2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

The doctor's who's concerned that she'll see people with larger tumors said that somewhere around 25% of people with breast cancer are under 50.  How many of those people were diagnosed via screening mammograms? Aren't there other, cheaper ways to screen people in lower-risk groups?

I remember hearing on NPR that screening hasn't really decreased the number of cancer deaths.  What research supports that screening actually decreases the number of cancer deaths?

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context