daisyandme Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 Has anyone heard of microchips causing cancer? Do you have your dog microchipped or have had past dogs microchipped? My uncle sent me an article about this and I pretty upset right now. I lost my last dog so suddenly to cancer and am probably overly sensitive to things and will be for awhile. Here is the article I tried doing some google searches and came up with an article from the washington post dated in 2007 that discussed studies done in the mid 90's, but I had to stop reading and researching because I was getting too upset. I wish I had this information before Daisy was chipped as I may have decided against it. Daisy is the first dog that I have had microchipped. Do you think there is any validity to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 Everything in veterinary medicine is about risk vs benefits. Is my dog at higher risk of dying of parvo or having a reaction to the parvo vaccine? Is my dog at higher risk of suffering from the side effects from antibiotics or suffering from the infection? Is my dog more likely to get loose, end up in a shelter and be PTS because it has no ID or more likely to die of cancer triggered by a microchip? ETA: Yes, I think it is possible for microchips to cause cancer, but I think the risk is very low (lower than the risk of cancer induced by vaccines). I recommend chips and all my dogs have them. All of my dogs are also vaccinated, though I follow a modified schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphillippi Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 I agree with Liz both of my dogs are microchipped. The dog we lost in July wasn't chipped and the fence fell over she got out. She had a collar but no ID because she chewed the tags off while she was kenneled at night or while we were gone. It was just one of those things we never got around to. She was hit by a car and killed. By the grace of god the lady who stopped found my ad on craigslist and called us. I blame myself every day for not getting her chipped. So all of my dogs will be microchipped from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maralynn Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 Here is a detailed report from the AMVA on Microchipping Studies have shown an increase in the occurrence of cancer in certain strains of lab mice/rats with microchipping and these studies are often cited as proof that microchipping can lead to cancer. However, those particular strains of mice/rats had a significant genetic predisposition to cancer to begin with. Many things caused cancer with those animals. As far as dogs go, I think there have been two cases out of a few million where the chip is believed to have possibly caused cancer. But one of those case was inconclusive. Bottom line for me is I'd worry far more about my dog getting loose without positive ID than I would about my dog getting cancer from that ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbc1963 Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 My last two dogs died - in old age - of cancer, unchipped. It's common in old dogs, and dying on the road is common in young dogs. Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryna Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 I definitly agree that the benefits of micochipping (as far as possibly getting a lost dog returned) outway the risks of the microchip causing cancer. However, not sure what that has to do with the possibility of a dog being hit by a car. I don't think being micochipped reduces your odds of being hit by a car -at least not at our present level of technology. Now in the future, maybe we will have smart cars with microchip readers that will automatically scan the area around the vehicle and warn you if a microchip is detected. But I'm pretty sure nobody has that feature right now, lol. At this point, a micochip is only of benefit if somebody catches the dog -and I don't imagine too many people are catching dogs, taking them to the vet or shelter to have checked for microchip, and then, not finding them, letting them loose again to be hit by a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 I'm actually surprised not to have seen this topic discussed more on the Boards. Here is an article on the subject. It's published by an outfit opposed to chipping for privacy reasons, which is important to keep in mind, but it caused enough concern to me that I do not microchip my dogs. However, I agree with Liz P that you have to look at this as a risk-benefit analysis, and the risk of cancer is certainly very low. Given that there are other forms of effective identification, however, it was enough for me to decide against microchipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushdoggie Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 the article the OP linked to was on an interesting website. I just spent 30 minutes searching Google and Google Scholar and found quite a few articles. I gathered that any time you inject a foreign body into an animal you can risk a lymphoma. They cited a dog with a sliver of glass from an accident who got a lymphoma at the site, cats with vaccines in addition to few dogs with chips. Several articles pointed out the chip site is also where vaccines are frequently given, so it was hard to say which caused the tumor. As others have pointed out: risks v. benefits...you gotta make your choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbc1963 Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 I definitly agree that the benefits of micochipping (as far as possibly getting a lost dog returned) outway the risks of the microchip causing cancer. However, not sure what that has to do with the possibility of a dog being hit by a car. I don't think being micochipped reduces your odds of being hit by a car -at least not at our present level of technology. LOL! You're right. Chipping a dog won't keep them from getting hit. I guess I was associating being lost with being loose... but the chip won't work unless the dog is lost and caught. ::Silly:: Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphillippi Posted March 28, 2010 Report Share Posted March 28, 2010 I definitly agree that the benefits of micochipping (as far as possibly getting a lost dog returned) outway the risks of the microchip causing cancer. However, not sure what that has to do with the possibility of a dog being hit by a car. I don't think being micochipped reduces your odds of being hit by a car -at least not at our present level of technology. Now in the future, maybe we will have smart cars with microchip readers that will automatically scan the area around the vehicle and warn you if a microchip is detected. But I'm pretty sure nobody has that feature right now, lol. At this point, a micochip is only of benefit if somebody catches the dog -and I don't imagine too many people are catching dogs, taking them to the vet or shelter to have checked for microchip, and then, not finding them, letting them loose again to be hit by a car. I wasn't saying it would prevent my dog from being hit I was saying had my dog been chipped we would have had a better chance of being called right when animal control showed up not 5 hours later after my dog was already dead and there was nothing we could do. It gives me peace of mind knowing that my dog's ID is on them at all times. At least I know I've done everything possible for my dog to be returned if they are lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisyandme Posted April 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2010 Just wanted to say thanks everyone for the replies and for putting things into perspective for me. I am feeling a little better about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Like all medical implants the material used for the outer coating of chips has been studied and selected to minimize the interaction of body chemistry to this foreign object. Note that I said minimize since no material has been found that eliminates these interactions. You cannot compare the reaction of the body to any foreign object (glass, wood, metal, etc) to a medical implant. What is the rate of cancer in people who have had joint replacements? What is the rate of cancer in people with pace makers? What is the rate of cancer in people with screws, pins, and metal plates? What is the rate of cancer in dogs which have had hip replacement? These are all medical implants and would have comparable interactions with body chemistry as microchips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuxedodog Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Not to include my MIL in the same category as dogs, but she got Lymphoma at an injection site - she wan't chipped From what I see the negative articles come from people who are opposed to the practice for other reasons. It wouldn't stop me from having a better way to make sure if my dog got lost, to increase the odds that someone reconnects us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.