A major study appears to provide hard evidence that eating a high-fat diet increases a postmenopausal woman's risk of breast cancer. Animal research has found a high fat intake boosts cancer risk, but other studies in humans were inconclusive. This work, by the National Cancer Institute, asked 188,700 women about their diets, and found a link between breast cancer and eating more fat. UK breast cancer campaigners said women should eat a healthy diet. All the women in the US study were aged between 50 and 71 when they became involved in the research. The US researchers asked the women, who were all postmenopausal, how often they ate 124 different foods, ranging from never to up to six times a day, and about the portion size. The women were then followed up for an average of four years. The amount of fat the women took in was measured as a percentage of their total energy intake, ranging from 20% in the fifth which ate least fat to 40% in the fifth that ate most. Out of all the women surveyed, 3,501 developed invasive breast cancer during the course of the research. Those who ate the most fat had an 11% higher incidence of breast cancer than those who ate the least. The increase in risk was similar whether the women were eating saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats. Taking into account family history of breast cancer, smoking, body mass index and alcohol intake did not affect the results. However, those women with the highest fat intake were more likely to have been taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) - which has been linked to breast cancer - when they joined the study. Writing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the authors, led by Dr Annie Thiebaut, said: "In this large cohort of postmenopausal US women, we detected a direct association between dietary fat intake and the risk of invasive breast cancer." They suggest the reason other studies have sometimes failed to find the link is because they did not have participants who obtained 20% or less of their energy from fat, making it harder to establish the difference. And they suggest fat may affect breast cancer risk by stimulating hormone production. The researchers say more work is needed to further understand the risk. But in an editorial in the same journal, Stephanie Smith-Warner and Meir Stampfer, of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, said it was more important to control the amount of body fat a woman had, rather than her fat intake in order to prevent breast cancer. They added: "The modest associations that have been observed for dietary fat and breast cancer risk in observational studies and clinical trials stand in sharp contrast to the robust evidence for a strong link between [body fat] and the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer." Dr Emma Pennery, nurse consultant at the UK charity Breast Cancer Care, said: "The effects of a high fat diet on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer are still uncertain. "Whilst this research adds to existing evidence in this area, other studies have not reached the same conclusions so we are still some way off understanding its exact influence." She added: "However a high fat diet can lead to weight gain and it is widely accepted that being overweight, particularly after the menopause, does increase the risk of breast cancer." Dr Sarah Rawlings, head of policy and information at Breakthrough Breast Cancer added: "Whether you have been through the menopause or not, being overweight is associated with a variety of health problems, including increased risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and several types of cancer. "Maintaining a healthy weight throughout life can help reduce the risk of many diseases as well as promoting good health." source

Ok, so i've seen this topic 'troll corner' pop up every so and so. But due to the scary 50+ pages listed, its always looked too daunting to open, let alone read... You see i can't read anything longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs or approx. 300 words - this is also why i'm immune to the drivels some SOL classics. Since the topic is still going strong, I assume there must be something to it. Would someone be kind enough to fill me in by distilling it down to the above limits so that i may be able to participate thanks

Somalia has overtaken Iraq as the world's most dangerous country for minority groups, a study has found. Somalia was third-worst last year for minority rights, says MRG Sudan, Afghanistan and Burma followed in the global survey by the Minority Rights Group International (MRG). It alleges the US ignored abuses of minorities in countries supporting the US "war on terror" including Pakistan, Turkey and Israel. Sri Lanka saw the highest rise in persecutions with renewed fighting between government and rebel forces. "A new government in Somalia has raised hopes for democracy, but it is also a uniquely dangerous time," said MRG's director Mark Lattimer. "There is the spectre of a return of large-scale clan violence - and groups that supported the old order are now under tremendous threat." MRG said the Darrood, Hawiyye and Issaq clans are under threat as well as the Bantu group. Darfur crisis Sudan is the third worst offender, said the State of the World's Minorities report, because of the violence in Darfur. More than two million people have been displaced since the fighting began in 2003 and the UN says refugee camps in the region are almost full. At least 200,000 have been died in the ongoing violence between pro-government Arab Janjaweed militia groups and rebel groups in Darfur. The MRG said farmers from the Zahgawa, Masalit and Fur groups, amongst others, have been targeted. Minority groups in Iraq including Christians, Yezidis and Mandaeans face targeted killings, abductions and torture. The group's study links tensions in Turkey surrounding the EU accession process to a surge in religious and nationalist extremism behind attacks on minorities - such as the murder of Turkish-Armenian writer Hrant Dink at the end of 2006. "US allies have managed to barter their support for the war on terror in return for having their human rights records ignored," said Mr Lattimer. The MRG also blames the "war on terror" for a rise in anti-Muslim attacks and intimidation within the European Union affecting millions of ethnic Arabs, South Asians and other Muslim minorities. In Sri Lanka, minority Tamils and Muslims are caught up in fighting and increasingly becoming targets for abduction and disappearance after the breakdown of peace efforts between Tamil Tiger rebels and government forces last year. "In three-quarters of the world's conflicts, the killing is now targeted at particular ethnic or religious groups," said Mr Lattimer. "Because they are usually minorities their suffering is largely ignored." source --- FIVE WORST COUNTRIES Somalia Iraq Sudan Afghanistan Burma Source: Minority Rights Group International

emp: thank you for warning me off them

I really hate the way somali commentators speak.. what is this requirement that they have chew the language up like they are commentating on a horse race at the final leg..!

read or read between the lines? If the second case i think you might have to lend me your eyes for it.

