Talk:Microchip implant (animal): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (edit summary removed) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 09:09, 1 February 2009
Cats B‑class | ||||||||||
|
To Do list
- Information about lawsuits.
- coating of plastic to prevent movement of chip
- encryption.
- database registries
- ISO standard covers other things besides the frequency. What is in the standard?
- Lawsuits Banfield was sued and the other companies were sued by the feds.
- Patent. Can they really patent the idea of a chip?
- How does the chip work? I'm guessing it is powered by the induced signal it receives.
Two thoughts on the MicroChip implant
No one talks about the way it feels under the skin, these animals can't tell us if it itches, or even hurts. And is this the first step in getting them into people? Something from 1984, or even older the Bible, and the mark of the beast? Just things to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.172.5 (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It is very clear to pet owners when something is irritating their pet. Add to that the fact that some humans have volunteered to get these and other artificial impractical objects embedded under their skin (such as magnets) and reported no discomfort. There simply is not a system of nerves under the dermis. When implanted correctly, hermetic hypoallergenic implants are completely invisible to the human body. Heck, people have lived with buckshot, bullets, and even nails from nail guns in their bodies for years and years, sometimes not even knowing they were there. As for asking if this is a step to getting them in to people, the invention of the scalpel could be considered a "step". This question is inane. -67.78.138.82 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Welcome to step one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.190.190 (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Criticism section
The criticism section, indicating cancer risks, is woefully inadaquate. It doesn't discuss the study at all, or offer any additional information whatsoever. I call for its expansion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea, but it should be made clear that this finding was only in the laboratory setting and has not been seen clinically in pets. --Joelmills (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Worldwide area
France - no longer accepts the AvidEuro Chip only a 15digit chip - Source USDA commercial movement form
Canada - no longer accepts the Avid or homeagain just their 24hourpet Canadachip which maybe the same as the 15digit crystal chip ?
I believe several countries are leaving the AvidEuro Chip and only going to allow the 15digit - the CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) will not allow registration of a dog without the Canadian chip now - perhaps a section about the various country regulations to help the article ??? could be a table or list of countries ? Every country besides the US mandates microchipping of dogs - the USDA does have some regulation for some animals but not imports ?Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Netherlands "If your pet will be identified through a microchip, please be aware that the microchip meets the ISO standard (International Organization for Standardization) Annex A, 2.1, ISO # 11785 (website: www.iso.ch). For your information, the HomeAgain microchip from AKC Companion Animal Recovery and the AVID-Eurochip, are manufactured in compliance with Annex A, 2.1, ISO # 11785 and meet the requirements. If your pet will be identified through a microchip which is not in compliance with Anex A, 2.1, ISO # 1785, you can bring your own reader or transponder. This will enable the Custom Authorities in the Netherlands to identify the microchip number of your pet." source http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/article.asp?articleref=AR00001142EN Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I will add various country requirements w/sources here as I come across them Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
External link
I have removed a link to A1 ID Systems which has now been added twice to the article. I don't think it is an appropriate link. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)