Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr. TOP SECRET]

Quote:
Description:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to the modulating of signals on carriers, which are transmitted and the signals intelligibly recovered, and more particularly, to the modulation of speech on a carrier and the intelligible recover of the speech by means of the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect.

The Radio Frequency ("RF") Hearing Effect was first noticed during World War II as a subjective "click" produced by a pulsed radar signal when the transmitted power is above a "threshold" level. Below the threshold level, the click cannot be heard.

The discovery of the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect suggested that a pulsed RF carrier could be encoded with an amplitude modulated ("AM") envelope. In one approach to pulsed carrier modulation, it was assumed that the "click" of the pulsed carrier was similar to a data sample and could be used to synthesize both simple and complex tones such as speech.

CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE BELOW
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentView.aspx?id=6470214

[Mr. TOP SECRET]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unuF7XhNbsI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unuF7XhNbsI</a>

[Day_Tripper]

Holy crap!  I am in hell.     Years ago, maybe 8 or 9, I was on a mailing list supposedly by an Illuminati "insider".  He was promoting investing with Verichip then.  I checked out the corporation and absolutely want nothing to do with them.  The corporation was promoting the chip on bracelets at the time for old people with dementia and for children.  AHHHH!  This pisses me off so much.  These media hacks are promoting it for everyone now, in case of an accident.  What ever happened to just making sure you had clean underwear on (as one comedian put it)?  This is all bloody LIES!

[Day_Tripper]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/29/2104922.htm

Print Email Share Add to My Stories Comments
Nanotechnology a 'bigger concern' than GM foods

By Simon Lauder

Posted Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:03am AEDT
Updated Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:35pm AEDT
Nanotechnology is being introducted for 'interactive packaging', where the food takes in chemicals from the packet as it sits on the shelf (File photo)

Nanotechnology is being introducted for 'interactive packaging', where the food takes in chemicals from the packet as it sits on the shelf (File photo) (Getty Images: Ian Waldie)

The lifting of bans on genetically modified crops has revived the debate about the safety of the food we eat.

But the next step in industrial food production has got Australia's food regulator bracing itself for even more controversy.

Opponents to nanotechnology say it is a much scarier prospect than GM food, and while it can make food look better and last longer, there are fears about how it might affect the human body.

The regulator now faces the difficulty of ruling when packaging becomes part of the food.

The CEO of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Steve McCutcheon, says it is called interactive packaging, where the food takes in chemicals from the packet as it sits on the shelf.

"At the moment, the shelf life of prepacked salad vegetables is fairly short, but with the application of this technology we understand that you could actually package fresh salads, and they would be fresh still after the 30-day period on the shelf," he said.

The development that has given birth to the one-month fresh salad is called nanotechnology - working with particles thousands of times smaller that the width of a human hair.

It is not only for packaging, some companies want to use nanoparticles as ingredients in the food itself.

"We understand that a company in the United States has applied for a patent to cover the use of titanium dioxide and silicone dioxide in chocolate, in nanoparticle form, to give the surface a gloss," he said.

"At this stage we're aware of applications to use this technology in the marketplace, but whether that's actually happening or not, I don't know."

Mr McCutcheon says the new form of technology would require pre-market approval prior to entering the market in Australia and New Zealand.

Dr Rye Senjen is researching nanotechnology for Friends of the Earth.

She says it could already be in some food we eat, and it is a bigger concern than genetically modified organisms.

"I think it's genetically engineering on steroids, because nanotechnology has a much bigger application that will be applied to every single aspect of the food chain. It's much more scary," she said.

Although nanotech food has not been approved, Dr Senjen says there is no law to prevent manufacturers using their regular ingredients in nanoparticle form.

"There's no legal requirement whatsoever to tell the regulator that now you've shrunk the particle size. It's not in the regulations. You don't even have to mention it," she added.

She says nanoparticles are dangerous because they are small and could breach the body's defences in ways no natural food can.

"When you ingest something and then if it can cross from the digestive system to elsewhere, well it can go anywhere," she said.

But Mr McCutcheon believes it is too early to say there are risks.

"We don't know yet what the hazards and risks are from its application to food, if indeed there are any hazards or risks," he added.

Mr McCutcheon says the regulator is only just beginning to look at the global evidence on the impact of eating nanoparticles.

[Day_Tripper]

http://waronyou.com/topics/study-uncovers-mesothelioma-link-to-nanotechnology/

Study Uncovers Mesothelioma Link to Nanotechnology

Mesothelioma has long been linked to the inhalation and exposure to asbestos fibers and dust, so when scientists uncovered an additional potential cause for this incurable form of lung cancer, the unthinkable became a reality.