Emp: Ilaah kafurashadu iyo diin la'aantu max lagu faaneey noqdeen. Oo yaa kuu faaney?

Can i make a formal request to join the 'this is pointless' camp please.

come man, leave yonis be, he's made his point, this is just an invitation for another 3 pages

i know what your saying. and under many other circumstances i would agree with you. but its not the poor girls job to have to deal with this. and i would be concerned that going out by herself she is making herself a target for this woman in other ways, i.e. in her work .. anyhow a third person means that later if there is a case to formally answer. i.e. she doesnt stop, or takes it out on the girl, she has backup

good work man

yes she is and its disgraceful not least given her position of privilege and authority.. But your friend needs anally on her side before she approaches this oaf, she aught to speak to some one in authority in private. If worst comes to worst, assuming your in the US, there must be student unions or student welfare groups, other muslim professors. Any civil liberties group would slam down on this woman's poison.

She needs to speak to an academic she can trust in her department and raise her concerns and find out what the options are and inquire whether they can act on her behalf. Speaking to this woman directly or approaching her superiors is likely to make her focus attention on your friend and probably not in a good way. Btw the woman is covering her self. She is right that its iraqi muslims killing other muslims, but she is misrepresenting the full truth and propagating a discredited rightwing propaganda, this sadly is an opinion - wrt the qurans message (the second paragraph) she is being an islamaphobe. point out the old testament bible for brimstone hell fire and ask her for the if she see's any problems in that too. anyhow she does not have the right to misrepresent the truth -even as a opinion - to her students. Speak to the rest of the faculty i cant imagine they are all as brain dead

^ i bet he has a cute mrs preparing that coffee and complex carb. breakfast for him anyway ...

A court in Djibouti has sentenced a human rights activist to serve six months in jail for defaming a presidential guard. Jean Paul Noel Abdi, who heads Djibouti League of Human Rights, was also fined $360 for accusing the soldier of rape. The court said Mr Abdi lacked evidence linking President Ismail Omar Guelleh's private guard to the incident. The Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) said the conviction was unfair. FIDH spokesperson Florent Geel demanded the activist's immediate release. ?We feel that these were trumped up charges against Mr Abdi because he has been vocal against human rights violations in Djibouti,? Mr Geel told the BBC's Network Africa programme. Mr Abdi, who is also Amnesty International's local representative, has 10 days to appeal against the sentence. source If nothing else, you really got to love the names.. Florent Geel had me in stiches

can i add that the brish libraries online gallery is also a fantastic resource.

No its not what? What do congo and rwanda have to do with the current issue. Had you followed the news in the 'secular and idol worshipping' media you would know that there have been outcries on the tragedies you mention. Its because of the consequences of the lack of involvement that pushes the current interest in the Darfur. Did you know that its the christian right that is the leading american campaign group pushing a government that in no way wants to be tied up in another *african* and worse *muslim* affair - to go and protect black muslim people on the other side of the world. Did you also know that EU does not want to pay any more lip service to the crisis, it only because they fear the reaction of their populations to another 4 million dead that they even speak. its obvious that you have no idea what your talking about. your contentment of blatant contradictions -unless they suite your point at hand- is simply disgraceful. go and read, then i will consider talking with you.

Ok, but you dont belief the same people when they tell you that 70,000 have died in the Darfur. or is that not enough, its ok because supposed muslims have killed them?

Do you believe that "the US, the UK and its allies massacred more than 600,000 Iraqis" ?

^ i dont have a tv, i was planning on watching at a friends but didnt make it .. muraad, inta dagaal ku dhimitay kuli allah ha u naxriisto

<- too ugly to placed in front of the camera

This is an interesting 20 min video, I missed it when it was first on, is well worth the watch video

sorry double posted

Poor Cara and JB, you've become the lab rats

Talib you comments on numbers remind me of another ****** argument by a SOLer that the causalities of of the ethiopia campaign where also mere numbers - so please exactly what does it take to qualify minor or major. If nothing else just so we know how many people can be killed before it matters. YOur comment on NGOs has no weight. When the floods were drowning residents of the JUba and Shebbelle valleys it was oxfam, unicef, christian aid and the red crescent that were collecting the cash, sending the doctors and the relief - It is they that feed the refugee cambs in kenya, ethiopia and yemen. There are many many problems with NGOs, but what you have listed is not it. On the theoracy front, yes isreal is a theocracy so shouldn't you be cheering them, or do you want a muslim version of isreal, a corrupt blood thirsty, oppressive racist state. However, strictly speaking norway is also a theocracy and its population enjoys one the highest living standards in the world -- i wonder why! Anyhow, the issue here is that in the Darfur its estimated somewhere between 1-2.5 million people have been displaced countless others killed - now you disagree with this because the figures come from NGOs that are corrupt because they are western. I'm curious had the west not 'interfered' would these people still be at home tending to their live stock? And exactly how does the interference that creates such mayhem work?