Jump to content

Talk:Microchip implant (animal): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Call for expanded discussion of cancer risks section.
Joelmills (talk | contribs)
Line 22: Line 22:
==Criticism Section==
==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. [[User:Jo7hs2|Jo7hs2]] ([[User talk:Jo7hs2|talk]]) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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. [[User:Jo7hs2|Jo7hs2]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Joelmills|Joelmills]] ([[User talk:Joelmills|talk]]) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:41, 2 January 2008

WikiProject iconDogs Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

WikiProject iconCats Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]