Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
MICROCHIPPING Chris Laurence Veterinary Director Dogs Trust
INTRODUCTION <ul><li>Function </li></ul><ul><li>Implanting </li></ul><ul><li>Reading </li></ul><ul><li>Adverse reactions <...
FUNCTION adio requency dentification evice R F D I
 
Reader
 
 
READING <ul><li>Scanner </li></ul><ul><li>Batteries </li></ul><ul><li>Read range </li></ul><ul><li>Standard </li></ul><ul>...
ADVERSE REACTIONS <ul><li>Loss </li></ul><ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Swelling/infection </li></ul><ul><li>Migration...
ADVERSE REACTIONS <ul><li>Loss 21% </li></ul><ul><li>Swelling/infection   5% </li></ul><ul><li>Migration 60% </li></ul><ul...
MICROCHIP STANDARD <ul><li>FDX </li></ul><ul><li>HDX </li></ul><ul><li>In the beginning: </li></ul><ul><li>FDX – A </li></...
DATABASES <ul><li>Availability </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contact points </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time </li></ul...
DISTRIBUTORS <ul><li>ISO approval </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ICAR  www.icar.org </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Number ...
SUMMARY <ul><li>Functioning </li></ul><ul><li>Safe and effective </li></ul><ul><li>Database standard </li></ul><ul><li>Dis...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Microchipping - Chris Laurence, Dogs Trust Veterinary Director

1,249 views

Published on

What is microchipping? How does it work? What are the issues and how can they be resolved? Chris Laurence, Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust explains the issues.

For more presentations from the International Companion Animal Welfare Conference and information about attending, please visit www.icawc.org

Published in: Lifestyle, Technology, Business
  • Health Issues and Microchips

    In studies carried out on Rats and Mice and Dogs have shown that on average (An average over all the studies) 2% of animals micro chipped developed cancer, often at the sight of the chip insertion and in some cases right around the chip.

    I will list the peer reviewed and professional evidence at the end of my answer.

    The studies used to justify chipping are relatively small sample studies and the argument that so many million animals have been chipped without incident are irrelevant because cancer may occur and may or may not be treated in these cases there is no way to quantify this. Just because a dog is alive does not mean it doesn’t have cancer and these chipped animals have not been observed and information has not been collected so this kind of social proof is invalid without large sample lifetime studies.

    I do not want my dog to be used as a testing ground for this. At the very least this requires more testing before any law is passed making it compulsory because there are risks here.

    Many will say that vets say they are safe so they must be safe. This is not strictly true many people (including qualified vets) now challenge the long held beliefs that yearly vaccination of animals is good health practice. Many vets will argue rightly in my view that it promotes health because it gets dogs in where vets can screen for conditions on a yearly basis, but the actual idea of vaccinating dog yearly without immunity tests is a disputed point amongst vets and may cuase over vaccination which actually cause health problems for some dogs. Veterinarian Shawn Messonnier recommends vaccinations once every three years and claims that thinking on vaccinations has changed. I see no evidence of this change in thinking when I visit UK vets.

    Could self interest be coming before animal welfare?

    If this information is not filtering down could the micro chipping debate be held back for commercial reasons?

    Does this mean I should blindly trust what I am told when studies show otherwise?

    Health Studies:

    Le Calvez 2006, Studied Species – Mice, Sample 1,260, Length of Implant Exposure 2 years, Developed Cancer 4.1 per cent. Vascellari 2006, Studied Species – Dog, Sample - N/A Vets Journal Article, Length of Implant Exposure 7 months (at age 9), dog got cancer from implant. Vascellari 2004, dog, 18 months (at age 11), study by a vet of one dog, dog got cancer from implant. Elcock 2001 Studied Species rats Sample 1,040 Length of Implant Exposure 2 years Developed Cancer 0.8% Blanchard 1999 Studied Species mice Sample 177 Length of Implant Exposure 6 months Developed Cancer 10.2%. Palmer 1998 Studied Species mice Sample 800 Length of Implant Exposure 2 years Developed Cancer 2.0% Tillmann 1997 Studied Species mice Sample 4,279 Length of Implant lifespan Cancer 0.8% Johnson 1996 Studied Species mice Sample 2,000 Length of Implant Exposure 2 years Cancer ~1.0% Studies in which micro chip induced cancer was not found: Murasugi 2003, Species dog, Sample size 9, No cancer Ball 1991, Species rats, Sample 50, No cancer Rao & Edmondson 1990, Sample 133, No cancer

    Note: No study thus far has been a wide ranging, large subject group lifetime study. This chips have not been tested enough period, Security and RFID Microchips

    In addition to the health implications there are privacy implications I will outline below (I am electronics savvy and it took me ten minutes searching the Internet to figure out how to do this): I can buy an RFID reader of the internet for $25 Hong Kong dollars. I can with the right antenna and a laptop sit in a car and scan people for names and addresses as they walk by. As these chips are not even encrypted anyone could currently do this. The strongest encryption can be broken by script kiddies (hacker with the desire but not the knowledge to hack) using the powerful new computers and since the signal can be grabbed and worked on later this provides the tools for sophisticated targeting of individuals using this technology.

