Hubbry Logo
Magnetic implantMagnetic implantMain
Open search
Magnetic implant
Community hub
Magnetic implant
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Magnetic implant
Magnetic implant
Magnetic implant
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A magnetic implant lifting a bottle cap
Implanted magnets can hold small ferrous items.

Magnetic implant is an experimental procedure in which small, powerful magnets (such as neodymium) are inserted beneath the skin, often in the tips of fingers. They exist in tubes and discs. This procedure is popular among biohackers and grinders, but remains experimental.[1] Magnetic implants are often performed by amateurs at home, using readily available surgical tools and magnets found online. However, some professional body modification shops do perform implant surgeries.[2] Magnetic implants can also be used as an interface for portable devices to create other new "senses", for example converting other sensory inputs such as ultrasonic or infra-red into a touch sensation.[further explanation needed][citation needed] In this way the individual could 'feel' e.g. the distance to objects.[3]

Purpose

[edit]
Subdermal magnets

Though magnetic implants can be used to pick up small metal objects, the main purpose of getting an implant is in order to gain sensory perception of magnetic fields. After a magnet is implanted underneath the epidermal layer of the skin, nerves grow around the magnet as the skin heals.[4] The magnet pushes against magnetic fields produced by electronic devices in the surrounding area, pushing against the nerves and giving a "sixth sense" of magnetic vision. Some people prefer to have multiple implants in several fingers in order to get a more "3D" view of the magnetic fields around them, but one magnetic implant is enough to be able to feel magnetic fields. This means that people with magnetic implants have sensations of running electric motors, electronic circuits, appliances, and even wires.[2]

Magnets and coatings

[edit]
A magnet in the process of insertion into the tip of the ring finger

The magnets used for implantation must be carefully selected and coated in order to successfully implant them. Size is important in this consideration, as too large of a magnet obstructs blood vessels and is likely to reject, or push out of the skin. For this reason, the most common magnet size is a 3×1mm neodymium disk magnet. Usually the magnets used are of the highest strength available, as a stronger magnet leads to higher magnetic field sensitivity. Perhaps the most important consideration is a coating for the magnet, as typical neodymium disk magnets are not suitable for implantation. Magnets must be coated in an inert and biosafe material, so the body does not attack the magnet. Popular magnet coatings include implant grade silicone, parylene, titanium nitride, gold and rhodium. Disc-magnets are implanted with a scalpel, tubes are inserted by scalpel or syringe. Procedures are often done either without anaesthesia, or, in some cases, ice water, due to legal issues regarding purchase of anaesthesia[dubious – discuss] versus usage of numbing substances such as alcohol or cold.

History

[edit]

Magnet implantation was first theorized in the mid 1990s by Steve Haworth and Jesse Jarrel, both body modification experts. Initially, the implants were designed to connect to rings or horns outside of the body, and were purely cosmetic. However, after talking to a friend who had a piece of steel lodged into his finger which allowed him to sense the presence of magnetic fields, Haworth realised that small magnets could be implanted in order to achieve this effect more efficiently.[5] Since then, several companies have sold bio-safe, implantable magnets.

Lifespan

[edit]

Typical 3×1mm neodymium magnets have been reported to last on average five years implanted into finger extremities before the effectiveness of the implant becomes reduced.[6][additional citation(s) needed] There have been no studies on magnetizing implants after they have lost magnetization other than removing and re-implanting a new magnet into a new site due to scar tissue formation preventing nerve sensation and reentry.[citation needed]

Safety

[edit]

Infection has also been cited as a source of failure within RFID and related microchip implanted individuals.[7] Either due to improper implantation techniques, implant rejections or corrosion of implant elements.

Magnets and ferrous materials, including implants, are not allowed in proximity of MRI machines, because of the extreme magnetic force.[8][additional citation(s) needed]

[edit]

Transhumanism is a movement to upgrade the human body with technology. This includes simple implants like magnets, as well as more advanced cybernetics and robotic limbs.[9]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Magnetic implant

