Mice Aren't People, but RFID-Related Cancer Still Troubling

After reading today's post on RFIDs causing cancer in mice, a reader commented:

You have GOT to be joking. The difference in mass between a human and a test mouse is MASSIVE. To say that an RFID causes cancer in mice (many of whom are being constantly bombarded with the signal that keeps the RFID chip constantly active), will translate into cancer in humans is insanely stupid.

If RFID caused cancer, why is it that since the chipping of dogs and cats began there has been no significant increase in cancer in those mammals? Could it be because they are so much larger than that mouse, and the RFID chip is so infrequently activated, that it's existence makes for a nearly negligible effect on biology? So if RFID
chips aren't causing cancer in dogs and cats, which have now been routinely "installed", why would RFID cause cancer in still yet a
LARGER mammal (humans)? Come on Brandon, you're better than this.

A few points: yes, there's a huge difference between mice and people.
(Shameless promo: read my research mice articles here and here!)

As for chipping in dogs and cats, that's only been around a few years
-- not, perhaps, long enough to see any effects, which nobody has tried to do anyways. Instead we have rough anecdotal information that vets haven't reported an epidemic of pet cancer, and a comprehensive reporting system doesn't even exist.

People also live a lot longer than cats and dogs -- and it's likely that, if a fully RFID-ubiquitous future comes to pass, the chips will indeed be activated continuously.

Nobody's saying that because RFIDs cause cancer in mice, they'll do the same in people. We just don't know. But the mouse studies give us legitimate reason for concern, and a long-term follow-up study of the first RFID implant recipients needs to be conducted.

If you really can't wait that long for your very own RFID, fine. But why take unnecessary risks?
*
Image: Amal Graafstra*