    Imagine someone grabbing the signal of hundreds of people along with photo and then being able to know exactly where that person lives, with a picture to confirm their identity, it is that dangerous.

    Of course, I could just buy a Brother RL700S RFID Label Maker Machine RL-700S and clone someone’s tag and put it under my dog’s collar that way my dog would scan as if licensed and if anyone did track it would be to the wrong house. So it isn’t like the tech is foolproof anyway.

    I see a new business idea cloned dog tags, a £700 printer and a new cottage industry is born, Fake dog micro chips. Some guy will be selling them for £5 a go all they need do is sell 140 and they have paid for the printer. Good year on year funding that endears the criminal to his surrounding community. Ironically the very people you are trying to protect will suffer because this service will appeal to anti social elements living in vulnerable disenfranchised communities that are hard to access by the police.

    Since there won’t be a way to detect that the chip is under the skin without really intrusive detection (annoying the community) you are back where you started with ordinary tags except this time you have the illusion of security and a chip company and vets have made a fortune off the backs of ordinary people.

    I am not a thief, criminal, murderer, or even a good hacker and I would never use this information but I have already got a good idea how to get round your system and use it to find out about others.

    Imagine what really dangerous people could do with this on demand information retrieval system.

    They will run wild with it.

    Sources: Google search: Search String “hacking rfid” Results: 1. Wired.com - The RFID Hacking Underground Issue 14.05 - May 2006 2. tv.boingboing.net - How to hack RFID-enabled credit cards for $8 – A video tutorial if you please! 3. computerworld.com - How they hacked it: The MiFare RFID crack explained 4. ebay.co.uk - Brother RL700S RFID Label Maker Machine RL-700S 5. ebay.co.uk - Bluetooth RFID and Barcode (1D or 2D) Hand Scanner 6. ebay.co.uk - 125Khz RFID EM4100 Proximity ID EM Card USB Reader,ID

    Cost of development: Self funding via dog owners with the potential to overrun massively if the National ID database is anything to go by.

    Lastly there is the cost, the cost of developing this scheme would be in theory funded by the micro chipping fee, but as more dogs need chipped there would be more data warehousing and programming requirements. As with the national identity scheme we would be trying to store and unprecedented levels of information and since this would be being done by private enterprise it would have to be profitable. The national ID card scheme is a good case in point, the ID card scheme is usually said to cost £5bn, although the London School of Economics has said the true cost will be between £10bn and £20bn. So expect a £15 billion pound overrun and how will this be paid for. Leveraging more money from contract is a well worn path by many of the outsourcing companies and with politicians having already committed public funds this ransom is always paid or the Government looks like it is wasting money and doing U turns. The current school of thought in Stormont is that dog owners pay for their own hobby. So it is logical to assume that a massive increase in the license fee for dog owners will be on the cards if there are budget overruns. This will probably leave the fee at about £40 to £50 per dog for the privilage of giving 2% of the nation’s animals cancer. Thanks but no thanks Dogs Trust!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Microchipping - Chris Laurence, Dogs Trust Veterinary Director

  1. 1. MICROCHIPPING Chris Laurence Veterinary Director Dogs Trust
  2. 2. INTRODUCTION <ul><li>Function </li></ul><ul><li>Implanting </li></ul><ul><li>Reading </li></ul><ul><li>Adverse reactions </li></ul><ul><li>Microchip standard </li></ul><ul><li>Database standards </li></ul><ul><li>Distributor standards </li></ul>
  3. 3. FUNCTION adio requency dentification evice R F D I
  4. 5. Reader
  5. 8. READING <ul><li>Scanner </li></ul><ul><li>Batteries </li></ul><ul><li>Read range </li></ul><ul><li>Standard </li></ul><ul><li>Test </li></ul><ul><li>Zone </li></ul><ul><li>Movement </li></ul>
  6. 9. ADVERSE REACTIONS <ul><li>Loss </li></ul><ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Swelling/infection </li></ul><ul><li>Migration </li></ul><ul><li>Failed </li></ul><ul><li>Others </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency </li></ul>
  7. 10. ADVERSE REACTIONS <ul><li>Loss 21% </li></ul><ul><li>Swelling/infection 5% </li></ul><ul><li>Migration 60% </li></ul><ul><li>Failed 10% </li></ul><ul><li>Others 4% </li></ul>
  8. 11. MICROCHIP STANDARD <ul><li>FDX </li></ul><ul><li>HDX </li></ul><ul><li>In the beginning: </li></ul><ul><li>FDX – A </li></ul><ul><li>FDX – B = ISO </li></ul><ul><li>Standard 11784 and 11785 </li></ul>
  9. 12. DATABASES <ul><li>Availability </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contact points </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Registration time </li></ul><ul><li>Data protection </li></ul><ul><li>Reader security </li></ul>
  10. 13. DISTRIBUTORS <ul><li>ISO approval </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ICAR www.icar.org </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Number </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Availability </li></ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul><ul><li>Packaging </li></ul>
  11. 14. SUMMARY <ul><li>Functioning </li></ul><ul><li>Safe and effective </li></ul><ul><li>Database standard </li></ul><ul><li>Distributor standard </li></ul>

×