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A magnetic implant is a small, biocompatible surgically inserted beneath the skin, typically in areas with dense endings such as the , to enable tactile sensing of external through the mechanical deformation of surrounding mechanoreceptors. These implants, often coated in materials like or Parylene C to prevent and tissue reaction, originated as an experimental form of in the early but have since been investigated for applications in human-machine interfaces and sensory augmentation. In biohacking and communities, magnetic implants allow users to perceive electromagnetic fields from everyday sources like power lines, motors, and electronic devices, effectively extending human sensory capabilities beyond natural limits. Pioneering work demonstrated their use in novel tactile interfaces, where external electromagnets manipulate the implant to provide controlled feedback. More recent advancements, as of 2022, have explored larger magnetic beads implanted in muscle tissue for real-time tracking in and exoskeletons, offering submillimeter accuracy for proprioceptive feedback without significant gait alterations in animal models. No major updates to these applications were reported as of 2025. Despite their potential, magnetic implants carry risks including surgical site infections, implant migration (particularly if placed closer than 2-3 cm apart), and issues such as localized or allergic reactions to coatings. They may pose risks during MRI scans due to strong field interactions, potentially causing dislodgement or heating, though recent studies suggest conditional safety up to 1.5 T. Strong magnets can interfere with other implanted medical devices like pacemakers. Implantation is typically performed by specialized practitioners rather than mainstream medical professionals, emphasizing the experimental nature of the procedure and the need for regarding long-term effects, which remain understudied.

Overview

Definition

A magnetic implant refers to the subdermal placement of a small permanent , typically around 3 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick, beneath the skin—most often in the —to facilitate the detection of through integration with nearby neural structures. These implants, constructed from neodymium-iron-boron alloys coated for (such as with , , or bioglass), enable users to perceive otherwise invisible electromagnetic phenomena by leveraging the body's existing sensory pathways. The primary mechanism involves the magnet physically responding to external static or alternating , resulting in subtle movements or vibrations that stimulate mechanoreceptors and nerve endings in the surrounding tissue. Over time, typically within weeks, neural plasticity allows the brain to reinterpret these stimuli as a distinct sensory modality, akin to an additional sense for environmental magnetic cues. Distinct from electronic subdermal devices like RFID chips, which rely on powered circuitry for data storage and retrieval, or medical implants such as pacemakers designed for therapeutic regulation of bodily functions, magnetic implants are entirely passive and non-electronic, focusing solely on sensory enhancement without connectivity or intervention capabilities. They are chiefly embraced in and biohacking circles, with estimates suggesting thousands of such procedures performed globally by 2025.

History

The concept of magnetic implants emerged in the late 1990s within the body modification community, where Finnish artist Samppa von Cyborg experimented with implanting small magnets into his fingers and those of close associates to create subtle vibration effects from nearby metal objects. These early implants were limited by weak neodymium magnets, primarily serving cosmetic purposes rather than functional augmentation. By 2004, body modification artists Steve Haworth and Jesse Jarrell advanced the technology in Arizona, developing smaller, stronger, silicone-coated neodymium magnets designed for safer subdermal placement and enhanced sensory feedback through vibrations. Their innovations, initially aimed at attaching lightweight metal accessories, marked a pivotal shift toward more reliable body augmentation practices. Around 2006-2007, the focus transitioned from mere cosmetic vibration to sensory enhancement, as and "grinders"—self-described pioneers of human augmentation—began exploring magnets' potential to detect electromagnetic fields. Journalist and early adopter underwent one of the first documented sensory implants in 2006, performed by , which allowed her to perceive magnetic fluctuations from electronics and power sources, effectively granting a "sixth sense" for invisible environmental cues. This experimentation gained traction among the grinder subculture between 2007 and 2010, influenced by online discussions and personal accounts that highlighted the magnets' utility in navigating electromagnetic landscapes, though Norton's implant later failed due to coating degradation, underscoring early technical challenges. Key milestones in magnetic implant adoption include the proliferation of sensory-focused procedures by 2009, as shared in body modification forums, and a surge in popularity by 2012 through platforms like Biohack.me, which became a hub for grinder knowledge-sharing, safety protocols, and implant sourcing. By 2025, the practice had evolved with accessible DIY kits from suppliers like Dangerous Things and Steve Haworth's designs, alongside increasing involvement from professional piercers trained in sterile implantation techniques. Rooted in transhumanist ideals of transcending human limitations and aesthetics of merging flesh with technology, magnetic implants remain experimental, lacking formal medical approval from regulatory bodies like the FDA, and are pursued primarily within DIY biohacking communities.