According to researchers based out of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington D.C., the early 90’s development of carbon nanotubes has been an amazing feat for technological applications, however, it has not gone without its price. Specifically,
carbon nanotubes may be causing harm to the human body in the form of mesothelioma cancer.

If the
carbon nanotubes are introduced into the wrong environment, the development of lesions and inflammation of the lungs occurs – symptoms similar to that of mesothelioma cancer and asbestos exposure. Researchers uncovered the finding through exposure of carbon nanotubes to animals.

Dr. Andrew Maynard, who published a study in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, described the use of nanotubes and the potential link to
mesothelioma cancer. He said that currently, nanotubes are being implemented because of their awesome abilities at conducting heat and electricity. Mostly, Dr. Maynard explains, the nanotubes are being implemented into sports equipment. He said that there are no regulations as to where nanotubes can be implemented and there are currently no requirements for the use of nanotubes to be disclosed to the general public.

What Are Nanotubes?

According to Maynard, nanotubes are a product of nanotechnology research, one he considers the “poster child” of nanotechnology. The nanotubes are cylindrical structures comprised of carbon atoms that have been rolled together. Maynard’s study found that when mice were exposed to nanotubes, they developed asbestos-induced symptoms within the lungs. While he and other researchers consider nanotubes to be safe – when encased – the risk occurs when nanotubes are incinerated or broken.

[Day_Tripper]

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=939

RFID 'Powder' - World's Smallest RFID Tag

The world's smallest and thinnest RFID tags were introduced yesterday by Hitachi. Tiny miracles of miniaturization, these RFID chips (Radio Frequency IDentification chips) measure just 0.05 x 0.05 millimeters.

The previous record-holder, the Hitachi mu-chip, is just 0.4 x 0.4 millimeters. Take a look at the size of the mu-chip RFID tag on a human fingertip.


(Hitachi mu-chip tiny RFID tag)

Now, compare that with the new RFID tags. The "powder type" tags are some sixty times smaller.


(Powder RFID chips next to a human hair)

The new RFID chips have a 128-bit ROM for storing a unique 38 digit number, like their predecessor. Hitachi used semiconductor miniaturization technology and electron beams to write data on the chip substrates to achieve the new, smaller size.

Hitachi's mu-chips are already in production; they were used to prevent ticket forgery at last year's Aichi international technology exposition. RFID 'powder,' on the other hand, is so much smaller that it can easily be incorporated into thin paper, like that used in paper currency and gift certificates.

Science fiction fans will have a field day with this new technology. In his 1998 novel Distraction, Bruce Sterling referred to bugged money:

    They always played poker with European cash. There was American cash around, flimsy plastic stuff, but most people wouldn't take American cash anymore. It was hard to take American cash seriously when it was no longer convertible outside U.S. borders. Besides, all the bigger bills were bugged. (Read more about bugged money)

These tiny RFID tags could be worked into any product; combined with RFID readers built into doorways, theft of consumer goods would be practically impossible. It's not clear from the references provided, but even if this chip needs an external antenna, the attached antenna would be a tiny ribbon of wire more narrow than a human hair and only a fraction of an inch long.

How far away could you be, and still read the information from this "powder RFID?" The source article is very thin; however, the mu-chip mentioned earlier is readable from a distance of 25 centimeters (about ten inches) with an external antenna like the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This doesn't sound like much, but it's certainly enough to read people going through doorways, for example.

These devices could also be used to identify and track people. For example, suppose you participated in some sort of protest or other organized activity. If police agencies sprinkled these tags around, every individual could be tracked and later identified at leisure, with powerful enough tag scanners.

To put it in the context of popular culture, see the picture below, which was taken from the 1996 movie Mission Impossible. One of the IMF operatives places a tracking tag on the shoulder of a computer programmer. Pretty clunky-looking tag...


(Tracking and ID tag from Mission Impossible movie)

Take a look at these earlier stories related to RFID, and consider how much easier it will be with tinier chips: RFID Sensor Tag Shower For Disasters (gentle rain of RFID), RFID-Maki: Easy Payment Sushi (just tag the sushi directly, then scan customer's stomach [no joke, see digestible tags]) and VeriChip Chairman Proposes RFID Chips For Immigrants (just dust the border).

[Day_Tripper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html

Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors

By TODD LEWAN
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 8, 2007; 2:04 PM

-- When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients' medical records almost instantly. The FDA found "reasonable assurance" the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005's top "innovative technologies."

