
davegold@publichealth.org

I expect that any cancer issues related to the RFID devices are more likely related to the chemical composition of the materials coating the devices than to any EMI/RFI waves from the devices. And I expect that has been carefully managed as well. So I discount this report on this basis.

However, anytime you introduce things into the body there are opportunities for contaminates as well.

Many electronic devices are created on an epoxy resin base material. If this sort of material were exposed to the human body I would consider that risky.

No, the answer is no. Aren't you reading the material you posted.

The article refers to silica as a risk, not silicone.

Read carefully now.

I'm going to repeat for you,,,

Silica is silicon dioxide (SiO2), found in sand and quartz.

Silicone is a synthetic polymer, a repeating chain of Si-O molecules, with various organic groups attached to the silicon

Silicon is the chemical element, always found in nature in combination with other atoms making up molecules

So silicone is not made from silica, it is made from silicon.

Research implantable silicone for more information.

Hey philly did you see the movie?

Nope, and I appreciate off the wall stuff, so I'll suggest one for you. Go see Bubba Ho-tep. You can find out once and for all what happened to JFK.

So Silica is cancer element found in natural materials such as sand and quartz, silicone is a cancer element with organic compounds and implanted in people to "monitor" their health.

Why anyone might be under the impression that bushco might care about The Peasant Class is quite beyond me...

Why, George,Laura,the Twins and even Barney The DOG have micro-chips implanted somewhere on their persons,
So they must just be OK...

I mean they didn't nick name that Guy Dubya for NOTHING!!!

Ya, Know...