Technical Aspects

Magnet Types and Coatings

Magnetic implants predominantly utilize neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) rare-earth magnets due to their superior magnetic strength relative to size, enabling effective sensory perception of external fields without requiring large volumes. These magnets are typically graded N52, the highest commercially available grade, offering a (Br) of 1.43-1.48 Tesla and a surface of approximately 0.5-1 Tesla, which is sufficient for detecting nearby magnetic sources such as electromagnetic fields or metallic objects. Common dimensions for implantation in sites like or the range from 1.5-5 mm in diameter and 0.8-2 mm in thickness, balancing detectability with minimal invasiveness to surrounding tissue. NdFeB magnets are inherently prone to in physiological environments, necessitating biocompatible coatings to encapsulate the core and prevent release that could lead to or degradation. Preferred coatings include parylene C, (TiN), , , and , applied at thicknesses of 5-10 μm to ensure durability without significantly attenuating the magnetic field. Parylene C, a polymer deposited via , excels in , with in vitro tests showing over 70% cell metabolic activity and in vivo muscle implantation studies in rabbits demonstrating non-irritant responses after 28 days. TiN and provide robust and resistance, though parylene is often selected for its conformal coverage and low permeability to bodily fluids. Implants typically employ dipole configurations, leveraging the inherent north-south pole orientation of permanent NdFeB magnets to facilitate directional sensing of magnetic gradients. Custom shapes, such as disc or cylindrical forms, are engineered for specific anatomical sites; for instance, thinner profiles (e.g., 0.8 mm height) suit subdermal placements in sensitive areas like the . These magnets are sourced from industrial manufacturers like K&J Magnetics, where standard NdFeB components are modified with medical-grade coatings for implantation; however, as of 2025, no standardized FDA-approved variants exist for non-therapeutic sensory applications, relying instead on research-validated adaptations.

Implantation Procedure

The implantation of a magnetic device is a minor outpatient procedure typically performed by experienced professionals, such as piercers or implant artists, though some individuals opt for self-implantation under sterile conditions. Preparation involves selecting the implantation site, commonly the tip of due to its dense endings that enhance sensory feedback while minimizing interference with hand function. The skin is cleaned with solution, and like lidocaine is injected to numb the area; in resource-limited settings, immersion in ice water may be used for numbing instead. The magnet—a small cylinder, usually 3 mm in diameter and coated with biocompatible material such as —is sterilized using chemical methods, such as soaking in or gas, to ensure sterility without damaging the magnet or coating. The surgical steps commence with a precise 1-2 mm incision made using a sterile or piercing needle on the padded side of the fingertip. A subcutaneous pocket is then formed by gently separating the dermal layers with a or dermal elevator, ensuring minimal disruption to underlying nerves and blood vessels. The is inserted into this pocket in the desired orientation—typically allowing free movement within the encapsulation for field detection—and positioned close to the skin surface for optimal sensitivity. The incision is closed with one or two non-absorbable sutures or medical adhesive, and the entire process generally takes 10-30 minutes under aseptic conditions. Immediate aftercare focuses on prevention and promotion: ointment is applied, followed by a sterile secured for 1-2 weeks, during which the site should remain dry and protected from pressure or trauma. Patients are instructed to monitor for signs of , such as redness or swelling, and to avoid strong external that could dislodge the implant. Complete occurs over 4-6 weeks, allowing surrounding to integrate with the implant for sensory function. Variations in the procedure may include implanting multiple magnets across fingers—for instance, in the index and ring fingers—to enable rudimentary through differential sensations, though this increases procedural complexity and healing time.

Applications

Sensory Enhancement

Magnetic implants primarily enable sensory enhancement by allowing users to perceive (AC) magnetic fields generated by everyday electronic devices, such as computer monitors, electrical wires, and motors. The implanted interacts with these fields, causing it to vibrate or torque, which stimulates nearby mechanoreceptors in the skin and underlying tissues, producing tactile sensations often described as tingling, buzzing, or pulling. This capability typically operates within a detection range of 1 to 10 centimeters, depending on the strength of the external field. Advanced applications of magnetic implants extend this sensory input for more nuanced . Users with implants in multiple fingers can discern the direction and three-dimensional of , effectively mapping gradients for improved spatial orientation. Additionally, these implants can integrate with consumer technologies, such as converting smartphone vibrations into magnetic pulses for haptic feedback that feels like an internal "buzz" rather than external vibration. User experiences highlight practical benefits, including heightened environmental awareness; for instance, individuals report navigating dark rooms by detecting field gradients from appliances or sensing live electrical currents in walls without visual cues. One user described feeling a laptop's hard drive activity by hovering their hand nearby, likening it to a subtle motor hum, while others note the ability to locate ovens through characteristic tingling. These reports stem from psychophysical studies where implanted participants demonstrated superior sensitivity thresholds compared to those using superficial magnets. Despite these enhancements, magnetic implants have inherent limitations in sensory . Static magnetic fields are detected less sensitively than alternating fields, relying on or gradient-induced movement rather than to activate mechanoreceptors, often producing subtler pulling sensations. Furthermore, users often experience sensory over time, where the novelty and intensity of sensations diminish, reducing the perceived enhancement after initial implantation.

