It was brought to my attention that my opinion is still at issue in this thread. I’m not sure why this is going on but I now feel the need to justify and defend my position further. Let me just clarify that I think chipping would be a wonderful thing for pets and their owners *if* the health of the pet is not put at great risk to do so. All I stated in my first post was I think more studies are needed in this area. As of yet many of the studies are with mice, and are short term to get a good picture as to the potential to cause cancer.
The links I provided where added to give a person a tiny glimpse as to what is at issue, they were not posted as a complete summery of this situation. It’s just a tip of the iceberg as to what is concerning some pet owners. It is the opinion of a member that the first link I provided, Chip Me Not, *may* be run by commercial breeder advocates or people in the dog fighting business. There was no evidence included with this statement just a stated opinion …..
The site is run by a woman who is in the consumer advocacy field by the name of Dr. Katherine Albrecht, the following is her bio:
Dr. Katherine Albrecht is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on consumer privacy. She regularly counsels policy makers and the media on the privacy, societal, and civil libertiesimpacts of new technologies, with an emphasis on RFID and retail issues. She has advised the Federal Trade Commission, various state legislatures, the Federal Reserve Bank, the European Commission, and the Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, among others, and was recently appointed by NH Governor John Lynch to serve on that state's two-year RFID study commission. Dr. Albrecht is co-author of the book "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to TrackYour Every Move with RFID" with Liz McIntyre. She is the Director of CASPIAN (Consumers Against
Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering), a 15,000-member organization she founded in 1999 to advocate free-market, consumer-based solutions to the problem of retail privacy invasion. Sheholds a Doctorate in Education from Harvard University, with a research focus in consumer education,privacy and psychology.
On her advisory board is:
Professor Keith W. Miller Louise Hartman Schewe and Karl Schewe Professor
Computer Science, University of Illinois at Springfield
Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Technology & Society. 2008- Associate Editor for Ethics, IEEE IT Professional. 2008- IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology
His credential are quite long so I didn’t want to post them, they are here:
https://edocs.uis.edu/kmill2/www/keith.htm
This is a paper Dr. Albrecht put out:
http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/albrec...full-paper.pdf
Maybe it’s just me but as of yet I don’t see any reason to see their motives as suspicious. … There was also a statement made that a study was rigged with genetically inferior mice. If people are interested they can go to the link, that subject is addressed there. It was a statement put out by a chip co. CEO.
I feel I have very valid points as to why I choose not to chip. I’m not telling anyone else not to do it, it’s just *my* decision. I don’t understand why when I state my opinion I’m being told how my concerns are wrong or unfounded without any research provided to the contrary by the opposing poster(s) yet I feel I have to provide research, links and case studies to show my reasons as valid????
Thank you lil fu fu girl for understanding.......I appreciate it.....
For the interested parties this is an interesting article too:
Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors - washingtonpost.com