![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
I'll just say 18 with plenty of years of experience
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Actually, liquid nitrogen at that state is so hot that it's BOILING. What you're seeing is the nitrogen turning from a liquid into a gas, similar to water boiling and giving off steam.Sonny Hawkins wrote:Its so cold that it SMOKES.
Sonny Hawkins wrote:HEY K9------------------------How old did you say Brenda will be in OCT???
Gary I actually have a brand, and not a little one ( dont ask, all I can say is YOUNG DUMB AND STUPIDGL wrote: May I suggest that any one here with what they think are better ideas ought to try it on themselves first!
Gary
With regard to the article only... I don't see any cause for alarm. The article states in one anecdote that mice were microchipped for identification purposes during an experiment that would "investigate the influence of parental preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens." The result was that, after keeping the mice for lifespan, tumors were discovered around the chip insertion site in roughly 0.84% of the mice.shadymeadows wrote:http://www.freedom.org/news/200612/20/j ... iams.phtml
I was pro pro pro micro chipping until I read this and I REALLY hope that micro chipping proves in the long run to be safe for the animals because it certainly has undisputable benefits.
I came across with a different impression, since they cited sources and the title of the article states a scientific conclusion.shadymeadows wrote:In fairness I don't think that they are presenting their article as scientific.
I don't question the organizations the author cited at all. Nor do I question the results that were produced. What I question is the author's taking those studies out of context and applying some observations as scientific conclusion when it, in fact, is not.shadymeadows wrote:I would have to guess that if a person took the time to look up the referenced studies that they would quite scientific. They weren't exactly conducted by journalists. I would assume that The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation, The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School in Germany, Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d’Anatomie Pathologique in Nantes, France, Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie at Viale dell’Universita in Legnaro, Italy would all be very familiar with scientific procedure.
"Not really appropriate" to look further into a journalistic article that may have issue with my dog's health? I'll have to disagree there. Something that's important to me, I'll look into it every time, and if I find something that discredits it I will point it out and take note. It certainly doesn't seem to me that the author did any research whatsoever, but merely cited off-hand results from studies where in many instances the subject was not even microchips.shadymeadows wrote:Probably down playing an article written by someone that has obviously done more research then any of us is not really appropriate.
You'll note that it's not the organizations performing the studies that are calling foul, but rather it's the author. If she's not presenting it in a scientific manner (see above) then she's got no more credit than you or I in determining what those results say.shadymeadows wrote:If major medical corporations and scientific departments at very prestigious universities see call for alarm it would be naive on our part to just overlook it. It's not like any of them would have a vested interest in slanting their studies. It would be nice to see the actual studies but that's probably more time then I am going to be putting into it myself.
While I agree that firsthand field experience should count, I disagree that the studies cited in the article point to making chip implantation an irresponsible venture. I just don't interpret the results that way at all. That's where I completely disagree with the author.shadymeadows wrote:Realistically, the experience in the field that everyone on this thread has input has to count for something too. Which without all that experience the studies would stand on their own making implantation an irresponsible venture. Without the studies one would be led by the posted experiences to think that implantation is completely harmless. I would say the 2 relatively balance the scales and out of our responsibility to our pets call for further research. Hopefully more has been done and some of the members here can fill us in on it.
What's dead about an ongoing discussion concerning the safety behind microchipping when the original poster asked about the safety and reliability of the procedure?topher40 wrote:JMO, but I think this dead horse is just that DEAD.
It's not suprising at all unfortunately, there is a whole cult/cottage industry swearing up and down that vaccines cause cancer and the diseases they are meant to protect animals against. Of course they don't have any science to back it up either. CRRichard *UT* wrote:I just thought I would post a bit on the studies. I wanted to see the context of the conclusions so I went looking for the studies. I work at the University of Utah, and have access to almost all the journals out there. I could not find any of the studies that were mentioned in the article. Also there is a way to site sources so that if someone wanted to find a study, it can be done. This article never sited any sources so no studies could be verified. I would think that it the chip "causes cancer" then I would be able to find an study supporting that in at least one of the vet journals I was searching.
One quick question, someone here mentioned that he or his club had a universal scanner. I just wanted to know how much one of these costs?
I don't have one, but Home Again makes a "World Scanner" that you can read about on their website. I would guess that you need to enroll as a Vet or Shelter to obtain one (Rescue Worker?) and would just suggest that you contact them for more information: http://www.homeagain.comRichard *UT* wrote:One quick question, someone here mentioned that he or his club had a universal scanner. I just wanted to know how much one of these costs?