Other Uses

Subdermal magnetic implants have shown experimental promise in medical applications, particularly for enhancing prosthetic functionality. In prosthetics, these implants can provide haptic feedback by vibrating in response to external electromagnetic fields, stimulating mechanoreceptors to simulate touch sensations. For instance, a system uses electromagnetic coils to generate vibrations up to 90 Hz in implanted magnets within residual muscles, enabling kinesthetic feedback that improves and user agency in upper-limb prostheses. Additionally, pilot trials have explored their role in sensory restoration for amputees; a 2024 study implanted six small magnets into the muscles of a transradial amputee, allowing detection of muscle contractions to control a robotic hand, with potential extensions to bidirectional sensory feedback via magnet-induced vibrations. These applications remain in early experimental stages, with rare therapeutic implementations reported by 2025, focusing on minimally invasive procedures to restore in amputees. Beyond medical contexts, magnetic implants facilitate technological interfaces by integrating with external devices for practical signaling and access functions. Users often pair implants with magnetic jewelry or wearables that produce localized fields, creating vibrational cues for notifications or environmental interactions, such as detecting proximity. Combinations with RFID chips are common in biohacking communities, where subdermal magnets coexist with NFC-enabled implants in the hand to enable both field-sensing and , like unlocking doors or logging into systems without physical contact. This hybrid approach enhances human-device connectivity, though it is primarily adopted in non-clinical settings. In cosmetic and artistic domains, magnetic implants contribute to aesthetic body modifications by leveraging effects from strong to create tactile experiences integrated into personal expression. Practitioners encapsulate magnets in biocompatible for subdermal placement, allowing users to feel electromagnetic pulses as subtle skin sensations, often for stylized enhancements like interactive jewelry . In , these implants enable innovative body hacks; for example, artists have used them to develop "magnetic body instruments" that translate external fields into musical s, treating the body as an interactive interface for live expressions.

Durability and Risks

Lifespan

Magnetic implants typically provide effective sensory function for 5 to 10 years before biological encapsulation or, less commonly, demagnetization significantly reduces sensitivity, with stronger N52-grade magnets offering the longest duration due to their higher magnetic strength. Anecdotal reports from users indicate that initial peak performance may last around 4 to 5 years, after which the sensation of gradually diminishes. As of 2025, no long-term clinical studies exist to quantify average lifespans precisely, with available data derived primarily from user experiences in biohacking communities. Several factors contribute to the degradation of magnetic implants over time. can occur if the protective coating or casing fails, allowing bodily fluids to interact with the core and slowly erode its magnetic properties. Newer designs, such as titanium-encased magnets like the Titan implant, offer improved resistance and come with manufacturer warranties for extended durability. buildup, a natural biological response, often encapsulates the implant, insulating it from surrounding nerves and reducing tactile feedback to magnetic fields. Additionally, exposure to high temperatures exceeding 80°C can cause partial or irreversible demagnetization in standard magnets, while strong opposing magnetic fields may disrupt the internal alignment of magnetic domains. Maintenance of magnetic implants involves no routine checks or non-invasive interventions, as the devices are designed for permanent use. If sensation fades due to degradation or encapsulation, removal and replacement require surgical procedures, often complicated by formation that limits repositioning options. Remagnetization is not feasible once implanted, as tissue barriers prevent access to the for external recharging or realignment.

