Wisconsin Company To (offer) Implant Microchips In Employees.
- Thread starter Fishbait
- Start date
they're encapsulated so the "electronics" mean nothing.
the practice of implanting things in humans is very very very well documented.
heck so much so you can walk down your local high street and get a subdermal implant that is far bigger than one of these chips.
bio compatible coatings are a well researched field.
hardly, and frankly you don't know that for sure because this stuff hasn't been tested over a long period of time... which is the point I'm making in the first place!
what do you mean "hardly" they are encapsulated, they're coated, and what part of the passive antenna/chip do you think is going to kill you?
you can go get an implant way bigger than one of these today if you hurry before the shops shut.
and people happily have them for years.
i did study a bit of this crap on my materials science and engineering course as we had to do biocompatible coatinsg etc.
its jkinda old hat.
if the chip fails cut it out with a scaple and stick a new one in. same as any pericing sho pwill do for you if you reject your implamnt
hardly was in reference to the electronics meaning nothing, I never made a claim that they'd kill you, I've pointed out that they've not been tested over a long period of time and that we don't necessarily know the long term risks
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
that's fine, nobody's requiring you to be a guinea pig, hell even if it was a proven tech i wouldn't want it forced upon me.
my point is that there is *some* precedence for the human bodies ability to survive with little consequence the presence of foreign material.
the long term survival of the electronics is immaterial, we've already discussed pacemakers, which can be literally life and death for the person if they fail, and surviving 10+ years in a location that is hard to operate on, yet people have lived long lives with this hanging over them.
an implant will be in an easy accessible location, not subject to mechanical stress, and easily removed (compared to valves, pacemakers, joints etc which are already common practice).
tell me, what components of an rfid implant will contain chemicals that something like a pacemaker doesn't that will poison the user over time and can leach through the protective casing?
if your gripe is simply that is hasn't been tested, then my original comment still stands- in order to be "tested" someone has to be the first. now that someone doesn't have to be you, it doesn't have to be me, but it does have to be someone.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...n6LVAhXiK8AKHS_SB8kQ_AUICigB&biw=1067&bih=478
#
seriously....
stickign things under peoples skin isnt new
#
seriously....
stickign things under peoples skin isnt new
no one has claimed it is being required??? I'm voicing my opinion as asked by the OP and citing a rather obvious and quite legitimate concern that you seem to have not fully appreciated
you don't even know if these are currently tested to the same standard as a pace maker and again these things could be left in for much longer periods of time - it is a simple point really so I don't quite understand the back and forth here but the fact is that these haven't been tested over a long time period so the risks aren't fully appreciated
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
damn, my entire argument encapsulated in a single line, well done sir!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
you haven't considered my initial point at all, you say these things haven't been tested for a considerable period of time, which i won't deny. however my point is simply that someone needs to be the first, otherwise if nobody takes it upon themselves to do it then the risks never will be fully understood.
Not really, I thought it went without saying - you want to highlight to someone who would object to these things on the basis that they're untested that they need to therefore be tested??? Well, yes...
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
in which case my point that nobody's asking you to be the guinea pig, is valid.
you can't complain that other people are given the choice to try out this technology, accepting upon themselves the risk that there may be unexpected complications, despite the extensive knowledge pool of foreign bodies surviving inside a human being (or other living creatures) without providing significant detriment to their lifespan.
I never claimed anyone was asking me to be a guinea pig, that has nothing to do with my point, my post was in reply to the OP's initial post and simply voicing an opinion on the matter - it was quite a simple and reasonable point so I really don't see why you're having such an issue with it
again I've not done that either, I'm not complaining that others are given the choice to try out this technology
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
then where's your argument?
you claim it's untested, which is valid, if you didn't accept that someone's got to test it and make it a tried and proven technology....
I'm not sure what you mean now, perhaps you can re-read my first post in the thread where I express an opinion/answer to the OP
I'm not sure why you think I object to it being tested?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
well you expressed "concerns" about the longevity of such devices, i tried to provide examples of implants which lasts for long periods of time without notable detriment to the user.
yes, and we've been over those points, I'm not really sure what you're objecting to now, the past couple of posts you've attacked points I've not even made?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
i'm not objecting to the concerns of long term testing, simply putting forth the arguments that there has been significant long term "testing" albeit not within the very specific parameters of the op's thread but close enough to give a good indication that long term concerns have been rightly addressed and therefore are as minimal as can be practically achieved without actual human trials.