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

"The transponders were the cause of the tumors," said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.

Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

"We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities," Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was "not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats," but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems.

"In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product."

The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.

"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.

Also making no mention of the findings on animal tumors was a June report by the ethics committee of the American Medical Association, which touted the benefits of implantable RFID devices.

Had committee members reviewed the literature on cancer in chipped animals?

No, said Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member with knowledge of the committee's review.

Was the AMA aware of the studies?

No, he said.

___

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.

_ A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as "surprising."

_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors' cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, "These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence" of cancer.

_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips," the authors wrote.

Caveats accompanied the findings. "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided," one study cautioned. Also, because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.

Still, after reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

"There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members," said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. "I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern."

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed. Even though the tumor incidences were "reasonably small," in his view, the research underscored "certainly real risks" in RFID implants.

In humans, sarcomas, which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to "tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months," he said.

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP's request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. "That might be a little hint that something real is happening here," he said. He, too, recommended further study, using mice, dogs or non-human primates.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University, noted: "It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people."

Tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped, she said, and veterinary pathologists haven't reported outbreaks of related sarcomas in the area of the neck, where canine implants are often done. (Published reports detailing malignant tumors in two chipped dogs turned up in AP's four-month examination of research on chips and health. In one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer's cause was uncertain.)

Nonetheless, London saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines "to see if you have a biological effect." Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence "does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations."

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn't happened.

___

The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm.

When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient's medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

But in its SEC filings, product labels and press releases, VeriChip Corp. has not mentioned the existence of research linking embedded transponders to tumors in test animals.

When the FDA approved the device, it noted some Verichip risks: The capsules could migrate around the body, making them difficult to extract; they might interfere with defibrillators, or be incompatible with MRI scans, causing burns. While also warning that the chips could cause "adverse tissue reaction," FDA made no reference to malignant growths in animal studies.

Did the agency review literature on microchip implants and animal cancer?

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip's approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

"The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe," she says, "but if they're not doing that, who's covering our backs?"

Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

"At the time we reviewed this, I don't remember seeing anything like that," he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search "didn't turn up anything that would be of concern."

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, "even if it's adverse information."

Watson added: "The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device."

Another implantable device could be a pacemaker, and indeed, tumors have in some cases attached to foreign bodies inside humans. But Dr. Neil Lipman, director of the Research Animal Resource Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said it's not the same. The microchip isn't like a pacemaker that's vital to keeping someone alive, he added, "so at this stage, the payoff doesn't justify the risks."

Silverman, VeriChip Corp.'s chief executive, disagreed. "Each month pet microchips reunite over 8,000 dogs and cats with their owners," he said. "We believe the VeriMed Patient Identification System will provide similar positive benefits for at-risk patients who are unable to communicate for themselves in an emergency."

___

And what of former HHS secretary Thompson?

When asked what role, if any, he played in VeriChip's approval, Thompson replied: "I had nothing to do with it. And if you look back at my record, you will find that there has never been any improprieties whatsoever."

FDA's Watson said: "I have no recollection of him being involved in it at all." VeriChip Corp. declined comment.

Thompson vigorously campaigned for electronic medical records and healthcare technology both as governor of Wisconsin and at HHS. While in President Bush's Cabinet, he formed a "medical innovation" task force that worked to partner FDA with companies developing medical information technologies.

At a "Medical Innovation Summit" on Oct. 20, 2004, Lester Crawford, the FDA's acting commissioner, thanked the secretary for getting the agency "deeply involved in the use of new information technology to help prevent medication error." One notable example he cited: "the implantable chips and scanners of the VeriChip system our agency approved last week."

After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson's actions "unacceptable" even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

"A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it's like the Wild West," said the group's executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.

In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits _ and the ease _ of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:

"I'm sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?"

"Absolutely," Thompson replied. "Without a doubt."

"No concerns at all?"

"No."

But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.

[Day_Tripper]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7GRAfFt0k0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7GRAfFt0k0</a>

[Day_Tripper]

This is a great site for information about rfid: http://www.nocards.org/

This lady has been documenting this crap for years.  Just say NO to the god damn chip!

[Day_Tripper]

Oh, one more thing, the "conspiracy" is that in the forced vaccinations there will be nanotech rfid without your permission.

According to our Constitution we own our own bodies.  We have to fight for our Creator given rights to own ourselves.  If this "conspiracy" is correct, fight back with guns and or cameras.  Drive with a video camera, it scares them.  Bare arms!