Safety Concerns

Surgical risks associated with magnetic implants primarily arise during the implantation procedure, which involves creating a subdermal pocket in the fingertip or other areas. Common complications include , implant migration, and rejection due to . rates for subdermal and hand implant procedures are generally low, estimated at 1-5% when performed under sterile conditions, though higher rates (up to 10%) have been reported in some contexts without rigorous medical oversight. These risks are mitigated through adherence to sterile techniques, including preoperative prophylaxis, use of sterilized instruments, and proper wound closure to prevent bacterial entry. Long-term safety concerns involve interactions with external magnetic fields and potential physiological effects. Magnetic implants, typically neodymium-based, pose risks during MRI scans due to the strong static s, which can cause partial demagnetization (up to 13.5% at 1.5 T in worst-case orientations) or, in rare cases, induce heating or dislodgement if the implant is ferromagnetic and improperly positioned. Recent studies indicate no significant migration and negligible heating for small implants under 1.5 T fields, suggesting relative safety for diagnostic imaging with precautions. Additionally, the implant's magnetic field may interfere with implantable medical devices like pacemakers or defibrillators, potentially triggering inappropriate pacing or inhibition modes if in close proximity. Potential damage from implantation or chronic pressure can lead to numbness or in the affected area, though this is uncommon in properly placed devices. Precautions are essential to minimize hazards post-implantation. Individuals should avoid exposure to external magnets (e.g., those exceeding 0.5 T) to prevent , attraction, or further demagnetization of the implant. Professional medical consultation is recommended prior to any procedure, with implants contraindicated for pregnant individuals due to unestablished fetal and for those with pacemakers or other electromagnetic-sensitive devices. Regular monitoring for signs of , migration, or sensory changes is advised, with prompt surgical intervention if issues arise. As of 2025, magnetic implants for sensory enhancement lack FDA approval as medical devices and are not regulated as such for therapeutic purposes; they are typically classified and treated as elective or cosmetic modifications in most jurisdictions, subject to local piercing and regulations rather than stringent medical oversight.

Societal Aspects

Magnetic implants have captured the imagination of media producers, appearing in documentaries and journalistic features that explore the biohacking subculture. For instance, a Verge video documentary titled "Biohackers: A journey into America" profiles early adopters implanting magnets in their fingers to sense electromagnetic fields, portraying the practice as a bold step toward human-machine integration. Similarly, a 2018 BBC News feature on grinder Rich Lee highlights his finger magnet implants alongside NFC chips, framing biohacking as an extreme form of self-experimentation that blurs the line between technology and the body. These portrayals often emphasize the sensory enhancements, such as detecting electrical currents, while showcasing the DIY ethos of the movement. In fiction and art, magnetic implants draw indirect inspiration from literature, where themes of cybernetic body modifications resonate with real-world biohacking. William Gibson's 1984 novel , a seminal work, depicts characters with neural implants and synthetic enhancements that echo the augmentation desires of modern grinders, influencing cultural perceptions of implantable tech as a pathway to transcendence. Artistic expressions extend this narrative; advocate , known for his skull-implanted antenna that converts colors to sound frequencies, has inspired bioart installations exploring human augmentation, though his work focuses on sensory prosthetics rather than magnets specifically. Such representations position magnetic implants within broader transhumanist aesthetics, symbolizing the fusion of flesh and technology in creative endeavors. Public figures in the biohacking community have amplified magnetic implants' visibility through endorsements and personal stories. Tim Cannon, co-founder of Grindhouse Wetware, underwent finger magnet implantation in 2012 to gain an "extra sense" for electromagnetism, frequently demonstrating the procedure in talks and media appearances to promote accessible body enhancement. His advocacy, including a 2013 Guinness World Record for implanting a bio-monitoring computer, has popularized the concept among enthusiasts. Viral news coverage, such as a 2018 BBC report on grinders' magnet implants, has further disseminated these narratives, often highlighting the "magnetic fingers" phenomenon as a quirky yet transformative biohack. By 2025, these stories continue to circulate, reinforcing magnetic implants as icons of personal evolution. By the mid-2020s, magnetic implants have surged in representations, particularly on , where users share demonstration videos of finger implants interacting with magnetic fields or everyday objects. Trends include personal vlogs documenting implantation experiences and creative demos, such as couples implanting connecting magnets for tactile intimacy, amassing millions of views and framing the practice as an accessible symbol of human augmentation. This digital proliferation underscores their role in popular discourse, evolving from niche to mainstream curiosity about transhumanist possibilities.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical debates surrounding magnetic implants center on bodily , pitting individual rights to self-modification against concerns over medical gatekeeping and . Proponents argue that adults should have the freedom to alter their bodies for personal enhancement, drawing parallels to accepted procedures like tattoos or piercings, as these implants enable sensory experiences beyond natural capabilities without inherent harm to others. However, critics highlight the challenges of in unregulated DIY procedures, where practitioners may lack medical training, leading to potential complications that individuals might not fully anticipate or reverse. This tension is exacerbated by the absence of standardized oversight, raising questions about whether such modifications should require professional medical involvement to protect vulnerable participants. Accessibility issues further complicate the ethics of magnetic implants, as their high costs—typically ranging from $100 to $500 for the device and implantation—restrict adoption primarily to affluent biohacking enthusiasts in developed regions. This economic barrier creates inequalities, potentially widening divides between those who can afford sensory enhancements and others who cannot, fostering a class-based disparity in human augmentation opportunities. DIY approaches, while aiming to democratize access, introduce risks like infection from non-sterile procedures, disproportionately affecting those without resources for safe alternatives. Broader implications invoke transhumanist philosophies, where magnetic implants represent steps toward transcending human limitations, yet provoke concerns about "playing " by altering the natural body in ways that challenge traditional notions of humanity and equity. Regulatory gaps persist globally, with no outright bans but increasing warnings from bodies like the FDA regarding unapproved implants' interference with medical devices and infection risks, though enforcement remains inconsistent as of 2025. These voids highlight the need for balanced policies that neither stifle nor endanger . Looking ahead, ethical questions extend to protections for minors, where implants could be seen as irreversible alterations infringing on developing , akin to restrictions on tattoos for . Workplace discrimination poses another risk, as visible or detectable implants might lead to bias in hiring or promotion, echoing concerns over RFID chips' potential for surveillance-based inequities. Additionally, debates on mandatory reversibility underscore the tension between permanent enhancements and future regret, urging frameworks that prioritize long-term well-being.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9640959/
  2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.70126
  3. https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/magnets-cell-phones-and-smart-watches-may-affect-pacemakers-and-other-implanted-medical-devices
  4. https://dangerousthings.com/biomagnets/
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/may/17/1
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325072345_Subdermal_Magnetic_Implants_An_Experimental_Study
  7. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/07/06/biohacking-grinders-alex-pearlman
  8. https://wiki.bme.com/index.php/Magnetic_implant
  9. https://www.wired.com/2006/06/a-sixth-sense-for-a-wired-world/
  10. https://quinnnorton.com/revived/final-magnet.html
  11. https://www.wired.com/story/diy-biohacking/
  12. https://hackaday.com/2015/10/12/cyberpunk-yourself-body-modification-augmentation-and-grinders/
  13. https://www.vice.com/en/article/couple-gets-matching-magnet-implants-so-they-can-feel-connected-literally/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8694929/
  15. https://www.stanfordmagnets.com/how-strong-are-neodymium-magnets.html
  16. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adm9314
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10136001/
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950584425000244
  19. https://www.kjmagnetics.com/neodymium-magnet-specifications.asp
  20. https://wiki.bme.com/index.php/Subdermal_implants
  21. https://hackaday.com/2017/09/08/magnet-implants-your-cyborg-primer/
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01969722.2018.1448223
  23. https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/40664/1/16001619_Harrison_thesis.pdf
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94240-2
  25. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.adp3260
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224242624_A_novel_human-machine_interface_using_subdermal_magnetic_implants
  27. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/us/grindfest-magnet-implants-biohacking.html
  28. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/460190-first-sealed-magnet-finger-implants
  29. https://www.benjaminbacon.studio/magnetic-body-instrument
  30. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/15999544/biohacking-finger-magnet-human-augmentation-loss
  31. https://dangerousthings.com/product/titan/
  32. https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog/temperature-and-neodymium-magnets
  33. https://www.adamsmagnetic.com/blogs/factors-which-cause-permanent-magnets-lose-strength-or-demagnetize/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211568412001209
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7462200/
  36. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention--treatment-of-arrhythmia/devices-that-may-interfere-with-icds-and-pacemakers
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3886063/
  38. https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-tests/m/mri/risk-factors.html
  39. https://www.thefdalawblog.com/2023/10/fdas-new-draft-guidance-on-510k-implant-devices-what-you-need-to-know/
  40. https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3177438/cyborg-america-biohackers-grinders-body-hackers
  41. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46442519
  42. https://www.amazon.com/Neuromancer-William-Gibson/dp/0441569595
  43. https://www.freethink.com/series/biohackers/cyborg
  44. https://nypost.com/2025/01/08/lifestyle/lovers-implant-magnets-under-their-skin-that-connect-when-they-touch/
  45. https://views4you.com/tiktok-viral-videos/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11331163/
  47. https://www.vice.com/en/article/they-told-me-i-could-be-anything-when-i-grew-up-so-i-became-a-cyborg-610/
  48. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/07/26/human-enhancement-the-scientific-and-ethical-dimensions-of-striving-for-perfection/
  49. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/Rodriguez.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.